Reforming church, culture and our city

Reforming church, culture and our city

Easter in Sydney

leave a comment »

Three things come to mind when people in our city think of Easter – the long weekend, chocolate easter eggs and the Easter show. On the odd occasion people will connect Easter with Jesus. If pushed they might even say that it’s about the death of Jesus. Easter was originally celebrated as a one of two ‘holy’ days that Christians observed i.e. days that Christians set aside to remember, reflect and celebrate aspects of Jesus life and work. What in our day is a public holiday to kick back, relax and have a barbeque, was actually a ‘holyday’ set aside to remember Jesus’ life and work. In fact, Easter was not necessarily a joyful or festive celebration. Beginning on Friday you recall Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross, before you celebrate his resurrection on Sunday. Easter was an opportunity to remember the death and resurrection of Jesus.

That should be no surprise as the death and resurrection of Jesus is at the heart of what Christians have always believed. Christianity is not about learning to be a morally good person; it’s not about doing good works to earn your way into heaven; it’s not about what we do. Authentic Christianity is all about what Jesus has done, in particular, his death and resurrection for me.

At Easter we remind ourselves of very important news, good news that saves: that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, and that he was raised to life on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor.15:3-4). We’re reminded that there is nothing we can do to pay or to make up for or to take away our sins. We are sinful and rebellious people i.e. we are people who have lived our lives ignoring our creator, choosing to live lives our own way, with no regard for what God thinks and says. That is at the heart of our sin and rebellion, which puts us under God’s right and fair judgment. If you’re living life apart from God, you are condemned, under his judgment and in danger of hell. And that’s the reason why Jesus died. He died as our substitute taking our place on the cross, bearing our judgment and punishment for us. He died in my place and your place, for our sin and rebellion. A great exchange takes place at the cross where Jesus died.

But Jesus’ death wouldn’t be very significant if he remained in the grave would he. There would be nothing special about someone who died and remained buried. Jesus was buried, but he also rose from the dead three days after, a demonstration of not just his power over death itself, but of God’s approval of Jesus’ death for our sin. The resurrection of Jesus is the guarantee that our sin and rebellion are forgiven; that our judgment has been dealt with; that we are no longer condemned; and that death will not be the last word for us. He is alive and risen, and is the man God has chosen to rule and judge our city and our world.

Authentic Christianity celebrates and remembers what Jesus has done, in particular, his death for our sin and his resurrection from the dead. We are reminded at Easter that we are sinful and rebellious people who cannot do anything to save ourselves. We are reminded at Easter that we are under God’s judgment and in danger of hell. We are reminded at Easter that Jesus died as a substitute for our sin and rebellion, taking on himself God’s judgment to save us. We are reminded at Easter that without Jesus we are condemned. We are reminded at Easter that Jesus has risen from the dead and is now the ruler and judge of our city and our world. We are reminded at Easter that not only do we need Jesus, our city needs Jesus.

The great tragedy this Easter, is that in our city the vast majority of people will remain under God’s judgment, condemned and destined for hell because they have never heard an authentic Christian message; they have never acknowledged their sin; and they have never acknowledged their need for Jesus.

How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!



Written by eugenehor

March 19, 2008 at 2:33 pm

No One Lives An Uncommitted Life

leave a comment »

“No one lives an uncommitted life.” Even the person who is lazy is a committed person i.e. committed to laziness. We’re brought up in a culture of commitment (from parents who are seeking to instill a commitment to the family, studies or values – to a culture that tells us to be committed to a our personal development and careers). No one lives an uncommitted life – because everyone is committed to something, someone or some way in life. Commitment is not a bad thing and is to be valued, but as followers of Jesus, it must be asked, ‘what are you committed to in life?’ What controls your commitments in life? Look at your ambitions and priorities, your family, your use of time and money, and your relationships – are they shaped by a commitment to follow Jesus?

Paul in 2 Cor.5:10-6:2 was a man shaped by two events that shaped his commitment to Jesus and his mission. Firstly, Paul understood that as a follower of Jesus he was accountable for the way he lived his life. He makes clear that there is a judgment where we must ALL appear before Jesus to give an account. His desire to please Jesus and to see people come to know Jesus was grounded in the knowledge that it will be Jesus who will one day judge all people (Paul included). Paul had a healthy fear of judgment in his life – a judgment that held him accountable, and a judgment that he knew people around him would also one day face. And so he makes it his commitment to persuade others to join him in fearing Jesus, in living a life that pleases Jesus and in being reconciled to Jesus.

