daveingland.com   about church relevance, culture, life, community, & transformational faith

In trying to study and learn a little more about Dave Gibbons‘ theories on Third Culture I was hit with his definition:

Third Culture is the mindset and will to love, learn, and serve in any culture. Even in the midst of pain and discomfort.

Wow, he’s preaching my language! Here is Dave sharing insight on Third Culture with Newsong Church:

And here is a link to a video of Pastor Gibbons sharing insight on Third Culture with Dallas Theological Seminary on 10/31/08:

http://www.dts.edu/media/play/?MediaItemID=c5e5bb9b-c3bb-4708-be61-3d75b2ce8f62

Here is a link to the Third Culture website:

http://3culture.tv/

Through one of my favorite blogs I found a link to a post from Ed Stetzer about the missional church vs. the simple church vs. the purpose-driven, seeker sensitive style church. Very interesting and thought-provoking. Take a peek here:

http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/2008/10/simpy-missional-in-neue.html

As I’ve been thinking more and more about leading a missional community through Revolution Church Sacramento next year, I’ve also had thoughts about video preaching as part of what we do. Coinciding with these thoughts was a blog post by Perry Noble that reinforced his position that video teaching honors God and connects with people.

When we did our first month of preview services to share our vision with the members of our mother church, it was video preaching for 3 weeks, with me preaching 1 week. We participated in the One Prayer with LifeChurch.tv which many of you know about already. I was so totally blown away by the quality of the preaching from Perry Noble and Steven Furtick that I was hooked. I mean, I think I can be a pretty funny guy, but usually I evoke a laugh or two during a message while Noble just raised the roof and kept it up the whole 30 minutes. The guy seems like he isn’t even trying, yet he causes us to fire on several emotions in just one message. All this and he wasn’t even in the building! How can a guy in South Carolina talking about eating big, buttery biscuits and people believing or not believing in the power of Christ connect so well with us here in California? I don’t know how or why, but I just know what I saw and how people responded and it was amazing and incredible. Pastor Furtick is another one of those guys that doesn’t seem like he is trying, yet he can convey passion about watching an ice cube in such a way that you never thought possible all through the power of Christ in his life and his love for seeing people hear the gospel and come to know the saving grace of Christ. I was teary-eyed during the last half of his message and again, he wasn’t even in the building!

Can a guy like Noble or Furtick cause things to be stirred up here in Sacramento through video preaching? I think they could. As Revolution Church Sacramento takes shape and launches next year, we are looking to connect with a younger generation for Saturday and/or Sunday evening service. Mostly singles and young couples. However, could we partner with a great visionary preacher like a Pastor Noble or Pastor Furtick (or a Craig Groeschel or Ed Young, Jr. or…) and provide a gathering for families on Sunday mornings and see the kingdom grow even more? Could being missional and putting our faith into practice and sharing the love of Christ with the world be the glue that binds us together, even though we have two different worship styles, with two different meeting times, and two different demographics? I’m beginning to think we could. I’m feeling like the work that needs to be done here in Sacramento is far greater than what I could do even on my best days, and that partnering with another ministry with someone that can lead the way through their preaching and teaching while we work to connect people into service could honor God hugely. Who says that multiple services on a weekend must be the same exact message with the same exact preacher every time?

Maybe this is just another one of those dreams too big for the moment or my abilities. Could be that my mind is wandering and this isn’t what my thoughts should be on these days. However, I just can’t help but feel like this is worth some prayer and discussion and seeing what God would have me do here. My preaching doesn’t really translate well to video, but I’ve seen others with the gift for it and know that it’s being used to make a big impact on people in awesome ways. Just consider me more than a little intrigued at this point.

I invite your prayers and thoughts on this.

Are you excited? Outreach magazine just published their compilation of the top 100 largest churches in America. While I’m glad that people are still gathering in masses to worship the one true God, I find myself scratching my head at why anyone would want to glorify the church in this manner.

The sad fact of the matter is that there are pastors out there that will inflate their attendance numbers so that they can run with the big boys. They are immersed in the numbers game. They seek to grow numerically in order to confirm their status within the kingdom of heaven. In the minds of many senior pastors is the misconception that a growing church is a healthy church.

