Is it possible for people to gather without there being an agenda? In other words, can people gather without feeling that they need to “go” somewhere as a group?- Is it possible for people to enjoy the community without having a vision statement?
- Is it possible for people to stay in community with each other without a set of rules to follow?
- Is it possible for a community to be composed of people of all kinds of levels of faith and even of no faith at all, or for those who hold a vastly differing views of scripture to keep fellowship?
- Is it possible for people simply to gather without a goal that they must agree to?
- Is it possible for a community to exist without being controlled by leadership?
- Is it possible for a person to be a welcomed and appreciated part of the community who disagrees strongly with the pastor or leader on some major issues?
- Is it possible for people from all across the cultural, social and moral spectrum to love each other face to face in community?
- Is it possible for a pastor, priest, minister, leader, imam, master, or whatever, to “allow” a wide and opposing variety of opinions even though he or she may strongly hold his or her own and teach it?
- Is it possible for a healthy community to exist long-term and to thrive in good works without a mission statement, a vision, or a goal?
The beautiful photograph is the creation of my friend Mark Hemmings.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
David Hayward is a pastor artistically stripping to the essential.
Ahh…now i am hearing a little more of an open mind the last few entries.
Heidi, sorry to pick on you a little here. Let ask this: What if someone came into your church and gave a 200,000 donation (we won’t call it a “tithe” for argument sake) and said: “Direct this where you feel best” – who determines where it goes and why?
I would guarantee, some would say – childrens ministry – some would say – youth – some would say – give to the poor …. and so on.
I would hazzard to say that the “leadership” would gather together and come to a resolve what is priority and what is the “purpose”, “vision”, “mission, “identity” of who we are.
You would determine the expenditure and “direction” of that money with a sense of vision, even though you may not call it so.
I am sure you would not sit in a circle and roll the dice. You may say: “we would pray, and God would direct us.” Well I think He would. He would direct you in a way that is your purpose as a local church.
Let’s get back to my original definition of “vision”: a corporate long-term goal. Of course when money drops in our lap we need to do something with it, but without our left hand knowing what our right hand is doing, without thought for tomorrow. The church becomes enslaved to a principality when it’s primary concern is self-preservation… which is the human dilemma. The brain’s number one priority is the protection of the organism. Our organizations are an extension of this. This is counter to the cross.
Ahhh finally NP = the cat has your tongue.
It seems to me that if God had no purpose (read “vision) for us on earth, he would be taking us home as soon as we came into relationship with him. But he doesn’t. He has a purpose for leaving us here…and it’s more than having relationship with him and one another. That’s what we’ll be doing at the end of time.
No Fred, I think this is where we will disagree again. Before the fall, all it was was relationship. Fellowship in the garden. The fall was initiated by man’s vision for something more. It wasn’t enough for us to be friends of God. And so on it goes to this day.
Really? So all those that don’t know him? We’ll just sit in our circles and them be?
Sorry…”let them be”…?
Today I came across a sentence which used the word “vision” in Brennan Manning’s book, The Importance of Being Foolish: How to Think Like Jesus. Manning seemed to use the words “mission” and “vision” interchangably.
The sentence read: “Others mights have stayed behind, preoccupied with security, pleasure, and power, but Jesus went on without stopping, always driven by the kingdom vision.”
Obviously, Manning doesn’t find the concept of vision to be demonic. However, he touches on some of the issues I have with visioncasting and mission statement construction by church leadership. In my opinion, church “visions” are not missions received from God. Instead they are human attempts to provide personal security, pleasure, and power.
To the extent that church leaders and laypeople can check off a do to list or do a favorable number comparision, visions will provide security. And as soon as the current vision appears to be “unsuccessful,” the vision can simply be recast to provide security once again.
To the extent that the vision matches the makeup and preferences of a given church, the people will feel pleasure–pleasure associated with finding a corporate vision that matches their own personal vision and pleasure in being “approved” by the group.
To the extent that the vision is supported by the group, the leadership team will feel empowered. And when the vision is not supported, commandments to “submit to church authority” can be invoked which will lead to a different, and more dangerous, form of empowerment.
