WHAT ARE REASONABLE METRICS FOR THE CONTINUATION OF A CHURCH PLANT?

   Some of this may or may not be applicable to all church plants, but here I specifically discuss those churches being planted among the poor or difficult populations. 
  
    What is reasonable in the continuation of support for a church that doesn't seem to be moving quickly to being self-supporting?   We have a persistent model for church plants among middle class folks.  The larger the core group the faster they move to self-sufficiency, the larger the core group the more internal resources they have, and the more attractive they are to planting networks.  Success breeds support.

    Many of these middle class church plants rely on transfer growth, beginning with a committed core that from the beginning already gives a planter..."church."   A group to which to preach, volunteers ready to work, a congregation ready to disciple and lead.  The sense of momentum in a peer generation church with urban ambiance, professional quality music, child care, parking, and facilities, and a competent if not excellent communicator seems to be a guarantor of success. 

    Along with this is the benefit to the church planter of a pretty secure financial package.  If the planter is part of a percentage network where he can begin with a hefty investment from outside, plus whatever he raises, plus whatever a sizable core group can give he won't have to be worrying about money all the time, and in fact can invest the surplus in staff, equipment, facilities, and marketing.  Pre-support breeds success.

    What happens when the target of this new church plant is the poor?  What happens when there is no core group, or a very small one?  What happens if and when there is some outside support but as the ministry nears the three to five year window there is still not a strong enough financial base or core to continue the work without continued outside help?  What happens if middle class folk, who already know Christ, who already believe in tithing refuse to align themselves with such a work?  Can it survive?

    What happens when a planter goes to an unreached or non-believing group that aren't immediately drawn to something called "church.?"  What happens when he tries to gather people who don't know what giving sacrificially means as they are trying to survive financially already?   What happens if that pastor is so committed to this neglected community that he is willing to be bi-vocational, but loses the respect of his peers for not being able to make a go of it like normal churches do? 

    If our metrics are materialistic that says something I believe about our values.  Not that growth is in anyway wrong, in fact growth is what we want, but from what source?  When Peter preached and three thousand were saved, I think it must have meant new conversions, not three thousand former members of Southern Baptist churches that had old music.  When Paul planted a church among the pagans, or the heathen, or just people who had never heard of Jesus, I wonder where he got his core group from and how he made it financially?  Maybe he made tents or something, maybe he was sent gifts from churches that were established already but knew how to share, maybe he took risks and lived by faith.

    If we are going to succeed in preaching the Gospel to the poor, and in planting churches among them (and not just using them for our mission and mercy experiences) I think we will have to change our metrics.  We will have to support church planters for at least ten years, we will have to give them that help from outside of the communities they are trying to reach and it will have to be not only adequate but meaningfully sufficient.   And we will have to send in talented, competent, and passionate men because the harder work takes the greater man, not the lesser.

    Or, middle class churches in the city will have to learn to really reach the poor and include them in their new congregations, make them welcome, disciple them out of poverty, and raise them up in leadership.  Either way, I think we will have to be radicalized about what the Gospel means, and we will have to stop working from the same old materialistic expectations and start moving toward spiritual ones.

QUESTIONING PASTORS ON THEIR STEWARDSHIP OF THEIR CONGREGATIONS ENERGY

    One of the precious resources of a congregation is its energy.  A Biblical term for this might be "zeal."   Energy is a combination of both the time members have to give and their passion and tenacity to engage and finish the work.  Pastors have to be the stewards of that energy.  Part of the pastor's job is to protect his people from expending their energy in ways and places that give them no spiritual profit, and no profit to the Kingdom of God.

    It should become obvious to the leadership of a church when that energy is flagging.  Members give less time, they are less than enthusiastic to participate, and things that pastors and leaders wish would get done, don't.

    Pastors give various answers to why this is happening.  Sometimes it is seen as disobedience, just plain spiritual rebellion or a lack of faith.  Sometimes it is seen as ministry overload, the people have been trying to do too much; which can be caused for various reasons, such as competitive ministry leaders, bad "works' type theology,  church traditional activities which are unecessary.

