Church Development – Page 32

Resources for Holy Week

Videos for Holy Week worship services

Many pastors and ministry leaders are now preparing for Holy Week services (Easter this year is March 31). Using video clips in the sermon or other parts of Holy Week services helps connect the audience with the life-transforming messages of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The following list of videos was compiled by Christian Video Magazine. All are available in English; some in Spanish.

Follow utilizes a Twitter interface for a modern retelling of the gospel, challenging people to follow Christ.
A Very Special Sunday is a light-hearted and endearing children’s narration of Easter events. Both children and adults will love it.
He Is Risen is a powerful song; no text.
Easter Prophecy is a visual presentation of Isaiah 53 seen through the lens of Jesus.
Alive: The Story combines scenes from the film by the same name with music from Natalie Grant. Run-time is five minutes, but it could take the place of a song in your worship set.
I Once Was Lost (Amazing Grace II) is inspirited by a Salvation Army ad, with music by an award-winning guitarist.
The Last Painting is a visually stunning piece about Jesus’ crucifixion, which culminates in the final message: “It is finished.”
He Rose makes a great, energetic, Easter worship starter. Its profound message is addressed to all people, including those that may be visiting your church just because it’s Easter Sunday.
Alive! features rockin’ music and straight-forward and effective big-letter messages.
Good Friday features the Skit Guys in four short skits that retell the story of Jesus’ last day from the perspective of six individuals who were close to him. Total run-time is nine minutes, but you could build your service around it, even separating the vignettes with singing, reading or praying.
What Was On His Mind? addresses Jesus’ thoughts as he endured the cross. It ends with verses from Hebrews and a word of thanks to God for what he did.

40 ideas for Holy Week outreach

Looking for ways to do outreach in the Easter season? Click here for 40 ideas.

Answering questions about our theology

This update is from Gary Deddo, who serves on GCI’s media team and as personal assistant to GCI president Joseph Tkach. In this article, Gary cautions about labeling ourselves as Incarnational Trinitarians and offers advice concerning answering those who question our theology. His insights help us understand more precisely the nature of our theological perspective.

The label, “Incarnational Trinitarian Theology” should be understood as descriptive rather than as prescriptive of our doctrinal statements. Our critics sometimes want to regard this label as being prescriptive, but that is not the case. Also, it is not the case that our theological perspective is Barthian or Torrancian or whatever. At best, such labels are only partially descriptive. Any similarities are definitely not prescriptive.
What is prescriptive for us is the reality of who God has revealed himself to be in Jesus Christ according to Scripture. Our theological formulations are derived from and meant to point faithfully to that reality, which exceeds what can be contained in our theological understandings.
When we quote any theologians positively, or even when the historic Christian Creeds are referenced, they are being used as illustrative of our own theological position, not as a source or final norm of it. They show that other members of the Body of Christ at other times and places grasped the biblical revelation in a way similar to how we have come to understand it. It demonstrates that we are concerned not to be esoteric or eccentric in our teaching and that we believe that other members of the Body of Christ can be helpful to us, saying at least as well, if not better than ourselves, how we also understand God’s Word.
Given what is noted above, the label “Incarnational Trinitarian Theology” is not meant to indicate that we hold to a special (or superior) form of Christianity. It indicates that the center and heart of our faith and worship corresponds to the center and heart of the revelation of the gospel itself—just as the whole of the historic, orthodox church has done down to this day. This label reminds us of the core reality of who God is and has revealed himself to be in and through Jesus Christ, according to Scripture. It also represents the nature of our renewal and restoration to true Christian faith which we have come to share with all the Christian church. If others have been pushed or pulled off-center we hold out to them these foundational truths, from which flow all other Christian doctrines, that they too might be renewed and restored in their faith and worship.
Some critics say we don’t make distinctions between believers and non-believers because of the way we speak of God having a oneness of mind, heart and purpose towards all. Though it is not true, they say we affirm universalism. Why do they come to this wrong conclusion? Because they make inferences from our statements about God to our views about his creatures. “If God regards all the same way, then all must regard God the same way.” But we do not come to our understanding through logical inferences made from one single affirmation about God. That would amount to both bad theology and bad logic. No simple logical inference is ever necessarily true, most especially when moving from God to talking about creatures.
It seems that their critique of our theology is a mirror-image of how their own theology works. Seeing a difference between believers and non-believers, they then imagine a corresponding difference in God. Again, they make a simple logical inference, but this time in the reverse direction: from a description of the differences among humans to what God then must prescribe for that difference among human persons. We do not reason in that way. Doing so would, in our view, constitute mythological projection, which is idolatry. Doing so would mean concluding something about what God prescribes from a description of individual creatures or a class of them. John Calvin made this mistake in reasoning in his polemical writings about predestination. Thankfully, he did not succumb to that faulty reasoning in most of his writings on theology (in his Institutes and elsewhere).
Typically, the difference between our viewpoint and that of those who criticize it, is that we start with God’s self-revelation as the criterion for our statements about God (“only God reveals God”). We do not start with our own, or even the Bible’s descriptions of how humans respond differently to God and then logically infer something about who God is and what God wants for his human creatures. Descriptions of human creatures and even of their potential eternal ends, either by means of our own observations or by reference to isolated biblical passages interpreted out of context, do not prescribe for us a definitive revelation of who God is and what he wants. Jesus Christ alone, according to divine revelation (Scripture) alone, prescribes for us our trust in and understanding of God’s heart, mind, purposes and character. On that basis, we conclude that God is a redeemer who has a redemptive nature and heart, does not want any to perish, but wants all to repent and receive eternal life. That is, God is identical in character to Jesus Christ who is Lord and Savior.
Some condemn or dismiss our theological stance, typically labeling it as Universalism, Aminianism or Calvinism. However, we have no need to be aligned with a particular school of theology. Though each school has understandings deserving our consideration, each also has significant weaknesses that obscure important, even crucial elements of the biblical revelation. Those weaknesses have not only been identified by us but have been brought to light in the ongoing discussions and debates down through the history of the church. While we share faith in the same realities as do all Christians, our theological understanding and articulation does not fall neatly along the lines drawn in the typical Universalist-Arminian-Calvinist debates.
Those who are satisfied with one of these primary theological traditions and insist that these are the only options, likely will not be able to properly hear our theological testimony or grasp its source and norm the way we do. Their critiques likely will assume that we have bought into the one or two theological options which they have rejected—ones that might include being “incarnational” or “Trinitarian.” While we can offer our reasons for why and how we understand the Christian faith the way we do, we don’t have to accept any labels nor defend the one we use. We are simply trying to be as faithful as we can in understanding and explaining the biblical revelation. We hold out our convictions first to our own members for their benefit and second to others in trust—hoping that others might be renewed and blessed as we have been as the Lord has corrected and restored us.
It was not a particular theology or theologian who transformed Grace Communion International. Rather it was Jesus Christ speaking through his Holy Word who revealed to us the true nature and character of God. Grace Communion International was grasped by the gospel of Jesus Christ, as our Lord placed himself at the center of our worship and faith. If the label, “Incarnational Trinitarian Theology” properly describes that transformation, then we accept it. However, we have no need to defend a label, for it prescribes nothing.

