The Rap on Wrap

The Rap on Wrap

Having served families experiencing poverty for several years and leading an organization that helps others serve families that struggle, I always find Christmas an interesting time of year.  The season that focuses us on the gift of our Savior naturally increases our awareness on the topics of gifts for each other and we are moved to deeper generosity.

It’s at this time of year when we see an exponential increase in giving of food and presents for families in poverty.  Generally speaking, this is a good thing as those that have been blessed take account of our blessings and are moved to better understand those that have very different socio-economic realities.  Said another way, we begin to see that Christmas looks different for many children.  Our hearts are bent as we imagine the possibility that any child would wake up Christmas morning without a gift to unwrap, so we act on this emotion and get involved.  It’s at this point that I begin to receive an increase in questions about the best way to give. 

I want to first say, this blog is not intended to recruit or raise money for the organization I lead.  Joshua’s Place does support Christmas gift programs in two of the school districts we serve, but as I sit here in mid-December all of the families that have requested help have sponsors and tomorrow they’ll pick them up.  The purpose of this writing is to offer some insight on how we approach this topic and how we avoid adding shame, stigma and further hurt to those that may already be hurting. 

I get asked a lot of questions but there are two that stand out as most exemplary and even sometimes, divisive.  They’re simple but distinctive in how they impact the families we are moved to serve. 

The first question is on the issue of wrapping gifts.  Should I give the gifts to the families already wrapped or leave them unwrapped for the parents to wrap.  This may seem like a small issue and we could say “either way is fine” but we have experienced a difference.  My data for this does not come from my middle-class view of the topic but from relationships and feedback from those on the receiving end of the giving.  The answer is that it is much better to give the gifts unwrapped.  The reasons are both practical and spiritual.  The practical benefit is that families know, in advance, what the gifts are for their kids so that they can plan for any inequity among siblings and supplement appropriately. Spiritually speaking, we find it’s healthy to never do for an able-bodied adult what they are able to do for themselves.  In other words, let’s allow for participation because participation allows for dignity.  This has been a learned experience for us as we look to the scriptural principle of gleaning in all the work that we do.  We see this principle at work in the story of Ruth and Boaz in how the wealthy land owner allowed for a vulnerable person to be fed but also allowed that person the dignity of being part of their own provision. 

The second question is about logistics.  Do we deliver to the family’s home or provide for discreet pick up?  The ideal solution is to allow the receiver to pick up the gifts in neutral location that does not cause shame or embarrassment.  We’ve had sponsors refuse to participate in our program because we will not allow them to do direct delivery.  They usually say things like “It’s important for our members to connect with the families they’re giving to.” or “We want our children to be involved with the giving.” or “It’s a tradition for us to do it this way.”   While I certainly understand the emotional benefit this has to the giver, it creates an emotional risk for the receiver.  We’ve had experiences where families we work with have children in their home receive gifts from children that they go to school with and know personally.  This created embarrassment and shame for those children old enough to be aware of the stigmas of poverty.  We also know stories of working dads that have hidden in their apartment while the strangers come to drop of gifts and “connect” with his children. He was appreciative of the gift but ashamed of his inability to provide. 

Of course, there are exceptions and I don’t claim to represent the thoughts of every person that experiences poverty.  I do believe that there is sometimes help that hurts and it’s important for us to consider the impact of the way we choose to be generous.  I love that this time of year increases awareness about the differences in socio-economic experiences.  My hope is that we also spend time increasing our awareness about the nuances of how we approach those living in a socio-economic reality outside of our own.  

Don't Come to My Church.

I was at the doctor’s office yesterday and the topic of church came up.  The doctor was telling me he had left a church because the former pastor retired and the new pastor didn’t fit his preferences.  He said he just didn’t feel comfortable there any more and then said (and I quote) “…and being comfortable at church is the most important thing.”  Not “an important” or “somewhat important” but “THE most important thing”.  Comfort. 

As I drove home I thought of the dozens of conversations I’ve had over the years with people that I talked out of coming to our church.  You won’t find this tactic in the church growth books but it’s one I use pretty regularly.  Of course, I’m as interested as any pastor in filling the seats in our auditorium on Sundays.  However, there are some people that I really don’t want to come to our church.