    Members can give other answers, such as the pastor and leaders are simply piling up too many obligations and activities.  Sometimes members see it as a justified rebellion against spiritual manipulation, whether using guilt or appeals to love Jesus more.  Sometimes members see it as poor leadership that gives them no meaningful or believable motivation.  Most times I don't believe members see it at all, they just react with their feet, which either move or won't.

    There are some questions I believe pastors need to ask themselves in analyzing how they are stewarding the energy of their people:
1.  What is a congregation for anyway, what is it supposed to be doing?
     If the pastor thinks their job is simply to listen more to him, to attend faithfully and give more money, one might begin to think the pastor doesn't have a very large view of the Kingdom of God.

2.  Is it a legitimate response to the need of energy stewardship to ask nothing of the congregation as a congregation, but to leave it to them if they feel they should or want to do something?
    If a pastor takes a "minimalist" strategy he should examine honestly whether he is merely justifying a refusal to lead or his own laziness.

3.  Is it legitimate to only ask the congregation to do things for themselves, for the worship service, Sunday School, music, Bible studies, etc.?
   Even here people can overwork or feel burdened down.  The call for more discipleship can simply mean more meetings and study time, and is studying the only way to discipleship?

4.  Does a congregation have any responsibility to evangelize, to do acts of mercy, to participate in the life of its community, to participate in missions?
    How does the call to do these outward focused ministries combine with the necessity of interior and sustaining work for the life of the congregation?

5.  Does the pastor know how to delegate, to help people identify their gifts, to help them discipline their lives to work where they best fit, to call them to rest and sabbath and to not overcommit?  Is he an example of not overcommitting?  Is the pastor able to help the people know the balance and combination of knowing, being, and doing?

6.  Does the pastor lay out spiritual and practical reasons why jobs need to be done?  Does he explain how ministries achieve the vision and goals of the church?  Does the leadership seek to eliminate those activities which do not accomplish the overall goals of the congregation but expend the scarce energy of the people for no purpose?  Does the leadership give the congregation missions they can accomplish and then gives them opportunity to celebrate in their success?

7.  Does the pastor know the difference between physical exhausation and burnout?  Can he see the anger in people that makes them resistant to more appeals for more work when they feel slighted, abused, and badgered.  In contrast can he appreciate the seemingly inexhaustible energy of those who are motivated by faith, love, and joy?  Can he see these things in himself?

ENCOURAGED IN THE CONTEXT OF VIOLENCE

     Recently I had the privilege to meet a victim.  I noticed that he had a patch over his eye and I asked him what happened.  He began to explain to me that he wore the patch because people seemed to have a hard time looking at what was left.  Between what he told me and what others filled in evidently his eye had been shot out, so there wan't any eye left.  He, and the three others with him, had been coming home from church when someone opened up on their car.  Fifty gunshots later two were dead and this young man had lost his eye. Somewhere in this terrible tragedy he did catch sight of Jesus.

    He explained to me that he hadn't been living right, but now he was trying to do right by his child, his girlfriend, and the Lord.  So, he is preparing to get married and raise their child as a family.  It was all a mistake, wrong car, not who the shooters were looking for, but people were dead and wounded just the same.

    Recently one of our church planters asked for prayer because a lady that had been coming to church had just been murdered, by her grandson.  This pastor was preparing the funeral sermon, getting ready to preach to a family grieving and traumatized.   The grandmother had taken this grandson in to live with her, but they had fought from time to time and finally she told him he had to leave.  He waited until she was asleep to cut her throat.

   The Sunday after the funeral I heard a woman rise to testify that she was in church that day because of the love she witnessed from this church (the congregation that had ministered to the family, that prepared the food for the repast, that had preached the Gospel at the funeral.)  She said she had felt called by God to come.

   Violence doesn't encourage me, especially when I find it to be inexplicable.  It is probably a mark of how jaded I am that too often I just simply accept it as a daily constant in our culture. We live in a time when people live in communities where violence is a reality and a constant threat.  Occasionally I am shocked, but most often I am calloused.  There is so much violence that it just seems to make me tired, and aware of the possible play on words,  I become deadened to its shame.  We, all of us in this country, should be ashamed at the volume of violence to which we have become inured.

