In Pursuit of a Missional Denomination

I've been hanging on to this entry for about a week.  Its been sitting in the "draft folder" waiting to be released.  I've hesitated because I don't want to continue to be perceived as the one to bash the denominational drum.  But, when CMS linked to this same article, I felt like it was worthy discussion.  It is obviously a conversation taking place across the country in our denominations from the most loosely connected affiliations to our oldest mainline churches.  So, here goes.

As I type, a discussion regarding the future of our denomination is taking place.  A constant critique of everything from COG General Assembly observations to the state of Lee University Greek club inductions are being discussed.  It is taking place outside the COG in the SBC, the Wesleyan Church, Asbury Theological Seminary, and other denominations as well.  This is a direct result of the internet's impact on culture resulting in an expectation of inclusion, instant and complete information, and access to leaders.

In an excellent article on the Wesleyan Church, Keith Drury explains six ways the internet has affected denominations. This article is a must read especially if you are of the opinion that not only must churches see their cities through a missional lense but also believe that denominations must also have a missional focus.

At the beginning of 2006, I received a report from our state office giving a birds eye accounting of where funds designated "Evangelism and Home Missions" went.  This fund is derived from mandatory funds from the local churches in Florida totaling over $1,000,000 annually.  I was shocked to see that we had only spent and average of $24,000 per year starting new churches out of the "missions" fund.  That is ridiculously embarrassing to our purpose as a Great Commission denomination.  The stewards of these practices (Administrative Bishops, State Board members, pastors, and members) are falling down on the job and we need to change these widespread practices if we are to remain a Biblically functioning missional denomination assuming we can be called that at present.

At the same time, we have been closing and selling churches with no strategy for opening new churches.  I find this to be an insane practice on the part of our denomination.  So, I speak about it as often as possible.  I write frequently about it on Actscelerate, I spoke about it in the Tampa Open Forum, and spoke directly to our leadership about the problem.

About 3 months ago, I met with Waymon Miller (South FL Evangelism Director, Dwight Allen, and a couple other pastors regarding the sale of churches and church planting and proposed a few things.  They were:

1. When a church is sold in our state, 100% of the proceeds less expenses should go to opening new churches, period. Funds from the sale of church property should not prop up any other function of the denomination.  When I spoke about this with Don Walker, Tom Madden, and Alex McManus. Alex commented that the situation "sounded like the dying breaths of an institutionalized church."  According to Alex, he met with leaders of another denomination who were selling off properties in Miami in an almost identical situation.  It would be easy to angry with Alex for having the audacity to say that.  But, it is absolute truth.  I have been told that we have sold dozens and dozens of properties in California in past years and have zero to show for it.  That scenario is repeating itself in Florida and other states because of rising property values, rapidly increasing insurance premiums, and declining or plateaued congregations.  Accepting the truth about our current direction is paramount to refocusing on our true mission.  Once, we develop a healthy reinvestment strategy, we can reverse the trend of church closings in our American denominational churches.
2. Church plants coming from these funds should be well financed to the tune of $100,000 a piece as opposed to our traditional token financing of church plants, church splits, and new church affiliations.
3. Church planters should be assessed and bench marked in order to receive those funds as well as having a requirement of funding a significant part of the new church in order to have state funds released.  If a church planter cannot get people to give money to his church plant, he is probably not going to succeed as a church planter.

At the time, there was over $1 million in the bank from the sale of the West Miami COG (which at the time of its sale was a debt free congregation of about 50 people).  About one year ago, we were told by a state official at the South Florida ministers meeting that 100% of those funds would be used to plant churches in Miami.  I again expressed myself in the meeting with Waymon and Dwight that we needed to honor that commitment taking that bad situation where an existing congregation was disbanded and property was sold and make it right.

In the past couple weeks, I have received emails, calls, and a church visit from church planters who will be receiving very significant funding from those monies to plant new churches.  Waymon confirmed to me at the beginning of September in the middle of the South Florida's Pastor's Luncheon that we will be planting 3-4 churches per year at that funding level from the proceeds of that property as a direct result of that meeting.  I am very excited about that.  I also hope that decision can translate into a formalized policy for our denomination as we deal with these properties and the issues of mission.