Not too long ago I met a guy at Starbucks that had emailed me to discuss attending.  The conversation started with him telling me about his family’s commitment to faith and how important church was to them. Despite his love for the local church he was only able to cite examples of how the last few churches they attended had not met his expectations.  He littered the stories with obligatory Christian-ese but made it clear that he had been let down.  He went on to interview me about the programs and features our church had to offer.  I stopped him about five minutes into this part of the conversation and told him he probably shouldn’t come to our church.  He chuckled for a second thinking I was joking and then realized I was serious.  I told him that, as a mature follower of Christ, given his expectations to be served (rather than serve) he would not like our church.  I guaranteed him I would be the next pastor that disappointed him.  I encouraged him to skip us as the next bad example and move on to some other church.  The conversation got awkwardly short at that point and, no surprise, he and his family never came.  I don’t believe my rejection put his salvation at risk, but I do believe it saved both of us some heartache. 

I would lie to say these conversations do not bother me.  We (the church) created these problems and now we face the consequence.  When we build organizations built on the idols of comfort and convenience, we can’t be surprised that is what comes to be expected. 

This is not, yet another, blog bashing the mega church or the seeker/attraction model of evangelism.  The truth is, only 10% of Christians go to these types of churches.  And of the two examples I mentioned, neither attended large churches.  This problem is bigger than a church or a model. 

I don’t have an answer. There were times, early on, when I did promote our church to comfort seekers, but it always ended with them leaving.  The examples usually cited their schedule, or their children’s preferences or the convenience of another church.  No one ever said I was the problem.  Not because I wasn’t, but because I’m too much of a coward to ask and they were too polite to say so.  

I think the issue comes down to what we believe the role of the church is and the emphasis we place on certain pieces.  I describe the Church's role using the acronym HASA:

Hospital – The church is a place for healing and broken people.  Those attending and those outside her walls.

Army – The church has a mission to take the Gospel (in word and deed) to all the world and our neighborhood.

School – The church teaches us how to be more like Jesus by following his Spirit.  Discipleship.

Altar – The church regularly asks me to lay down my idols and live a life of sacrifice. 

It’s the Altar piece that becomes so much a problem for us today.  We are so far removed from the persecution and marginalization that the Church has suffered throughout her history that we can’t help but be comfortable.  The problem is that becoming more like Jesus is largely about sacrifice and giving up.  There is abundance, there is joy, there is purpose and peace, but it starts, and lives on, surrender. 

If you don’t know Jesus.  If your life is a mess.  If you’re addicted and poor.  If you’re broken and lonely.  You are always welcome at our church and we have an solution for all these things.  If you’re a follower of Jesus that wants to know what it means to live a life on purpose, serving, growing, connecting, giving, sacrificing you’ll find a home. Our church isn't great but it is pretty good. If you’re a follower of Jesus and you want your church to make you comfortable we’ll probably let you down so you’d be better not to come. 

The Poor Zoo

In my fifteen years of working with poor families, I’ve seen churches treat poor neighborhoods like zoos and poor people like zoo animals.  What I mean is that we objectify them, seeing them as interesting while we conjure up pity for their situation.  It helps us feel like we’re engaged but keeps the relationship at a safe distance.  

Of course, our intentions are good.  “I want my children to see how less fortunate people live.” or “ We want to serve the under-served.”  We have an afternoon free and we want to do as much good as we can pack into the short time we have to offer.  I’d love to see a giraffe, tiger, elephant and lion in Africa but I don’t have the time. We sign up for the mission weekend at church and we take lots of pictures.

When I press into the rationale church leaders use for this approach it’s usually summed up around the desire to get their congregants engaged and that “something is better than nothing”.   The assumption is that there is no harm done and people really enjoy serving together.  It’s an extension of the American Church’s approach to poverty that spends the majority of it’s effort on material distributions using the available casual labor of church attenders. We’ve got stuff, they need stuff…it’s a perfect fit. 

In Acts 3 Peter and John come across a beggar that cannot walk.  The beggar asks them for money.  This seems a legitimate request and the Apostles would be right to hand over a material prize.  There is one problem, they don’t have the money. In fact, Peter says “Silver or Gold I do not have…”.  Given the lack of material support Peter elects to instead pray for, and heal, the man from his physical bondage.  Imagine if Peter had an extra denarii in his pocket and chosen instead to give the beggar what he asked for rather than what he needed.  Peter and John would have left feeling good about their own generosity, the beggar would be happy about the extra money.  It would have been the perfect Instagram post. #usedbyGod #matthew25.  Instead Peter leaves the beggar with something much more powerful…freedom.  Freedom to walk, freedom to work, freedom to contribute and freedom to worship the God that healed him. 

