I find myself in a denomination that is concerned about it's life. In North America, attendance is down, membership is down, churches are closing and it seems like it is a stretch to find things to celebrate. Statistics are watched closely. Any church that has growth is studied and, at times, used as a model. Books are written. Conference are formed. All this takes place so that churches, who aren't having statistical success, can discover the secrets of healthy growth. After all, no one wants to die, not even a denomination.

In this type of culture, one fixated on life and survival, evangelism is seen as the key. If we would evangelize, people would come to Christ and to the church. That is the belief anyway. Of course we look past the fact that there are many Christians who do not attend weekly services at all, but that is another issue. Yet, it seems feasible that if we were able to evangelize well, then our churches (and statistics) would be healthy.

Evangelism has always seemed mysterious to me. At various times Jesus was more interested in sending people away, or saying things that caused them to leave (see John 6) than getting them to sign up for his mission. I don't think it was that he didn't want people to respond to his message. I think he just knew that people needed to hear what he was really saying and respond to that. He didn't sugar coat things. If they were going to be followers, well, he wanted them to know that it was going to be hard, and require much sacrifice.

As I contemplate evangelism, I wonder if we have the same edge that Jesus had. We are wanting our churches to grow. Our evangelism usually focuses around someone's felt needs. We are to discover those felt needs, and help them see how Jesus (or actually the church) can meet those needs. While I agree that Jesus can meet our needs I wonder if our felt needs are the ones that really need to be met.

Many people of good will strive wholeheartedly for peace, mutual understanding, human encounter, world unity, and living harmony. Yet human vulnerability in face of the divisiveness that followed the Fall can never be totally overcome by excellent intentions, marvelous slogans, peace marches and conferences, disarmaments, sensitivity training courses and group dynamics alone. All of these efforts can be helpful. They can provide some relief, but not a cure; they should be put into practice insofar as possible, but they will never be sufficient in themselves to overcome our basic disunity. - Adrian Van Kaam, The Tender Farewell of Jesus pg. 124.

The above quote reminds me that good intention, while good, are not enough. It has taken me a long time to realize this and in some ways, I'm still coming to that realization. At times I live like I believe that good intentions offered up in Christ's name will provide the cure. Van Kaam reminds me that while it is important to practice these intentions, in the end, they will not be enough to offer the cure. They may provide some relief (which is important), but the cure will remain elusive.

A reality that we must grapple with is that we can do nothing and are nothing without God. Sure our pride will beg to differ, but when all has been done, we will realize that our efforts will always come up short to provide the cure that is really needed. God, through Jesus, is the one who provides the cure. Our role is to allow God's will to be done in our lives no matter how daily, boring, mundane those acts might seem.

Henri Nouwen writes,

The great illusion of leadership is to think that man can be led out of the desert by someone who has never been there. Our lives are filled with examples which tell us that leadership asks for understanding and that understanding requires sharing. So long as we define leadership in terms of preventing or establishing precedents, or in terms of being responsible for some kind of abstract "general good," we have forgotten that no God can save us except a suffering God, and that no man can lead his people except the man who is crushed by his sins. Personal concern means making Mr. Harrison the only one who counts, the one for whom I am willing to forget my many other obligations, my scheduled appointments and long-prepared meetings, not because they are not important but because they lose their urgency in the face of Mr. Harrison's agony. Personal concern makes it possible to experience that going after the "lost sheep" is really a service to those who were left alone.

Many will put their trust in him who went all the way, out of concern for just one of them. The remark "He really cares for us" is often illustrated by stories which show that forgetting the many for the one is a sign of true leadership.

I've been discovering the reality of this the past year or so. It has caused me to wonder if by defining leadership by our projects and programs we have in reality moved away from the kind of leadership Jesus displayed. As my schedule gets filled, I find it more difficult to care for the 'lost ones.' As my time gets busy I find my view of the "greatest good" defined by the "numbers served." Yet, the One I've been called to follow defined himself as one who was willing to leave the 'numbers' and search for the "one lost." My my life be reflective of His.

Just read the first chapter of Tony Jones' new book, The New Christians. I don't have the book. The chapter I read was free on the internet. I requested a copy from Tony to review on Missional Methodist Movement website, but as of now, I haven't received it. I mention that because I want to be fair and also I have no idea where he is heading after the first chapter.

I thought Tony had a lot of good insights into the current issues with the church, religion and spirituality. I find myself leaning more toward missional and/or the emergent side of things, so I will probably agree with much of what Tony has in his book. However, there is one area that I think needs to be explored more in the emergent and missional movements. That are is the area of holiness.

It has taken me about 20 years to come to terms with holiness. I am a UMC pastor and the father of our denomination is John Wesley who had a lot to say about holiness. For a long time I ignored what he had to say and I don't think I am alone in that. I ignored it because holiness always seemed like it was based on rules and regulations and I certainly didn't want to follow the path that other holiness movement folks did.

Tony Jone, while discussing some of the problems facing churches writes:

The evidence is in: millions of individuals ‘‘inviting Jesus Christ into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior’’ at megachurches and Billy Graham crusades has done little to stem the moral dissolution of America. And ironically,it’s the very individualism engendered by evangelicalism that has resulted inthis predicament. The primary emphasis of evangelicalism is the conversion of the individual, but that emphasis has also handicapped evangelicals in their attempts to tackle systemic issues like racism and poverty and thus has left themopen to manipulation by political forces.

Tony's point is well taken. The church is very individualistic (which I hate, but struggle to break away from). It also has seemed to be pretty inept in the way of social change. But, is that because of the emphasis on individual conversion?

Later he writes:

The church that doesn’tchallenge its members to face the core ethical issues that confront themevery day at work is the church that has abdicated its responsibility. Many churches, particularly evangelical ones, make this mistake, and here’s why:too many evangelical churches have emphasized the vertical, just-me-and-Jesus relationship to the exclusion of the horizontal relationships with other human beings and with all of creation.In fact, a major study in the 1990s showed that the individualism inherent in American evangelicalism is directly responsible for evangelicals’ inability to diagnose and solve systemic social issues like racism and abortion. In other words, the formula for evangelical growth—namely,individual conversion—also precludes many evangelical churches from affecting the very changes that rally its members. So when I asked about the chickens,it was a theological non sequitur to the middle managers; as long as their relationship with Jesus was all right, everything else would take care of itself.

You will have to read the chapter to see why he asks about the chickens.

I agree with Tony on the problem, but I don't think it is because of the focus on conversion. I believe the issue is we have separated justification from regeneration...which John Wesley wouldn't do. Basically if your sins were forgiven, God's power also came in and created, in you, a new creation. Wesley's expectation from those who were forgiven from their sins were they would also be saved from the power of their sins.

Holiness, for Wesley, was the standard way of life for a Christian, however, while we have kept the focus on forgiveness, we have neglected holiness. It is holiness that is missing today and holiness would transform the Church. We already have an example of what a focus on conversion and holiness brings....just look at the Wesleyan revivals under the Wesleys. They literally transformed life in England. Not just the spiritual life, but also the social life. [edit: If we receive the mind of Christ as Wesley contends, then it makes sense that our agendas would reflect the will of God. This results in the outward focus of, as N. T. Wright says, "putting things back to rights." ]

I was planning on writing some more about holiness (which I still plan on doing), but I thought it was interesting that Jone's doesn't seem even to bring it up...instead he seems to imply that we can address these social issues in some other way. Again, I lean toward the emergent/missional way. I believe emergent/missional is the best way to live out the life of the Gospel in our current culture, so I interested to read what else Jones has to say.