I feel that we may be in the process of repairing our focus missionally here in Florida.  Waymon Miller and Martin Taylor should be strongly commended for that.  I will be contacting Dr. Taylor to express that personally as well.

I do not know how the Home Missions Budget will be treated going forward.  I have been told that we will certainly be spending more than we have in the past.  I can hardly imagine how we can spend less.  The Home Missions Budget is currently paying for things like Senior Adult Retreats and other non-missional, non-core functions.  Hopefully, we can end that by keeping the main business the main business.  I sincerely hope these developments are an indicator that we can repair a flawed denominational Great Commission priority.

So, what does this rant have to do with COG Catalyst? 

Catalyst: "A chemical substance that increases the rate of a reaction without being consumed; after the reaction it can potentially be recovered from the reaction mixture chemically unchanged."

If our denomination is to become a missional organization, we have to press these issues via questions, honesty, integrity, and respect with the expectation that we will be the ones who motivate exponentially accelerated change.  The more people that have the courage to involve themselves denominationally from outside the corporate denominational structure, the more opportunity we will have for becoming a missional denomination.  I believe that excellent role models for pursuing that aim can be found among men like Harold Bare and Mike Chapman and some other dedicated people even outside of our fellowship like Wade Burleson and others.  There are also a number of men within our corporate structure who have a heart for mission and are kicking against our growing bureaucracy.  I know I want to be counted among those who look at our mission and embrace it, fully rejecting the corporate bureaucratic slide we have fallen into.

Bloggers seeking to impact their denomination:

Wade Burleson - SBC Outpost - Wesley Blog - Ben Cole

tagged: Harold Bare - "Mike Chapman" - "Church of God" - Keith Drury - southern baptist convention - Wade Burleson

posted by travis johnson

see also: A Missional Denomination is an Impossibility
 

Comments

[mike mcmullin]

Great post Travis. To say that our current method/model of church planting is disfunctional would be a gross understatement.

I agree that more money needs to be focused on church planting (not unplanned splits). At this point, would throwing more money at a very broken system be a good thing? I don't think we know how to plant churches. Who decides which church planters get the money? Who will be assessing these planters? Perhaps I don't feel very confident with out Home Missions programs.

I would love to see our state offices take a more missional approach.

[Jim Morrison]

Good stuff Travis. I am glad to hear about your meetings and progress. At the same time I am sickened that a congregation had it's property sold from under it, albeit I do not know any of the particulars associated with that decision. To realize that only 24k had been invested in a state like Florida also is disheartening. However to see people taking it seriously and addressing these crucial issues is uplifitng. You are definetly inspiring me, keep it up.

[travis johnson]

Mike,

Ryan Kramer is one of the guys planting. I think they are going to be down here with us Oct. 8th(mosaicchurch.cc). Ryan has been on staff at a large church here in FL. He and Andrea have a core group of about 30 right now. They are raising money and doing things right.

Jason Hitte was with us 2 weeks ago. It looks like he is going to be planting in Weston, a great growth community. Jason has what it takes. He is on the front end of the process. I feel like he will do very well.

When Dwight and I met with Waymon, we discussed benchmarks and stages for releasing funds. Formation of core group, saff development, fundraising, preview services, grand opening, and then attendance benchmarks.

I have not seen any formalized plans yet. But, I do know Waymon. He's super sharp and very trusted by the ministers. I appreciate him because he speaks straight. He's optimistic. He is involved. I have a ton of confidence that is being done right.

This is a huge move in the right direction.

You are right that our Home Missions programs are dysfunctional. We either need to change the name of that budget or use it for what it has been approved as. I really do not see that the COG can have any credibility for demanding local churches to pay their Tithe of Tithe payments when state offices are almost across the board failing in their use of these monies. If I failed to send in the TOT monies to this fund like our offices fail to use this fund appropriately, I would get pulled from my church.

I am glad to say that I see evidence that this trend may be reversing in Floirda.

