I’ve been thinking a lot lately about a blog post I wrote a while back for our church family: “Directional Alignment In Church Planting.” In that post, I suggested that, if I were to plant Church of the Cross over again, I would probably do it differently.

I think we are in a great place as far as corporate growth as a church family but in many ways, I feel like we put up the “structure” of what we thought church should be and then tried to fill it. We didn’t erect a building. But we went very early on to a Sunday morning gathering.

If I had it to do over again, I would postpone our Sunday morning gathering for a lot longer. I would lead with our Community Groups (Gospel Communities On Mission). I would let our Communities Groups be the organizing principle of Church of the Cross.

This is an interesting question for me as a pastor and now as a church planter. When I say “the organizing principle,” I mean, what do we emphasize the most, what do we rally around and around what do we organize; what receives the most of our time, attention and effort? Many churches organize around their Sunday morning gathering. They spend hours planning for it, it is a production, they use it to rally people and then send them to the “other things” that they as a local church do. Some churches organize around “Bible Study.” They really, really want their people to know a lot. Neither of these things are necessarily bad in and of themselves, I’m just not sure they’re really what we should be organizing around.

It’s good to worship and it’s good to know the Bible, but when we consider the fundamental task with which Jesus left His people, I can’t help but wonder how well these organizing principles have succeeded in making disciples who make disciples.

Our Community Groups are families of learning, serving missionaries striving to live the everyday rhythms of life with gospel intentionality (yes, there is much Soma Communities influence going on here). Disciples are made best in community, not just with knowledge or passive sitting and singing for an hour-and-a-half a week.

It’s often been said that what you win people with is what you win them to. In other words, if you attract people because you have the bigger, better, flashier Sunday morning production, you just have to keep getting bigger, better, and flashier because that’s what people come to expect and someone down the road would be happy to fill their seats with those butts.

But what we won people with families of learning, serving missionaries? What if we organized around gospel communities on mission?

I love the Olympics. I like the idea of the world’s top athletes coming together to compete (though I’m personally not much of a sports person). I even like the idea that I have absolutely no interest in many of the sports I find myself watching, that my horizons are broadened by the whim of the broadcasters. I love the fact that my boys scream out Apollo Anton Ohno and Shawn White’s names when they see them on television as opposed to some other sports stars.

I also like the fact that, if we’re paying attention, the Olympics offers us some valuable lessons for the rest of life. Hard work and dedication can pay off. Not only that, but it’s all the better if you can love what you do and foster a passion for your pursuit. But all of the lessons we might learn from the Olympics are not necessarily positive.

As we were watching the Olympics the other night, we got stuck with “Ice Dancing.” Yes, I said I like that the Olympics helps expand my horizons but I mean that I would never otherwise watch ski jumping, not people dancing. On ice. But that’s what happened. As we watched, we found ourselves being bombarded by one bad cultural impersonation after another. Foreigners in cutoffs dancing to Thank God I’m A Country Boy, followed by Americans dressed as Indians. Some other people impersonating Spaniards and, perhaps the most well-known by now, the Russian team who chose to “go” as Aboriginal people. Nearly everyone knew that most teams had no clue about the culture they were impersonating and nearly every team came across as a cliché rather than a tribute, much less as authentic.

Christians should pay attention to this farce because, lest we forget, this is exactly how we come across to much of the surrounding culture. The Gospel is always communicated in the context of culture. As God’s sent people, it is our mission to transform these cultures from within with the power of the Gospel (this is the power of salt and light, etc. Matthew 5:13-16, etc.). This is done most effectively when we are most authentically transformed by the Gospel.

Yet, the problem for many Christians is that we have bought into false ideas of holiness. So much so that we are quite uncomfortable really being ourselves. Then, when we try to reach out to others, because we don’t truly know who we are in Christ, we don’t know how to reach out to others, we don’t even know our relationship to culture, so we end up coming across as fake, we end up coming across as clichéd, we end up looking like Aboriginal ice dancers. Not to mention the fact that ice dancing is to ice skating what tee-ball is to baseball. No jumps! It’s just not as exciting.

