First off, it was good to hear that your health is improving, Ben! Keep us posted.
Second, as we pulled back from our conversations the last few weeks about "religion" and "Christianity," Caleb Maskell suggested we might read Jeffrey Pugh's book, Religionless Christianity: Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Troubled Times. I asked if he could preview it first, which he's doing. But I ordered a copy. As of page 50 or so, it's dynamite. I'll keep you posted.
I spent the early part of my week in a gathering for pastors of large churches (which no doubt has some intriguing context, given our recent conversation about house churches). Our presenter was Adam Hamilton, the pastor of the largest United Methodist church in the country, Church of the Resurrection in Kansas City. He gave me lots of food for thought. Some things struck me as appropriate to Kansas City that wouldn't translate. Some things struck me as appropriate to a mega-mega-church (they run about 9,000 or so on a Sunday) that perhaps I should forswear until they were clearly relevant to us. But much was really provocative, and I'd love to pass on one of those thoughts for your consideration.
He talked about Rick Warren's baseball diamond analogy for discipleship. (We use a heavily-modified form of it in Boston.) Warren's premise is that discipleship flows like this. You get converted to Jesus. You join others in your journey (a church or, better still, a small group). You learn more about discipleship. You discover your spiritual gifts. You minister to others.
Hamilton said his experience is the complete inverse. Secular people start to minister alongside people who follow Jesus. Then they learn more about themselves as a result. Then they learn more about biblical discipleship. Then maybe they start to come to church. Then they think, "Hey, maybe I want to do this" and they start to follow God.
His case in point was a provocative one. Their church supported a large food bank. They encouraged each member to hand door hangers on their neighbor's doors. If they were bold, they could ring the bell and talk to the neighbor about it. If not, they could just leave the door hanger. It said, effectively, "Hey, I'm your neighbor. My church, Church of the Resurrection, is doing a food drive for a local food bank. If you'd like to participate, I'll drop by on Saturday. Leave a shopping bag on your porch and I'll collect it. If you'd like to learn more, call me. Thanks so much." And that's it. He encouraged his people to pray for each household when they left the door hanger. When he himself went around to his neighbors, he did ring each bell. Every neighbor but one participated in the food drive. And he asked each, as he was leaving, "Are there things I can pray for for your family?" Everyone took him up on the prayer, and he prayed in person with most, with many of them crying as he did and saying that was the first time anyone had ever prayed with them. Many of those neighbors have ended up in their church.
His point? Inviting people to join in low-bar mission is the way to go in terms of "sharing your faith," as opposed to spending much time persuading people they believe the wrong thing.
I found that really provocative. What do you think?
Hear hear. Great stuff. I'm hoping the book is on Kindle, my new obsession.
Posted by: Jeff | November 13, 2009 at 01:45 PM
It's not.
Posted by: Jeff | November 13, 2009 at 01:47 PM
Wow, thanks for passing along those thoughts, Dave. Provocative, indeed! I find it interesting that in the case you mentioned, the diamond would begin and end with action. For the neighbor, they are participating in the food drive (action). For Adam, he's going door to door and asking people to be in a food drive (action). And funnily enough, they both find their way into deeper faith. Wow, I'm sold.
Posted by: PB | November 13, 2009 at 02:18 PM
Agree totally. I tend to think that Christianity is so much about servanthood that it is impossible to understand or experience outside of the context of serving. I don't think one can know what it means to 'believe in Christ' within knowing first what it means to serve as Christ served.
Often we evangelicals treat ministry like its nuclear physics - we think you shouldn't try it until you understand everything about how it works. But ministry is, I think, way more like baking or making stir fry. You just start doing it, knowing that if you are working with soy sauce and sugar, something at least sort of good is going to come of it. And eventually you realize that soy sauce and sugar are just darn good things to keep around the kitchen.