    The stories above however make me feel encouraged, in the context of violence.  That context is the place that most of  us want to escape from, where we don't want to live.  It is one reason people keep moving from neighborhoods that have an aura of menace, attempting to find some peaceful glen or pasture, some beatific cul de sac where tricycles can wheel unhindered, toys left on the lawn without fear of theft, and the noise of explosions is left for the Fourth of July.

    I am encouraged because in the very place that most of us with sense would want to flee, Jesus has come.  He has come through his people, through his Church.  Violence in this world usually makes no sense, there was always another way, another option.  What does bring sense in the midst of nonsense is love, care, kindness, compassion.  It resettles the world, it redirects the grieving, the victims, the wounded.

     If the church is not there, close by, with its people not present to be the Body of Christ, then what is left for those neighborhoods, those families, except rage, despair, hardness, revenge, emptiness, and life unexplained? These stories happened in neighborhoods of Tulsa and Durham, but the violence is repeated in so many marginalized and depressed communities around our nation.  What is not always repeated is the witness of a church that came because others have left, and came for just these kind of folk. May their tribe increase, and may the Prince of Peace extend his reign to bitter places. 

TO LOVE THE POOR YOU MUST LOVE SOMEONE ELSE MORE!

Sometimes I feel like people put you in a box, specifically me.  I feel this way when it seems they think I can only speak about the poor, or pigeon hole my ministry as one that is a song with only one note.  I am not insulted that people might look upon me as an advocate for the poor, or for justice.  I am indeed thankful to be thought of in that way, but it would be a mistake to think that somehow that flows from some sense of altruism in myself, or even anger from my own background.

    If I love the poor, and I want to do that, it is because Jesus loves me.  His love for me has created a passion inside of myself to love him.  Non-believers might find that hard to contemplate as they try to penetrate the passions of religion, but for Christians the idea of loving Jesus is a very intimate, personal, and real experience.  I love Jesus, and consider him to be real and personal and interested in my life; every part of my life.  I love Jesus because I believe he died for me to rescue me from the just wrath of God for my sinful self, and his death delivered me from the bondage I was in to my own sins.  I love him because I believe he defeated death and has given me eternal life.  He has given me a lot, and everyday since he came into my life I have experienced the love and faithfulness of God in taking care of me.

    I don't think Jesus made me lucky, I think he is far more personal than luck.  His blessings don't mean I will never catch a cold or cancer, that my loved ones won't die, that I won't have trouble.  I think, and know from my experience, that his love means he will always be with me whatever comes.

    As I read the Bible and learn more about Jesus, I know that he loves and cares about the poor.  This is so important to him that he even equates himself with them when he outlines the judgment in Matthew 25.  He calls those who didn't treat the poor as if they were him "goats."  Then he casts them into hell.  He teaches us there that when we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison, that we are doing it to him.  So, if I love Jesus I have no choice but to care for the poor.  Not if my love for him is real and genuine.

    I read one interpretation of Matthew 25 as not applicable to Christians in this present age.  This of course was presented with absolutely no textual evidence from that passage at all but as part of a broader scheme of interpreting the Bible.  I just imagine a big slap in the back of the head from Jesus to whoever wrote that.  I shouldn't be surprised when some try to interpret Scripture so as to rob it of any conviction in our lives and practice today.  It did make me angry.

   I don't love the poor because they are innately loveable.  I certainly wasn't when I was poor.  I was stealing, lying, greedy, selfish, and uncaring about others, even my own family.  I desperately needed Jesus to change me, and he did.  I still struggle with my own sins, but I know who I belong to now, and I do love him, and want very much to be faithful to him.

    I know that I cannot motivate people toward justice just because I make them feel bad about injustice.  I know that I cannot make them love the poor, or move into the neighborhoods of the poor, or dispense mercy to the poor, or create industry or jobs that will employ the poor, or practice medicine among the poor because I somehow touch their sympathy and compassion.  The truth be told our self interest often wins over against our feelings of compassion.  What can change us?  More appropriately the question is, "who can change us?"

