A little slideshow video tour of the past year-ish of Oklahoma Catalytic students and staff sent throughout the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The audio is "Take to the World", written by Aaron Tate, sung by Derek Webb and Dan Haseltine, from Derek's album, "She Must and Shall Go Free."
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
para-church phase out response
This is a response to this blog entry about a proposal to phase out the campus ministry of CCC. Neither the original blog nor my response are the opinions of CCC or the expression of anything bad or mean or disrespectful towards the past, present, or future of CCC. It's just some thoughts, theories, and desires for how things might be, hopefully in a way that is faithful to the heart of Jesus and the teaching of the New Testament.
Here's the original blog post: Parachurch Phase-out
Here's my response:
Kristie, you are thinking in a very good direction. Along with Melinda, I am also on staff in the Red River Region. I was involved with Crusade in limited fashion during college through my church's partnership with WSN and some relationships with staff and cru folk. I was on STINT for two years in East Asia with a team made up only from my church, and have since returned to be part of the Oklahoma Catalytic team.
Since my long term involvement with Crusade happened as a result of my church's partnership with WSN, I have always felt the need for a closer relationship between the campus ministry and the local church. So, like I said, you're thinking in a very good direction.
It's always precarious to make sweeping generalizations about things that are beyond one's ability to comprehensively evaluate, but I'm going to try anyway (I guess I just did...). There's an unhealthy split between the campus ministry and the local church. I say that because most Crusade students I know have very limited connection to any local church, if they have any at all. Most only attend a Sunday service weekly at best. I keep hearing from students the line that "In crusade I get fellowship, mission, Bible teaching, worship. Why should I go to church? Isn't that what it's for?"
Well, it seems to me that many Crusade students, and others probably, don't know what church is, and we may in fact need better definitions. I think most everyone realizes that the church is not the building; it is the people of God. But, if that is it, then when we plant movements, are we not then planting churches?
Recently at a Growing and Planting Movements conference, I asked this question during a Q&A time, "What's the difference between building movements and planting churches?" The answer was several minutes of silence. I think this was in part due to the fact that people using the language of building movements is new and very similar to the rapidly mulitplying church planting movements going on around the world. (We were even given the IMB's guide to planting Rapidly Multiplying Church Planting movements at our regional time at this last CSU conference.) It seems that this is a question that we are still working on.
From what one of the national team said, Campus Crusade for Christ as an organization has had a really good track record in working with local churches and denominations. Just read _Come Help Change the World_ and you can see that, but the campus ministry has not always been as successful in partnering with local churches and denominations. There are pockets where this is not the case, but until recently in Catalytic, it has not been something we have pursued with much conviction. I pray this continues to change.
In honor of Justin Timberlake with respect to para-church ministry, I would like to bring "para" back. Parachurch was meant to come along side the local church to strengthen it and reach out in ways that it couldn't (and many times wouldn't). But when it comes to campus ministry, it is not good enough simply that "we do our thing, they do theirs, and hopefully some crossover will happen when students graduate and join a church or someone from the church joins staff or supports us."
Like you Kristie, I would love to see the day when we work ourselves out of a job when it comes to doing all of the evangelism and discipleship on campus. If we are really going to reach all of the students of the world, it's going to happen through the ministry of local churches who stay there year after year and continue to train and disciple college students in large numbers as they pass through college. It will take a movement of "volunteers", plain and simple. Churches in their very nature are much more stable than campus ministries and much less dependent on the coming and going student leaders.
And I say this much not even having mentioned the question "what is church?" If a proper, God-ordained, apostolically proclaimed visible church body includes things like baptism, eucharist, elders, deacons, discipline, and social justice then we've got a problem when students feel that Crusade is their church because the worship, evangelize, fellowship, and learn the Word in that community. Because, in reality, many campus ministries (to overgeneralize again) function like churches on campus with staff as elders, student leaders as deacons, focusing on evangelism and discipleship without much concern for social justice and no baptisms or eucharist. (My pastor even remarked to me one day that he thought it would be great if orgs like CCC started baptizing and serving communion...) If all that students of a campus ministry see church for is getting baptized and occasional sunday mornings with communion if they come on the right day, then we have done a terrible injustice to them and to the church, and we have not set them up with a good ecclesiology to live from before and after they graduate.
I do think the catalytic style is heading in the right direction on this, but it must keep adapting. Reproducing staffed campus models on unstaffed campuses is not what we should aim for. This is, I believe, what Movements Everywhere and Mulitple Movements are all about, and without local church involvement and ownership, it will not succeed. (Unless of course God decides to reject the local church in this and work outside of it, but I don't think that is the case, and we would still continue to run into the same problems down the road and find that we would need to start planting churches anyway.) The campus ministry is not in the business of planting churches and shouldn't be, the freshman to senior cycle is too fast and volatile. But, if we do not work closely with local churches in building movements everywhere in every group on campus, then we will be planting churches, lopsided and unhealthy ones at that. And I don't know anyone in the campus ministry that wants to start planting CCC churches.
So, all that to say I like your proposal, but I would tweak a few things. I do think it will be necessary for Crusade staff to remain intimately involved on campus, but in a different way. My vision of the staff of the future would be that a majority of the campus staff would be catalytic and forerunners. The primary goals of the staff would be to network and build partnerships with local churches to reach campuses near them and to train church volunteers and student leaders in building and sustaining mulitplying movements of evangelism and discipleship. Bible studies and weekly meetings and such for the different movements on campus would be the responsibility of the students under the guidance and support of church volunteers and in line with the vision of CCC as communicated through the staff.
Staff would be the ones that keep expanding things, taking on new campuses and partnerships, both locally and with WSN, and giving vision and training for the volunteers and student leaders. There will certainly be room for continued one-to-one discipleship with students (because the staff still need to be intimately connected to the student world), but it will be limited.
One area in which I see great potential in this is in a CCC strategy called No Boundaries (www.nobounds.org) in which staff seek to plant churches in hard to reach countries through college students. Students who have been involved in campus ministry within the context of a chruch would be very prepared to enter into this kind of effort.
So, that's quite a comment, I know. I always seem to post long comments... But, please take it as a complement to the thought-provokingness of your post. I hope this discussion continues and even moves up the chain, which I'm sure it has in some fashion already. We probably just don't know about it yet.
Here's the original blog post: Parachurch Phase-out
Here's my response:
Kristie, you are thinking in a very good direction. Along with Melinda, I am also on staff in the Red River Region. I was involved with Crusade in limited fashion during college through my church's partnership with WSN and some relationships with staff and cru folk. I was on STINT for two years in East Asia with a team made up only from my church, and have since returned to be part of the Oklahoma Catalytic team.
Since my long term involvement with Crusade happened as a result of my church's partnership with WSN, I have always felt the need for a closer relationship between the campus ministry and the local church. So, like I said, you're thinking in a very good direction.
It's always precarious to make sweeping generalizations about things that are beyond one's ability to comprehensively evaluate, but I'm going to try anyway (I guess I just did...). There's an unhealthy split between the campus ministry and the local church. I say that because most Crusade students I know have very limited connection to any local church, if they have any at all. Most only attend a Sunday service weekly at best. I keep hearing from students the line that "In crusade I get fellowship, mission, Bible teaching, worship. Why should I go to church? Isn't that what it's for?"
Well, it seems to me that many Crusade students, and others probably, don't know what church is, and we may in fact need better definitions. I think most everyone realizes that the church is not the building; it is the people of God. But, if that is it, then when we plant movements, are we not then planting churches?
Recently at a Growing and Planting Movements conference, I asked this question during a Q&A time, "What's the difference between building movements and planting churches?" The answer was several minutes of silence. I think this was in part due to the fact that people using the language of building movements is new and very similar to the rapidly mulitplying church planting movements going on around the world. (We were even given the IMB's guide to planting Rapidly Multiplying Church Planting movements at our regional time at this last CSU conference.) It seems that this is a question that we are still working on.
From what one of the national team said, Campus Crusade for Christ as an organization has had a really good track record in working with local churches and denominations. Just read _Come Help Change the World_ and you can see that, but the campus ministry has not always been as successful in partnering with local churches and denominations. There are pockets where this is not the case, but until recently in Catalytic, it has not been something we have pursued with much conviction. I pray this continues to change.
In honor of Justin Timberlake with respect to para-church ministry, I would like to bring "para" back. Parachurch was meant to come along side the local church to strengthen it and reach out in ways that it couldn't (and many times wouldn't). But when it comes to campus ministry, it is not good enough simply that "we do our thing, they do theirs, and hopefully some crossover will happen when students graduate and join a church or someone from the church joins staff or supports us."