Posted by: Brent | November 13, 2009 at 02:49 PM
Yes, I can see how that reverse approach would be very appropriate in this current cultural climate. And even if someone is open to Jesus right off the bat, getting them involved in low-bar mission right away wouldn't hurt. I'm reminded of Charles Park's discussion in a recent edition of Cutting Edge about the need for seculars in post-christian culture to experience God's presence in a non-hyped way. So involving them in low-bar mission (the grocery giveaway) and then the presence of God (praying with folks who answer doors) seems like a great strategy for reaching this people group.
Posted by: Chip Decker | November 13, 2009 at 03:24 PM
Good stuff! Though I think it should be said that most people engaged in discussion about what they "think" or what they "believe" don't usually think that the other person (the evangelist) is "spending much time persuading people they believe the wrong thing." I think that's straw-man construction, only to knock that staw-man down. We shouldn't characterize enjoyable enlightning discussion as such a disagreeable thing.
Posted by: Dave Thom | November 13, 2009 at 11:41 PM
This idea is provocative inasmuch status quo has dictated for dozens, if not hundreds of years, that the "Rick Warren" model for discipleship is the only way it works.
On the contrary, its funny how the same radical behavior Jesus practiced in first century Palestine is still radical, relevant, and effective, today.
Posted by: www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=809190857 | November 14, 2009 at 05:07 AM
this seems to resonate with sjogren's "servant evangelism" (as put forth in his books)...is there a real difference?
Posted by: steven hamilton | November 14, 2009 at 07:08 AM
There do seem to be similarities, but the big difference would seem to be that you're not performing small acts of device for all these strangers, you're inviting THEM to serve others alongside you, to become ministers themselves. IVCF folks in my area do yearly Rebuild New Orleans trips where they take a relatively equal number of students following and not following Jesus. And those trips always sound amazing. The stories of what happens to many of the non-followers (who often return as followers) are impressive. That seems like a high end example of Pastor Hamilton's point.
Posted by: Dave Schmelzer | November 14, 2009 at 08:55 AM
And my iPhone auto-correct seems to have rendered "service" as "device"...
Posted by: Dave Schmelzer | November 14, 2009 at 08:56 AM
I love the analogy Brent: Ministry is way more like baking or making a stir fry than nuclear physics... brilliant!
Dave, very provocative and very cool. I heard there was some cool stuff going in that meeting.
Posted by: Vinceation | November 14, 2009 at 11:02 AM
And this sounds much like what's behind Wimber's Power Evangelism too, right? Seeing God's power happen (here, through serving alongside each other) is what orients people toward Jesus, rather than first wrapping one's mind around Jesus and then considering it worth it to serve or ask for power in his name.
Posted by: Vinceation | November 14, 2009 at 11:08 AM
yes, i see the different aims, "for" instead of "with", which i think is really, really critical.
i think vince is right, this resonates with what i have read of wimber's "power evangelism"...except again, i think there are multiple foci here, as well as a very intentional change from "doing for" or "doing in front of", to "doing with"
Posted by: steven hamilton | November 14, 2009 at 01:15 PM
I have been a part of a church in the New Orleans area for the last seven years. Before Katrina we were very outwardly focused, very much involved in Sjogren-style servant evangelism and all the while ascribing to more of the baseball diamond model of discipleship. Things seemed to be going pretty well. Katrina got us thinking outside the box because there literally was no box.
It was amazing to see the body of Christ right after the hurricane. Without a whole lot centralized leadership Christ-followers of all denominations just started doing what made sense: ripping out sheet rock and moldy carpet, serving hot meals, distributing relief supplies, mowing lawns, and praying for people. What we realized as a church was that we Christians had been kind of arrogant before the storm in only reaching out to the community on our terms. However, through Katrina we learned that there are a whole lot of folks doing things, good things, things that matter, and many of them are not Christians, they work with non-profits and food banks, even the local government. Instead of trying to compete with these guys, or ignore them altogether we have begun to see a much bigger picture that increasingly involves partnering with them, serving them and serving with them.
Since the hurricane we have really begun to encourage folks to join with these groups and serve along side them whether groups taking care of the lake and the environment or homeless shelters or food banks. We have also done the same kind of food bank outreach as was mentioned in this blog post.