   His name is Jesus, and my passion to help bring about justice, reconcilation, and mercy comes because I love him, and know how much he loved me, and how he satisfied the justice of God for me, and gives me mercy everyday.  So, my appeal to folks is not some cause, not some constant banging of a drum for what I think people ought to do.  It is what Jesus is about, and if you don't love the poor the real and present, and the real and future, question is,  "how can you say you love Jesus and not show mercy to the poor?"  What evidence is there that Jesus is living in us if we can't see Jesus in the lives of our poorer brothers?

MERCY SEEKS TO DISCIPLE PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY, NOT SUSTAIN THEM IN IT!

   I am learning a lot as I go around the country challenging churches to do mercy that is effective to change people's lives.  So many churches motivate their members to do something, then mobilize them to do almost anything, except to bring poor people into their own congregation and love on them for a dozen years.

   One of the problems I have (with myself) is to give any criticism about anyone doing something merciful.  I don't think our real problem is that we have too much mercy.  I am glad but cautious with challenges about helping people too much although I agree with a lot of the diagnosis about money and time that is misspent and that damages poor people by creating dependency or damages their dignity.

    I am cautious because Jesus doesn't spend a lot of time condemning wasteful acts of mercy but concentrates more on our unwillingness to show any.  I want to encourage people to engage in mercy ministry, but I want to further encourage them to the kind of mercy that brings real change in the condition's of people's lives.

   I often call people to "disciple the poor out of poverty."  Recently in two different places I was asked to supply a "curriculum" that would teach churches how to do that.  This was a challenge to me, and there are some very practical steps I could endorse to help churches have a plan.  However, I think that somewhere I might not have been understood when I stressed that relationships are what help people change their lives, and that the context of the local church, with its love and modeling of life, is where the poor are helped to be discipled out of poverty.    I am afraid that a simplistic outline of courses that we could provide to the poor might be used as one more excuse not to bring them into our lives or congregations.

     If the poor can't culturally fit in your church then send some of your middle class people, who have been given the grace to be the servants of others, to plant a church in the community of the poor.  Churches ought to mobilize their members to have a heart for mercy by giving them experiences to be "exposed" to mercy ministry.  Once exposed to it they then need to be trained and continually challenged and motivated to be "engaged" in mercy ministry.  However, if they are not trained and challenged in how to relationally and practically bring the poor out of poverty, thus making mercy ministry "effective," then the mercy seems to be more for the mercy worker' experience than it is for the poor.

    Effective mercy understands the need for both charity and development, which are the two parts of mercy to the poor. Unfortunately both charity and development programs can miss the necessity of relationships in the context of a local church.  Effective mercy is realized when relationships are developed over the long term with models and mentors (including families) which help the poor see a different value system.  Values are often better caught than taught.  The model of family itself is an essential building block to help end poverty.

    Obviously a curriculum is what pastors and leaders understand and something that can be transferable.  The process of loving, hearing stories, caring, responding in compassion and yet with wisdom, holding people accountable, challenging them to do for themselves without cutting them off, immersing them in the sound teaching of the Bible and the Gospel, all take time.  This doesn't happen in simple two hour tutoring sessions or basketball games at the rec center (though relationships might begin there).  I think in my book I will add some practical type courses that will help, but my call to the saints is to love people across social/economic lines deeply, practically, and enduringly.

RACE; IS IT A USEFUL WORD?

   Immediately preceding this writing, in the last two days,  the issue of the word "race" has come up in two different places.  Should we use the word, is it Biblical, is it right to speak of "racial reconciliation?"  Is the word race a biological reality, or is it a "social construct?"

    I confess that when I hear such questions I immediately wonder what the motive behind the question might be.  Is this being asked as a denial of the reality of "racism?"  Is this an attempt to distance oneself from the struggle against racism, is it a form of self-hatred and a refusal to be considered part of a "race?"  Is it an attempt to achieve an idealistic end by insisting on eschatological outcomes as present categories?  Is it an academic question for intellectual precision or does it have a practical application?

    In my ministry I have been challenged by people who wonder if it is correct to use the term "African-American" or any hyphenated derivative of the word "American."  Some individuals hate to be put in categories of any kind, or they may  have nationalistic or patriotic feelings about sub-dividing citizens based on ethnicity or skin color.