However, when polled most senior pastors will say that they are not interested in numbers, but instead they desire to see many to come to know Christ as their Lord and Savior. That’s a noble thing, but at the same time many encourage people that were previously baptized in a church already to come forward and be baptized in their church, thus inflating the numbers of salvations and diminishing the scripture in Romans 10:9 which clearly states:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I guess contrary to the word, confessing once isn’t enough?

We are taught not to envy or covet, yet we see statistics like this glorifying the local church and putting them on a pedestal because of the number of attendees they draw. When health and numerical size are used as factors to determine “success” in the church, how can a pastor not want to seek credibility for what God is doing in their church in the same fashion? It can cause us to see our numbers diminish within the smaller church because people are flocking to the mega-church because the music is so professional or they have more technology and staff in their children’s ministry and then believe that God is working in the mega-church, but abandoning us in the smaller churches.

I believe that God is working through the mega-church model to see people come to honest professions of faith in the Lord, with transformed lives making a difference in their community as the result. My criticism isn’t on the mega-church, but it’s on the glorification of the mega-church. Look closely at the image above or click here to see the whole list of the top 100 largest churches. It’s not just the top 100 churches listed, but they are ranked in order from largest to smallest and there is also the name and photo of the senior pastor and in addition to that, there is even a link to books that some of the pastors have authored. Sorry, but this just brings the kind of attention to the pastor that rewards him for obtaining such high status on lists like this. Somehow, it just doesn’t seem like such a godly thing for pastors to be recognized in this way or worse yet, to see them strive for such notoriety.

As I write this, I think the thing that gets me most is the notion that it’s all about attendance and not about transformations and loving others. As many of you know, I’m excited about the missional church movement. Not only the missional church ethos, but of the nature of the missional church to be more organic and empowering others to lead and disciple communities based on visions God gives them to be pastors and ministers of the gospel. What about the missional church that honors God through the Greatest Commandment and the Great Commission and sees itself being reproduced throughout the city or the world? If a mother church grows to 200 in attendance and then starts reproducing itself by sending missionaries/pastors out to lead others and disciple them in the ways of Christ, only to see this repeating itself time and time again, isn’t this the way of the first century church? The mother church may ebb and flow and never break the 200 barrier by intention, yet be responsible for seeing 20,000 come to know Christ and carry on his mission through daughter churches and other ministries. Should they be off the radar screen or not viewed in as high a regard as the mega-church of 10,000 members that lands on the list of top 100 churches? I don’t think so. Is having a congregation of 12,000 meeting in one building a better definition of outreach than having groups of 1,000 people meeting in 12 different buildings? Again, I don’t think so.

We should not be working to receive our rewards here on earth. Pastors can say that who am I to write about this when God is the one sending people to their church and they are just doing their best to shepherd his people. Okay, I’m with you on that. However, what about the inverse of this? How about when your mega-church of 10,000 people and 40 staff members sees its attendance drop to 5,000 in less than a year. Do you believe that God has his hand in moving the sheep to another shepherd, or do you go into panic mode and start cutting programs and laying off people and doing all you can to figure out how to get your attendance numbers back up to justify the big building and church campus?

Church attendance numbers in no way portray the effectiveness of outreach or seeing people come to know Christ for the first time. They do not accurately reflect the health of a church, nor the genuine nature of those that gather. A mega-church of 10,000 in attendance on Sundays, but 90% of the congregation is from church hoppers is not deserving of being more highly regarded than a church of 50 that live the mission of Christ everyday, drawing in people that may take years of living in a community of faith before they actually take the step of faith to put their trust in Christ eternally.

[At this point I feel a disclaimer is in order. I'm not envious of the mega-church or their pastors. I have not had any negative experience from serving or attending in mega-churches.

I have a great respect for the calling and vision of every pastor on the top 100 list of largest churches!

Those that know of my work in the ministry know that I speak highly of Pastor Craig Groeschel and participated with LifeChurch.tv in their One Prayer campaign last July. I have read and been blessed by several books authored by Andy Stanley of North Point. I'm amazed at what it took to see Bill Hybels ask for a raw and unfiltered assessment of Willow Creek through surveying their members and then responding in revolutionary ways to change the course and direction of their ministry in order to see true discipleship and transformation occur.