[travis johnson]

Jim,

The decision to sell the West Miami COG property was a boneheaded move. The trustees were removed by the state office and replaced by the state office. The property was sold between 1-1.5 million below market and out from under a viable congregation.

The pastor there was faithful and very denominationally supportive. He was at retirement age. A new pastor could have been appointed with the purpose of renewing that church or relocating that church. A bilingual spanish pastor could have been appointed. He could have maintained the English service while opening a Spanish service which could have exploded in growth.

There are plenty of defunct properties to be sold and reinvested in church planting so that this was not necessary in the first place. But, since it did happen, it is appropriate to now bring something positive out of it.

Miami is the 2nd most unchurched city in the US. We should be investing heavily into this area not only with the proceeds of sold churches but, also with the Home Missions budget.

If we are not going to utilize the Home Missions budget appropriately, we need to cut that 2.5% off immediately so that we can avert closing so many churches. We are absolutely starving out these churches so that our corporate functions can continue to post record breaking receipts.

Jim, thank you for your comments. When are you going to start your own blog?

[Sean O'Neal]

missional church is not about money

[Sean O'Neal]

Oh yes - forgot to say it - the Church of God Cleveland TN is a missional Movement - read the history -

[Travis Johnson]

Hi Sean. Thanks for stopping by. I'll shoot your email back to you with a good response.

Regarding your comments here, I would definitely agree that the COG started as a missional fellowship of churches and maintains many strong characteristics of missionality. But, our present financial priorities paint a different picture. I agree with you that missional churches are not about money. But, how churches and denominations spend their money tells a good story about where the priorities are.

[phil underwood]

sean,
thank you for commenting. please give us a little more substance to discern where your remarks are pointed? are you being positive or negative?

[Sean O'Neal]

People who say they are interested in church planting and seek funding as their primary objective for planting a church seem to be the church planters who seldom stick it out. Church planting - mission focused (missional)church planting is not about funding. The church (Body of Christ) in the U.S. is in desperate need of revolution. We need to ask ourselves why we do what we do and truly start with a blank piece of paper. Funding is about modern, traditional, models of church in which the congregation is building focused and building bound. Churches need to move beyond the me church club mentality and live out the essence of the gospel in the community.

Missional church is Acts chapter 2. It is about making disciples who make disciples and planting churches which plant churches.

Andy Stanley often uses the phrase "Less is More" Erwin McManus shares that it is our calling to create and shape ethos.

These are significant thoughts.

- tragedies exist in the history of church- it is tradegic when property is sold, things happen - whatever. Move on... Let the people who follow Jesus live out church in the world - feeding the hungry - healing the hurting - having conversation with people who are unchurched, un-believers, searching, or maybe not searching but worth talking with being friends to and living among.

Think about this - the fastest growing most effective church planting movements in the world start in houses...

Missional Denomination - just to know the history and understand that those who gathered in the beginning of what would become the Church of God sensed mission first and foremost - to think through the fact that on the other side of the country a few years later a one eyed African American man would sweep out a store front (formerly a horse barn) and move the little house church prayer meeting group he was leading into that store front and put his head in a wooden box to pray (humility) and from these passionate hungry pursuing God experiences the kingdom of God - the movement exploded again with new life - wow.

Ernest Loosely, In his book published in 1935 called, "When the Church Was Young" wrote ten quick chapters. They are as follows:

When the Church Was Young, It Had:
1. No Buildings
2. No Denominations
3. No Fixed Organization
4. No New Testament
5. No Vocabulary of Its Own
6. No Dogmatic System
7. No Sabbath Rest

But It Did Possess:
8. An Experience
9. A Store of Teaching from Christ
10.A Gospel

Missional church is about loving Jesus and loving people.