Like you Kristie, I would love to see the day when we work ourselves out of a job when it comes to doing all of the evangelism and discipleship on campus. If we are really going to reach all of the students of the world, it's going to happen through the ministry of local churches who stay there year after year and continue to train and disciple college students in large numbers as they pass through college. It will take a movement of "volunteers", plain and simple. Churches in their very nature are much more stable than campus ministries and much less dependent on the coming and going student leaders.
And I say this much not even having mentioned the question "what is church?" If a proper, God-ordained, apostolically proclaimed visible church body includes things like baptism, eucharist, elders, deacons, discipline, and social justice then we've got a problem when students feel that Crusade is their church because the worship, evangelize, fellowship, and learn the Word in that community. Because, in reality, many campus ministries (to overgeneralize again) function like churches on campus with staff as elders, student leaders as deacons, focusing on evangelism and discipleship without much concern for social justice and no baptisms or eucharist. (My pastor even remarked to me one day that he thought it would be great if orgs like CCC started baptizing and serving communion...) If all that students of a campus ministry see church for is getting baptized and occasional sunday mornings with communion if they come on the right day, then we have done a terrible injustice to them and to the church, and we have not set them up with a good ecclesiology to live from before and after they graduate.
I do think the catalytic style is heading in the right direction on this, but it must keep adapting. Reproducing staffed campus models on unstaffed campuses is not what we should aim for. This is, I believe, what Movements Everywhere and Mulitple Movements are all about, and without local church involvement and ownership, it will not succeed. (Unless of course God decides to reject the local church in this and work outside of it, but I don't think that is the case, and we would still continue to run into the same problems down the road and find that we would need to start planting churches anyway.) The campus ministry is not in the business of planting churches and shouldn't be, the freshman to senior cycle is too fast and volatile. But, if we do not work closely with local churches in building movements everywhere in every group on campus, then we will be planting churches, lopsided and unhealthy ones at that. And I don't know anyone in the campus ministry that wants to start planting CCC churches.
So, all that to say I like your proposal, but I would tweak a few things. I do think it will be necessary for Crusade staff to remain intimately involved on campus, but in a different way. My vision of the staff of the future would be that a majority of the campus staff would be catalytic and forerunners. The primary goals of the staff would be to network and build partnerships with local churches to reach campuses near them and to train church volunteers and student leaders in building and sustaining mulitplying movements of evangelism and discipleship. Bible studies and weekly meetings and such for the different movements on campus would be the responsibility of the students under the guidance and support of church volunteers and in line with the vision of CCC as communicated through the staff.
Staff would be the ones that keep expanding things, taking on new campuses and partnerships, both locally and with WSN, and giving vision and training for the volunteers and student leaders. There will certainly be room for continued one-to-one discipleship with students (because the staff still need to be intimately connected to the student world), but it will be limited.
One area in which I see great potential in this is in a CCC strategy called No Boundaries (www.nobounds.org) in which staff seek to plant churches in hard to reach countries through college students. Students who have been involved in campus ministry within the context of a chruch would be very prepared to enter into this kind of effort.
So, that's quite a comment, I know. I always seem to post long comments... But, please take it as a complement to the thought-provokingness of your post. I hope this discussion continues and even moves up the chain, which I'm sure it has in some fashion already. We probably just don't know about it yet.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
agendas
I was talking to my friend Chris the other day about conversations with people wherein we discover that what seems to be one reason for a certain line of questioning or behavior actually turns out to be another and how that can be rather offensive and manipulative. It seems that in those situations, the issue is not so much that the person had a secret agenda behind their questions and behavior, but that it was a secret agenda.
There's a lot of fuss today made over people who have agendas behind their words and actions in everything from personal relationships to politics, philosophy, and religion. Of course nobody likes to be manipulated, and it seems that since Nietzche people have turned their glaring skeptical eyes on those who speak from those podiums of politics, religion, and philosophy, especially the first two. It seems that I always hear in critiques of political or religious leaders something to the effect of "Well, he's just trying to control this or that commodity or population" or "She's just saying that because she is really a ... (fundamentalist or liberal or witch or some other pejorative label) and is trying to push her agenda in order to control everyone else's."