    It might be easy to simply blow such questions off as coming from ignorant racists or self-hating victims of racism, but that would not be fair or mindful that such questions can be honestly asked and wondered about.
    If it is possible let me suggest these ideas as a way of being helpful about these questions, if indeed they are asked in sincerity and not from obstinate or malicious ignorance.

1.  We believe in the common unity of all mankind, that from one blood God made all the nations of the earth and sovereignly planned their places and times.

2.  All human beings are created in, and bear, the image of God and thus have inherent dignity and worth.

3.  God divided the people of the world into language groups and spread them across the world.  We believe he did this to protect the human race from itself, and from its own self-idolatry.

4.  In the course of time ethnic diversity became established through adaption to climate, sexual preference, interbreeding and genetic resistance or vulnerability to diseases.  This is not evolution, there is no species change, but people groups did come to have fairly distinct generalized characteristics.

5.  In the process of times some people groups reached development stages ahead of others and these development stages were used as rationalizations of supposed superiority of one group over another.

6.  In the process of rationalized ethno-centric separation/superiority over/against others, combined with the ethnic divergence (especially of skin color and body type) between people groups the concept of race as a biological division of humanity was introduced through inept and immature science, practitioners of which were affected by their own ethnic prejudices.

7.  The spiritual and emotional attitude of ethno-centrism, especially expressed in a concept of "over" rather than just "different," using a manufactured concept of race created what we know as "racism," or a sense of racial superiority.

8.  Whatever we wish had not happened there are some historical and present social realities;

•  a. People see color if they are not blind, and they notice hair and body types, and they make emotional and social choices due to what they see. 
•  b.  Not all generalized observations of people groups are wrong or bad observations, but can too easily fall into stereotypes readily believed by our prejudices. 
•  c.  Even if there is no such biological thing as race there is an historical and sociological reality of a thing called "racism."
•  d. It is not wrong to acknowledge the ethnic and cultural diversity of people, in fact it can be quite insulting to deny it as if what God had given them was something to be ignored rather than celebrated and embraced. 
•  e. Our ethnic, historical, and genetic make-up are parts of God's gift to us and  people groups have cultural aspects which need to be understood and appreciated.
•   f.  It is wrong not to love people, and if our ethnic, social, or cultural judgment of them leads us in anyway to diminish them or abuse them we have sinned against God.
•   g.  All human beings are more than their ethnicity but everyone comes in a human body that comes from parents who came from some people group who came from some place; to deny this is not helpful in cultural interaction.

9.  In spite of ethnic or cultural differences the Gospel of Jesus Christ enables saints to become servants of other people across cultures by taking ethnicity and culture seriously, not be denying it.  This was the mission strategy of the Apostle Paul.

10.  The historical reality of the use of the concept of race in this country, through racial slavery, took many different ethnic groups from Africa and coalesced them into a new ethnic group known to us as African Americans.  Their native tongues were denied them and they were amalgamated into being English speakers.  Their native cultural and religious practices were by and large denied to them and they were forced to invent and derive new ones, thus they have a unique culture in the world, parts of which overlap with the majority of other Americans and some of which do not.  American slavery was largely based on skin color, explained as race.  Other ethnic groups came here to assimilate, Africans were brought here and were denied assimilation except for functional reasons.

11.  Though the Bible does not speak specifically of "racial reconciliation" it is a logical and necessary corollary of a mission and justice mandate based on the reconciliation accomplished on the cross. In the Gospel we believe the coalescing of all Gentiles into a reconciliation with the Jews was accomplished through the person and the blood of Jesus (the reconciliation between Jew and Gentile necessarily accomplished reconciliation between all sub-ethnic groups of Gentiles and all are included in the prayer of Jesus to make us "one.")

12.  Racial reconciliation is a necessary and legitimate ministry and manner of speaking due to the sinful reality of racism and its division of people.  To deny the active use and history of not only the word but the wickedness of racism is to perpetuate it and to engage in nonsensical discussion.

WHAT IS JUSTICE?