This Acts 3 scenario is walked out thousands of times a day at places all over America but, unlike Peter, we do have the money.  So we do the easy thing and hand over the gold, the silver, yesterday’s Panera bread.  Of course, we don’t see our actions are harmful and no doubt the material support does help.  If the moment matters, it satisfies the moment. The problem of course is we’ve fixed the perceived crisis but have not disrupted the beggar’s grim future. 

We must start by realizing poverty in America, in this century, is like no other place or time. It is typically not a temporary crisis but usually a generational cycle that has been normalized by institutional, cultural and spiritual systems.  These systems that claim to help often feed off the cycle and perpetuate the bondage.  It’s a codependent relationship that allows the givers and receivers blind to their roles in the dysfunction.  The motives are not malicious, but fifty years of The Great Society have left no doubt that these systems are making things worse.  Americans have succeeded in elevating the standard of living for the poor but failed at breaking the cycles that predict a child born in poverty will likely stay that way. 

The War on Poverty was not a bad idea, we needed to address the trends of unequal distribution of opportunity.  However, European Social Welfare philosophy is built on the foundations of lack.  A system driven by scarcity and bent towards creating victims rather than promoting change.  It assumes human nature is good, so we will naturally do good things with short-term help.  The evidence shows the opposite, when we get material support based on our personal lack and limited stability we tend to stay in lack and become dependent.  It creates consumers and has destroyed the nuclear family but still it continues.  Sure, we’ve had iterations of change that attempt to realign the motivation structure.  Governments implement drug testing for welfare recipients, work programs to receive food stamps and increase spending in education. Band-aids instead of tourniquets.  

But that’s the government, surely the Church has adopted more hopeful methods.  If we believe that material needs exist but the root problems are deeper, more relationship based, the Church seems the obvious source to bring healing.  We have plenty of money to help with material needs, we have plenty of people to engage in sustained relationships, we understand hope that changes and frees.  The freedom and hope we have is available to all and the transformation and order that the Holy Spirit brings can break the chains of poverty, addiction and hopelessness.  With all of that working toward the problem, poverty in America doesn’t stand a chance!  Instead we mostly offer food pantries and day-old bread to feed people already trapped in cycles of obesity and diabetes.  We have so much more to offer. 

I write this article realizing I will offend and draw criticisms from the Institutional and Religious systems that work with the poor.  The governmental and secular non-profits will say I’m blaming the victim.  That this is more “pull yourself up by your boot straps” ideology.  They will point to studies showing that hunger and homelessness in America are huge problems.  They will say their solutions are the pathway out of this cycle.  More food, more money, more gold and silver.  They are partly correct, we cannot offer help without bringing material solutions.  There is hunger, there is homelessness but by their own studies they show that after decades of the current approach, poverty has gotten worse. 

The churches doing the zoo trips will be offended at my characterization.  They will point toward other services they provide to justify their short-term mission trips.  I accept and believe that the heart is right but believe that we are falling well short of the healing that we can fully bring. 

I’m not here simply criticizing, I’m offering solutions.  For ten of the fifteen years I’ve helped build a faith organization that has struggled with these tensions (www.joshuasplace.cc).  We’ve worked through the balances of material support and relational immersion.  We’ve done a lot of things wrong and pivoted often.  We have had to wrestle with our own motivations and be honest about the outcomes.  Mostly, we changed the prepositions of how we do our ministry.   We decided to minimize the “to”, “for” and “at” and instead use “with” whenever possible.  Poor people are not sinful, broken and desperate…we all are.   It is from this recognition of mutual brokenness that we connect.  Not seeing the poor as lacking but as loving. Not objects of our scorn and pity but of our expressed love.  A love willing to be honest about what help really looks like. 

If you’d like to learn more about how your church can do help that doesn’t hurt email me kpeyton@joshuasplace.cc.  