Well, all of these critiques may or may not be true, but it seems that when it comes down to it, like I said above, the issue is not that someone is pushing an agenda, but that their pushing a secret agenda. I mean, the reality is that everyone has an agenda in what they say or do. Even people who decry those who push an agenda are at that moment pushing the agenda that others should not push their agenda. (It's kinda like the nonsense of the statement that "there is no absolute truth except for the statement that there is no absolute truth".)
The real trouble comes when people are dishonest or misleading or not forthcoming with their presuppositions and agendas that they speak from in everything from personal relationships to politics, religion, and philosophy. I mean, if you come to me and ask me leading questions and try to pin me in corner so that I come out agreeing with something yet uncommunicated in your head, then I may come out of that corner agreeing in word, but it may only be just to get out of that corner, and I will neither like you nor your idea as a result. But, on the other hand, if you think I'm wrong about something or doing something I shouldn't be, then just tell me. I mean, give me the benefit of the doubt and all, but just tell me, and we'll talk about why you think that. Sure, your agenda is to correct me. That's fine. I may need correcting, or I may not. But I can deal with that. Just don't act like there's nothing behind your words or questions. Nobody likes that.
So, when these things go cosmic, like I said, everyone has an agenda. There's no need to get all worked up about that. What needs to happen, especially in religion and politics, is people need to be honest with themselves and with others about their agenda-driven words and actions. Then, and only then, can we actually deal with the issue at hand. Then, and only then, can we talk about why this or that is being said or done in an intelligent and respectful way. Then, and only then, do we really connect on a fundamental level, even an intimate level, with what really matters in these conversations, people and their agendas, or really, the story they live by, their worldview. And that's when real sparks start to fly and people are changed, very much unlike the premature polarizing, hot-air name-calling that we hear on the news and participate in ourselves.
May God give us grace and mercy to be honest and forthcoming, not fearful or manipulative, in displaying integrity in our relationships, our politics, and our religion.
The bush we beat around has had quite enough, thank you very much. :)
There's a lot of fuss today made over people who have agendas behind their words and actions in everything from personal relationships to politics, philosophy, and religion. Of course nobody likes to be manipulated, and it seems that since Nietzche people have turned their glaring skeptical eyes on those who speak from those podiums of politics, religion, and philosophy, especially the first two. It seems that I always hear in critiques of political or religious leaders something to the effect of "Well, he's just trying to control this or that commodity or population" or "She's just saying that because she is really a ... (fundamentalist or liberal or witch or some other pejorative label) and is trying to push her agenda in order to control everyone else's."
Well, all of these critiques may or may not be true, but it seems that when it comes down to it, like I said above, the issue is not that someone is pushing an agenda, but that their pushing a secret agenda. I mean, the reality is that everyone has an agenda in what they say or do. Even people who decry those who push an agenda are at that moment pushing the agenda that others should not push their agenda. (It's kinda like the nonsense of the statement that "there is no absolute truth except for the statement that there is no absolute truth".)
The real trouble comes when people are dishonest or misleading or not forthcoming with their presuppositions and agendas that they speak from in everything from personal relationships to politics, religion, and philosophy. I mean, if you come to me and ask me leading questions and try to pin me in corner so that I come out agreeing with something yet uncommunicated in your head, then I may come out of that corner agreeing in word, but it may only be just to get out of that corner, and I will neither like you nor your idea as a result. But, on the other hand, if you think I'm wrong about something or doing something I shouldn't be, then just tell me. I mean, give me the benefit of the doubt and all, but just tell me, and we'll talk about why you think that. Sure, your agenda is to correct me. That's fine. I may need correcting, or I may not. But I can deal with that. Just don't act like there's nothing behind your words or questions. Nobody likes that.
So, when these things go cosmic, like I said, everyone has an agenda. There's no need to get all worked up about that. What needs to happen, especially in religion and politics, is people need to be honest with themselves and with others about their agenda-driven words and actions. Then, and only then, can we actually deal with the issue at hand. Then, and only then, can we talk about why this or that is being said or done in an intelligent and respectful way. Then, and only then, do we really connect on a fundamental level, even an intimate level, with what really matters in these conversations, people and their agendas, or really, the story they live by, their worldview. And that's when real sparks start to fly and people are changed, very much unlike the premature polarizing, hot-air name-calling that we hear on the news and participate in ourselves.
May God give us grace and mercy to be honest and forthcoming, not fearful or manipulative, in displaying integrity in our relationships, our politics, and our religion.
The bush we beat around has had quite enough, thank you very much. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