, Paul understood that as a follower of Jesus he was personally loved by Jesus, who died so that he might live. “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died” – 2 Cor.5:14. We often forget that Paul was not always a Christian. He was an angry, violent, legalistic, self-sufficient man (1 Tim.2:12-16; Gal.1:13, 23; Acts 22:8; 26:19). And like those around him, Paul was under God’s judgment, destined for hell. Then Jesus saved him and transformed him. It’s Paul’s experience of the love and saving power of Jesus that transforms and directs his commitments in life. From one under judgment and hell, to one saved by Jesus, who is now a man accountable to Jesus and his mission because others are still under judgment, who is now ‘compelled’ or ‘constrained’ by Jesus’ love for him in life.

If there was a profound truth that summed up Paul’s personal relationship and commitment to Jesus – it would be ‘Jesus loves me’. If you were to interview Paul and asked him what is the most profound truth you’ve discovered in your Christian life? He would say – Jesus loves me, this I know. For the Bible tells me so. Little ones to him belong. They are weak but he is strong / Jesus loves me, he who died. Heaven’s gate to open wide. He will wash away my sin. Let his little child come in. / Jesus loves me, he will stay. Close beside me all the way. If I love him when I die. He will take me home on high (Anna B. Warner, 1860). His life was constrained, shaped, directed, marked, overwhelmed, won over by Jesus’ love for him. Is yours?

No one lives an uncommitted life – what or who are you deeply committed to?

Written by eugenehor

March 7, 2008 at 2:29 pm

A View Of History In This City

with one comment

Our view of history shapes the way we look at life, how we live and how we understand circumstances and events in our world. Some people believe that history is cyclical – life is a cyclical. There’s nothing new – because history repeats itself in an endless cycle. Others believe that history is linear. History and life is linear with a beginning and an end. Then there are others who hold to a chaotic view of history. History and life is nothing more than a series of events that are left to chance, a series of random disconnected events with no beginning, end meaning.

windowAnd so when you look at life you’re faced with 3 possible windows. Am I stuck in a never ending cycle beyond my control? Am I moving forward towards some ultimate goal or ultimate end? Or am I living a series of random disconnected events that just happen without beginning, end or purpose?

I shared last week from the pulpit that there is a Biblical and Christian view of history and life. The Christian view of history and life is that it’s linear and purposeful moving towards a plan put in place by God himself. The Christian view of history is that there’s an unifying story that’s being played out in history and life that cuts across every nation, culture, people and language group – it’s going somewhere … it’s not a random series of events … and all that happens in history and life in our city is moving towards a plan put in place by God himself. There’s a story that unites us in this city.

broken faceFirstly, the Christian view of history is that something is wrong with us, our society, our city and our world. Even in an affluent and modern city like ours brokenness is self-evident, from local council corruption, to 30,000 homeless on our streets, to 31,000 abortions each year. Nationally, 40% of marriages in our country ends in divorce, and we spend more on our pets (2.3 billion) than on overseas aid (2 billion). Something is wrong with us, our city and our world. The Bible calls it the consequences of sin i.e. the consequences of living life in a society and culture that has rejected God. What we see and experience of brokenness around us is the outworking of a culture and society that has turned its back on God. (Rom.1:18-32)

crossSecondly, the Christian view of history is that God is not absent, but is involved, in control, working out his purposes in history to save us, to fix us, to redeem our culture, to renew society, to transform our broken cities and world. And he’s doing it in a man called Jesus who 2000 years ago died on the cross for our sins, who rose again from the dead, and who now rules as God’s appointed right hand man in our lives, our city and our world … who is gathering to himself a people, building a new and transformed society and culture, a city within our city, called the church. Everything in history and life converges and centres on Jesus who comes to save and to transform those living life without God, caught up in sin and brokenness. (Acts 2:21-36; 4:12)

There is a story being played out on the stage of history, in our lives and in our city. We live in a broken world, because we’re broken people who have rejected the God who made us and ignored his way in life. We all need saving, and God acts to save us in Jesus by sending him to die for our sins, to conquer death by raising him from the dead, and to be the one who now rules over all. And right now Jesus continues to save and gather his people, building a new and transformed city within our city called the church; a city where his love, compassion, forgiveness, justice and mercy rule; a city on a hill, a church whose light cannot be hidden in a city that desperately needs saving. You and I are that city, and the story is still being played out today.