Social media use

More and more GCI pastors, ministry leaders and congregations are finding out how useful social media (such as Facebook) are in communicating with members and friends. Recent research indicates that all age groups use social media more and more as a communication tool. To read more about the research, click here.

Insights about churches

Chuck Lawless, Dean of Graduate Studies at Southeastern Seminary, recently shared ten insights gleaned through many years serving as a church consultant. Here is a summary list; for the details, click here.

Churches often wait too long to address decline.
Statistics really are helpful.
Prayer in unhealthy churches is reactive rather than proactive.
Churches often settle for numerical growth rather than life transformation.
Churches do not know their community.
Most churches aren’t ready for conversion growth if God were to send it.
Sometimes the most obvious suggestions seem the most revolutionary.
The leader in the pulpit matters.
In most churches, somebody wants the congregation to make an eternal difference.
God is still growing His church.

Discipleship pathway

In the video below, GCI pastors Jim and Becky Valekis discuss the discipleship pathway they have developed for use in their church in Tipp City, Ohio.

To learn more about how you can implement a discipleship pathway in your own congregation, go to http://mindev.gci.org/strategy.htm. For other videos highlighting the missional work of GCI-USA churches, go to It Looks Like This http://gci-usa.blogspot.com/.

Three is the loveliest number

In a Christianity Today article titled, “Three Is the Loveliest Number,” Michael Reeves explains why the doctrine of the Trinity is not a “philosophical headache,” but a captivating picture of God in his goodness and beauty. Here is an excerpt in which Reeve’s quotes from Delighting in the Trinity (his new book published by InterVarsity Press):

Deep within the Christian psyche today seems to be the notion that the Trinity is an awkward and odd irrelevance, an unsightly wart on our knowledge of the true God. And so, when it comes to sharing our faith, we speak of God’s offer of salvation, we speak of God’s free grace, but we try not to let on that the God we are speaking of is a Trinity. We wax lyrical about the beauty of the gospel, but not so much about the beauty of the God whose gospel it is.

To read the article, click here.

Facebook for churches

facebookF If your church doesn’t have a presence on Facebook, you may be missing out on an effective communication tool for engaging members and potential visitors.

Creating a Facebook page for your church is fairly simple–see instructions at http://www.lifeway.com/Article/facts-trends-winter-2013-making-connections-church-facebook?emid=CW-PastorsToday-20130114.