I think when God gives us (as individual believers) a clear vision of His kingdom–with an understanding that He, being outside of time, wants it to prosper both NOW and LATER–we will find exactly the opposite of security, pleasure, and power.
Suddenly, in light of God’s glory we feel quite insecure, remembrances of Christ’s sacrifices demand quite unpleasurable thoughts, and the overwhelming presence of the Spirit leaves us trembling and acutely aware of our powerlessness.
If you submit to Manning’s idea of a kingdom vision, you might agree with me that vision is at the same time outside of us and within us. And such a vision–making oneself available to God at all times for whatever purpose to which He calls us to glorify His kingdom–cannot be contained within even the most well-crafted corporate mission statement.
John, I think David answered your question sufficiently as to the fantasy of a big financial windfall for our church. Again, I don’t see how this kind of situation would relate to vision casting.
Earlier tonight, my hubby Jon said the same sentiments as David: the church (as a whole) seems to be bent of perpetuating itself. This is something I feel we need to fight against. Rejecting the practice/trend of ‘vision casting’ is one way to defend ourselves against self-preservation.
I’m too tired to think beyond this, but thanks John for asking…and I don’t feel picked on.
“bent of perpetuating itself” should read “bent ON”…..see, told you I was tired!!!
I have a question. Ultimately didn’t Jesus answer this question of vision when he healed the lame man at the pool of Bethesda. In healing this man, he broke with the rules or you might say the vision of how the Kingdom of God was to work for the Jews. Their vision statement said that God had commanded that you not work on the Sabbath. You must rest.
So Jesus broke the Sabbath and healed the man. His answer to them was interesting. He said, (John 5:19 NIV) Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
If we look at Jesus’ life and the life of his disciples, it would seem to me that if they had a vision statement, boiled down to it’s very core was this verse. They did what they saw the Father doing.
If Jesus’ vision had been to heal the sick, then why would he only heal the one man at this pool for sick people.? If I were to only preach a “gospel” message of how to be “saved”, why heal him at all.?
Could our vision statment for our congragations – whatever they are – be something like this, however broad the Father wanted to make it for that time? Jesus always seemed to be listeneing for where to go, who to speak to, what to say, what to teach and who to touch.
Could a meeting about finances first start with, “Today folks we are going to try and listen to what the Father is saying about this money in our care and then obey him to the best that we can?”
What if we taught our people to ask the same things about their lives, our meetings, their kids and so on?
These are truly just questions. I cannot begin to dream how this could actually work or even what it would look like.
I’m off for my first cup of coffee. I think that coffee truly is a vision for my life.
No, I truly think this is impossible.
At least, with a group over 20 people.
Perhaps in a smaller environment like individuals taking people into their home, etc.
But otherwise? No.
Been there. Done that. Even the best utopias end up in strife, quarrels, corruption.
I appreciate your honest answer Elizabeth. Just because it ends up in strife, does it still mean we must agendisize people? Shouldn’t we be perfect? Isn’t that the best standard? Our group is over 20, well over 20, and so far we have no vision… i.e., a corporate long-term goal.
a former leader:
“In healing this man, he broke with the rules or you might say the vision of how the Kingdom of God was to work for the Jews. Their vision statement said that God had commanded that you not work on the Sabbath. You must rest.”
I think you have interpreted this passage incorrectly. Jesus was not breaking God’s intension for the Sabbath, only mans version of it. God intended it to be a day of rest and man had turned it into a legalistic religious event that caused burdens for the people and spiritual blindness for the leaders.
I think there is a similar misinterpretation at work here with David’s post. I think he is doing his best to lead his community according to God’s word as best as he can understand and he is rejecting man’s interpretation of what that church is supposed to look like.(what their vision is)
I don’t believe, personally, that there is anything wrong with vision for a community as long as the vision doesn’t interrupt the relationship with God. Like what was happening with the Sabbath, man’s traditions were interfering with God’s purpose.
Thanks Chris. But I’m really really really not trying to lead our congregation. This is my challenge.
