The Missional Makeover – First Verdict

In February this year I wrote:

I am in the process of attempting to do something which many feel is doomed to fail: giving a suburban evangelical church a ‘missional makeover’.

Last week, by way of a pastoral review, I got the first comprehensive verdict on whether that process is just a pipe dream, or if it really is possible.

The review was a two months long process, led by a mixed team of elders and church members. 30 people were surveyed plus the entire leadership team, staff and ministry leaders were interviewed. The thoroughness of the process leads me to place confidence in the outcome being an accurate representation of where the people of the church are at.

With respects to the process of a ‘missional makeover’ the report found that:

There is a clear understanding from respondents in the profile group, staff and leadership teams that the church has embarked on a journey to reach the surrounding and wider community through missional initiatives.

Other major themes that emerged were:

The church is viewed as a spiritual home with family atmosphere, friendship,fellowship and unity. The church is recognised as having solid programs for kids, youth and young adults. There is a strong understanding and endorsement of the church’s vision to reach out to the community and to help bring unbelievers to Christ.

It is recognised that the senior pastor has a heart for evangelism and provides much of the vision for outreach.

This leads me to think that the journey is definitely underway. The case for missionality has been made, understood and embraced. Whilst most of the findings were extremely positive there were some signs about the price of having a missional senior pastor. Firstly, the ministry leaders feel a bit short changed. The report found:

The need for more direction/ support/ communication with ministry leaders and senior pastor. This could also include improved communication and support for ministries and their leaders from the church.

This shows to my mind a direct consequence of having a focus that is divided between ministry inside the church and ministry outside the church.  There’s no two ways about this: I have dropped the ball when it comes to looking after ministry leaders.  I can give good reasons for this, but they won’t be good enough.  This complexity comes with the territory.

Also, a number of people feel they are short changed when it comes to relationships with the senior pastor:

That the senior pastor could improve at building relationships with the wider congregation – outside of his personal interest groups. Some voiced their concern that much of the senior pastors time and interest was taken up with his missional target group, at the expense of other ministries or people.

On reflection I stand both guilty, and not guilty as charged. If I am to be an example of missional living, particularly amongst a target group in our community, I will naturally invest much time and energy into those relationships – at the expense of others. However, in the mix I have no doubt neglected other ministries.

Where to from here?

My fear is that the feeling of disenfranchisement from some quarters of the congregation will only grow as the missional rhetoric gives way to much more concerted activity. This action will by necessity outside of the bubble of the church. I still have my doubts that a suburban church can have a complete missional makeover, and that a missional or evangelistic person can sustain operating as the senior pastor.

Despite these doubts I think it is important for us to break the cycle of post-Constantinian pastoral care/teaching models, and open up precedents for churches to rise to the challenge of engaging the world outside with the Gospel. It is all to easy for someone like myself to take a much easier pathway of moving sideways into an associate role and our church opting to continue as it always has with typical staff appointments.

I was happy to see that the criticism was mild and from a minority, even though my level of outside engagement is already very high. If I continue I will be keen to rise to the challenge of helping the disenfranchised feel valued – within reason.

The review happened because my term of appointment concludes later this year. I now face the choice of continuing the journey here, or taking the longed for opportunity of freedom (from the restraints of pastoral life) to take the plunge and go bi-vocational, and continuing my ministry life out there rather than in here. I only have about two weeks to come to a decision, so I’m losing sleep!  The journey that has been started here is definitely not finished, but I have been in situations before where I have moved on with the sense that a different person was needed to take things to the next level.  Much has been accomplished here in the last 8 years but I am aware that staying could limit the potential of this process to so much further.

I am reminded of the rationale that Paul used about the contributions we make in ministry:

1 Corinthians 3:5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.

I have actually being toying with the idea of breaking new ground when it comes to a pastoral review, and putting it out to a vote, so that people from all around the world can help determine what I should do.  It is of course fraught with danger and has ‘don’t go there!’ written all over it, but its not a great deal more dicey than Urim and Thumin?  I could make a clear case one way or the other and let people decide.  If the church membership ever found out I know what they would decide!

Seen as this is a place of collective wisdom for fools, put this fool out of his misery and throw him some wise counsel.