The amazing untold story is just how the church rose to the occasion after Katrina. It wasn't reported much in the media because that's not what the church was after. But the people in our area know that when FEMA failed them, when the Red Cross was way over-extended, and when all branches of government were bickering with each other, Christ-followers of all varieties were showing up unannounced and delivering food, hauling away trash, and just helping people any way possible. And yes I have seen plenty of people who were touched in these ways come along side Christians and help them in serving as well and even make their way into the kingdom. One woman I remember in particular had her home rebuilt by volunteers with Mercy Response (a National Vineyard Churches outreach). She ended up showing up at our church and then in turn started helping us pass out meals, then started running sound with our weekend service and then even invited a bunch of us to her open house party which featured a crazy mix of worship team folks, New Orleans street musicians and folks from her neighborhood. God was steady touching her, and she was just soaking it up and responding to the kingdom. To me it was a beautiful picture of the reverse baseball diamond model.
Posted by: Crispin Schroeder | November 14, 2009 at 08:34 PM
I'm from a church in the midwest and we've been having discussions around ideas similar to this for the last few weeks. I'm all for the "mission group" idea of inviting people into participating in the kingdom before acutally believing in it, in fact my wife and I are moving out to Seattle to join a church that is doing this very thing.
http://www.recycleyourfaith.com/2009/05/25/an-unlikely-partnership/
I see the midwest, in general (maybe its just my church), being slow to embrace a missional model when an attractional model still seems to be "working". I see the core reason they are slow to embrace a change is because of how we measure the success or failure of a church.
Attractional models measure success by the numbers of the congregation and conversions. Missional models measure the numbers of connections and conversations which seems a whole lot less concrete. Attractional models, in my opinion, get a bad wrap for being impersonal, however the number one comment we get at our church (a very attractional model church) is how warm and homey it is. Missional models are much more risky because they are much more relationally driven and so it often takes a much longer amount of time to see "fruit". Can we abandon the "attractional model" completly? Maybe in Boston or Seattle, but the midwest will probably have to experiment with hybrids. Dave - what elements of the "attractional model" are you still using in Boston?
Posted by: Jason Refsland | November 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM
For some time I've wondered what might happen if we reoriented the time we spend conversing and sharing in small group gatherings with actual outward service. Why not design a small group ministry structure around service instead of spiritual growth. Perhaps the two aren't mutually exclusive. I think of one woman in my small group who regularly serves meals at a local Episcopal church 'soup kitchen'. The women there make her feel so welcome. They laugh and talk and get to know each other while ladeling and cleaning up. Throw in some prayer time and you would have something truly impactful for the participants and the community. Time is a precious commodity and committing an evening a week to a small group is a major investment. Perhaps spiritual growth takes place 'in the streets' - hmmm.
Posted by: debk | November 17, 2009 at 09:32 AM
I think that's a great idea, Deb. Why don't you put that group together and go for it? We have two groups whose meeting time is to love the homeless in Central Square, with some debrief afterwards, and several others with service foci. So it sounds great to me!
Posted by: Dave Schmelzer | November 17, 2009 at 05:13 PM
Adam Hamilton was making this pitch--as a pastor of a midwestern church--AS a means of numerical growth, arguing that this was just pragmatically more effective than any other approach. Then again, it seems to me he was being at least a little idealistic. Shortly after making this point--with not much by way of stats to make his point that you can grow a church this way--he talked about the amazing success of their Christmas candlelight service, which they heavily advertise and which sounds like the major driver of their growth. Rick Warren makes very similar observations about his church. So maybe this service stuff fits the category of "a neat idea" for Pastor Hamilton rather than the bolder claim of "what will draw secular people to God best." But it's surely at least provocative.
Posted by: Dave Schmelzer | November 17, 2009 at 05:18 PM
Adam presented this a few months ago at church.. I liked it because, unlike Warren's model, it recognizes the idea that God can use anyone with a willing heart.. even if they have not made it to second base :)
Posted by: Kansas Bob | November 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM