Mission Revival
After taking a mission statement sabbatical, i believe that God has given me a fresh vision for the way we should communicate the vision of The Core to the world. I've added a vital, overlooked piece to the "mission statement", and took a quite different approach to the MS concept as a whole... a more postmodern approach, if you will. :) Originally, i had plan on just writing back and forth with our other pastor, Ryan. But i felt that this process might be beneficial to others asking God for fresh vision for leading His Church into the challenging waters ahead, so feel free to share insights and scriptures, as we figure out how to best communicate "who we are", "why we exist" and "how we exist" to a world who desperately needs to connect or reconnect with Christ in a transformational way.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Everyone (at least in emerging church circles) predicts that a church's mission statement will be one sentence, and that it will be able to be expressed in 3 or 4 key terms, which i find a great deal of merit in. But i felt like one sentence did't quite give justice to our true calling. So i took the original mission statement, added two vital, adjoining thoughts ("who we are" and "why we exist"). The first is the underlying, ultimate purpose of The Core.
This foundational motivation cannot be underemphasized, nor its communication underestimated. It is not easily assumed that every Church consciously exists and operates for this purpose. In fact, there is (and has been for some time) surmounting skepticism as to whether or not this is true of a majority of Western churches. Therefore, i believe it is imperative to communicate this fact as ubiquitously as we possibly can.
The second is the ultimate mission of The Core:
After looking at it again, the original MS came off a bit humanistic (the last phrase in the statement was omitted). But the truth is, we do not exist merely for humanistic purposes— for the sake of people. Our love for people is the result and evidence of our love for God. We want to plug people into what God is doing in the world, for the sake of His name and His renown. (This concept is also emphasized in the final sentence, below.)
Lastly, i believe that we should not only communicate why we exist, but who we are. This will be relied upon at least as often as the prior two statements, if not more. That's really the question people are asking. Not "What are your intentions?" but "Who are you, really?" I believe the following statement communicates who we are (with a key word being "strives"):
Again, we have to make clear who we are. There are so-called “holistic, missional communities” out there who are not centered on the supremacy and sovereignty of Christ, but on humanistic values. We need to let people know upfront who we truly are. Second of all, we cannot neglect the concept of incarnation—that God has made us ambassadors from Him to the world, and that our mode of transformation is His presence dwelling through and among us. Third of all, while I included the “location” of The Core, it’s vital that we communicate that we are interested not only in our Jerusalem, but in Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth, as Christ commanded. I believe this statement communicates that succinctly.
Well, there you have it. One mission, three statements (kind of like the trinity, eh?!).
The main thing I’m still working on is the order in which these statements are communicated. I'm leaning towards "Who we are", "Why we exist", and "How we exist", in that order. Feedback on any and all of what I’ve put together is welcome and appreciated.
Grace and peace.
matt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Everyone (at least in emerging church circles) predicts that a church's mission statement will be one sentence, and that it will be able to be expressed in 3 or 4 key terms, which i find a great deal of merit in. But i felt like one sentence did't quite give justice to our true calling. So i took the original mission statement, added two vital, adjoining thoughts ("who we are" and "why we exist"). The first is the underlying, ultimate purpose of The Core.
The purpose of The Core is to glorify God, to magnify His renown and to advance His Kingdom on earth.
This foundational motivation cannot be underemphasized, nor its communication underestimated. It is not easily assumed that every Church consciously exists and operates for this purpose. In fact, there is (and has been for some time) surmounting skepticism as to whether or not this is true of a majority of Western churches. Therefore, i believe it is imperative to communicate this fact as ubiquitously as we possibly can.
The second is the ultimate mission of The Core:
The mission of The Core is to help people connect with God through whole-life relationships with Jesus and with one another, and to engage them in the mission of God in the world.
After looking at it again, the original MS came off a bit humanistic (the last phrase in the statement was omitted). But the truth is, we do not exist merely for humanistic purposes— for the sake of people. Our love for people is the result and evidence of our love for God. We want to plug people into what God is doing in the world, for the sake of His name and His renown. (This concept is also emphasized in the final sentence, below.)
Lastly, i believe that we should not only communicate why we exist, but who we are. This will be relied upon at least as often as the prior two statements, if not more. That's really the question people are asking. Not "What are your intentions?" but "Who are you, really?" I believe the following statement communicates who we are (with a key word being "strives"):
The Core is a holistic, missional, Christ-centered community of disciples who strive to be the incarnate presence of Jesus in center city Springfield, and to mobilize Christians to engage people of all cultures with the Good News of Jesus.
Again, we have to make clear who we are. There are so-called “holistic, missional communities” out there who are not centered on the supremacy and sovereignty of Christ, but on humanistic values. We need to let people know upfront who we truly are. Second of all, we cannot neglect the concept of incarnation—that God has made us ambassadors from Him to the world, and that our mode of transformation is His presence dwelling through and among us. Third of all, while I included the “location” of The Core, it’s vital that we communicate that we are interested not only in our Jerusalem, but in Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth, as Christ commanded. I believe this statement communicates that succinctly.
Well, there you have it. One mission, three statements (kind of like the trinity, eh?!).
