Comments (5)

By Richard Hamilton, October 30, 2009 11:41 am

I have formulated a new mission statement for epicdialogue.com:

Our mission is to globally facilitate leading-edge collaboration and idea-sharing in order to create ‘outside the box’ thinking with 100% on-time delivery.

Okay…actually I didn’t. I was playing with a free app on my iPhone called “Mission Statement Generator” by A2rt. This app helps get the “creative” ball rolling for those writing organizational mission statements. Here is another one I generated with the app:

We have committed to holistically create alternative catalysts for change and continue to promote ‘outside the box’ thinking while maintaining the highest standards.

I’m sure many of us are involved with organizations (i.e. churches) that have developed a missions statement strangely reminiscent to the ones above. Most I have read (or written for that matter) are are poor copies of the trendy church of the month and shed little light on the actual identity of the organization in question.

This makes sense in some ways. The cards are stacked against the statement writer. It is a daunting, dare I say impossible, task to sum up a community, organization, or movement in a few short phrases. Words are woefully inadequate. Add to this the fact that people’s expectations are so bland and formulaic.

So, why do we do it? Partially, because it was all the rage in businesses 25+ years ago. But also because people want to know what they are getting into. We want to know what to expect of our churches, organizations, employees and the like. And of course, what they expect of us.

This makes the mission statement dangerous territory. If we say we are a community that loves, we sure better love. Or, if we say we exist to serve our community, that should be something we actually do. We are tempted to express our goals and ideals in these type of statements, but they must be tempered with a dose if reality. Unfortunately, many organizations have a skewed self image.

How does your church (or whatever) approach the “all important” mission statement?

Comments (2)

By Richard Hamilton, March 18, 2009 11:55 pm

Let me point you to an article written by my friend Aaron Saufley called “Bible College or Church?”. Aaron is a church planter, blogger, and all around decent guy. In his typical, atypical perspective of church and christian spirituality, Aaron questions if there may be a better way to prepare people for ministry than what we typically do.

“I’m wondering why we insist on sending guys who want to be preachers and church planters off to Bible college and seminary for four years (or more). Would it not be more beneficial for a guy to be mentored and coached by the staff of his local church? He could learn the ins and outs of ministry on the field instead of in the abstract theories of the classroom. And he wouldn’t amass a huge amount of college debt that will take him at least a decade to pay off… and the chances are high that he’ll be out of “professional ministry” a few years before he gets his education paid for.”

It seems to have drawn out some helpful conversation and has got me thinking. If there were no limits, traditions, or built in assumptions, what would be the best way to train people to do ministry? I will try to wrap words around my initial thoughts in a few posts over the next week or so. In the mean time, show Aaron some love.

Comments (3)

By Richard Hamilton, March 9, 2009 5:59 pm

Churches and the way they do (or don’t) use social medial has been the topic of a few posts recently (Facebook, Angry Whoppers, and the Future of Social Media on January 23, and The Spiritual Discipline of Twittering). Social media is a big part of my life and I have invested much of my life/career in the Christian experience.

Collide Magazine recently asked people to respond how their church was utilizing texting and twittering. @mikeyanderson let Collide know that Mars Hills Church in Seattle had recently been featured on a local news broadcast because of their use of Twitter. You can check out the news video at www.king5.com

Mars Hills is not just using Twitter to send information and promotional material. Mars Hill encourages their people to twitter about the Mars Hill experience. Some Sunday Morning, you should do a Twitter search for #MHC and see what comes up.

What do you think? How could your church benefit from encouraging your people to twitter? Would your church even be open to this?

Comments (3)

By Richard Hamilton, January 23, 2009 12:22 pm

Businesses are constantly blurring the lines between advertising and social media. I have despised a lot of these campaigns. Think Dr. Pepper and Chocolate Rain. I don’t mind advertising through social media and I certainly don’t think it hurts the authenticity of the medium. Myspace did that.

One that recently caught my attention was the Angry Whopper Facebook App. Users boot 10 friends and get a free Angry Whopper. I thought it was genius. Facebook did not. They axed the app saying it was inconsistent with Facebook’s values. I thought the idea was genius.

Social media is a constantly changing beast with virtually limitless potential for good.

How is your church using social media? (Maybe I should ask, is your church.) Some churches have opted for rip-off christianized versions of social media, like GodTube.com or GodSpace.com. Others have come to the game late. I remember starting up a xanga site for my youth group months after all my students had started their xangas (which happened to be right around the time myspace took off). The tragedy of being late is that you end up chasing every trendy format around the web 2.0 (2.5, 3.0, whatever) with limited results.

Twitter is still strong. It just passed Digg in popularity. I just downloaded the e-book “The Reason Your Church Must Twitter” and am planning to review soon. I twitter. A lot of my friends twitter. But if your church is just now figuring out twitter, it may be too late. By the time you get the hang of it, it may not be the social media giant it is today.

So, where does the church fit into the social media scene?

Comments (3)

By Richard Hamilton, January 19, 2009 10:50 am

With the news this past week that Steve Jobs was taking a medical leave of absence, Apple took a hit. Rumors flew on the net and their stock took a dip.

