» Drifting onto the rocks

Drifting onto the rocks

Boat on rocks
The drift from growth to plateau, from vitality to decline is a subtle but significant one. At its heart is “the failure of success“—a desire to protect what we have achieved rather than to pursue mission.

Here are the consequences for each of the characteristics of dynamic movements.

1. White hot faith
Members of plateaued movements prefer security, social acceptance and prosperity to radical dependence on God. They seek a tamer, more rationalized expression of their faith and begin to interpret the movement’s mission in this-worldly rather than other-worldly terms.

2. Commitment to a cause
Movements emerge because of high levels of dissatisfaction with the status quo. They plateau when members lose their sense of urgency about the need for radical change in the light of a kingdom vision. Plateaued movements increasingly see their mission as protecting what they have gained rather than transforming the world. Discipline becomes lax as members seek a lower level of tension with the surrounding culture.

3. Contagious relationships

There is an increasing reliance on paid professionals to spread the faith and a decreasing reliance on ordinary members and new believers who reach out to their networks of relationships.

4. Rapid mobilization
Religious professionals replace volunteers and the primary workforce. Their role becomes caring for a settled congregation within parish boundaries rather than pioneering new mission among unreached people. The predominant model of church is that of the settled congregation at the expense of the mobile missionary band.

5. Adaptive methods
The environment becomes more formal and complex. Once successful methods become institutionalized. Dissent and diversity are discouraged. Doing things right becomes more important than doing the right things.

There may be some exceptions to the tendency to drift towards Plateau and Decline. I just haven’t come across any.

One Response to “Drifting onto the rocks” »»

  1. Comment by Lionfish | 11/06/05 at 2:03 pm

    Why is this so? Why can’t a Church handle success as we define it – affluence, influence or (political) power well? Is it because we have ill-defined the definition of a “successful church”?

    The Jews were waiting on a powerful, influential strong messiah when Jesus came – but his ministry was just the oppositte…meek, weak, his influence rejected by those in power, humble and lead to his own demise and death.

    Could it be that the local congregational Pastor who spend his time visiting nursing homes, counselling, doing funerals and spending time with mourning families, doing scripture lessons in the loacal school etc – could still be closer to Jesus than the well remmunerated megachurch pastor who is mixing with the politicians and has a television ministry?

    I don’t want to sound negative – but these are just questions on my mind. Are we supposed to be successful, or authentic. Upwardly mobile and influential, or downwardly mobile and incarnational. Is the Church that gravitates towards success and the successful – being faithful to its calling?

Leave a Reply »»

Google
  Web   SteveAddison.net
Subscribe with My Yahoo! Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe with Bloglines