Written by eugenehor

March 5, 2008 at 11:24 pm

A Time To Chart New Maps In Our City

with 3 comments

Not only are there two ways to live in life – as a church, there are also always two ways to do ministry in our city. We’re either investing our lives in building the ministry of the gospel in our city or we’re happy being comfortable and safe where we’re building up our own little patch in the city of Sydney. It’s always worth asking … what are you building – who are you following?

grassIf your focus in the Christian life or even as a church is on your little patch in life (and honestly that’s all it is … a little patch of grass), and some have larger patches than others in nicer suburbs, the reality is that its still only a patch of grass in God’s scheme. This is the reality as Peter puts it, “All men are like grass, and all their glory (their work) is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.” And then we read that, “this is the word that was preached to you – this is the word that saved you“. (1 Peter 1:24-25)

crossThere’s nothing you build in this city that’ll last – grass grows and fades and withers, but it’s only the Word of God, the Word of the Gospel that saves, that’ll stands forever in our city. I want to make sure that we keep investing and building in what will last beyond our lifetime in this city. Personally, and as a church, what matters is growing the Word of the Gospel in our city. In fact, we’re believers today in the city of Sydney, because the apostles first preached the gospel in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

In fact, the book of Acts is really a testimony to the living, enduring and growing Word of the Gospel. You read in Acts 1:8 where Jesus says to his apostles, “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” And today the Word of God is still going out to the ends of the earth in the lives of men and women who have received the gospel. Nations rise and fall, empires come and go, buildings are built and demolished, but the Word of the Gospel will always stand. In fact the growth of the gospel has never depended on the size of a church congregation or its facilities. The pattern you see in Acts is one where as the gospel is preached and received, there you see churches planted in those communities. Some churches meeting in homes, others in public lecture halls, still others in the outdoors.

crossesWhat are we building and growing in our city? My vision has always been to grow a church not bound by walls, by tradition, by fear, by comfort, but a church with a vision to raise the next generation and to plant Bible believing, Jesus loving, Spirit empowered, gospel proclaiming, mission minded churches across the city of Sydney. In 2005 I cast that vision of sailing the deep waters which led to us starting GracePoint at Auburn. That was part of the start of a vision to plant churches across the city of Sydney: to be a church without walls, looking to plant 7 new churches in 13 years. It’s a vision I’m still committed to.

NCDBetween 1994 and 1996, the Institute for Church Development in Germany conducted a research project surveying 1000 churches in 32 countries (published by Charles Schwarz in Natural Church Development.) Churches were categorized into sets of 1-100, 100-200, 200-300 etc. They found that churches in the 1-100 category increased an average of 32 new people over the past 5 years; churches in the 100-200 category also increased an average of 32 new people; churches in the 200-300 category averaged 39 new people; and churches in the 300-400 category increased an average of 25 people (C. Schwarz, Natural Church Development. p.47.) And that means ‘a small church wins just as many people for Christ as a large one, and what’s more, two churches with 200 worshippers on Sundays would win twice as many new people as one church with 400 in attendance.‘ (Schwarz, p.47)

What about churches with more than 1000 people? They found that the smallest churches (with an average attendance of 51) won an average of 32 new people in the past five years, while mega-churches (with an average attendance of 2,856) won 112 new persons over the same 5 years.

In raw numbers it means that a mega-church wins more people than a single small church. But, if you keep in mind that a mega-church is 56 times the size of a small church, then the following calculations shows you the potential of the two groups more realistically. ‘If instead of a single church with 2,856 people worshipping we had 56 churches, each with 51 worshippers, these churches would, statistically, win 1,792 new people within five years – 16 times the number the mega-church would win.‘ (Schwarz, p.48)

matchThe effectiveness of small churches in terms of growth is statistically, 1,600 percent greater than that of mega-churches. The myth is that big is better. What we need are more Bible believing, Jesus loving, Spirit empowered, gospel proclaiming, mission minded churches planted across our city. Research also found that statistically more people are mobilized to use their gifts to serve in a smaller church than in a larger churches. If you look at our growth at GracePoint we fall into the small church category. When we started with our first congregation between 2000 and 2003 we grew from an average of 45 to 95 people attending our service (a growth of 50 new people in our service through evangelistic and transfer growth).