The main thing I’m still working on is the order in which these statements are communicated. I'm leaning towards "Who we are", "Why we exist", and "How we exist", in that order. Feedback on any and all of what I’ve put together is welcome and appreciated.
Grace and peace.
matt
ugh. I have created so many of these, it was what I dreaded the most about starting Revolution. So we still really haven't done this...nor are we likely to anytime soon. We're pretty happy with our measly paragraph...but I totally dig what you have written here...might steal some of your wording if we ever do put together something like this.
ReplyDeleteDeaconfish,
ReplyDeleteI share your concern regarding the limiting of God through statements of any sort. To think that God is somehow limited in any way by our ingenuity, or by our dim glimpse of Him, is foolishly presumptuous. I couldn't agree more, therefore, that this concept should inform those of us entrusted with clarifying and communicating vision for the Church. On the other hand, if we never operate out of concrete conclusions and assumed truths, then we can't very well accomplish anything for the Kingdom. To assume that God would expect us to fulfill the Great Commission without granting us the means to do so would be not only ignorant, but blasphemous. Therefore, i believe we have been given all we need in order to move forward in confidence with the vision we believe God has entrusted us with.
That said, our goal here is to create a PURPOSE statement that is unchanging and comprehensive. This should never change. If it's up for debate, then it's not basic enough. The broad MISSION statement is what we believe every church SHOULD be about, and therefore what drives us. Again, this should remain constant and unwavering. The SPECIFIC mission statement should always be open to expansion or simplification as needed. I think this is what you were indicating.
Makeesha,
Don't get too overburdened with the vision refining and casting processes. God has equipped each member of the Body differently, and i don't believe He would cause you to bear a burden that He wasn't able to carry. May you rely on His strength and wisdom as you move forward in this process. For the record, you are welcome to steal as much of our purpose/mission statement wording as you would like. Like i said, i really believe this stuff is for the Church universal, not just for our little portion. Let me know if you come up with any better ways to word them, other than what i have come up with.
You want a Post-Modern Mission Statement? OK...
ReplyDeleteThe Core Mission:
we reflect and increase the light of God in our darkened world.
we stand as a temple of human stones linked together and resting on a Jesus foundation.
we recruit workers for the ongoing harvest of souls.
in Christ we are whole-life, goal-driven, God-loving, people-serving, center-city springfield revolutionaries. come on!
Well spoken. Although i'm not sure "harvesting" would be a PM-friendly term... the imagery that comes to my mind is someone swinging a reap and chopping people down. "Watch out, here he comes! AAGGHHHHH!"
ReplyDeletePoint well-taken. My suggestion for the Mission Statement was meant to be read with a grain of salt, of course. I don't think I would use the harvest metaphor for real. But the point is, word-pictures. Lots of word-pictures will turn a dry, bland Mission Statement (have you ever seen one that isn't) into something much more colorful motivating, and memorable.
ReplyDeleteI personally like my husband's - love God, love people, that's it. LOL. I don't feel burdened Beloved...but thank you for your concern. I don't generally let things burden me, I'm too dang stubborn ;)
ReplyDeleteI view purpose statements and mission statements as tools for helping our body be accurate with our actions and our doctrine. If we don't know exactly what we're "shooting at", there's a very miniscule chance we will hit our target. That said, one of the problems with post-modern talk is that it's intentionally broad, vague, and up-for-debate. Our mission and purpose should be concrete and clear. If it's possible to be both creative and precisely descriptive, i'm all for it. We most definitely have high regard for creativity. But i certainly have a higher regard for accuracy and completeness.
ReplyDeleteFor example, "love" means a hundred things to each individual, not to mention hundreds or thousands of individuals. The word has virtually lost its meaning. That's why i believe it is necessary to use words that have distinctive meanings. Notice i didn't use the term "Christians", but rather "disciples". I did this purposefully. The term "Christian" means many different things to different people. Aside from its use as a proper noun in the titles of various denominations, "disciple" only means one thing. "Holistic" only means one thing. "Missional" only means one thing. "Christ-centered" (as distinguished from "Christ-sprinkled or Christ-influenced") only means one thing. "Glory"... one thing. "Magnify"... one thing. "Advance"... one thing. Get the idea? No ambiguity required.
This certainly goes against all things postmodern, but i could hardly care less. ;-)
So ok... let's not have a postmodern mission statement.
ReplyDeleteIf we want to have a postmodern statement of some kind, let it be the slogan, or motto, or something.
But you're right that the mission statement should be concise and clear.
I like the idea of having several statements, but I think only one of them should be the actual mission statement that we want people to memorize and always look to in order to rate the relevancy of the Core's ministries. The other statements can be helpful, but in other ways.
I envision the second statement fulfilling that function. And i agree about a "motto" or 3-4 word summary, like "Eat more chicken". We've got to treat it as if it were going to be on a billboard (don't worry, we will never resort to that).
ReplyDeleteNo, but maybe a T-shirt. Or a bar napkin. :-)
ReplyDeleteAnd get it right, by the way... it's "Eat Mor Chikn."
In case anyone is confused by the fact that there was a random comment on here by me that in no way related to this topic, it's because i commented on the wrong post. Basically, i typed my comment in Word and pasted it in the comment box, but i did it on the wrong post! So i put it where it belonged (Intellectual Jesus post). :)
ReplyDelete