TANK WI-FI Bus

This is a follow up to my post, On Success, and it has generated some good feedback and dialog (note the comments, good stuff there).  Benson Hines posted some other links around the same topic.  Here’s an excerpt:

defining success in college ministry: Quite providentially, several college ministry thinkers have turned their attention simultaneously to the very important topic of how we define success in college ministry. (God is a gracious Synergist, isn’t He?) HeartOfCampusMinistry began a weekly series on the topic – with a post by the much-respected Dean Thune. (I’ll be posting in that series in a few weeks!) Aaron Klinefelter wrote a great (and interesting) post on an “ecological” understanding of college ministry success. I posted on why aiming for numbers isn’t (usually) a good college ministry priority. And Ian Clark is asking the same question about how we define success.

Be sure to check out those links.

I have also been pondering “modalities” and “sodalities” as they relate to the structure and success of campus ministry.  The Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Mission by Ralph D. Winter is a must read for this.  Here’s a post about Ralph D. Winter (who died this past summer) from the Tall Skinny Kiwi.

Essentially the article deals with “Modalities” and “Sodalities” as two complementary structures for God’s Mission in the world.  This has been helpful as I think about what the WF is and how we come alongside Asbury Church and the other churches (UMC and otherwise) in the region.

Intervarsity thinks of itself this way, as do CCO and Campus Crusade, but we can also see this in the new monasticism of late with folks like Shane Claiborne and Communality (not to mention traditional Monasticism and those early Methodists).

Here’s an Intervarsity link about the topic:

Put simply, “modality” refers to the permanent structure, the local church. Multi-generational and geographically limited, a congregation puts down its roots and makes a long-term commitment to its community. As theologian Darrell Guder observes: “The parish must always be looked upon as the central and continuing form of the church.”

The second structure, “sodality,” focuses on a specialized aspect of the Lord’s purposes on earth. This “laser vision” may target a particular people group (e.g. Laotians), age group (e.g. high school students) or spiritual discipline (e.g. prayer).

Parachurch ministries like InterVarsity are sodalities—expressions of the local church, but not churches in themselves. “Para” means “along side.” Historical examples of such extensions of church ministry include first century mobile missionary missionary bands and medieval Catholic orders.

See also, The Order of the Mustard Seed.

My hope and prayer is that this will spur our minds as we consider what God is birthing at NKU and how the WF fits into the overall ecosystem of the Kingdom in our neck of the woods.

(oh, and I wrote and posted this while on a bus from NKU to downtown Cincinnati.  how cool is that?!)


On Success.

18Nov09

Been pondering “success” lately.  What does it mean to be successful?  Specifically, what does it mean for a campus ministry (or church) to be successful?  And how the heck do we define “success” anyway!?

Oak Tree by Alan Creech

Success is clearly not numerical growth.  It may involve numerical growth, but it is not exclusive to that.  An oak tree is not successful if it merely grows larger and larger.  In fact, even if it did grow larger and larger that would not be the oak tree’s ultimate aim, purpose, or telos.  Surely part of an oak tree’s purpose – and by extension, definition of success – would be to reproduce.  Making more oak trees makes an oak tree successful.

However, we can’t stop there.  Just making more and more oak trees would eventually become self-defeating.  A good forest has biodiversity as integral to its ultimate success.  So an oak tree is only successful if it contributes to the overall success (in this case, think sustainability) of the forest/ecosystem/biosphere.  In other words, it plays well with others.

How might our friend the oak tree translate into campus ministry?  I think we need a ecological approach to ministry.  How might a successful campus ministry contribute to the overall biodiversity of a college campus, of local churches, of other campus ministries?  Maybe success is living sustainably in the social, spiritual environment in which we are situated.

As a leader of a United Methodist Campus Ministry it is important for me to know how those in authority over me define success.  Here’s this from the Mother Church:

The General Board of Higher Education and Ministry is the lead agency in providing assistance in developing principled Christian leaders for the church and the world – the first of the Four Areas of Focus of The United Methodist Church.

Leaders of four of the denomination’s general agencies are shown here during a joint presentation to the 2008 General Conference about the Four Areas of Focus

These Four Focus Areas are meant to sharpen the mission of the church and direct critical aspects of our ministry in collaboration:

  • Developing Principled Christian Leaders
  • Congregational Development
  • Ministry with the Poor
  • Improving Health Globally

“We live in a world that once had courageous Christian leaders, but now cries out for them – the kind of women and men who are set apart to show by example how to live faithfully in bold discipleship and to engage a world starving for the Gospel,” the Rev. Jerome King Del Pino, GBHEM’s general secretary, said during General Conference 2008.

How can these 4 areas guide our thinking for what is a successful campus ministry?  I’ve blogged about these elsewhere, by the way.  And while these are all related to making disciples of Jesus Christ, I wonder if these are leading indicators or trailing indicators (like unemployment numbers for this economic recession we’re in).  If we made disciples would we then see these things happen?  Or would doing these things make disciples?  The answer is probably both, but I think it is an important question.