I believe we grow the ministry of the gospel best in our city by planting new churches or congregations. As each church plant grows and develops, we begin to plant new churches in different suburbs, which in turn eventually plants new churches themselves. And apart from achieving a much more effective rate of growth evangelistically reaching people groups across the city of Sydney, a smaller group allows for much greater involvement of people in terms of using their gifts in serving, less red-tape and structures to worry about, a much greater ability to maintain focus, and a much more personal church.

We can actually reach people across Sydney more effectively by planting new churches. You plant the first one, and then in 4-5 years time when you have a stable and strong congregation, you plant another new church in a different suburb, one out of our evening congregation, and one out of our morning congregation. If we did this, potentially by 2013 we could have 400 people spread across 4 churches or congregations, with all 4 churches ready to plant another 4 new churches.

cplantPersonally I believe it’s time to sail the deep waters again, to chart out new maps as a church in our city. We musn’t be bound by walls, by tradition, by fear, by comfort. We’re called to love Jesus and his mission, and people in our city. We’re called to be a church with a vision to raise the next generation and to plant Bible believing, Jesus loving, Spirit empowered, gospel proclaiming, mission minded churches across the city of Sydney.

The Second Generation Leadership Diaspora

with 8 comments

missionalOver the last 9 years I’ve been an advocate for English ministry within the Chinese church. From encouraging emerging ABC (Australian Born Chinese) and ARC (Australian Raised Chinese) leaders to return and serve in English ministry in the Chinese church, to sharing my insights with English speaking leaders on how to work well with Chinese leadership by adopting a ‘missional’ strategy i.e. seeing themselves as missionaries and working with a missionary paradigm. While my views on the need for English pastors to adopt a missional strategy hasn’t changed, I am beginning to wonder if this alone will stem the exodus of English pastors from the Chinese church. As I’ve traveled and surveyed the landscape of the Chinese church it doesn’t take a genius to work out that only a handful of English pastors actually ‘last’ in the Chinese church whether Australian Born Chinese or North American Born Chinese. Many leave jaded, disillusioned, angry and cynical. Others leave to plant churches, take up new church positions or join para-church ministries.

Speaking to Chinese leaders the refrain I constantly hear is the need for more English pastors (because of the constant exodus of English pastors from the Chinese church). Alongside that I also hear the most common solution put forward, that if there were better dialogue, communication and understanding between them and their English pastor all would be solved. Would anyone care to introduce me to an English pastor who has served in a Chinese church long-term because there was better dialogue, communication and understanding between him and the Chinese leadership of the church?

exodusThe reality is that there is an exodus of English pastors from the Chinese church. It’s happened in North America and continues to happen. And the only reason why we haven’t seen it here in Sydney is purely because we haven’t got as many English pastors in the Chinese church. Here in Sydney, I can count on one hand the number of ABC’s and ARC’s who have been English pastors serving more than 5 years in the same Chinese church. It’s too early to tell what will happen with our English pastors serving in the Chinese church in Sydney. But what I have observed is that Chinese churches in Sydney are not too different from Chinese churches in North America. Will we see an exodus in the years to come? Only time will tell.

There are many reasons why English pastors leave the Chinese church. I have met godly faithful English pastors who have been treated so badly that I have often wondered whether those in leadership in their church are believers. But I have also met Chinese pastors who have had to deal with culturally insensitive, proud, self-serving English pastors. Sometimes the breakdown between English pastor, and OBC leaders or OBC senior pastor in the Chinese church is a godliness issue that stems from our human sinfulness. But for many others the issue is not a sin or godliness issue.