The question was, "What is justice?" The young woman asked me to define it and after all these years I still find it difficult to give a simple answer. A word that we use so often but which sometimes seems hard to apply correctly.  It seems like everyone knows what it isn't, everyone seems to innately grasp what is "injustice," especially if they have been treated that way. When we see someone abused, deprived of their rights, oppressed, robbed, taken advantage of by those having power or locked out when they should be let in like everyone else we feel disturbed; like things are out of balance.  Justice is "equity" and when the balance of things is upset we should and ought to feel bothered.
   I did quote her a verse from Proverbs which says, "Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it fully,' (28:5) NIV.  Later I turned to Webster's New World Dictionary with Student  Handbook and comment number 1. was, "being righteous."  Comment number 5. was "reward or penalty as deserved."   Under the phrase "to do justice" was comment number 1,, "to treat fitly or rightly."
    Being righteous and being just are essentially the same thing.  Proverbs has a line of reasoning that teaches if one is wise then he will be righteous, and to live in a righteous way is to live wise.  To be righteous means you will treat others with justice and you will deal justly in your affairs.  Seeking the Lord makes us righteous; without a fear of Him, without a relationship with Him it is impossible to be truly wise, and thus truly righteous, and thus truly just.
   I find the book of Proverbs to be very helpful in keeping me on track as to issues of justice.  I learn there that God cares about just measurements and weights.  This means I give everyone the same measurement, with the same standard.  In the matter of payments and costs this hopefully gives me a reputation of integrity. Most everyone wants to have their vegetables weighed by the same measure on the scale at the market, to pay for a gallon of gasoline and have your gallon be exactly the same amount of gasoline as my gallon.  This is the part of economics that is fairly simple math, but when the math gets complicated it is interesting to see how the measurements change for those who have control of it.
    In a world that has lost its foundations in accepting God's Word as Truth justice is more and more defined by groups and self interest..  In a world of people who do not seek the Lord, who do not know the fear of God, there is a free for all in defining truth and thus a difficulty to find our way to righteousness.  Justice is always overturned when the interests of one person or group is given greater emphasis, protection, or advantage than others.  The reasons for this can be for a variety of reasons such as ignorance, selfishness, greed, racism, etc. Historically people seem to have been able to perpetuate injustice against others in complete sincerity that they had a "right" to do these things to other people.  Some have known full well that there actions were wrong, unjust, or evil and they cynically continued the injustice.  Others have done it with layers of self-justification to appease their conscience.
    Having a Word from God which is absolute helps us to understand how morality affects justice.  God makes hard lines of conduct where humans could be confused and allow immorality as they pursue a faddish concept of rights.  In other words, some things we seem to innately get and some things have to be revealed to us.  If we have no fear of God than that revelation won't mean anything to us, until of course we come to the point of "reward or penalty as deserved" when we stand before God.  Christians believe this is inevitable and the fact that everybody dies reminds us of it.
    People who fear God believe that ultimately there is justice, for everyone, though it be delayed until death.  Christians base all their hope on the idea that spiritual justice was satisfied by the death of Jesus on the cross.  Since there is no difference in that all people sin we all face death with absolute bleakness as we await God's judgment on our lives.  That is, unless the penalty for our sin, guilt, and shame has been paid by the atoning death of the One for the many, the Just for the unjust, the only Righteous One for the unrighteous many.  Having this faith in the substitution of Jesus in taking their punishment gives the Christian hope, but it is proved in the Christian's transformation into a moral and just actor in this world.
    If any people ought to live justly it should be Christians. When those who have claimed Christ as their Lord have been unjust to others they have not proved out their faith and are certainly open to the charge of being hypocrites.  They have not loved their brother in those acts of injustice, and so when they say they love God they have lied.  It is hard to accept that a person has been transformed by the grace of God into a saint if they have failed to love and failed to treat others as they wish to be treated.  The balance that the Apostle John gives in the book of I John about our love for God being proved by our love for our brothers is fairly simple and straightforward, and devastating against our rationalizations.
   "The righteous care about justice for the poor but the wicked have no such concern." (Proverbs 29:7) NIV
Righteousness for the Christian goes beyond just thinking about his or her own morality but extends into caring for those who cannot defend themselves.  "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Proverbs 31:8-9) NIV  We are not being just if our concern for righteousness only extends to our own reputation, our own moral rectitude.  Righteousness for the Christian is not complete until his compassion and his defense extends to the rights of the helpless and the poor.