Beautiful and Wonderful Robots

Beautifully and Wonderfully Made

Joshua’s Place’s mission is to “…help families overcome the barriers in their life that cause instability.”  It starts with not seeing people as “poor” or “not poor” but individuals on the same journey of life that we travel. We recognize that there is a mutual brokenness that is brought to every relationship.  I believe the core of our mutual brokenness starts with the two of the deepest questions any of us could ask: “Who am I?” and “Why am I here?”  There are no shortage of voices trying to answer these questions for us but many, if not most, fall short.  The pursuit of these truths marks the seasons of our life and begin at a very young age. 

This year marked our sixth year for Summer Camp in the Village.  It’s one of the marquis outreaches for Joshua’s Place because it lasts for three months, involves dozens of volunteers and serves more than a hundred families.  It’s a lot of work, but a labor of love. This year’s kickoff week theme was Gadgets and Gizmos. Uniquely Wired, Wonderfully Made.  Each day the kid’s groups; worshiped, danced, ate, learned, served, played and had one big project.   They built a robot. 

On Monday, they received their task and were cautioned to not start construction until they had first decided on a purpose.  After deciding purpose, they then carefully designed their creation and then went to work assembling the necessary parts to make up the final masterpiece.  It was fun to watch the creativity and the team work necessary to accomplish a mission.  By Friday each group had a completed machine that represented the design that began a few days earlier. 

By now you’ve probably picked up on the dual symbolism of this project.  It was certainly our desire for the kids to have fun, learn how to work together in a group and accomplish a mission.  We also, used this project to show them how God, our creator, “built” each of us.  The daily lessons reinforced the truth of their unique value and reminded them that they have a purpose.  It’s a message we all need to hear, especially those that life and culture have wounded.

At the risk of objectifying any story, I can tell you broadly that, some of these kids come from tough situations.  Many have lost loved ones to overdose or incarceration, many live with someone other than their biological parents, many live in an environment that has been unable to reinforce the design and purpose they have in life.   Having been in this community for several years now, we’ve watched these kids grow and know well the barriers some face.  We know there is no ‘one’ human solution that will rid our community of poverty, drugs and broken lives.  But we do the know the ‘One’ that designed each of us so we continue to tell that story in word and deed.

The kickoff week ended with the kids showing off their projects and performing for their families and neighbors.  We got to see their robot creations.  Without our prompting, each group had built a robot that was purposed to serve others in some capacity.  We didn’t mandate this. We assumed the boys would make a robot that existed to play Xbox.  Their designs affirmed to us that they understood a deeper purpose we all have. To love God AND to love others.

In the presentation, there was a moment that defined the reason we do our camp, and frankly why Joshua’s Place exists.  It happened just after Ms. Susan described the upcoming free lunch program and Discovery Classes but just before two camp counselors got a pie in the face from the group that won the penny wars.  (The kids raised over $300 to purchase vitamins for kids in Guatemala City.) It came in the form of a six-year-old girl we’ll call “Amanda”.
 

Amanda and her three sisters live with her grandmother.  I know Amanda well because I preached her mother’s funeral after she passed suddenly under very difficult circumstances.  Amanda was a baby at the time and happened to be there at the time of her mother’s death.  Despite this tragedy, Amanda is blessed to have a caring grandmother to live with that provides her stability in the face of what has been a tragic start to her young life.  Amanda gave us this defining moment when she stood up and clearly recited the week’s memory verse that comes from Matthew 5:16;  “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”  To those that didn’t know Amanda’s story it was a cute first grader that worked hard on a memory verse.  For me, it was emotional reminder that our work touches deeply and reaches broadly. 

 

Speaking candidly, the work we do at Joshua’s Place can be taxing.  Our commitment to being “with” families and not just doing “to” or “for” means we see tough stories, up close.  At times. it’s just too much as I see the effects that life has had on those we serve, especially the children.  When we get weary we remind ourselves that the outcomes are not under our control. Our job is to love, serve, speak truth and be friends.  We’re hope peddlers that bring God’s love in word and deed.  We are at peace in the knowledge that God knows Amanda better than any of us…he designed her.  Our reward, this week, is knowing we got to participate in His work of revealing His purpose for her.  

The church I dream of…and go to.