David
Shepard, leader, first lemming to the cliff, whatever you call it, keep doing it.
if it looks like a sheep, walks like a sheep and baa’s like a sheep it probarbly is a sheep… but then again it might be a wolf in sheeps clothing.
relationship is everything. period.
John: NP…as the Pastor of a church…how do you handle the contruction and administration of a budget?
So tell me John, if a group meets in different homes, they don’t rent or own a building, the pastor actually has a J O B, and does not live off of the congregation (community), and no one “tithes” but gives gifts individually to the poor, the fire dept, the food bank, individually, not pooling their money together in one place, why would any church community want or need a budget?
Sounds to me like tradition plays a large part in your thinking…Tradition, doing things the way we have always done them because that is the way we have always done them…but, I’m an atheist…what do I know.
Randy:M/b> There are some advantages to pooling money so that larger projects, that are beyond the scope of a singe house group, can be accomplished.
Projects…???
Why? Are “projects” really necessary?
Michael, I agree with you that, if your purpose as a church is to “get things done”, then talking your sheeple into giving you a healthy part of their hard-earned money is the best way to accomplish your purpose.
Did you hear a single word that I said? If not, re-read my reply and focus on the word “tradition”. Churches “traditionally” have “projects”; mission, building, busing, renovating, etc, etc.
I am watching the Sunday service from Jerry Falwell’s church as I type this. His church and university is a shining example of one project after another, project after project. Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, etc, all a part of Gods giant project machine?
Tradition Michael.
Randy: when I used the word “project” I did not have in mind any of the types of projects that you listed above. I was not thinking tradition. I agree that being the church / people of God is a lot different than “getting things done”.
I was thinking more in terms of pooling resources so that the combined impact is increased. i.e. where there is no food bank – a network of house churches can fund and serve together; they can pool resources to build a skatepark. There are often “projects” (& maybe there is a better word) that can reflect the heart of God, but are beyond the scope of a single house church.
I think there needs to be some form of budget (& it may simply be a project budget) which helps shape the “project” and define the priorities. This type of budget comes from the ground up rather than being top down. i.e it’s as the people begin to see a picture of what God is doing in a community and how he wants us to join in.
just some “in process” thoughts
Randy said:
Seems to me, Randy knows quite a lot! The Bible says a lot about tradition and not as a positive thing. Mocks it quite frankly.
Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
…..ending the boldness of the above comments
Randy…you misunderstand what i am saying in some way.
What do you think the Apostles did when the people placed the “gifts” at the their feet? Did they have a plan? They must have. They had people collect.
Is it that unbiblical to have a plan…. man o man….. you all have plans and goals in life…to deny it is to be living in denial~!
A question on your comment (nakedpastor said, on May 18th, 2007 at 11:57 am )
‘I am a pastor of a church community. We have no goals. We have no vision. We just get together and do the usual: read and discuss the scriptures, worship, pray, fellowship. That’s it! And it is healthy.’
I am really confused Naked Pastor – your bio says that you are pastor of a vineyard church…surely this organisation has goals, vision statements and behavior policies? I am just not sure how all this works…and I think it is really important that we understand how authority works. How can you be a pastor, be ‘a shepherd’ and not be an authority figure? Does your community pay your stipend or do you have another job? Who do you go to when you are in need? Who, on earth, do you answer to?
I am really interested in the questions you originally posed and they are pertinent but I would like to know how you work through these issues in practice.
I guess, once again, I need to remind myself that we are all different in our thinking. Yes, I agree with john that we all, to a degree, have plans…goals…vision(s). I have an old Honda Goldwing motorcycle I am getting ready to do some restoration on. My “vision” is to have it up and running in a few months.
I guess what I am a bit perplexed by is this desire or need by many churches, to “do things”. Here is a list of things that I know of, that my girlfriends church is in the process of “doing”;
Pay off the building loan in 5 years ($400,000 US)
Support several missions
Rent out the Activity building to other church groups
Organize the annual spring carnival
These are just the items that I know about, and I don’t go to church with her but once every couple months. If you look at the church website, there is stuff happening several nights or mornings a week, always something going on to keep the people active, involved, doing something.