I am encouraged when I see how the Reveal study that was done by Willow Creek is causing local churches to take a look at what they are doing and why they are doing it. When things like this surface not because of diminishing numbers, but because of lack of discipleship and mission it can only be a positive step that deserves recognition. Most of my friends within ministry are pastors of larger, non-denominational churches with seeker-sensitive services. I love and respect each of them and sometimes feel they are better-suited to ministry than I am because of the larger resources at their disposal and their big faith to serve and make a difference. Again, I'm not in opposition to the mega-church model. I just think we are flirting with danger and temptation when we in ministry and those in the media begin putting so much attention to only those with larger attendance numbers. Bottom line is that I love the church and I love God and I pray daily that the church will start working to be more unified and seeing the love of Christ personified in cities all over the world. I just believe that in our humility we should seek to have God get all the glory and for people to see Jesus and not be awestruck by the celebrity status that pastors are being encouraged to embrace. It's a dangerous thing and we've already seen the enemy take too many people out of their calling to see the gospel reach the ends of the earth.]

Church envy…is it godly?

While responding to a blog post recently I was compelled to introduce a concept to those that follow my blog. It’s a story that was briefly introduced awhile ago, yet only engaged new Asian readers into the discussion, while most of my readership is not Asian. Asian or not, this is an issue that we must face within the church and I’m curious what you all think.

A reply to one of my comments on the blog was:

“In the short-run, you are right, i don’t think you’ll see much positive growth at all, but ethnicity needs to validated as a gift from God and our inheritance from our immigrant parents. so while i agree with your implication that many would benefit from a multi-ethnic or missional church (culture/ethnicity can be viewed as an inefficiency from many people’s eyes, but), an honest exploration into the question of why God created us to be from a certain place and of a certain people should inspire us to discover our ethnicities and cultures in a redemptive light.

This is where i think the example of the people of israel and the biblical practice of remembering, remembering what God has done, who God is, and who God has made us to be, a very real practice to engage in the ethnic context.”

First of all, let me state very clearly that I am extrapolating something from a post that had a larger context. It is not my intention to argue or criticize the blog author or anyone that shares his viewpoint. I am just taking the statement and inflecting my experiences and ideas in the hopes of engaging in some dialog about the subject (hopefully) from both Asian and non-Asians.

Okay, so I’m Japanese, but I’ll admit there were some times in my life where I wished I could have been born looking like Brad Pitt or Joe Montana (nod to my NorCal upbringing) or David Cassidy. Usually it was so that I could have a girl attracted to me that wouldn’t date me because I was Japanese or so that I could avoid the words and violence associated with racism and prejudice. However, I am who I am and all that I am is for the glory of God.

However, do I want to celebrate my heritage in such a way that I need to have everyone around me be Japanese and understand my culture and my language when I’m in a Sunday church service? Is preserving my heritage in such a way something that can honor God much in the same way that the Israelites were true to their place as God’s chosen people? Did God create me as a Japanese person to engage only other Japanese people and rally us around a common cause of preserving who we are?

The Israelites were in-fact God’s chosen people. They were to inherit the earth as Abraham’s descendants. They were not to intermarry or in anyway corrupt the lineage. However, even in the Old Testament we see evidence of something that goes against this notion. Ruth was a Gentile that came to faith in the one true God. Not just any Gentile, but a Moabite and therefore hated by the Israelites. Ruth marries Boaz and bears a son that can be traced to the family line of Jesus himself.

As we see here, introducing Ruth into the Israelite culture of Judah had a profound place in history. Therefore, what is my place as a Japanese person living in the United States? Am I to segregate myself to a place where I can teach the things of God based on the context of my Japanese culture for those that will understand it because they too are Japanese? Or should I celebrate who I am in Christ and share my culture and experience with others so that they may benefit?

Let me shift to a different scenario to help me make my point. With Barack Obama’s candidacy the discussion of black church and white church came up in the media. There were some black churches (I personally dislike this label even though it is socially acceptable) where the message was preached against white America. It was almost an us-against-them mentality that was glorified. However, what if instead of trying to empower African-Americans in the church to stand up to social injustice from the caucasian world they tried to share their stories outside of the black church in a way that brought attention to what has gone on and continues to go on in their lives? How can white America know what is going on in the black community if the black community segregates themselves from the rest of us? The same is true with Asian-Americans in my opinion.