Different Paradigms For MinistryWhile godliness issues lead to the breakdown of relationships, much of the conflict, disagreement, differences also stem from different values in ministry between English pastor, and OBC leaders or OBC senior pastor. It’s not so much a godliness issue, but a breakdown caused by two different paradigms of ministry. Some people call it a cultural issue. I think it’s more than a cultural issue, which is easily solved. We’re called to bridge our culture to be all things to all people to win them – this also applies for English pastors who are called to do the same within the Chinese church in their relationship with both OBC leaders and OBC senior pastor. This has been at the heart of what I have often called adopting a ‘missional’ mindset as an English pastor working in a Chinese church. Relational cultural issues are easily solved. But differences in values in ministry, differences in paradigms of ministry are much more difficult to solve. Ministry cultural issues are not so easily solved. It should be obvious that in the Chinese church there are effectively 2 different cultural groups: English speaking Chinese who are locally born and raised, and Chinese speaking overseas born and raised. And these 2 different cultural groups because of their culture will have different values and paradigms for ministry. An English pastor can be all things to all men in his relationship to OBC leaders or the OBC senior pastor in the church. But what happens when there is a clash of values and paradigms for ministry with his OBC leaders or the OBC senior pastor in the church?

Does being all things to all people to win them or working missionally with OBC leaders or the OBC senior pastor mean putting aside his values and paradigms for English ministry? Should an English pastor sacrifice his values and paradigms for English ministry and adopt their values and paradigms for ministry? It’s not a matter of telling an English pastor to be humble, stop insisting on his rights and consider others better than himself. Because what of his relationship to those under his care in English ministry? Isn’t he also called to be missionally faithful to them? Left or rightIsn’t he called to be all things to all people in meeting the needs of the English congregation as well? Isn’t he called to pastor those in the English congregation in a culturally relevant and appropriate way, with values and a paradigm that will meet the needs of English ministry? What the Chinese church needs to realizes is that there are different values and paradigms for ministry between Chinese and English ministry.

I can sum it up best in a conversation I’ve often had with English pastors when I’ve said, ‘on the one hand, English pastors are employed to grow the English ministry of the church. On the other hand, the expectation is that the Chinese church also expects the English pastor to grow the English ministry the ‘Chinese’ way by adopting their values and paradigms for ministry.Driving handsThe reality is that if the Chinese church and her OBC leadership think they can build and grow a better English ministry than their English pastors, they should do it; and they should also stop lamenting that their English pastors are leaving the Chinese church. Or they should let their English pastors do their job, their way.

What frustrates me is that every time I hear of an English pastor leaving or there is a fall-out, the Chinese church laments the lack of perseverance of its English pastors; it laments the short-sighted view of its English pastors; it laments the lack of cultural sensitivity of its English pastors. Yes, there might have been lack of patience, love and godliness, even sin on the part of both parties. But if the ‘exodus’ problem lies with the calibre of English pastors, then from my perspective there must be lots of English pastors who are lacking in perseverance, short-sighted, and culturally insensitive. Because there’s more leaving the Chinese church, than there are those coming back and staying on in the Chinese church. Maybe the exodus of English pastors is saying more about the Chinese church and it’s leadership than it’s English pastors. These days I am finding it more and more presumptuous to think that what we need are better English pastors. One might just as well argue that perhaps we need better Chinese churches, better OBC Chinese church leadership and better OBC senior pastors.

I used to say that what we need are English pastors who are able to think and work missionally with Chinese leadership in the church. I still believe we need that. But what I have never said is that while there is a need for a missional horizontal relationship between English pastors and their Chinese OBC leadership and senior pastor; there is equally a missional horizontal relationship between English pastors and their English leadership and congregation.

Old vs new What people don’t realize is that these two missional relationships are often totally at odds, because they represent not necessarily two different theologies, but two different approaches to ministry, two different values in ministry, two different paradigms for ministry, two different perspectives on how to do ministry.

What happens when an English pastor’s missional relationships clash? On the one side, this is what English ministry values … on the other side, this is what Chinese ministry values. What happens when as an English pastor your missional values for English ministry goes one way, and missionally what is expected of you and the English ministry from the Chinese leadership goes the other way. It’s not just a matter of godliness, perseverance, short-sightedness and cultural insensitivity. In fact, at that point, when an English pastor finally leaves having dealt with these two missional differences/conflict, they leave because it’s the most godly thing to do (rather than fight); it’s perseverance in that they are continuing to persist in English ministry, just not with that particular Chinese church; it’s not short-sightedness because they are looking to pioneer, develop and grow healthier second generation English ministries, and for some multi-ethnic churches; it’s not culturally insensitive – culturally insensitive perhaps to the Chinese church and her OBC leadership, but culturally relevant in reaching and growing a second generation ministry with similar values and paradigms for ministry.