I do not find that at all attractive. But I have to understand that many people in the USA would lose interest if they are not given many opportunities to be “involved”, busy, occupied.
I guess what I see, as I watch Christianity whirl around me, is the religion molding to fit the mentality of modern humanity…just like a business. If Christianity doesn’t keep up with other avenues of entertainment, it will suffer in population, which means dwindling revenues, which means fewer goals will be achieved, which means it is a continuing cycle, a business. But that’s Ok. I have no problem with business. I run a business, but I at least call it what it is.
Just my impressions people.
That’s very perceptive, Randy.
I believe a good vision (and adherence to it) will prevent a church from “just doing things” to keep people happy.
NP – “I am a pastor of a church community. We have no goals. We have no vision. We just get together and do the usual: read and discuss the scriptures, worship, pray, fellowship. That’s it! And it is healthy. Like my family, why pollute the love with a purpose, a goal, or a vision to achieve it?”
I totally agree that the things you list above are healthy for a community of believers to participate in. And I understand that this is not a “vision” in the typical, evangelical church sense of the word.
But I don’t understand how what you’re doing doesn’t involve a “goal”. Is not your goal the edification of the saints? And you do these things because they are edifying? Perhaps you mean that these activities are not a means to some further end but an end in themselves. And I’d agree with that. But I’m not totally getting what your trying to get across here.
BTW, you left “coffee” off your list. I’m sure that was an innocent oversight because everyone knows that coffee is a requirement at any gathering of the saints – or even those who are not so saintly.
Brian: BTW, you left “coffee†off your list. I’m sure that was an innocent oversight because everyone knows that coffee is a requirement at any gathering of the saints – or even those who are not so saintly.
Matter of fact, my girlfriend is in charge of the “coffee ministry” at her church. I can hardly type this without laughing and crying at the same time…COFFEE MINISTRY? Is this how the church makes everyone feel important? I just wonder if they have a toilet paper ministry?
Anyway, little do they know but, I am the one who makes 5 pots of coffee every Sunday morning. I even buy the coffee and keep the coffee thermoses clean. And you know what, not a single person at her church actually knows that their real Minister Of Coffee is an atheist.
Loudone: Yes, the Vineyard has visions and goals. But each church is free to be their own identity in many ways. I answer to the people. We are mutually accountable. We are in fellowship with other churches so that we are not isolated and in danger of falling off the fringe. But, sometimes I wonder if going over the edge might be the best thing. Brian: The best way, I’ve discovered, of edifying the saints is to not put obstacles in their way or burdens on their backs. Think of your family. That’s how we do church.
naked pastor – hope ths discussion helps you to decide which way to jump. I will direct prayers in the direction of discernment.
Randy – that’s funny….I don’t care who you are! ha haha….
Loudone:
What are my options, in your opinion?
The stark choice might appear to be to continue to be ‘in fellowship with other churches’ or ‘go over the edge’. My advice might be to try to continue to ‘walk the line’ (as Jonny Cash once said).
Being radical sounds great but in practice it is possible to become isolated, insular and lack integrity or bolder vision. Also, if we don’t have a sense of broader Christian community (even if it ‘fails’ us) we might end up with self-appointed leaders, who are answerable to nobody.
I wonder if a leader who is accountable to people outside of the group might be able to serve the group more effectively simply because s/he doesn’t HAVE to belong?
I wonder if a leader who attempts to remain an equal part of a group is in denial of their role?
Unless the group is a true co-op with full equal rights (ie with no named or paid pastoral leader) then the group has to face up the fact that their equality is relative. There will always be one person who could possibly be more right. If that person has the trust of the group then this might not necessarily be negative. In fact such leadership might free the group up – allow them to stop constantly be looking inwards to their own structures and face out to the world that needs people with the balls to speak out for injustice.
Just a thought!
Randy,
Nothing wrong with a “coffee ministry.” If coffee needs to be made, are we haphazard about it? Or maybe the pastor should do it? Or people should buy and bring their own? Or not have coffee? Nothing is wrong with any of these solutions.