Not only is the problem that we don’t really know ourselves, we have come to believe that everyone outside of our own walls is so evil (which we all are outside of Christ), that we don’t ever really take interest in the people we’re trying to reach. Part of the reason so many Aboriginal people (if I may venture a guess) found the Russian ice dancers so offensive is because the Russian team had no real interest in the Aboriginal culture, it was simply a means to an end for them. This is exactly the way many Christians treat our surrounding cultures. We have no real interest in the people around us other than as projects and numbers and they know it, they sense it, they can spot it a mile away. The ice dancing teams that were most effective were those who didn’t have to reach as far for their personas (at least in my opinion).

We need to learn to adopt the posture of good missionaries in our own neighborhoods, at our jobs, at our grocery stores, where we already exist, where we’re most authentic. Why is it that we can spot fakes anywhere and everywhere except when it comes to Christian culture?

Yesterday I received a voicemail from a representative from our local professional baseball team. The nice woman was asking if our church would like to participate in an upcoming “Faith and Family” night. We could bring our church for a discounted group rate, get recognized on the jumb0-tron and stay after the game for a Jars of Clay concert.

My first thought was that the well-intentioned woman had the wrong number. But then I remembered that I pastor a church in modern American evangelicalism and I may be one of the only people to whom this does not sound like a good idea. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I like baseball. I like my church family and I’ve seen Jars of Clay a couple of times and they’re a good enough live band. But somehow, putting all of those things together is not appealing.

I tend to think of these things like I think of churches with coffee-shops or the church down the road from us that has a full-service café. I would much rather our people go to the baseball game with their neighbors or unbelieving friends. I would much rather our people go to a local coffee shop than pour money back into the church.

What we have here is a fundamentally different understanding of the relationship between Christians and the surrounding culture. I am not interested in creating a Christian sub-culture, a group that has their own novelty night at the baseball stadium. I’m reminded of this quote from Francis Chan’s book Crazy Love:

Christians are like manure: spread them out and they help everything grow better, but keep them in one big pile and they stink horribly.

Thank you for your time. My rant is now over.

Last week I had the chance to attend the Verge Conference in Austin, TX. I wrote a bit about this yesterday as well. One of the take-aways for me from this conference was that there is a tremendous outpouring of frustration with the American church and its consumeristic mindset and business-like models. There is also a growing consensus that missional community rather than programs might be one of the answers to this growing frustration.

If they choose to go this direction, it means that many churches will be asked to reconsider and reconstruct their entire approach to ministry. Instead of a “come-to-us” mentality, churches will strip their schedules and increase their relational discipleship. It is likely that for many churches, less now actually means more. Churches are meant to be salt and light in the midst of their surrounding communities, not the purveyors of religious goods. Churches are called to equip the saints for the work of ministry rather than doing it all for them (Ephesians 4:11-16).

While much of this is refreshing and even exciting, it may in fact be frustrating for a good many pastors. I spoke with several pastors who attended the conference who actually left the conference quite frustrated because the churches to which they were returning were so far away from this model. The obvious, overwhelming and unclear question here for many pastors is how to get from here to there: how do you transition a traditional, American program-driven church to missional (this is not to say that all “programs” are bad. If we’re really pragmatic, missional communities themselves may be seen as a program of many churches)? Here are some things to consider regarding this process:

Go slow. People hate change. Especially in churches. The last thing a pastor would want to do is return from a conference and subsequently make drastic changes in the life of his church. Churches tend to cling to tradition as closely if not closer than many other institutions. Any changes must be communicated clearly, demonstrated biblically and made slowly.

Be theological/scriptural. We are often prone to adopt things merely for pragmatic reasons. It works, therefore it must be right. There might certainly be pragmatic reasons for shifting from a programmatic church structure to missional (it can shift some responsibility from leaders to church members and free up many schedules, etc.), but, missional is, above all, a theological movement. It is rooted in the Missio Dei (the “Mission of God”). God the Father sent the Son, the Father and Son Sent the Spirit and just as the Father sent the Son, so Jesus sends His people into the world (Matthew 28:18-20, John 20:21, etc.). Any transition to missional must be rooted in Scripture rather than pragmatics.