I recently read a blog post by a colleague outlining his view of a “dream church”.  It was a conversation about his view of an ideal local church.  It was inspiring and accurate.  This is a common debate about the oldest institution, one that can be healthy and dysfunctional.  It’s a debate that has happened throughout our two-thousand-year history as the church has been both ‘salt and light’ and morally corrupt.  Many times this discussion is out of frustration.  My dad recently relayed a story where, in a time of disappointment with the Church, jokingly said to my mom “I want to build a church in the mountains and not invite any people.”  My mom responded quickly that she wouldn’t got to his church to which he said “I didn’t say YOU were invited.”  We laughed about the idea but, those of us that have been involved in church, know what he meant. 

I tend to not think about the church in utopian terms.  Not because I don’t have ideas but because I, like my friend, don’t expect that there is a perfect church.  I’m a realist and say often I’m satisfied with a “pretty good” church.  Despite my pragmatism, as I read my friends description of his dream church an interesting thought occurred…he’s describing the church I go to!  Before you accuse me of being a homer, understand that I’m not taking credit, merely stating a reality.  I go to a great church.

 I can hear the cynics out there “Of course you say it’s a dream church, you’re the pastor.”  To be clear, we don’t have a great church because of me and it’s not a dream church because I’m a great pastor.  We have a great church because it’s NOT about me.   I know every pastor says this but we have evidence.  If our church greatness was about my qualifications and education…we wouldn’t be great.  If our church greatness was about my experience leading a local church or great preaching…we’d be in trouble.  If our church greatness was about my faith and confidence…we’d be closed. 

So what makes us a dream church? 

Clarity.  We know we are, who we serve and who is in charge.   Jesus left us no clear directive on what every church should look like but he reveals the Kingdom and the church’s role in the Kingdom.  He’s in charge and we follow Him.  His instructions are clear; Love God, Love Others (Matt 22:36-40) and make disciples, of me not you (Matt 28:16-20).

Diversity.  We are unified around the person and cause of Jesus but we come from different walks of life and experiences.  It’s tempting for church plants to “pick an audience” and narrowly focus on attracting that specific people group.  It’s efficient and may create an illusion of unity.  We’ve picked a community and want everyone in that community to belong to our church.  It’s messy and takes more time but have true unity, not uniformity.  The kind of unity that disagrees but still respects.

Cause. When the Holy Spirit fell on Pentecost it had a purpose (Acts 2). It began the Church Age and brought power to believers.  This power propels us into the cause of the local church, one that goes and tell of the freedom we’ve found.  It invites the seeker and challenges the saint.  It is through the Spirit’s directive that we do not create a building or a program but a community of faith that exists for the marginalized and the mainstream, the wealthy and the poor, the wanderer and the found. 

Engagement.  Everyone belongs and everyone plays.  Church is not a spectator sport and we all have something to offer.  The New Testament movement of the church is about ordinary people not a religious class.  It’s led through plurality not celebrity and celebrates the paradoxes of our belief system where the ‘least is greatest’ and the ‘widow’s mite’ is the greatest offering.   Our leadership is diverse and does not center power around one flawed person (that’s me) but trusts in the wisdom of devoted leaders.  It’s not democracy or monarchy, it is a leadership structure that values humility, character and Spirit dependence. 

 

Impact.  There is an old adage that asks “If you church closed today would your community notice?”  It’s a question of impact and reach.  The church is made to do both.  The metrics vary, some more measurable than others but, in my mind, none more noteworthy than lives changed.  The cause of Jesus is a message of redemption.  The old becoming new and the new having direction.  We have seen that impacted lives, impact lives.  This is our attraction, not laser shows and subwoofers, but changed lives.  Never confuse our ‘no frills’ approach with complacency.  We are on mission and the stakes are eternal. Our auditorium seats are not padded and Sundays are just the start of our week.  You’ll like the hour and a half you spend with us and, even better, you’ll leave knowing where you can make a difference.

This is what my church looks like but I believe strongly in the diversity of the local church. If your dream church looks different than mine, it still may be a dream church.  If you don’t like church, I get it.  Don’t give up on Jesus because you’ve seen less than dreamy examples.  I want you to love Jesus and His church but that may take some time.  Dr. Seuss once said “You know you're in love when you can't fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams.” My dream church is not a dream but a reality and I’m in love. You can find this love too.  

The Politics of Poverty

I have a rule that I’ll only speak or write about politics if I’m willing to offend both sides of our political spectrum.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel the need to find balance in the discussion.  If you read on you’ll find that I state a clear ideological preference but, as it relates to the issue of poverty in America, both sides needed offended. 

