Midsize Mission Renews Europe’s Declining Churches

By Jennifer Riley

Christian Post Reporter

Churches across Europe are reporting that setting up midsize missional groups alongside their worship services is proving to be an effective strategy to not only revitalize struggling congregations, but also to help attract new people in a post-Christian society.

Midsize groups range in number from 15 to 70 members and do anything from handing out flowers to women on Mother’s Day, meeting in cafes with non-Christians to explore the practices of the faith, to serving in a discipleship program.

The majority of Mid Size Communities (MSCs) include worship, fellowship and mission, but the primary purpose can differ from being a church’s main vehicle for mission, a combination of pastoral and missional, or serving as the basic unit of the church.

In the paper “Mid Sized Mission – The Use of Mid Sized Groups as a Vital Strategic Component of Church,” Joanne Appleton describes MSCs as having the potential to be “building blocks to a city-wide church planting movements as a networked expression of church.”

Missional MSCs, which works with mainly non-believers, want to grow, Appleton explains. But by their very definition they are midsize, so as they get bigger they have to reproduce other midsize groups thus sparking a church planting movement within the existing church structure.

St. Andrew’s church in Chorleywood, United Kingdom, for instance, increased its actively participating members from around 400 to 1,500 in less than five years since planting MSCs alongside its services and small groups.

Five years ago, the church was confronting declining attendance and less than 12 percent of the congregation was in small groups, recalls Andrew Williams, associate vicar at St. Andrews.

Now, 72 percent of the church members belong to one of 32 midsize missional communities serving their neighborhood by working with the deaf, elderly and homeless.

Williams believes MSCs “release the potential of ordinary believers to get involved in the outward dimension of church life,” according to Appleton.

A key principle to MSCs is they are run by people and not a pastor. In some models, several midsize groups meet together to form a cluster that worship together on some Sundays each month. These clusters rotate with each other in attending central services. In some church models a cluster only attends the main church service once a month and gathers together for missional activities during the other weeks.

“For my part the cluster is the church,” said Pastor Trond Loberg, of Normisjon Storsalen Church in Oslo, Norway. “The mission field is so big. We haven’t reached it in the traditional way; we need new ways. Some of the clusters will be released from our church – if they are only 10 people they are still a church and some of them will grow up to be a celebration and a church in their own right. I don’t want to focus on how they will grow. I just want to get them out there.”

MSCs meet in homes, restaurants, cafes, pubs, shopping malls, mountains, and even in garages. Each MSC has a specific target, for instance, to share the Gospel in the break-dance community or to reach out to business people at work.

 

In Defense of Marriage – Part II

By S. Michael Craven

Christian Post Guest Columnist

www.christianpost.com

 

As discussed last week, the noted anthropologist, J. D. Unwin conducted what is arguably the most exhaustive examination of sexual ethics and their affect upon society. In brief, Unwin discovered that throughout history, the state of a given society was directly related to its sexual ethic. Monogamous cultures prosper and those disinclined to restrain sex to monogamous marriage remain primitive or, if once successful, they decline. Unwin also observed that legally recognized and socially reinforced marriage was the only effective means for regulating sexual behavior. Where marriage is strictly defined and reinforced, monogamy rules.

This assertion led many proponents of same-sex marriage (SSM) to argue that since monogamy is—according to Unwin—central to the health and prosperity of a given society, we should offer “marriage” to same-sex couples for the purpose of promoting monogamy among gays. So it seems I must address this charge before continuing in our defense of marriage.

Attempting to promote monogamy among homosexual couples by rearranging marriage ignores the fact that homosexual acts are patently obvious distortions of the human biological design. We are born biologically male or female and as such we are sexually dissimilar but in complimentary ways. The male/female sexual union works, in other words. This is true of every species on earth. Every living organism has a particular way of reproducing and rearing offspring; its anatomy is biologically designed to support that way. If one believes we are products of an evolutionary process, then homosexual acts are a deviation from the procreative design and homosexuality is therefore a genetic defect because it fails to propagate the species. If one holds to the belief that we are created, then it defies the design and intent of the Creator. Either way homosexuality violates the given design.

Gay advocates argue that homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom and therefore this somehow validates or normalizes homosexual acts. While there is evidence that some animals (usually males) will, on occasion, attempt intercourse with another of the same sex, this remains an aberration, as it still fails to achieve the procreative principles inherent in that creature’s biological design. On its surface, this is a ridiculous defense. Sexual acts beyond the biological design are a perversion of human sexuality and therefore contrary to the maintenance of sexual morality.