Becoming a neighborhood church

This update is from Ted Johnston who serves in ministry development and communications with GCI Church Administration and Development, USA.

I recently had the pleasure of interviewing GCI pastors Jim and Becky Valekis. Jim is senior pastor and his wife Becky is associate pastor at CrossRoads Christian Fellowship, GCI’s church in Tipp City, Ohio. I’ve been blessed to know and to work with them over the last decade as they have followed the Spirit—working with vision, persistence and patience to lead their congregation in the long journey of transitioning from a commuter church to one that now is primarily community-based. I asked them to describe that journey and share some of what they learned along the way. Click on the image below to watch part of that interview. I’ll share more in a future issue of GCI Weekly Update.

For additional videos of GCI-USA churches on mission with God, go to It Looks Like This.

Church planting networks

Through its Church Multiplication Ministries (CMM), GCI Church Administration and Development helps church districts form church planting networks. In these networks, multiple congregations team up to help start new churches. In the video below, the pastors leading one of these networks in Southern California discuss their progress.

http://youtu.be/ZQnbOufHF6s

Religious polarization

This update is from Charles Fleming, GCI mission director in the Caribbean. He shares excerpts from “Welcome to Religious Polarization,” an article by Canadian author Reginald Bibby. The article discusses how we wrestle to find new expressions for the church in a changing world. You can read the full article at http://www.alban.org/conversation.aspx?id=10100.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life announced that “nones” [those with no religious affiliation] are “on the rise” and “growing at a rapid pace.” [Click here for the Pew Forum reports] Some 20 percent of Americans, including a third of adults under 30, “have no religious affiliation”….

The immediate interpretation… is that secularization, so familiar to Western Europe, Canada, and elsewhere, has caught up to the United States. Further, given that Millennials are the least affiliated generation in American history and unlikely to affiliate as they age, the “religious recession” is not about to end anytime soon.

No question—the percentage of Nones is up, but partly because of cultural inflation. These days, people who don’t belong and don’t believe can tell things the way they are…..

From the 1970s through the 1990s, we chalked things up to secularization… [however] I now am convinced that neither secularization nor revitalization theories accurately describe what is taking place in Canada and elsewhere, including the United States. Global data make it very clear that, in every society across the planet, religion persists—along with the inclination of some people to take a pass on religion.

Therefore, rather than speaking of one-way trends toward secularization or revitalization, it seems more accurate and helpful to view pro-religion and no-religion as the poles of a dynamic continuum. At any point in time, a society’s inclination to opt for one over the other will vary, depending on “pro-religion” and “no-religion” factors that are organizational and cultural in nature. But the proclivity to opt for religion will always co-exist with the proclivity to reject it, with noteworthy numbers of people occupying something of an ambivalent middle.

…In using the term [polarization], I am speaking simply of the inclination of populations to embrace religion versus reject it…. While some observers may be startled by the growth of Nones in the United States and see ongoing secularization as virtually inevitable, I am not among them. The reason is that so-called “American religious exceptionalism” is simply proving not to be so exceptional after all. Historically, the religious polarization continuum in the U.S. has been weighted heavily on the pro-religion side. Currently, there is some modest movement in the direction of the no religion side. Such balance between religion and no religion is universal.

But, as with elsewhere, the story is hardly final and we need to keep the camera running. The religion market is always “up for grabs.” Following [historian Rodney] Stark, the increase in the percentage of Nones means the opportunity exists for religious groups to increase their market shares. Apart from outcomes, there is little doubt we will see accelerated activity in the American religious marketplace.

An important word of caution: my research in Canada has been showing, that, at least to date, residence in the no religion category often tends to be short-lived. Many teenage Nones are looking to religious groups for rites of passage that may result in reaffiliation. Nones who marry “Somethings” frequently raise their children as “Somethings” and not uncommonly follow suit. Further, large numbers of adult and teenage Nones indicate they have not slammed the door on involvement that they deem to be worthwhile.

In Canada, the reality of religious polarization is a far cry from what was anticipated by theories of linear secularization. It is literally A New Day for religion, where market demand remains high, precisely at a time when growing numbers are rejecting religion. Changing demographics and varied market performances are contributing to a restructuring of players. But the inclinations to embrace religion and reject religion co-exist, with the balance always in dynamic flux. Such religious polarization, as I’ve been emphasizing, is found everywhere–even now, as the Pew Forum data remind us, in the United States.

A cause for pause? The inclination of Americans to opt for “pro-religion” or “no religion” will depend largely on how the nation’s religious groups collectively respond with life-enhancing ministry. The news of the rise in Religious Nones does not signal demise and doom for religion. On the contrary, it signals new opportunities, and the need for appropriate responses.

Category: Church Development