Outward focused vs. Inward Focus (Congregational Discipleship class)

I think that we often tie ourselves down with "either/or" thinking instead of "both/and" thinking. The life of any church will be grounded in being missionally minded (or as I was saying, 'outward focused'). Our churches must keep in mind that a huge part of our mission in this world is to those "outside the sheep pin" (Jn. 10:16). The other part, I agree, must be to nurture our congregations in discipleship (more on that in a bit).

As I interpreted Foster's 4 Educational Tasks, I saw the words (in #1) "vocation," (in #2) "in the world," (in #3) "mission," and (in #4) "exercise ['practice,' 76-78] of the imagination" (pp. 125-6). These are very 'outward focused,' missional terms.

For me, the both/and part comes in to view when we recognize that our responsibility is to both the world and to believers. The Great Commission commands us to "go and then to "make disciples" and then to "teach." So we must have avenues (programs! ) that help us to accomplish both these tasks. I think the key questions are "when," "where," and "how" will we accomplish these in ways that are best suited to the purpose of our mission and the program. For example, I don't necessarily think that for most churches Sunday mornings are the best time for fomal liturgy (for some churches, yes, but for most, I don't think so). It may be more educationally appropriate to accomplish liturgy in small discipleship groups (or another discipleship format) that are more intimate and more 'inward focused' - so to speak. In my experience, most people outside the church are either unaware of liturgy or unmoved by it. In this way, Sunday mornings (as a primary "open door" program for inviting/engaging newcomers) are probably not the best times for this. The task, then, as I see it is to nurture that newcomer into a group or program where liturgy can be explained properly and experienced significantly. We need to nurture and escalate people from one level of "seeing and hearing" to the next (55-61). Liturgy, as you noted, is just one example we can plug into this conversation for spiritual growth. There are certainly many others, but I view the process as similar.

[Appended] When I said 'liturgy' I was thinking in a more narrow and formal sense of the term - as in 'Liturgical.' That is not the only way to think. In fact, the whole movement of a worship service is in itself a form of liturgy and teaching. The order in which we structure our services teaches people something about who we are, who God is, and what we believe about him. The content and hidden assumptions of our worship services also teaches (for good or for bad). One example, offering, begs us to evaluate what we are teaching people when we collect the offering. How can we use the offering collection as a teaching tool or meaningful experience to both the believer and the visitor? Or, should we eliminate the offering from our service altogether because it doesn't fit our mission of the Sunday morning service? Either way, however we handle the offering teaches something to people - so what do we want them to learn? (Rhetorical question).

I was never a big fan of the term 'seeker sensitive' - but I have used it just like everyone else. Again, I think we can conduct our worship services in ways that both provide the depth and richness of an encounter with God and still reach 'seekers.' In fact, the more authentic and meaningful the experience, the more likely visitors will come back. People want/need/crave authenticity and depth. They need to see people who are fully committed to their faith, who have depth of transformation in their relationship with God, and who genuinely love and care about other people. That's the best liturgy of all! Rote services do little to enliven and invigorate people. I guess our conversation has turned back to touch on elements of Foster's Flaws #'s 3-4 in the church (27-33 - especially "cultural captivity," pg. 31).

Joshua 1 - The Promised Land

1:2 "Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them--to the Israelites."


1:2 “. . . the land which I am giving to them. . . .”
Also note:
1:6 “. . . the land which I swore to their fathers to give them.”
1:11 “. . . the land which the LORD your God is giving you, to possess it.’”
1:13 “. . . ‘The LORD your God gives you rest and will give you this land.’”

“Giving” – “In Fief” as in fiefdom. We recall the medieval feudal system where land would be entrusted (even for generations) in return for loyal service as a vassal. The residents had the right to hold the land as long as they worked it. The property was granted to a vassal for its maintenance by the lord in return for service. In the case of the Promised Land, God is establishing a “feudal” covenant (perhaps in this instance, “contract” may, in fact, be a better term) with Israel.

The land is a certainly a gracious gift, but it is not an outright grant. It is an “exchange for the promise of service in the future” (121). This land “contract” is thus dependent upon Israel’s faithfulness to the covenant. The divine promise of the land to the forefathers (according to the north Israelite school – see 41-43) was qualified by the mosaic covenant. There was no permanent possession of the land promised. In fact, possession of the Promised Land depended on Israel’s fidelity. Safety and “rest” (vs. 13 – also “peace”) was no certainty unless they served obediently. This land gift bears great responsibility to create a covenant society who acts with fidelity to the covenant.

It is important to note that the Promised Land, the land of Yahweh, elicits images of his “abode.” The Promised Land is a “sanctuary” and a symbol of his earthly rein – a political and cosmic rule of the kingdom of God (19). As Dr. Coleson’s commentary points out, “The land of Israel was always more than a physical entity; it was also a central part of the ‘spiritual’ inheritance of Israel” (page 2).  In this way, our thoughts will likely be drawn to Hebrews 4:8-9 (“Sabbath rest”) whereby there is a final completion and occupation of God’s heavenly land reserved for his faithful people.1:2 “in fief”

When you don't know what to say (Chaplaincy Class)

"What do you say when you don't know what to say? What might be going on in times of silence? Where do these thoughts take you in scripture?"