Clearly define your terms. Missional communities are small groups but they are not simply small group bible studies. Missional Communities seek to develop transparent relationships of Gospel accountability but they are not simply accountability groups. Missional communities are focused on re-orienting our entire lives around living on mission, but they are not simply outreach groups. If we are not clear in defining missional communities in our churches, tradition will be more than happy to define them for us.

Lead by example. Sometimes it feels like we can talk until we’re blue in the face but people still don’t seem to understand. Oftentimes actions speak louder than words. A leader’s most powerful tool in a shift towards missional community is example. Jesus led by serving (Mark 10:45, etc.) and so should His people. If you’re a leader who isn’t even sure where to begin, consider Jonathan Dodson’s  “8 Ways To Be Missional.” Take people with you. Lead by example.

Don’t neglect community. It’s possible that we can become so focused on mission that we find ourselves neglecting community. It is by our love for one another that the world will know that we belong to Jesus (John 13:35) and the bonds of community are strengthened most in the trenches of mission (what Alan Hirsch describes as communitas vs. community). We have been created to exist (and to minister) in relationship. Seek to implement ways of living missionally that are community-centered.

Center each community around a tangible mission with the clear end-goal of making disciples. It would be one thing for me to tell our Church of the Cross family that God has called us to reach the Northwest Phoenix Valley. I know that I look at that mission as, probably true, but like a deer in the headlights. Yet, if I tell my Missional Community that God has called Church of the Cross to reach the Northwest Phoenix Valley and part of the way that’s going to happen is that our community is going to reach the families where my children go to school. Now, all of the sudden, we can wrap our minds around that; it seems manageable. Yet, each mission must be targeted at making disciples, they must include relationships with non-believers. My family and I live across the street from a park, but it would not be a missional vision to say that our community’s mission is to keep the park clean. Stay focused on making disciples.

Celebrate successes/share stories. It’s important to continually share stories of success. Just as we need to be led by example in community, we need to be encouraged and challenged by those who have had breakthroughs. Continually have church members share their own stories of living on mission (not just the successes but also the failures, this is a hard calling and we need to not only see success but be reminded that we’re not alone in struggle). This will not only provide a picture of what living on mission might look like for some people, it will reinforce the community piece, reminding each one of us that we’re not in this alone.

Focus on Jesus. We must never forget that this is all about Jesus. We are not on mission to get people to join our church but to know Jesus.

I’d love to hear your thoughts about transitioning a church to a more missional mindset.

• Browse Jonathan Dodson’s “10 Tips For Missional Community Leaders”

Last week I had the chance to attend the Verge Conference on Missional Communities in Austin, TX. Francis Chan was one of the stand-out preachers for me. His heart for the American Church to repent and return to biblical rather than consumerist models was not only evident but overwhelming and moving. So much of what he said resonated with many people I talked with. Chan noted that, due to our consumerist tendencies, the American Church often tries to make things happen ourselves. We try to plan and spark “movements” on our own. But, as he pointed out, the Apostles certainly didn’t plan the day of Pentecost. It wasn’t as though they said, “OK, John, you learn Chinese, and Peter, you learn Spanish, we’ll call you Pedro.” God moves, not us.

Yet, as we relentlessly follow business models in the church, it’s as though we are trying to force God’s hand and that will not fly. To illustrate his point (both figuratively and literally), Chan came up with a cartoon:

While there is certainly a place for planning, we must be careful that our mission never overshadows our Savior. It is a very real danger that, in trying to do things on our own, we forget our dependency on Christ. If there was a theme for me that developed from Verge, it was less about Missional Communities themselves and more about the fact that there is a growing group of people that looks at Scripture, then at the American Church and is left wanting. For all of our programs and potlucks, we are not very good at making robust disciples. There is a growing group that’s just tired of the way we’ve done things because the way we’ve done things is just not all that biblical. For far too long we have simply been trying to push the American church along on our own strength, cunning, marketing and business-like structures.