And I don’t see anything wrong with you doing it either, but it certainly is funny and ironic.
NP : “Brian: The best way, I’ve discovered, of edifying the saints is to not put obstacles in their way or burdens on their backs. Think of your family. That’s how we do church.
Thanks for that description. I like the picture of removing obstacles to being a true community of believers. Of course, I don’t see having a goal as opposed to that, but perhaps is just a semantical issue.
Loudone:
You said: “Being radical sounds great but in practice it is possible to become isolated, insular and lack integrity or bolder vision.”
I ask: Is it always wrong to be isolated and insular? Obviously, as Christians we are commanded to have integrity, but where in Scripture are we commanded to seek a “bolder vision”? And “bolder” than what?
You said: “Also, if we don’t have a sense of broader Christian community (even if it ‘fails’ us) we might end up with self-appointed leaders, who are answerable to nobody.”
I ask: All of us will one day have to answer to God Himself, but to whom are we answerable other than God?
You said: “I wonder if a leader who is accountable to people outside of the group might be able to serve the group more effectively simply because s/he doesn’t HAVE to belong?”
I ask (and someone please answer this one…) Where does Scripture use the term accountable or accountability? Isn’t this just a concept we have devised so that certain of us can keep tabs on everyone else? At this point, I think “accountability” is an over-used and completely underexplained church invention. I’m open to seeing it from new angles, though. So, hammer away at my soapbox…
You said: “There will always be one person who could possibly be more right.”
I say: No kidding! And–Newsflash!–it might not always be the LEADER!
By the way, it sounds to me like David’s group/church/posse whatever you want to call it, has plenty of concern for the world without soliciting “ballsy” men or women!
Fred: Nothing wrong with a “coffee ministry.†If coffee needs to be made, are we haphazard about it? Or maybe the pastor should do it? Or people should buy and bring their own? Or not have coffee? Nothing is wrong with any of these solutions.
And I don’t see anything wrong with you doing it either, but it certainly is funny and ironic.
Fred, I love coffee, and I think it is great that it is served before the service. It is the word “ministry” being attached to it which puzzles me. Perhaps I just have no idea what the word means. But, since I love me-lady so, I have been making coffee for her church for the past two years. Yes, ironic…ironic that the fellow who is on the slow train to hell, who she was warned by the pastor not to get involved with because he was an atheist, the fellow who has never had anyone in the church leadership say more than a sentence to when he did go with her to church, is the minister behind the minister of coffee.
Hey Randy: You come to our church and I’LL serve YOU coffee and spend a whole friggin’ day with you. GEEZ!!!!! What’s become of us?
I don’t know anything about David’s group so couldn’t comment on their balls.
I was discussing the questions ‘in theory’ (and I guess from my experiences). My main concern is that a group who has a pastor doesn’t pretend it is a co-op. If it has a leader (self appointed, ordianed, given responsibility by the group or whatever) then it has a leadership structure. Even if it is a loving, caring, listening community when push comes to shove it may have to lean on it’s leader for leadership.
I don’t know about anyone else but even though I know I am accountable only to God I still like to check in with other people to get their thoughts on stuff. I guess that’s why I am interested in this debate.
I wish I had written about coffee now…feeling a bit under pressure from ttm!
Although the Amish community doesn’t have “leaders” or “pastors” per se, they do recognize some as elders, I believe. So, even though the “structure” may be very loose, there is still some recognized as “parents” I suppose… those who are seen to be wiser, etc. In my opinion, if a group does have recognized elders or leaders or whatever, that the best the leaders can do is prevent burdens and expectations and agendas from eroding community.
NP….where and what is the Amish community facing today? Yes, it may not have “pastors”, but we are diving into symantics.
One of the problems the Amish community is facing today is the issue of legalism. The dress, what your allowed to watch, use, say, etc. the younger generation is breaking out because they are out of touch with the real world.
Maybe , your thoughts are “legalistic” and are masked in “freedom”.
So, when are you going to sell your church building and have everyone move to a farm in the country? When all sit down together and have meals together? When the children are schooled in a protective enviroment? When the people are accountable to the “Elders” who dictate who they can marry?