While there is no shortage of topics that define the chasm between conservatives and liberals, none is more distinct than the issue of poverty.  This most recent divide found its roots in 1964 when President Johnson announced his ‘War on Poverty’ as part of the ‘Great Society’ programs.  It was a well-intentioned attack on the injustices of socio-economic inequalities in America.  Unfortunately, while we’ve succeeded in raising the standard-of-living for the poor, poverty and socio-economic inequality is worse fifty years later.   In the time since there have been several revisions to our “welfare state” as conservatives would take ground against the entitlement programs that seemed to be better at creating customers than lifting families out of poverty.  It’s been a cycle of indulgence by liberals and indifference by conservatives.   

This divide is not just found in our governmental institutions.  Recently I attended two Christian conferences on the issue of poverty.  Both conferences were focused on the issues of poverty alleviation and both had emphasis on how poverty is manifest in the U.S. What’s interesting is that while the topics were very similar the approaches were very different.  Both were led and attended by good people wanting to make a lasting impact on this issue.  I left one energized and I left the other disappointed. 

What was the difference?  Adam.  Okay, this will take some explaining, so hang on while we travel down the rabbit hole a little further. 

As I listen to both sides of the political and religious debate on poverty I see a very common thread that is revealed in the solutions.  One approach, the more liberal, sees man (Adam) as basically good and if he goes on to do bad things or make bad choices it’s outside of his nature.  The idea runs into problems when you see the greed, violence and economic injustices in our society.  How could something born so pure go on to do such selfish things?  To reconcile this tension liberals tend to blame environmental causes for what made something good make bad choices.  The diagnoses are bad influences, limited opportunity, poor education systems or racial injustice.  There is a lot of evidence to support the diagnosis.  However, the prescription for these problems is advocacy and entitlement programs that seem to create more dependency than freedom.  Today 51% of Americans receive some type of government subsidy.  

The other approach sees Adam as inherently selfish.  He’s born with the ability to make good choices but his nature is self-gratification first.  If Adam is to be, or do, better he must be responsible for his actions and pay the price for bad choices.  If Adam and Eve are shackin’, spend their money on cigarettes and drink too much beer, they’re going to be poor.  The conservative view point is high on personal responsibility and consequences for poor choices.  It promotes ethic and effort and if man is poor it’s because he’s “alarm challenged” and needs to “pull himself by his boot straps”.   There is no question that our economic system rewards accountability and white upper middle-class cultural compliance.  Its power sources ensure that these qualities rank highest.  Unfortunately, too many conservatives are comfortable leaving the able bodied adults on the economic sidelines due to poor effort while at the same time condemning their children to a life of poverty.  These children represent the lion share of the vulnerable poor and have no choice in the matter but are likely to repeat the generational cycle they’re born into. 

Where do I stand?  I’m a conservative.  In my politics and theology.  However, I’m a conservative that can no longer stand indifferent to the plight of the poor.  My black and white, Fox News, world has been disrupted by a sea of gray.  The world that I had figured out makes much less sense to me today as I spend time with people that were not raised by the same parents that raised me.   I can no longer stand on the sidelines throwing ideological criticisms at those that cared enough to get involved.  If I’m going to offer a more conservative view of the nature of man I have to be on the field.  I’ve forfeited opinions in exchange for relationships. 

When I entered this world eight years ago I thought God had a plan for me to show poor people how to raise their social standing. Jobs programs, educational opportunities, better choices, less sin.  I thought my “success” standing in contrast to their “failure” would help me look good and them behave better.  Eight years later I’ve discovered that people are basically the same, regardless of their income brackets.  We look different but we want similar things from this life.  Our selfish human nature prevents us from seeing the innate value that each other have but our mutual brokenness binds us together.  This brokenness isn’t disabling, it’s unifying.  This brokenness requires change.  A change strong enough to transform our nature and offend our politics.  