I talk to so many people today that have no clue what I go through as an Asian-American in society. So many think that racism and prejudice is a thing of the past. You wouldn’t believe how many people think I must be smart in math or must have gone to college at UCLA or Cal or that I must be an engineer or know all there is to know about computers or ask me questions about sushi. The outright hatred of me due to my Asian features has diminished greatly over the years, but the stereotypes have not. How does being exclusively with other Japanese people on Sundays help me to make a difference? What if I could take the fulfillment of one of God’s Ten Commandments to honor your mother and father to a whole ‘nother level by introducing my Japanese culture of being there for my parents in ways that aren’t the norm here in America?

I believe that God created me more to honor him and bring glory to his Son Jesus through my unique perspective of a Japanese person with my own individual experiences than he did to see me perpetuate my ethnic values and cultures at all costs. As the Great Commandment in Matthew 25 calls us to do, we are to preach the gospel to all nations and teach them what Christ has taught us. He didn’t say each nation is responsible for the preaching of the gospel to themselves. Three thousand didn’t come to Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and believe so that they could go back to their nations and keep their faith within the borders of their individual nations. Paul didn’t preach there is neither slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile only to see us reverse that in order to preserve our ethnic culture in a new land.

I should not have the viewpoint that I am Japanese and you are not so I can perpetuate my culture and heritage in my church and you are excluded, therefore you lose out on all that you could gain through knowing and understanding who I am and what I experienced. Through knowing my struggles with racism and prejudice and the pressures I faced in school here in America you can have some insight on persecution for who I am and how I dealt and continue to deal with that now that I am a Japanese person and a Christian. You can learn how some of the values revealed to us through the Scriptures have been in place in the country of my birth even though less than 1/10th of 1 percent of its people are Christian and how that breaks my heart. You can learn how to look at me as a brother or sister in Christ with individual experiences I can bring to the table and share rather than someone you have no idea how to address since you couldn’t be as mathematical or technologically savvy as me or because you don’t like sushi or whatever.

The harsh reality is that I am different from most of you. Heck, I’m different from many Japanese people as well. However, not only do I truly believe that you can learn from me, I absolutely know that I can learn from you. Together we can celebrate all of God’s people and all that he is doing in this world as the brothers and sisters he created us to be.

I’ve posted previously about missional vs emergent and missional vs the mega church model. However, I don’t see how it would be possible to validate a missional vs. missional argument though. The reason being is that there is a basic, fundamental understanding of what it means to be a missional church, therefore there isn’t any relevant argument regarding that. Alan Hirsch, author of The Forgotten Ways defines the missional church as: “a church that defines itself, and organizes its life around, its real purpose as an agent of God’s mission to the world.”

Now, we could argue what the mission should like in a given community or whether advertising the mission through press releases in the local newspaper is relevant to the mission, but we can’t argue the foundation of being missional. It is this that gives momentum to the missional church and through transformations happening on the local level, missional churches will have global impact on the kingdom of heaven.

Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I am not in opposition to those with a vision to lead emergent or mega-churches. I think God can honor their work and that transformed lives could be the result. However, let me point out some observations I’ve made that lend themselves to momentum within the missional church:

• Overall, churches are shrinking in numerical size, therefore being positioned to be better able to mobilize behind a missional movement
• Budgets are being drastically cut as church members are giving less or not giving at all. Smaller budgets many times means smaller staff or fewer programs. This creates an environment conducive to change and reorganization, going away from past methods that are deemed not to work and seeking something new
• We’re in a post-Christian era where over 90% profess a belief in a god or gods or a higher power, yet oppose Christianity and discussion centering on Jesus. Missional church fulfills the Greatest Commandment and causes people to look at Jesus through love, not condemnation.
• Many Christians have left the traditional church and choose to worship God individually without being in fellowship with others. The missional church can help bring them back into fellowship through uniting them in a common cause that they feel is relevant.

There is a culture shift happening and it’s causing many church leaders to take notice. Some may see their budgets shrink and believe the answer is to waive their salary and take full-time, secular job. Some churches may see positions phased out and consolidation occur. Other churches may think a new focus from the pulpit on tithing may be in order. In reality, this is the kind of culture shift that should be leading people to see that God is moving in a different way. As we get closer to the day of Christ’s return, we need to get back to our roots. Things will go full circle and what was ancient may become modern again.