We are reluctant to say this today because our culture has been inundated with gay-rights propaganda that carefully avoids the sexual reality of homosexual behavior. Instead the emphasis is on the so-called emotional and romantic aspects. As a result, we feel sympathetic; we may feel like we should capitulate to their demand for marriage in the name of equal treatment. However, equal treatment of persons living the homosexual lifestyle is a completely different issue than redefining marriage. No thinking Christian opposes the equal treatment of homosexuals, because they are fully human persons made in the image of God. Furthermore, gay men and women are free to have sex, experience romantic relationships, and live in whatever arrangement they choose. (Of course, there are consequences to these choices.) What is not their choice is to redefine an institution essential to the social welfare and common good such that these benefits are nullified. The demand for SSM is not about equal dignity and treatment but rather social affirmation of a particular lifestyle.

Any given thing is what it is based on its possessing certain essential characteristics, features, or qualities. For example, water is what it is by virtue of it possessing a particular chemical structure (two atoms of hydrogen combined with one of oxygen). The possession of these essential characteristics is what defines and distinguishes water from every other liquid. You might attempt to define water by some other characteristic, i.e., fluidity. However, while fluidity is certainly a characteristic of water, it is not essential to defining water. If we were to exchange the essential feature—chemical structure—for the nonessential feature, you can imagine the problems that would result. You might receive a glass of gasoline in response to a request for water!

 

10 Laws of Relationship Boundaries

by Excerpted from “Boundaries in Marriage” by Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend

1. The Law of Sowing and Reaping: Our actions have consequences.

2. The Law of Responsibility: We are responsible to each other, but not for each other..

3. The Law of Power: We have power over some things; we don’t have power over others (including changing people).

4. The Law of Respect: If we wish for others to respect our boundaries, we need to respect theirs.

5. The Law of Motivation: We must be free to say no before we can wholeheartedly say yes.

6. The Law of Evaluation: We need to evaluate the pain our boundaries cause others.

7. The Law of Proactivity: We take action to solve problems based on our values, wants and needs.

8. The Law of Envy: We will never get what we want if we focus outside our boundaries onto what others have.

9. The Law of Activity: We need to take the initiative in setting limits rather than be passive.

10. The Law of Exposure: We need to communicate our boundaries to each other.

Texas OKs Bible Course for High Schools

By Lawrence Jones

Christian Post Reporter

Sat, Jul. 19 2008 08:58 AM EDT

Board members voted 10-5 to adopt broad standards for the Bible class. In March, they had already approved current TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills) guidelines for the Bible class but Friday’s vote follows the opinion handed down last week by Attorney General Greg Abbott that affirmed the constitutionality of the proposed standards.

“We have met the requirements of the legislation. We don’t want to stifle what they (school districts) are doing in classrooms,” said board member Cynthia Dunbar, according to The Dallas Morning News.

Texas high schools can start offering the Bible class for the 2008-09 school year now that the rule has been approved by over two-thirds of the board.

“Elective Bible courses now have the final green light from the Texas State Board of Education and Texas has now gained an academic advantage,” said Jonathan Saenz, director of legislative affairs for Free Market Foundation, who testified before the board in support of the class on Thursday.

Some critics, however, said that the without specific guidelines, school districts offering the course could run into legal issues later if a neutral viewpoint of religion is not maintained in the class.

But supporters of the rule say that such concerns are already addressed in the TEKS guidelines, which call for “religious neutrality” and the accommodation of diverse religious views in the classroom.

Furthermore, they argue, the Bible class examines the impact of the Bible on history and literature and is not about religion.

The author of the original bill, Rep. Warren Chisum, had previously affirmed that the class would not “preach the Bible” but examine it as a “document that has historical value.” State lawmakers passed legislation on the Bible course in May.

“As we stated and the Attorney General has now confirmed, the current [standards] are sufficient and we are ready to move forward on the new Bible course laws,” added Kelly Shackelford, president of Free Market Foundation, a group that helped passed legislation for the class.

Texas now joins other states like Georgia that offer Bible electives in high schools.

Dallas Abortion Facilities Close after 18 Years of Prayer

By Aaron Leichman

Christian Post Reporter

Thu, Jun. 26 2008 01:11 PM EDT

In what pro-life advocates have described as nothing other than the miraculous work of God, a series of abortion clinics throughout Dallas have closed down after a prominent bishop began leading prayers for their closure 18 years ago.