There is no doubt; Jobs took Apple from the brink to the market dominance they now enjoy. Not only is he a powerful leader, dynamic futurist, and a brilliant strategist; Steve Jobs is a rock star. His celebrity persona has captivated the hearts and minds of geeks (myself included) worldwide. His absence has brought a cloud of doubt over the future of Apple. This magnified by the fact that there is no public plan for an Apple beyond Jobs. What are the consequences? Jason Rothbart addresses this on ReadWriteWeb.

This got me thinking. What about the one-man-show type churches?

A lot of churches are built around a personality. I’m not just talking about the modern mega-church Rick Warren/Bill Hybles types. There are more than a few small churches that are built around one figure. (I assume in many cases, this is why these churches are small. That figure is not that impressive.)

What, if anything, should churches learn from Steve Jobs and his recent medical concerns?

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, November 25, 2008 3:48 pm

Grace Community Church in Noblesville Indiana closed it’s doors the weekend of November 1 & 2. Not permanently. Just for one weekend. What caused this? A snowstorm? A broken water-main? A major sporting event? Nope. They closed for the weekend so their members could serve in the community. Keep in mind, this is not a small church. GCC has over 3,000 attendees a week.

Dave Rodriguez, preacher at GCC wrote this about the experience on his blog: “What a weekend we experienced together. 3000+ people engaged in 77 projects all over the metro area. The stories are rolling in of life change and remarkable moments of service. As I said at the commissioning we would be entering sacred space and for sure we did.”

It could be argued that these church-goers should be in the habit of serving throughout the week in addition to coming together with other Christians, but I think what GCC did speaks volumes about priorities and values. So many churches have become self-serving and inbred. I think at very least it is refreshing to see people get out of the building and serve their community.

What would it look like at your church if you did this?

Comments (2)

By Richard Hamilton, November 7, 2008 10:33 pm

Amazing, funny (in a sad-but-way-too-true kinda way) video from Richard Reising’s beyondrelevance.com.

Not personally a huge fan of Starbucks. Something about mediocre burnt coffee served in a cookie cutter environment that doesn’t do it for me. But, it’s hard to argue with their market share, and the point still proves true. Christians have a long way to go in their way they present package their faith. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the “product”.

Comments (5)

By Richard Hamilton, October 24, 2008 2:59 pm

On September 1, Andrew Jones (aka Tall Skinny Kiwi) hosted a poll in which 60.8% of respondents said it was time to dump the term “emergent.” A month or so back I read a post by Dan Kimball about the changing definition of emergent and the move by some to dump the term in favor of something more apt. Andrew continued the discussion later that month with two interesting posts, one of which was an international (yet still English speaking) perspective piece.

The discussion centers around whether or not emerging accurately describes the state of this movement [of churches/theologians/thinkers/etc.] who are exploring Christianity beyond Western Modernity. Maybe terms like Post-Modern or Post-Colonial are more familiar to you than emergent, but both (all three for that matter) imply simultaneously a movement from and a reliance on the Modern (Colonial). Some, myself included, have embraced terms like missional, for it’s ability to stand on its own and act descriptively rather than adescriptive. Missional is however limited in its usefulness. This term serves no benefit in describing the broader philosophical and social threads at play in the “emergent” movement.

Is there a solution to this “dilemma”? Who knows.

This caused me to think. “Why do we insist on labeling everything?”

Why do these terms break down? Because they are no longer allowed to serve as descriptions, but are forced beyond their inherent limitations into becoming titles. When did the word “emergent” become the word “Emergent”? According to emergentvillage.com, “In English, the word ‘emergent’ is normally an adjective meaning coming into view, arising from, occurring unexpectedly, requiring immediate action (hence its relation to ‘emergency’), characterized by evolutionary emergence, or crossing a boundary (as between water and air).” What happens when the Emergent Movement stops emerging? What happens when it itself becomes a system? (I would argue that in many ways, it has. A notable example to me was when the website emergentvillage.com’s primary function was no longer to serve as a discussion board for those wrestling with nagging, unanswered questions of faith and became a sounding board for the new found expertise of the likes of Brian McLauren.) People begin to question the use of the term “Emergent” in search of a suitable title to slap on their movement, much like what we see today.

Another example of this, which may only be appreciated by those of my particular faith tradition, is that of the “Restoration Movement.” Sometime back, a group of disenchanted American Christians broke free from denominational restraints in an effort to “restore” the ancient (New Testament) church. With the book of Acts as their model, they made great strides in going, in many ways, well beyond their reforming predecessors. Today, you do not hear the term “Restoration Movement” very often. I would argue that this is not because restoring is no longer needed, but rather because this is not what this movement is doing. One might even argue that the term “movement” is not appropriate. More common terms today are Church of Christ/Christian Churches, or independent Christian Churches. Some have even adopted the title “Stone-Campbell” in memory of some early pioneers in this movement. I don’t like that term, but it, in many ways, is a more accurate description of these churches than “Restoration Movement.”

Why do we insist on titling everything?

I believe this tendency even effects our reading of Christian texts. The ancient church was known as the Way and we assume they made signs and had t-shirts printed. They were first called Christians in Antioch. Someone in Antioch as really clever with marketing.