Our focus should really be on God and serving his people with the love of Christ. We must have ultimate faith in God and His Word for salvation and trust Christ to really be the head of His church. Instead of responding to what the market dictates by trying to give people what they want or tell them what they want to hear, we should respond in a way that reveals God in our midst. As we see numbers diminishing within the church here in America, it’s clear to see that the kingdom of heaven is growing exponentially in China. Under threat of persecution the church in China is for the most-part an underground movement. It is very reminiscent of the description of the first century church in Acts 2:44-47:

44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Where there is sincere love for God and love for others through giving as they have need, the kingdom of heaven will grow daily with those being saved. If the missional church stays on mission, salvation and growth will be fulfilled through God. People will care about other people and love others because God first loved them. Transformation will occur and the gospel will be preached to all nations and the end result will be glory to the King of kings as he returns for his bride.

As the church, I say we should look to return to the root of our existence–loving God and loving others–and repel those things which cause us to focus on worldly things like money, pride, control. If we trust in Jesus to deliver his saving grace upon the earth, God will add to our number those that are being saved and instill in them a passion for loving He that created them and all of whom He created.

Let me start with a question: Can the seeker-sensitive, mega-church model really be missional? I’m one of those that thinks it can. Missional really is a matter of the heart that is realized through application. Serving others becomes relevant because it is in the very nature of who we are as missionaries. Can such an environment exist in a mega-church? I think it can.

The biggest problem facing the missional mega-church is one of how it can be organic and easily mobilized when it operates with 2-5 services per day and affects 2,000-50,000+ in attendance on any given weekend. Menlo Park Presbyterian Church actually closed its door one Sunday in April last year to be the love of Christ to the surrounding community. With about 2,600 of its 5,000 members committing to serve others as reported in the Oakland Tribune:

For only the second time in its 134 years, a church in Menlo Park today canceled Sunday morning service and shut its doors.

It’s no crisis — it’s only because the majority of its 5,000 members instead spent the weekend renovating homes, refurbishing schools, assisting the homeless or building thousands of support kits for AIDS caregivers in Africa, among scores of charitable activities throughout the Peninsula.

As Pastor David Meysembourg stated in a comment to one of the previous posts here on the blog about the missional church, “So for those who are already doing church, the real work lies in becoming missional without losing the flock. The difficulty comes in transitioning from a more traditional church (which is many of the things missional is not) to a missional church. Education and training, modeling missional values, discussion, reading, all are an important part of this process. One of the first things we’ve done is to define ‘church’.”

Ask 100 pastors to define what the church is and you may find 100 different responses. Sure, the underlying theme and overall context may be similar, but just as God calls individuals to lead/preach/teach he also inspires them with visions that complement their giftedness and passions. Another point made by Pastor Meysembourg that we as pastors must be united on though: Church is “Not a building, not program, not an event, but people living God’s plan for their lives.”

What is God’s plan for our lives? Simply stated in the eloquent words of Christ himself in Matthew 22:37-39:

37″‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

If we gather together as the body of Christ and love God completely and love others with the love of Jesus aren’t we being missional? Must there be a 100% buy-in from all that gather in a Sunday service in order for the church to be considered missional? If we look at missional as some formula of how we can “do” church, then the answer would be no. However, if we look at being missional as a matter of the heart and an application of our love for our fellow humans and realize that not everyone may be willing to walk in the same shoes at the same time, then any body of Christ that exemplifies the Greatest Commandment is in-fact going to be missional.

As Alan Hirsch states on page 182 of his book The Forgotten Ways,

“One of the reflections arising out of my fifteen years’ experience at SMRC is that as we grew and began to operate in the classic church growth mode it became increasingly harder to find God in the midst of the progressively more machinelike apparatus required to ‘run a church.’ With numerical growth, it seemed that we were increasingly being drawn away from the natural rhythms of life, from direct ministry, and that our roles seemed to become more managerial than ever before.”

With Mr. Hirsch’s statement being a generalization of what is thought to occur in the mega-church model of ministry, there are definitely large, looming issues inherent in this model that could or would prevent a missional dna from developing as the environment can lend itself to becoming consumeristic and inwardly focused. However, with a missional vision for a mega-church committed to the Greatest Commandment, all things are possible with God.