Raising Questions Why does the Chinese church continue to lament the loss of their English pastors when they keep driving them out? We don’t need understanding, we need real change if the Chinese church is to keep it’s English pastors. The bottom line as I see it, is that if the Chinese church and its leadership think they can better run and grow English ministry than their English pastor, then let them do it. If not, they should empower and free their English pastors to do what God has called them to do in a way that will best reach and grow the second generation.

Everytime an English pastor leaves the Chinese church, rather than lament the loss of English pastors, perhaps we need to lament the state of the Chinese church that has led to the exodus of it’s English pastors. Yes, there are issues of godliness and sin that has led to the exodus of English pastors from the Chinese church. Often the issue involves ungodliness and sinfulness on both parties. But added to that is the issue of the differences in values and paradigms for ministry when it comes to growing and developing English ministry. Being missional as a pastor to an English speaking congregation is often at odds with the missional expectations of the Chinese leadership in a Chinese church.

I used to think, ‘what was the problem with … when he left the Chinese church … was it his inability to work cross culturally … was it his lack of perseverance …’ Having met English pastors in North America, godly, effective, mission minded ones, good pastors who have left the Chinese church, more and more I’m asking, what’s wrong with the Chinese church? I have served in my church as an English pastor for the last 9 years. My friend Ying one of the longest serving ABC pastors in the Chinese church has been in his church just over 15 years. I said to him recently, that perhaps it’s not the pastors who have left who are the abnormal ones, but those of us who have stayed. Maybe, just maybe those of us who have stayed are the anomaly and not those who have left. Or maybe, for us, it’s just a matter of time.

growthAs I reflect on the state of the Chinese church, I am optimistic, not because I think things will change, but because it might just be God’s way of growing his church. The diaspora of the early Christians led to the spread of the gospel, the planting of churches and the crossing and breaking down of cultural barriers as new Christian communities were formed. The diaspora of English pastors from the Chinese church might actually not be a bad thing in God’s economy.

Written by eugenehor

November 5, 2007 at 6:34 am

I came, I saw, I conquered

with 3 comments

This morning I spent some time speaking to one of our denominational leaders who shared with me a book he’d been reading on ancient paradigms of leadership in the Greek speaking world. When Caesar won the battle of Zela he described the victory to the Roman senate in these words, ‘Veni, vidi, vici‘ which means ‘I came, I saw, I conquered!‘.

I find that the same holds true of churches when they start. Much of church planting work begins because there is a pioneering spirit in its leaders. They go with a vision to grow the ministry, to reach people, to do church differently, to bring the gospel to new groups of people, to start churches in new neighborhoods. One could say that many churches that have been planted go out with a ‘kingdom’ vision. They take risk, they are prepared to fail, their structures serve the mission, they are prepared to change as they go along.

Their vision for the ‘kingdom’ or the mission of Jesus shapes their ministry practice. Decisions are made from a kingdom and mission perspective. Structures are easily built and demolished, as they are built around the kingdom and mission. The way church is run and done serves the kingdom and mission of Jesus. I was reading one of Brian McLaren’s book this morning on doing church in a rapidly changing culture (whether you call it post-modern or post-Christian, I really don’t care). The title of the book was The Church On The Other Side: Doing Ministry In The Postmodern Matrix.  The reality is that society and culture is changing faster than the church can keep up with.

One of the problem he highlights is the obsession church’s have with their structures and traditions. In a previous generation or even a few years ago these structures and traditions might have served the kingdom and mission of Jesus (I believe they were even relevant). The problem is that often what began as a church with a mission, becomes a church obsessed with their structures and traditions, rather than the kingdom and mission of Jesus. From looking out, they start looking within; protecting, guarding, promoting, selling their structures and tradition. McLaren points out that eventually their ministry is only relevant to those within their four walls, where the focus is more on us, and less on the kingdom and mission of Jesus. A good start, a poor finish or better still, a painfully long finish for many churches!  I’m quite sure many of the dying or stagnating churches I see were once vibrant, thriving, missional, kingdom seeking churches.

The truth is what began as a kingdom vision and a focus on the mission of Jesus ends up memorialized in a piece of stone. Instead of hearing the words time and time again as new ground is broken, as new ministries developed, as new churches planted: ‘I came, I saw, I conquered!’, over time we hear these words instead, ‘I came, I saw, I concreted!

Written by eugenehor

October 9, 2007 at 12:08 pm