I would agree with Paget & McCormack (P&M) that we shouldn't try to fix the situation or offer platitudes (10). I would also affirm the power of presence and silence. However, P&M also state that keeping watch involves "active emotional and spiritual presence" (9). While there will certainly be appropriate and necessary moments of what I would consider passive silence, as ministers I think there are situation-appropriate ways to actively administer a message of hope, encouragement, and/or comfort. In times when we don't know what to say are prime times when our voices (thoughts, advice, words of comfot, etc.) need to yield to the voice of God (specifically scripture). These, of course, need to be contextualized and guided by the voice of the Holy Spirit in love and grace and full of compassion and honesty. 

Times of silence are prime opportunities for the Spirit to speak to everyone. We need to allow Him the room to speak for Himself (on his own accord), but I think God speaks powerfully through his word. When I don't know what to say, I ask myself "what does scripture say?" One way to avoid the "platitude-ness" is to approach people with the Word with honesty and transparency. For one example, Hebrews 11 shows us a historical timeline of the pain of loss and disappointment for people (and for the blessed people of God no less) but rather the power of faithfulness - the faithfulness of God and the blessings of being faithful to God through our pain.

We must show that we hurt with people. We must respect and value the ministry of presence (and silence), but I also think that as ministers of God people want, need, and expect us to carry a message from Him to them.

Connecting the home and the church (Congregational Discipleship class)

[A response] It is a struggle to connect the home and the church. Just recently we started our first small group home group in our youth ministry. One of my parents is starting it and it is seeing some good initial success. Our goal is to move our mid-week program into home groups - but this is not necessarily what I think we are talking about (as good as it is to involve parents as ministry leaders within their own homes).

The book, "The Godbearing Life" describes the one-eared Mickey Mouse where one smaller group is barely integrated into the larger group (skimming the surface). I view this largely as the relationship between home and the church. Like many, I view the home as a microcosm for the church. The key, then - I think, is to have the home reflective of the larger church. In many ways the programs of the church (as enrichment education - 30) can really work against the church. Many churches offer all the age-specific ministries (kids, teens, young adult, men, women, senior), so if their "needs" are supposedly being met (27), then why do anything at home. Foster also makes a very good point that these ministries are not typically unified under a single banner of mission, vision, or training (34).

It would seem that an initial starting point for connecting these two would fundamentally come from the overall church's mission/vision/purpose statement and a ruthless adherence to it by all the area ministries. I don't think we need to do away with age-specific ministries, but by changing our values and mission to say "we all believe XYZ and that XYZ starts in the home" (or something much more eloquent than that) communicates the expectation that our church body believes faith starts at home, regardless of the home environment. Starting at home could be communicated as simply personal devotions for some home environments. Everybody can do something at home.

I understood Foster's argument on marketing to be a lack of curriculum that substantively teaches the depth of scripture (for several reasons he lists). If this is a correct reading, I am finding "marketing" as less of an excuse. There are lots of (I believe) good curriculum available for a variety of purposes (family, kids, teens, adults, etc.) that could translate into different settings (i.e., church or home). However, cost is certainly a factor, accessibility is another factor (as a full-time pastor, I have more time and flexibility to spend a few hours searching and researching [top of 26]), and denominational affiliation is another (I have found and used great curriculum from other denominations).

Finally, yes, certainly the collapse of the ecology, the rise of individualism (24), and other external and cultural factors put immense pressure on the task of discipleship.

Hymns vs. Praise Music (Congregational Discipleship class)

[A response] I would agree that there is such a strong attachment to music and memory. The church I grew up in sang mostly hymns and there is a lot of good theology in them. At the same time, there is some poor theology in many hymns when looked at with a critical eye. To be fair, a lot of new music is no better.

I take the perspective that music is only a tool - a vehicle. I can worship (and God can move) to hymns just as much as he can to contemporary music. In fact, God has spoken to me through secular music. Music is cultural identity and, I think, should be viewed as such. Foster admonishes us to be cautious of our cultural biases and maintaining the status quo (31-33). I think music is a way of maintaining the status quo since it is so closely associated to memory and culture groups (i.e., the 80's lunch-time music radio is now giving way to 90's lunch-time music). This is why I say it's only a vehicle.

As I had to re-read this week's assignment earlier today, I noticed something that I had missed earlier - that is, Foster's somewhat-subtle focus on community and relationships. In one instance he notes that programs "focus on instant rather than sustained intimacy" (30, emphasis mine). A couple of sentences down he mentions the "relationship with a transcendent reality or in the historicity of our common life" (30). I would agree that music fits into the "historicity of our common life," but music is but one small part of a much larger picture.

What I think one thing Foster is saying in pages is that discipleship is caught more than it is taught. More than any program or tool, a mentoring-type of relationship with another person in the faith is what should be driving our discipleship. We need more "sustained intimacy" with God and others who are intimate with Him (in appropriate ways, of course ).