During the past few years there has been a lot of discussion about the emergent church. Now it seems that many have not been happy with the way the emergent church has moved to and have re-branded themselves as missional.

Is the missional church just another form of the emergent church? To that I say, yes and no. Just as the emergent church has its various ways with no single unifying factor defining it, the missional church is not in complete agreement either. However, there is a big difference in the way I see the emergent and missional churches.

A key focus on emergent churches is the experience. What does one feel when in an emergent environment? How can the church become a sensory experience? I admit that I was taken with this style of church for a couple of years as it seems like a way to connect with those outside of the church and in opposition to “religion.” They weren’t connecting in the more-traditional or seeker sensitive church so why not give them a place to experience God through making it seem more real and less judgmental? It made sense to me until one day I was hit with something. What about the gospel? Was the emergent church bringing awareness to the gospel in a way that lives were being transformed or was it simply paving a way for people to have their needs met in a Christianity tailor made for the season of life?

I have nothing against those in the emergent church or those called by God to serve in that capacity. I don’t believe the emergent church to be leading people down the wrong path any more than I believe the purpose driven or seeker sensitive church is misleading. God’s vision for his church is bigger than any of us can imagine and the isn’t to do it in only one way; instead the key is to make the focus on God and to live in unity and love. If we do those two things God will take care of the rest.

With that said, how can the missional church be the same as the emergent church? Simply put, the missional church requires an experience. However, where the emergent is about creating an atmosphere that brings about an experience, the missional church is all about experiencing something because of what we put into it, not what is presented to us. Additionally, the missional church will connect with those that aren’t connecting with the traditional Sunday consumeristic experience. Those that aren’t looking for a church with programs that cater to their needs.

The more I prayed about leading an emergent church, the more I believe that I received clarity on the true nature behind God’s vision for the church he was calling me to. It wasn’t about engaging people in an experience so they could feel God’s presence and come to know him more. It was about being a real and relevant place that people wanted to engage in every day. A place where Jesus could be made known without someone having to purposefully step foot into a building on a Sunday. It was about having a meaning and a purpose that stretched well beyond the borders of modern Christianity. To spell it out, this was a place that no building or program could summarize. It’s a place that can only be found deep within the heart and soul of a person. This is what led me to come to find the missional church.

Every church has a vision and mission statement. However, most often the mission of a church is to grow and be healthy and to see others come to know Jesus as Lord and Savior. The mission isn’t really a mission, but instead it is more like a mantra. We at XYZ Church want to disciple others and cause them to live out the Great Commission is basically what it comes down to. Is that bad? Absolutely not!

For me though, mission cannot be fulfilled unless it is a part of who one is. It is taking like-minded people and getting them united in a cause. In my case, the cause that should unite the church is loving God and loving others. We can show we love God by coming to a church building and lifting up our worship to him. We can show others that we love them by creating a great Christian children’s program for their family or teaching them how to be good stewards of their finances or how to stay married for life. For me though, I believe I can show God I love him by keeping his commands and I can show others I love them as Jesus loves them by going to them and not trying to attract them to me.

In my mind the missional church is about worshipping God through our daily lives and sharing the love of Christ with others in ways that have nothing to do with attracting people to a church building or connecting them with some great program. As Jesus did, we need to hit the streets and show the relevance of our faith in Christ and our genuine love for our fellow man. We should give sacrificially and engage in community and pray together and spend time studying and heeding God’s Word. In essence, to me, the missional church can simply be defined as a church that follows the model of the Acts chapter 2, first century church.

