RE:Kings to Roadkill

We have to be focused on our mission, and if aren't then it will all just slide through our fingers like sand. If we are focused on our mission we'll be clear and we will not be as married to what has worked in the past. If the mission drives, then we'll always be looking at new ways to communicate, live and be the mission.

Detroit is in trouble because they were behind the curve. There were fat and happy in the day of the SUV. When the tide changed and no one bought SUVs anymore they were in trouble. So now, they are trying to sell what people want to be.

In the church we are still trying to sell 1950s style church to a society that has moved on.

What does that say about our future unless we rediscover the mission?

RE: Growth Potential

I think these are great points, and urgent points. Part of our church exists in the mindset of the 1950s where having a building across form the captiol would be the hight of the kingdom and height of releveance. But, in the postmodern world, what does that matter in the end. As you said we have to look at what it means to throw oursleves into this, what woudl the mission look like, and what are teh budgetary realitites. These things are all help in tension. And I know I beat dead horse that I always do, but it's not an either/or thing, it's a both/and. We can plan new churches while at the same time do ministry in existing and turn around churches. Study after study has shown that NCDs actually increase worship attendance in existing churches. In Tupelo, both The Orchard and FUMC (and many other churches) are strong.

The magic bullet of NCDs is relevance. That is not owned only by the NCD, but any church can have it and be relevant. For the existing churches, that means change. For an NCD its easier, it is just born. But, in both cases, if they are relevant, the kingdom will blossom.

RE: Assumption vs Fact

I know I'm beating the same dead horse that I beat, but I think in the end it's about the church, whatever context it's in, NCD, established, etc, being relevant to it's community.

I do believe, however, that by in large NCDs have their finger on the pulse of where growth is taking place. Is that to say that existing churches cannot do that? Or course not. But, it is not nature. In an NCD, you'll never hear the phrase, "but we've never done it that way" because they've never done anything before. They have to see what works where they are, and then do that. Too often our established churches doe what we always do because it's what we've always done.

If we are relevant to the needs of our community, we will see the kingdom explode in our midst, new or existing.

I believe we need to be about

1. Accountability and Community. We're not in this alone. Allow Districts and pastors to do whatever works in this context, yet always connected.

2. Strengthening pastoral leadership. We need pastors to lead. Cast a vision. Inspire. Lead

3. Helping lay folks to buy in. How? That's the 64 million dollar question. I think, imo, they have to experience it to believe it. When they experience the relevance, they will buy in.

Re: Assumption vs Fact

I don't think it's an either/or, it a both/and.  We need to be about the work of helping established church turn around, small membership churches grow and be stable, and planting new churches.  They are all after different audiences, but the most relevant to the culture churches we have, by and large, will be NCDs.  As Lovett said in his presentation a few weeks ago, we need to be about strengthening what is strong as well.  The NCDs will in the end strengthen existing churches as well.  

 

I am glad we are having conversations about the issue and talking together, instead of "competing strands" if you will.  The more voices, the better the conversation.  

 

We need to be aware of the great danger of Methodism, through. All talk and no action :)

Andy