Maybe your “community” is becoming more like a cult following, more than a church that has goals and vision for the future? The hippy movement lasted for a season, and I think your concept of community will implode due to the fact that human nature is to have a sense of functional structure.
John: Just because I use what I think is a positive example from another community, it doesn’t mean I endorse every single thing they believe or do. And re the future, someone we both admire said, “Have no thought for tomorrow!” Churches are the biggest breakers, ours included, of that commandment.
loudone:
I’m sorry to have put pressure on you. If you were here, I’d offer you a cup of coffee to make amends (Well, I’d have to dig way to the back of the pantry because I’m actually a tea drinker!)
I appreciate your comments and don’t mean to be heavyhanded with mine. I think I understand you to be saying that accountability is something that a Christian can choose to impose on him/herself in order to grow spiritually. And I agree with that.
My issue is that I can’t find the term accountability anywhere in Scripture, yet it has become a mantra in most churches today. How can the church build an entire system around accountability if it isn’t expressly taught in Scripture? Or is it? And I am just missing it? (LIke the word “trinity” for example.)
I’m interested in the dialogue here, too. But I wouldn’t expect people here to hold me accountable for anything more than adhering to blog ettiquette. I wouldn’t expect anyone here to grill me on what movies I have watched this week, whether or not I’ve consumed alcohol in my lifetime, if a person of the opposite sex who was not my spouse was at my home after midnight at any time in my past, etc., etc.
All of these things have become matters of conversation, gossip, and character assassination at the church I attended previously under the guise of ACCOUNTABILITY. And although I am not a violent, cussing, alcoholic slut, I resent the questions. I resent them because I believe them to be less about what is stated to be accountability’s purpose–my spiritual growth–and more about an unScriptural motive underlying the questions–playing God in someone else’s life.
So, can anyone make a case for accountability using Scripture as a basis?
I guess I should hold myself accountable for breaking the blog etiquette rules by wandering quite far from the topic of the original post.
Shame on me! Trust me–I’ll make myself pay.
i use the word accountability. i use it to put the christians who question me at rest. if i say i’m accountable to one or two people who they know to be long serving wise people then somehow it calms them down a little, even if they still can’t fully understand me.
in truth the ‘accountability’ consists of sauna’s with one of my vicar friends and a couple of others, a monthly trip to the pub to discuss life, the universe and everything, a few close christian relationships which are open and honest.
of course, these are just relationships… great relationships! it’s the word ‘accountability’ that puts some christians minds at rest but i know what i have is much more valuable than that, although i doubt the word ‘relationship’ would do the trick in quite the same way!
i like to run my life passed people, find out what they think, get there wisdom etc…
like i said before …’relationship. period.’
ttm. i wonder whether the accountability idea comes from the scripture about ‘confessing our sins to one another’… the bible doesn’t use the word accountability, but this is the closest i can think of (can’t remember where it is). trust the church to turn this lovely concept into a legalistic thing.
Jon Birch,
I always enjoy your spin on things…thank you.
ttm – I would love to have a cup of tea with you…I, like you, don’t like coffee. If you were here I would make a cake to go with it. Thanks for getting back to me and clearing the virtual air. I didn’t mean accountability in a negative sense…it was more like ‘back-up’, checking things out, having a spiritual director, someone who is able to offer advice (which may mean questioning and challenging on occasion). I am sorry if I sounded legalistic – it wasn’t my intention – but reading it back I did sound a triffle dogmatic.
Jon Birch: you make accountability sound fun.
These are good questions, and my answer to all of them is “It depends on the people”. I think you can achieve all of this, I’m just not sure that it can be sustained.
Some of these things you mention — the open-ness, the inclusivity, the acceptance of varying opinions — actually in a way *are* a vision. You might not have it written down as a rule or a vision statement, but it’s there.
But my fear (fuelled to some degree by experience) is that it can all be lost so very easily. I’d be interested in what you think about something I wrote on this recently: http://www.datainadequate.org.uk/articles/2007/05/17/growing-and-pain