It can be a house church, mega church, internet church, college campus ministry…it cannot be defined by it’s look or it’s people. It can only be defined by Jesus and continuing his mission to see the kingdom of heaven upon earth. Jesus didn’t do things to draw people into his church. He went from town to town administering love and kindness and forgiveness to all that had eyes to see and ears to hear. He did not discriminate his message based on culture or profession or social status. His love was enough for all in 30 AD and it is still enough for all in 2008 AD. Why not go out and show the world that Jesus loves them and wants to use his people to share his love of them? Why must we call the world to come knocking on the door of our church instead? Jesus was about making those in the establishment feel uncomfortable, but at the same time he called upon his disciples to feel uncomfortable. Is a transformed life, dead to sin, going to matter much to a dying and hurting world if that transformation is only visible in a comfortable theater style seat with professional sounding music and polished speaker delivering a sermon on Sunday. A transformed life will be empowered through the Holy Spirit to speak eternal love into someone’s life if we go out and meet them where they are and not cast judgment on them. A transformed life will bring glory to God when lives outside of Sunday services are touched, yet no one mentions a church by name and uses it as propaganda. When we as Christ’s church offer to a free gift of bottled water to people because we want them to be hydrated and healthy, yet there is a big XYZ Church label on the bottle, is it really a free gift? Is it really about God’s love or the church’s love?

I don’t know how long the emergent church will continue or what the future holds for it. I love, pray for, and learn from many of my emergent church brothers such as Dan Kimball & Erwin McManus. However, I do know that the missional church isn’t something that came about as a way to try and make Christianity relevant in a post-Christian world. Missional church is just a modern expression of the first century church and it’s about time we got back to our roots of living life for the glory of God and believing that Christ will make this a better place the spirit of love he gives us through the indwelling of his Holy Spirit within us.

Missional churches are starting to gain momentum, which is a little odd to me since they were in existence back in the first century following the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

To help clarify a little on missional churches and explain why I believe this movement is relevant, I’ll be posting my views this week as they relate to the Scriptural and cultural relevance of missional churches. The posts this week will reflect my opinions as I have come to understand them through prayer and study. I don’t profess to be an expert on the missional church nor am I completely comfortable with churches being categorized with terms such as missional, emergent, seeker-sensitive, mega, postmodern, giga, traditional, organic, attractional or whatever labels people want to use to describe something that was intended to be unified and loving. However, it is my hope that my posts this week will help explain some of the details of what makes a church missional and how this aligns with my vision for the local church.

To help get up to speed on the missional church be sure to spend some time here. From the Friend of Missional website, let’s start the discussion with an excerpt of what they state the missional church is not:

• A missional church is not a dispenser of religious goods and services or a place where people come for their weekly spiritual fix.
• A missional church is not a place where mature Christians come to be fed and have their needs met.
• A missional church is not a place where “professionals” are hired to do all the work of the church.
• A missional church is not a place where the “professionals” teach the children and youth about God to the exclusion of parental responsibility.
• A missional church is not a church with a “good missions program.” The people are the missions program and includes going to “Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
• A missional church is not about a new strategy for evangelism.
• A missional church is not missional just because it is contemporary, young, hip, postmodern-sensitive, seeker-sensitive or even traditional.
• A missional church is not about big programs and organizations to accomplish God’s missionary purpose. This does not imply no program or organization, but that they will not drive mission. They will be used in support of people on mission.
• A missional church is not involved in political party activism, either on the right or left. As Brian McLaren wrote, we need “purple peoplehood” — people who don’t want to be defined as red or blue, but have elements of both.

I’ll start posting next on what the missional church means from Jesus’ perspectives and why this ancient form of “church” is so refreshing and relevant to some. I’ll also be explaining my view on why I believe that missional and emergent are very different words and why postmodern is becoming an irrelevant term.

Father God, may you grant me the wisdom to aid in the discussion and convey clearly about what is being called the missional church. May my words glorify you and may they speak to those that think church is something out-dated and irrelevant. Let this movement bring about hope and joy as people all over the world connect and exemplify your love for all people and come to know the saving grace of Christ for all eternity. May the results help to bring unity to the vision of your church in ways that honor you Lord. In the name of Jesus, amen.