[phil underwood]

sean

again, great post. i am in agreement with you, wholeheartedly. may i, in this instance, try to clarify why i call for funding in church planting?

it is not about buildings, it is about attitude. we can and do begin churches and ministries without support. i have done this twice.

at the same time, i would like to see my church movement invest in those who are missional enough to step out in faith and know that they are part of a movement that stands with them.

as a church planter who never received a dime from any organization or fellow church, i understand both the exhiliration and exhaustion of faith work.

at the same time, i think there is scriptural precedent for funding struggling works, encouraging giving to burgeoning ministry, and cultivating missional incubators from which leaders emerge to plant missional churches.

it is not a fund or no fund dilemma. it is partnership dilemma. i want to raise, secure and maintain funding for creating a church planting network, ala acts 29, for the CofG. currently, our church planting models and systems seem to be no more than marketing facades.

i would not want the general church to just give blank checks to every sally or steve that wanted to plant a church and pay all their bills, but at the same time i do not want to be partnered with a movement that largely ignores, or grossly under prepares, young or old ministerial entrepeneurs.

while we could never argue against your point of the ethos of church plants and what is exploding worldwide, we also would want your partnership in being a catalyst to create viable strategies for birthing house churches, bar churches, restaurant churches, soccer field churches, etc.

your evident passion makes me want to partner with you in this effort. thanks for sharing.
-phil

[travis johnson]

Sean,

When you are talking about churches planting churches, I am listening in a big way and could not agree more.

We must empower churches to live in that arena first by example. I need to take the lead as a pastor. My church needs to fully embrace the Great Commission. Our corporate levels need to as well. Those are good words.

[Sean O'Neal]

Phil, Thank-you for your comments - i too have been a church planter with no funding from anyone - never thought about it - was and am thrilled to be part of the organization.

peace

[Sean O'Neal]

Travis, appreciate your words.
blessings

[johnny taylor]

It appears that most of the people posting on this site know each other so I guess I am jumping in somewhat half-baked.

I am an individual who is both missional and still appreciates the ways (small as they may be) that the COG is missional and not institutional. I am also not completely naive and have been effected (not by choice) by the institutional and dying organizationalism of our church. Inspite of this I am beginning the journey of planting (what I hope will grow into) churches that plant churches.

I've been reading the last few entries concerning the issues of funding and partnership between missional minded people and the organizations in which they find themselves living out their mission.

In particular, Phil states:

"it is not a fund or no fund dilemma. it is partnership dilemma. i want to raise, secure and maintain funding for creating a church planting network, ala acts 29, for the CofG."

I think I understand what Phil is saying but I want to ask this.

1.If partnership results in no funding, do you still call it partnership?

2.Are there any other means by which partnership may exist outside of funding?

Just some thoughts.

blessings!

[travis johnson]

Johnny,

Welcome aboard. I'll leave the last half of your post to Phil.

I agree that denominationally, the COG is missional in certain aspects. But, our structure is also given to a significant amount of corporate excess which not only detracts from our ability to fund, but it also demoralizes the field.

[johnny taylor]

Travis,

Thanks for the welcome. I agree about the institutional nature of a large organization and how its structure can affect people in the field. I have personally experienced disillusionment with the organization. As I try to get at the root of that, however, I realize it has always been as a result of one person or a few persons who I was frustrated with not the organization itself. I have found that misunderstanding, confusion, and competing agenda happen outside of the large structure as well.

There is no doubt the paradigms are in flux. I think God is more concerned with how we journey through the change together than he is how someone is changing one way or another.

Just a thought.

[travis johnson]

Johnny,

I don't know how I missed your last entry...definitely would like to respond to it because you are right in a lot that you say.

I have been both positively and negatively affected by people in denominational leadership. More than I could express, I admire Sean. I've known him for a long time and have always looked up to him. He is an excellent example of what is right in the COG.

I have also negatively and positively impacted people. I've made some really bone headed ministry decisions during critical moments. I've created more problems for myself than anyone has created for me. I believe I understand the difference. Though, I do still have battle scars from confrontations in my past that very much influence the way I think about our structure.

God is very much interested in how we journey through change. He is also intently, passionately focused on whether or not we are carrying out His mission. I fully believe there are structural, governmental things we do that honor the Great Commission only as an after thought. I'd like to see that focus change as soon as possible...if it is possible.