My Grand Experiment

In my 25 years of leading people I’ve learned that change is hard…really hard.  Even more difficult is changing traditions and social norms that are deeply rooted in culture and conscious.  As a student of organizational development, I’ve spent countless hours, studying, pondering and speculating what makes certain organizations “successful” while others die.  Leaving the definition of success for another time, I believe the key element of organizational, and individual, success is the ability to adapt to changing realities.  I’ve also learned that people, while resistant to change, are fairly open to experiments.  It seems like a safer way to test new methods and perceptions without having to abandon what is comfortable and familiar suddenly.  It invites the team to participate rather than to simply comply and opens the conversation for truthful exchanges versus polite head nodding.  Of course, experiments fail and institutions regularly fall back to proven methods for yesterday’s problems.  Despite that possibility, I’ve embarked on the grandest experiment of my life.  It’s an experiment involving the oldest institution known to man, founded by divine declaration, rooted in the most ancient of writings but made up of very ordinary people…people like me. 
  

You’ve probably guessed by now that I’m experimenting with the local church.  Before you check out, this is not an essay on how bad things are and how other groups have really screwed things up.   It’s not an indictment on individuals or methods and certainly not a personal vendetta.  My experiment is rooted in my love for the Church and the timeless truths she is entrusted to deliver.  Having said that I am an analyst and my experiment is rooted in observation. It’s these observations that move me to risk resources and relationships to acknowledge her brokenness in our culture.  Of course this isn’t every church, and success looks different.  However, the trends are undeniable the American church is in decline as millions of Christians have left the local church and even more refuse to engage for a list of reasons too long for this discussion. 

Before I go any further it’s important to note that my view is not intended to be comprehensive and I don’t claim exclusive insight to the Church’s struggles.  This is about the experiment I’m leading for my community and others that may look like mine.  Our church’s experiment starts with the noticing that most churches gather and grow around similarities.  Similar races, similar neighborhoods, similar social groups, similar income brackets.   The hard part for me is that the community I live in does not have those similarities.  The neighborhoods are different, education levels are different, cultures are different, incomes are different…you get the idea.    Faced with these realities it’s not uncommon for a church to select a group they want to “target” and build a model that fits that group.  It’s popular and it works, unfortunately it greatly favors communities with attractive demographics.  The unwritten model of church planting sometimes is to find a white affluent suburban community with household incomes over $100k and create a culture that is attractive to that demographic.   This model fills the elementary school auditoriums of those communities with aspiring church planters looking for critical mass.

Interestingly, our experiment also involves an elementary school.  A school abandoned several years ago in favor of a more favorable location.  We started our church in this elementary school building.  A church is not a building but our building is an important part of our church.  We don’t own it, the community does, so we want it to represent and be used by the community.  We’ve converted our elementary school into a Community Center.

         

 We have a building, we have a purpose so who do we invite?  You guessed it…our community.  That’s where this experiment starts to get really messy.  While we are comfortable defining our community by geographic boundaries it’s clear that our community defines itself by social boundaries.  Kids in the trailer park play together and kids at the Country Club play together…we have both in our community.  It’s at this point when some community churches start to redefine mission.  Here is the thought:  The families in the expensive neighborhoods have too much stuff and the families in the less expensive neighborhoods don’t have enough stuff.  We then experiment with the idea redistributing stuff from the haves to the have-nots.  This works if the issue is stuff.  We live in a material world so material solutions seem logical.  Our experiment has taught us that redistributing stuff is helpful in some ways but is divisive in others.  We don’t invite poor people to our church because they have material needs and we don’t invite wealthy people because they material abundance.  We want people to come to our church to join the mission and meet the guy that started this mission (by the way that isn’t me). 

So what does a church committed to this kind of social diversity look like?  We believe you don’t battle the cultural complexities of division with more complexity and methods.  We believe the solution is simplicity.  We work to not be impressive but always inviting.  Our plans are anchored in simple ideas that are powerful enough to transcend income divisions.   Sociologists tell us that diverse groups can work and grow together where there is meaning.  They tell us that a group has to find an outward purpose centered on core ideals that are inclusive enough to accept broad experiences but clear enough to easily communicate.  Our simple idea is that we exist to Love God and Love Others.  We believe this allows for a diverse group of voices and invites everyone to play, regardless of where they are on the spiritual or social continuum.  Those voices have to be represented in leadership (or power) so our leadership team is made up of roofers and school counselors, felons and lawyers, entrepreneurs and factory workers.  They lead from different social experiences but are anchored in our simple idea to Love God and Love Others.  It’s this glue that holds the whole experiment together.  Are we successful?  I think so.  We see success in the areas you predict but our most measured area is that of change.  Change by all of us to be more like the guy that started this idea and we know how difficult that change can really be.