From a strictly personal perspective, I wanted to share a little of my story. After reading a post from Daniel’s Random Platypus blog: “Why are Asian American church leaders so obsessed with multi-ethnic church?” I feel like the debate over multi-cultural or multi-ethnic churches is somewhat divisive in itself. So, I wanted to clarify a little bit. Apparently there is a perception that Asian-American church leaders have their own personal baggage and that is a motivating factor to the desire for multi-cultural, ethnically-diverse churches. The actual reasons that Daniel lists in his blog are:

1. Theology and hermeneutics
2. Ethnic church baggage
3. Identity issues

The only one I can even relate to here is theology, but only in a subcontext (used to confirm my position, but not the motivating factor for my position). For me the reason is simple. I live (and feel called to plant a church) in a community that is incredibly diverse. Here are the demographics for Rancho Cordova, CA from wikipedia:

As of the census^[7] of 2007, there were 59,060 people, 20,407 households, and 13,550 families residing in the CDP. The population density was 2,445.4 people per square mile (944.0/km²). There were 21,584 housing units at an average density of 958.6/sq mi (370.1/km²). The racial makeup of the CDP was 66.66% White, 11.34% African American, 0.95% Native American, 8.24% Asian, 0.54% Pacific Islander, 5.72% from other races, and 6.54% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 12.90% of the population.

With only 66% of the population being Caucasian (note: this does not take into account immigrant groups like first generation Russian/Slavik/European people which have prominent neighborhoods within the community) it means that there are 34% of the people that are not. A portion of the other ethnic groups worship in segregated churches (African-American, Korean-American, Mexican-American), yet most of the second generation people of these ethnic groups do not worship anywhere. They just don’t feel like they fit in anywhere. With this much diversity, there is no single church within the city limits that I can think of that reaches out to all people effectively (not a criticism, merely an observation). Without exception (that I can think of it at this moment) there is no church in the community that has a white senior pastor and also has someone of color on the pastoral staff. Same is true for the churches of African-American congregants with a black senior pastor will not have a Caucasian or Asian pastor on that same staff. In essence, the white church remains white, the black church remains black, etc.

It’s interesting to note that as I sometimes enjoy eating Asian foods that I prepare, when I go to the local Asian supermarket, there are mostly Mexican men putting out produce and stocking shelves and that the majority of the patrons are Russian or Eastern European. No matter what day or time it seems to be like this. It used to be exclusively Korean cashiers, but these days there is a Russian girl, Indian girl, Korean guy, etc. The grocery store reflects ethnic and cultural diversity, yet I can’t think of one existing church that does.

What this breaks down to is this: It’s not about being multi-cultural per se, it’s about being a gathering of people from diverse backgrounds all living and working in community with each other, all welcome to worship or seek the Lord in His church. I don’t want to be known as the Japanese-American pastor that crossed cultural lines to develop a multi-cultural ministry. I want to be known as someone that has a heart and a calling to minister the gospel to a specific community with a missional mindset and action behind our faith. I want to be able to make my experiences and testimony relevant to someone that is hurting and far away from the Lord whether they are black, brown, mocha, yellow, pink, creamy banana smoothy, hazelnut cream or whatever skin color. I want to be able to speak to people in a loving and caring way regardless of whether they lost a job, got turned down at the college of their choice, can’t make ends meet financially, etc. because I’ve experienced all aspects of life with highs and lows. I want to be relevant to those outside of the church because I was outside of the church for the first 37 years of my life and most of the questions they have about God, religion, or church are the same ones I had and I am not better than they are because I profess faith in Christ and they do not.

You see, it’s not about some mission to reach every cultural and ethnic group in my community because segregated ministry is inherently evil. I’m not searching for some better way because I can’t relate to the ethno-centic church I was raised in or because I’m not “white” enough for Caucasians, yet not “yellow” enough for Asians. So, I have to disagree with the suggestions within Daniel’s post and argue against anyone that believes there is some underlying baggage that must be causing my desire to be outside of the Asian-American church.

In the end, if I am faithful to the calling I believe God put on my heart and this is the community I am supposed to minister to, then I am not in control of who the Lord sends and I cannot manipulate who I want to connect with us. If our church is 95% Asian in 3 years, so be it. If it ends up being 95% African-American, so be it. However, if it ends up being 66.66% white, 11.34& African-American, 8.24% Asian, and 12.9% Latin/Hispanic then I’m going to feel pretty confirmed in the vision I feel came from the Lord and I won’t refer to it as some multi-cultural formula, but instead it will truly be a church of the city. As I mentioned in Part 2, I don’t want to be viewed as a Japanese pastor leading a multi-cultural church, I instead want to be known as a visionary leader, faithful to God, His people, and His Word doing my small part to see the kingdom of heaven reign on earth with God getting all the glory and transformed lives promoting the love of Christ for all to see. This is my journey.