This is an exciting time but it is also one for caution. As people are looking for more, we must center our discussions in Scripture. We cannot separate our mission from theology. In fact, it is theology that will ultimately drive and sustain this renewed focus on mission.

I am tremendously grateful for the Verge conference and pastors like Francis Chan. I am excited about what God is doing and I am hopeful.

As we head off to the morning sessions today and then hit the travel road back home this afternoon, I wanted to share a couple brief thoughts so far on the Verge Conference. I hope to post a bit more in-depth once I get home, but for now, here are a couple of impressions:

I am encouraged. To be able to look around a room full of 2,100 people who are not only intrigued by the idea of missional communities but intrigued enough to spend time, money and effort to come hear more about is tremendous. Over the past few years I have become increasingly disillusioned by the way we Americans have typically tended to “do” church. It is a consumer-driven, entertainment-based model where the church is the purveyor of spiritual goods in a local community and the best way you will grow is through marketing. Leadership and whatever equipping might be present is from a top-down, information-heavy model that in the end, very rarely creates effective, robust disciples. To know many other share this sense of (I hope) holy discontent with the modern American model is encouraging.

I am hesitant. We’re wrapping up the conference and still, no one has sought to present a clear, compelling definition of what a missional community truly is. An astute listener might be able to pick out bits and pieces and weave together a definition, but it would seem to me that, at a conference such as this, especially the first of its kind, they wouldn’t simply assume that so many people are already well into the book. We all might be on the first page together, but some are already about to flip to the second page while many others are still stuck on the first word.

I understand that this is the concern of many people with misisional and I, at times, share this concern. As Ed Stetzer recently said, many of us could be more clear. It would seem to me that a conference such as this is the perfect place to do that. You have a room full of 2,100 people, many of them Tweeting and blogging instantly. What a better place than to lay down some clear parameters. Without that, are we really any better off than before the conference?

I am intrigued and excited. This conference received better interest than I ever thought it would. That may simply because I can be a pessimist, but I don’t think so. I can’t wait to see where this leads. I am hesitant to use the word “movement,” but it is past time for the Church in America to stop playing around. Let’s see what happens next.

Half-way into day two of the Verge conference and I wanted to post a few thoughts, drawn primarily from Jeff Vanderstelt’s 15-minute presentation and Ed Stetzer’s breakout session, though there is much more I could draw from.

There is a theme throughout the conference of repentance. That might seem a bit odd, but it is actually quite encouraging. There is a growing consensus that the way that we have “done” church in America has not only not been every effective, it’s probably not very biblical. We have adopted a mix of seeker-sensitive and corporate mentalities that has turned the church into the purveyor of religious goods rather than the maker of disciples and the transformation of culture.

This is an exciting time because there is a growing number of people looking to the Bible and, shockingly coming away with the idea that the church is called to make disciples! No, this is not new, yes, you’ve probably heard it before, but why do so few of our churches make robust disciples? As Ed Stetzer said this morning, it’s almost as if, somewhere along the way, the American church took some serious birth control because we have stopped multiplying.

For too long we have treated the church as an amusement park where, if we simply keep adding the newest, biggest and best rides, people will come. When we don’t keep up, they will go to the newer, bigger, better amusement church just down the road. Much of what we do is simply not reproducible. That should be a problem for us, but it is not. Much of our conception of “church” involves multi-million dollar budgets and rock bands. Not only is this not reproducible, it may or may not even be church. What if we unleashed our people on the mission of God in their everyday lives?

You may or may not believe that the idea of missional community is the right solution, but before you lump it in with liberalism, before you write it off, at least listen to what’s being said. You may believe that the term is fuzzy, but have you really listened to the voices in the conversation and have you watched the lives living missionally?

A conference like this is not only exciting, it is necessary. It is a much-needed clarification for some about what the term even means and it is a call to repentance for others. We have tried to plan and push the church along on our own strength for far too long and we have very little to show for it. No matter what your conclusion is, certainly we can at least agree that it’s time to consider a change.