Since Bishop Charles Grahmann of the Catholic Diocese of Dallas first began leading his monthly prayer vigils outside the doors of abortion clinics over a decade ago, seven of the 13 abortion clinics in Dallas have closed, including, most recently, the only late term abortion clinic that deprived life to babies over 3 months old.

Karen Garnett, executive director of the Catholic Pro-Life Committee, described the closure of the abortion clinics as the fruitful result of their nearly two decades of tears and prayers.

“We thank God for the many lives that will be saved and mothers and fathers spared the agony and regret of abortion,” she said in a statement.

“Not only is this a victory for the pro-life movement, for mothers and for babies, but it is a victory for Dallas as well, as the horrific practice of the killing of unborn children will take place at one less location in our city,” she added.

While claiming victory, however, Garnett emphasized that it was up to Christians and pro-life minded people everywhere to continue praying that the scourge of abortion could be completely wiped out and the rights of the unborn protected.

“We mourn the tremendous loss of so many thousands of innocent human lives, and we’ll continue to pray and work towards the day when Dallas is an abortion-free city and the blood of innocent unborn children is no longer shed here,” she said.

 

6 Steps for Effective Confrontation

 

by Excerpted from “God Will Make a Way: Personal Discovery Guide” by Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend

One of the most powerful and effective ingredients of a good confrontation is explaining to a person how her attitudes or actions influence you: “When you do ‘A,’ I feel ‘B.’” In other words, you show how what another person does affects your emotions. This ingredient is also very important because it avoids blame and assault. Telling how you feel describes an internal reality of which the other person might not be aware. This is the opposite of the “blame barrage,” in which a person runs through the list of all the other’s infractions. Not many people can remain open and undefensive when hit with that. They become more invested in protecting themselves from all the badness, guilt, and condemnation being thrown at them. Keep the following tips in mind as you bring your feelings into the conversation.

1. Concentrate on feelings, not thoughts. Be clear about the feelings you feel, not the thoughts you think. This is a hard task; it is easy to use the word feel and then say a thought. For example: “When you negate my words, I feel like I shouldn’t say anything.” It would be better to say, “When you negate my words, I feel hurt and disconnected from you.”

2. Identify your feelings. Knowing what you are feeling is not a natural ability, and it may take a little work. Know the difference, for example, between being hurt, sad, angry, frustrated, afraid, and anxious. One mistake many people make is identifying angry feelings as hurt feelings. Sometimes they do this to avoid their own aggressive parts: other times they do this because they identify with being a victim, fearing that their anger may provoke others to hurt them. Have friends help you know when you are hurt and when you are angry.

3. Stick to your experience. In the same vein, stick to your own experience, not what you think the other person is doing. It is very easy to slip into focusing on the other person, and it can sound as though you are blaming him. Practice and role-play with friends to avoid this. For example, instead of saying, “When you negate my words, I feel like you don’t’ care about me,” say, “When you negate my words, I feel alone and unloved.”

4. Avoid the statement “you make me feel.” Though it is true that the other person highly influences you emotionally, convey to her that this is about your reaction to her rather than about her power and control over you. Avoiding this kind of blaming statement keeps the other person from reacting to being blamed: “I made you frustrated? How can I do that? Those are your feelings. I can’t control what you feel.” Making an association for her solves a lot of problems. Instead of saying, “You frustrate me,” say, When you are constantly late, I feel frustrated and unimportant.”

5. Own your part of the feelings. Your emotions do belong to you, and you may need to admit when you are oversensitive so that not all of the weight falls on the other person. Remember, you are not ascribing fault as much as opening a window into your heart so the other person can be drawn into your world. You might say, for example, “I know sometimes I get hurt too easily, and that’s not you, that’s me. But last night, when you made fun of my dress at the party, I really felt attacked and embarrassed.”

6. Be specific, specific, specific. Identify the behavior or attitude specifically so that the other person understands what you are talking about. Give him a description of what he really said or did, or what tone of voice he used, so that he has a picture of the situation. “When you teased me about my weight at the dinner table last night, I felt hurt.” Saying “When you do ‘A,’ I feel ‘B’” is, at heart, not only a way of confronting, but also a way of reaching out to the other person. Allow yourself, as much as it is safe, to let him or her see this part of your heart.