Is it possible, this type of language was intended to be descriptive exclusively? I think so. And I’m not sure that calling them Christians was intended to be flattering. What about the word “church” or the term “church of Christ”? Other ecclesiastic terms like “deacon,” “elder,” “pastor,” and “evangelist” come to mind.

I’m not sure what, if any, ramifications this might have on theology. I do think however, we have put way too much stock in language. Words, in and of themselves, are not capable of truly capturing the life of something like spiritual movements.

Comments (1)

By Richard Hamilton, May 30, 2008 3:03 pm

As many of you know, I am looking for a new ministry. I am parting ways with the church I have worked with the past 4 1/2 years. They are having a lot of problems meeting budget and have decided to cut my position. In my search, I came across a non-instrumental church on the West Coast looking for a youth minister. I know it was a long shot, but Sarah and I really liked the area and the church was very ethnically diverse, which appealed to us, so I sent in my resume. Here’s the thing, they actually called me for a phone interview, and it went well. They arranged for a second phone interview and I thought it might really work out.

I guess maybe at this point I should give some background for those of you who are like, “What does he mean ‘non-instrumental.’” Actually, Wikipedia does an adequate job on that front. Check out the wiki on churches of Christ. For our purposes, it’s sufficient to know that they are independent churches from the Restoration Movement which broke fellowship with other churches of Christ/Christian churches during the American Civil War partially in rejection of using instruments in their worship gatherings. My background is in the churches that use instruments (among other things) in our gatherings.

Anyway, I had a second interview and it did not go as well. They interviewer spent 1 1/2 hours trying to convince me that instrumental music in worship was sinful. I assumed this meant I didn’t get the job, and I was right. Here is the e-mail I got a week later (the names have been changed to protect those involved, except mine of course):
__________

Dear Richard,

I want to thank you for interest in the “City which shares its name with a well-known Mexican adult beverage” Church of Christ. It appears to me that you are a sincere and committed individual who will be an asset to any organization that you choose to serve. As for us with the church of Christ in “City which shares its name with a well-known Mexican adult beverage,” we have decided to continue our search for a Youth Minister in other candidates because we can not reconcile the doctrinal differences in regard to instrumental music that exist between us. We believe that the “sacrifice of praise” like all sacrifices must be offered as specified by God, if they are to be acceptable to Him. In this case, God has specified “the fruit of our lips” (Heb 13:15), thereby excluding the use of instrumental music.

Again thank you for your interest in us. I encourage you to continue to your study in all matters pertaining to God’s goodness, power, and will for our lives.

May God bless you in your efforts to serve him,
“John Doe”,
“City which shares its name with a well-known Mexican adult beverage” church of Christ
__________

I see two big problems with the non-instrumental way of thinking (besides the fact that they won’t hire me, oh yeah, and they butcher/mis-use texts of the Bible).

One. There is an idea they have that if we aren’t explicitly told it is okay, its not. The guy just flat out says that in the e-mail. “God has specified ‘the fruit of our lips’ (Heb 13:15), thereby excluding the use of instrumental music.” I think you need to explain that one. Let’s assume this verse is telling us to sing. Let’s also assume this verse is about corporate worship gatherings (which is a stretch). How does this verse forbid Christians from using instruments? If the use of instruments was so wrong, don’t you think Paul would have jotted down a “I do not permit the use of the harp, lyre, cymbal or trumpet” somewhere? Christianity is the Law of Liberty. The words of Jesus about some particularly religious people come to mind. “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.” Most of these churches are so inconsistent. They own property, have Sunday School, hire youth ministers and utilize PA systems. None of these are explicitly commanded in the Bible. If you were to carry this principle to its extreme, most of what they do as a group would not be allowed.

Two. All this energy is spent on one of the most insignificant parts of the Christian life, music. I know. Some of you are stunned because Rich Mullins and DC Talk were essential to your conversion. Here’s the deal. The early church was dedicated to some things, namely the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer, and music didn’t make the list. I love music. I always have it on. I never leave home without my IPod. But, music is not worship. A transformed life and a renewed mind, that’s worship. A life of sacrifice, that’s worship. Spirit and truth, that’s worship. Music can be part of worshiping God, but it cannot become more important than worshiping God.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, December 8, 2007 2:56 pm

Christmas is fast approaching and it is easy to lose sight of what is important over the holiday season. It seems to be that more and more people are spending more and more money earlier and earlier in the year. I heard on the radio the other week that Americans spent 8% more this year on “Black Friday” then they did last year. It seems some people even go into debt to give the “perfect” gift. I wonder what our world would be like if people decided to spend less money on Christmas gifts and invest more time in the people around them.

I was in San Diego for the National Outreach Convention in November and got a chance to hear Rick McKinley from the Imago Dei Community speak. One thing he mentioned was the Advent Conspiracy. The basic idea is people spend less on Christmas, give relational gifts, and give their money to a good cause (in this case, making clean water available to those in need around the world).

Maybe instead of giving useless junk, no one needs as gifts this year; we can be a little more thoughtful and come up with meaningful ways to give.