The People Don’t Perish Without a Vision Statement

no vision
no vision
Yes, the reference is wrong. It should be Prov. 29:18

You’ve probably heard the line before: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

You’re most likely to have heard it in some sort of church planning meeting. Or in a ramp-up for the unveiling of a new, great church plan. There’s likely a capital campaign at hand, too.

“Why does our church need a vision statement? Because without it, the people perish. So says Proverbs 29:18.”

I’ve heard this proverb quoted dozens of times to prove that the church needs to be involved in strategic planning, mission statements, vision statements, core values, etc. And it’s always quoted in the old King James Version. Even hip, Message-Bible-using contemporary pastors resort to the KJV for Proverbs 29:18.

Why? Because here’s how the NIV reads: “Where there is no revelation, people cast off restraint.” Or try Today’s English Version: “A nation without God’s guidance is a nation without order.”

What the Proverb is About

This is a proverb about receiving guidance from God.

This is about a people’s desperate need to hear from God.

It’s about the ways that people go off and do whatever they feel like doing if they don’t heed God’s instruction.

What the Proverb is NOT About

This is not about crafting “our vision.”

Google “church vision statement” and you’ll see all kinds of advice about making big plans, dreaming big dreams, and inspiring your people. These may frequently include the types of buildings and land a church will own, the types of programs they will offer, and the types of people they will attract.

Yes, most good leaders and churches will surely at some point mention that the vision is “inspired by God.” But does the process really always reflect that? Are we more frequently asking what our plans, hopes, and dreams are, or asking for a revelation from God?

A godly vision

My point here isn’t to tell you to drop all the strategic planning. I think it has its place. We do need to know what we’re aiming at.

Actually, I think the bigger problem is that churches today are having to create vision and mission statements. Do we really not know what we have been put here to do?

Somehow, it seems that churches got sucked in by the visioneering of the ’80s. We’ve all been taught that if we don’t have a mission statement that every member has memorized and a vision statement that has captured the congregation’s imagination, we clearly have no idea what we’re doing. Let’s just remember that the Church survived (and at many times thrived) for nearly 2000 years without these things. The great business strategies introduced a few decades ago probably aren’t what the American Church is looking for to end its decline.

Is it possible that all of our visioneering is actually preventing us from more clearly hearing from God? Is it possible that we’re missing something bigger because we’re so set on our vision of becoming a mega-church, or our strategic action plan to build a gym?

A disclaimer before the comments:do think strategic planning has its place. I have no great fondness for formal mission statements. The church (and even businesses) found some way to survive all the way to the 1980’s without these now-imperative statements. But I don’t think they’re inherently bad. I’m just wondering if we’ve given strategic planning too much prominence. If we’ve made this more about (wo)man-centered vision than a revelation from God. Is that why we insist on going back to that comfortable KJV version of Prov 29:18 to make a point that the proverb isn’t making?

What do you think? Share something in the comments.

“What does it take to become a member?” (pt. I – beliefs)

shield

shieldA number of people have asked me what it takes for them to become a church member. Most recently, I talked to someone who was concerned she couldn’t become a member because we United Methodists believe a person can “make shipwreck of his/her faith” and lose salvation. She, on the other hand, believes once someone is saved, they are always saved. Did that disqualify her for membership?

What about the man cheating on his wife who wants to join the church? Can he join? A situation a friend of mine had a few years ago.

How about the nominal Buddhist, atheist, Mormon, or agnostic who wants to join to please a spouse?

If they’re willing to attend my membership 101 class, memorize the mission statement, and turn in a financial pledge, are they ready to join?

My answer to the question, “What does it take to become a member?” is the same for anyone. You must be baptized and be able to answer the questions we ask at baptism without winking.

The Questions we ask at baptism

On behalf of the whole Church, I ask you:

  • Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world, and repent of your sin? 
  • Do you accept the freedom and power God gives you to resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves?
  • Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior, put your whole trust in his grace, and promise to serve him as your Lord, in union with the Church which Christ has opened to people of all ages, nations, and races?
  • According to the grace given to you, will you remain a faithful member of Christ’s holy Church and serve as Christ’s representative in the world?
  • Do you believe in the Father? Do you believe in the Son? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? Candidate recites the Apostles’ Creed.

Three major things I see these questions asking:

  1. Have you turned to God in repentance?
  2. Do you share the historic Church’s faith?
  3. Will you be a faithful member of that historic Church?

Again, my standard: you need to be able to respond to all of the above without winking. Over this next series of posts, I’ll address those one at a time. I’m starting with question 2.

Do you share the historic Church’s faith?

Specifically, here I want to know if someone can make the claims of the Apostles’ Creed with integrity. They believe God is creator of heaven and earth. They believe Jesus Christ is his only son our Lord, who became human, lived, suffered, died, and was raised to save sinners. They believe in the Holy Spirit, who gives life to and empowers the holy catholic Church. And as the question above asks, the grace of Christ is where they put their whole trust.

Some people don’t think my standard for faith is enough. They want more specifics as far as someone’s beliefs.

Some churches want to know that you agree with them on the role of women in the church, whether the creation accounts are literal history, or whether certain individuals are predestined to salvation while others aren’t.

I’m okay admitting a staunch Calvinist, even though his beliefs about salvation aren’t in line with mine. We may disagree, but I believe we’re both still well within the broad stream of orthodoxy. I can do the same for someone who believes women shouldn’t preach, someone who believes the Lord’s Supper is a memorial only, or someone who believes in purgatory, even though I and my church hold none of those beliefs. This is why I use the Apostles’ Creed as a measure. It provides a great, concise standard for the Church’s historic, orthodox belief.

Others think my standard here is too rigid. From my above examples, I couldn’t admit the Buddhist, atheist, Mormon, or agnostic to membership. They can’t make it through that Apostles’ Creed without a lot of shrugs, winks, and qualifications. This would also be a problem for anyone who doesn’t accept the historic death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. So if someone says the Jesus account is no more than a nice story or a great, figurative depiction of God’s power and love, I can’t in good faith admit her as a member. This isn’t just a disagreement in theology. From the standpoint of Christian orthodoxy, it’s heresy.

Some will call such a rigid standard closed-minded or bigoted. But I think this is more a matter of honesty and factuality. If you can’t hold to the Apostles’ Creed as it is, you’re not a Christian, in the historic sense of the word. And at least in the historic understanding of the Church, its members should be Christians.

So what do you think? Is the Apostles’ Creed as a standard of faith and a requirement for membership too much? Too little?

Christians, Capitalism, and Ayn Rand

This post has just gotten a lot of hits, apparently from a prominent Facebook share. It (and Jesus and Politics) seemed especially appropriate four days before election, so I’m re-blogging.

Teddy Ray's avatarteddy ray

cap-socIf you pay any attention to politics, you’ve been deluged with economic talk for the past, oh, four years. We’ve seen the rise of the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, the return of Gordon Gekko, and polarized political views about how to fix a slumping economy. And that barely scratched the surface of what you’ll get in the next three months.

In the midst of it all, I’ve spent a lot of time wondering what is an appropriate Christian stance and response.

Capitalism and Christian Economics

Let’s look first at the ardent capitalists. Ayn Rand’s fame has soared in the past few years. People like Edward Conard are writing about how growing income inequality is a sign that our economy is working (see this long but interesting interview with him).

So far as the goal is to increase the number of middle-class people and to increase their purchasing power, I…

View original post 830 more words