Why would you come to my family reunion?

In November of 2010 I attended a conference in which Brian McLaren noted the differences in movements and institutions

Movements are organizations which call institutions to new social gains.
Institutions are organizations which conserve the gains made by past movements.

Both are important and both are needed.

Lately there seems to be a trend in the UMC circles I move that the UMC needs to reclaim being a movement and move away from being an institution.  And that language is very populist and raises a lot of "amens" from a usually silent UMC congregation.

With all the rhetoric of getting back to a movement as a denomination, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect going on with the implementation of that "movement talk."

What I mean is that is all the talk of reclaiming "movement status" we still put a lot of emphasis on the importance of the institution.  That is to say we still place a ton of emphasis on the importance of worship.

While I think worship is important I am not sure it is helpful that only one aspect of the church is elevated to most important.  This elevation of worship sets up a potential to actually worship worship.  So you end up getting things like the worship wars.

Let me share an example I have been pondering.

You do not want to come to my family reunion.  It is nothing personal about you or me, it is just when you come to my family reunion you will be subject to hear from people you do not know, about things that happened in the past to people you never knew.

Family reunions are the institutional aspect of the family movement.

Family reunions capture the stories of the past.  People break break together.  People recall celebrations and advances the family made over the years.  (Sounds a lot like worship...)

Why would you come to my family reunion?  You were not a part of the movement of my family.  You were not a part of the movement when my dad followed his dream and hit many obstacles.  You were not there when my grandmother and grandfather moved in with us.  You were not there at graduations or birthdays.

You are not interested in the institution of my family unless you have been a part of the movement of my family.  Which is why my wife, who has been apart of our family for 10 years is more comfortable at our family gathering than you might be.  She has been a part of the movement of our family.  She appreciates the institution and works to keep it moving.

Because we have elevated worship as the "most important thing we do" as a church, we have made the most important thing an institutional aspect of our Church.  And why would anyone who has not been apart of the movement sides of the Church want to be apart of the institutional sides of Church?

So my beloved Church, let us consider that while the institution is important, people will only be interested in preserving it if they were apart of the movements of the Church.

Posters churches ought to be making

This was found by my Senior minister and forwarded to me.  I cannot take credit for finding or making it. Although I wish I were creative enough to do so.

Fort Worth Dish Out

A little project I have had the honor of working on is the Fort Worth Dish Out.  Which is not a huge thing in the world of micro-finance and micro-granting, but it is a huge thing in my little world.  

If you were not there, we had 162 people in attendance on a Sunday evening who each gave at least $20 to break bread, meet new people, share ideas, and participated by voting to support different mission/service projects/ministries in the Fort Worth community.  

People were there for 2 hours.  Which by most accounts, is 100% longer than most worship services.  

And not a single person said to me, "hey, this thing ran long".  

Not one.  In fact, the opposite was true.  People asked when could we do it again and even offered up their time and resources to help the FwDo in the future.  It really was remarkable.  

But more than that.  It was Church.  

Too often we think of Church as what we do in worship.  And while worship is important to Church, worship is just one expression of Church.

And the worship expression has become the dominate, and seemingly only acceptable expression, of Church.  

Recently I was asked by a respected clergy friend if there was any fall out from church members or from my bishop about putting on an expression of Church that had wine.  (The UMC has a stance that does not jibe with alcohol consumption.)


Frankly, while I respect my bishop and will do as I am asked to do I would have to respectfully disagree with him if he decided to take issue with the FwDo.  However, based upon a recent blog post he wrote, I do not think that will be a problem.  


Here is the last paragraph of the linked post which I think expresses an incarnational theology beautifully (emphasis added):


"Wesley took the commanding mission (and commission!) to spread the gospel through making disciples way beyond radical hospitality.  He went where the people were out of love of Christ and love of those who have no relationship with the living God as Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.  What is the equivalent of the New Room and field preaching for us this day?  I believe the same living Lord who called Wesley and early Methodists calls us today."


It seems to me that the UMC has at least one bishop who understands mission and service to a world in need and might be willing to support some ministries that move the Church into other expressions of Church that are not just worship.  


I am thankful that there were many people at the FwDo who also caught a glimpse of what Church can look like in addition to Sunday morning worship.  


Let us hope that vision does not fade in time.

Community vs. Collaboration

Recently finishing a book entitled, A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change.

I recommend it if you are interested.

One little gem in this book speaks of communities an collectives.  Here is the section I find interesting (emphasis added):

A collective is very different from an ordinary community.  Whereas communities can be passive (though no all of them are by any means) collectives cannot.  In communities, people learn in order to belong. In a collective, people belong in order to learn. Communities derive their strength from creating a sense of belonging, while collectives derive theirs from participation.

This little distinction seems to capture the tension between what I can best describe as modern and post-modern leadership in the Church.  Bot a community and a collective have their place, but it seems to me that more and more of my peers and those younger than me (post-moderns) long for collectives.

We live in a Facebook time in which we have a sense of "belonging" (even if it is superficial at times).  I have belonging, but I do not have collective.

Each small group that I have been a part of that contains a critical mass of post-moderns builds itself as a community.  This is what they have been taught, this is what their parents and their grand parents set up small groups communities.  They are groups of people who come together in order to belong to one another.  So social activities take precedence over spiritual formation or missional outreach.

And each small group with a critical mass of post-moderns eventually folds under lack of interest.

Could it be that the models of creating community are no longer effective in creating and building a Church?

Could it be that the models of creating collectives are more effective?

Could it be why wikipedia is so popular?  It is a collective in which people belong in order to learn.  Could it be that Churches who expect people to learn how to belong are building communities which no longer meet the need or address the world?

Could it be that Churches could lead the way in collective building?

It seems to me that Jesus had a collective of 12 and was rejected by his community.

Maybe Jesus was onto something.