What are your thoughts?  What is success for a campus ministry?


Ok, first off – my name is Aaron and this is my blog.  Really.  I’ve been delinquent in my posting of late and for that you can blame Twitter and Facebook and, well, Life.

But, I digress.

I’ve had the hankering of late for some networking road trips.  I’d love to go with a small group of folks from NKU/Cincy and meet-up with folks in other churches/campus ministries.  I’m thinking day trips or possibly staying one night if someone wants to put us up.  If you want to go, let me know!  Here are some of the folks/communities I’d love to meet-up (feel free to suggest more).

Road Trip #1
Lexington, KY

Aaron Mansfield and the instigators at The Rock/La Roca
Alan Creech
Kevin Clark and the folks at Vineyard Lexington

Bill Hughes and the faithful at UK Wesley Foundation
Lisa & Will Samson and subversives at Communality
and we may just sojourn to the (un)holy of Wilmore to visit the Asburians – here or there.

Road Trip #2
Columbus, OH

LoveOSU
Father Larry Rice & The Newman Center
Jacob’s Porch
Landing Place

Road Trip #3
Indianapolis, IN

Lockerbie Central UMC
and Earth House Cafe
Englewood Christian Church
and Doulos Christou Books and The Englewood Review of Books


Notes:

  • Third Culture leader has a different set of metrics:
    • Failure is success
    • Weakness guides us more than our strength
    • Relationships trump vision
  • Obedience is more important than passion
    1. deeper collaboration
    2. communal living
    3. prayer – if we believed we needed the power of the Holy Spirit we would pray
    4. radical sacrifice
    • 4 Acts of Obedience:

Maybe it is just the Vineyard in me, but I loved our conversation about the Free Church/Anabaptists and the Pentecostals.  I have real affinity toward each group and how they are similar (and different) and how they can instruct the future of the church.  I’ve been particularly intrigued by the Pentecostal movement of late as it is such a fast growing and prolific movement.  Having not grown up Pentecostal it is still a bit of a mystery to me, but one I want to dig into more.  How is the Global Church – which is primarily (or almost so) a Pentecostal one – shaping the next 100 years of Christian faith?  I’d also like to study more of the Wesleyan roots of Pentecostalism.


I’m fascinated by the idea of “holiness” that seems to have arisen (at least in our conversations) during the Reformation with Luther and Calvin and later taken up (perhaps to a fever pitch) with Wesley and his ilk.  Does the idea of “holiness” have a distinctive Reformation/Renaissance ring to it?  I’m certain that generations of Christians before the Reformation were concerned with holy living and pure lives, but is there something about the increasing individualism of the Reformation or perhaps reading scripture in one’s native tongue specifically incline someone to think of holy-ness?


One of the perplexing instances of the Reformation is the retrieval of the “Priesthood of All Believers” doctrine that Luther tied so much to the strong criticism of Roman Catholicism.  Certainly, his was a step away from the doctrine of ontological change within the clergy class, but by maintaining a clergy class the ontological change is assumed, or becomes presumed or even subsumed!  So while in principle the priesthood of all believers was promoted the function didn’t quite make it.  Is there a progressive revelation at work here or is an adaptation and contextualization within culture (theirs versus mine) that is at work?


Our discussion today of the changes in worship that Augustine grappled with was helpful.  It caused me to realize the different emphases between nominal faith communities and highly committed ones.  Specifically, it was reflective of my experience being part of Vineyard Central (a highly committed faith community) and various congregations of the UMC (more nominal christianity generally).  That reflection connected with noticing that in nominal faith churches the preaching and teaching language is often about what “you” (the average church-goer) needs to do whereas in highly committed contexts the language is more about what “we” are doing, can do, or have done.


Three particular items stood out to me from Friday’s class discussion.  First, the significant change from “church” as People of God to “church” as happening when Bishop is present.  I have to say I’m still a bit befuddled by this.  I can appreciate the need for increased organization and, even, some moderate buearcracy (hard to believe I just typed that), but such a core essence change is amazing.  Second, the growth of the church pre-Constantine from AD 100: 10,000 Christians to AD 300: 6,000,000 Christians is astounding and a bit convicting.  Third, the insight from Donald Miller (I want to get his book Reinventing American Protestantism: Christianity in the New Millennium) that whenever the church has grown it has been when the non-clergy, non-leaders become “fans” and bring their friends to faith/church.


As we talked about the changes and developments from Jesus and the Kingdom of God through the Early Church into the Pre-Constantinian Church (AD 100-300), I am struck by the obvious increasingly formalization and the devolution of leadership.  I understand that increasing complexity and diversity necessitated the need for more organization, but I can’t help but to grieve what was lost by the process.  I’m particularly interested in the ontological change that Bishops (diocesan, metropolitan, etc…) and later Priests assumed.  Why did they assume that there was such a change and what did that do to the gathered body both practically and theologically?