I really did like the group when I was in high school, but I'm not talking about the crooners from Philly most recently heard backing up Shane's favorite solo artist, Michael Bouble. I am talking about Men's Ministry.
I attended a meeting at Heritage Wednesday with men's leaders from our church and two Vineyard churches in the area. It was one meeting I did not mind spending two hours on and it may have even changed my heart towards this focused ministry.
My challenges with Men's ministry, as of late, have been that MM is too focused on formula's - ten steps - or whatever. I don't think that way and I don't think the Gospel is presented that way. But because we've become such students of behavior and culture we've learned that men just learn and process better in logical steps. That may be true, but that doesn't always lean towards a heart transformation. As one leader mentioned...men are used to living from the neck up and the waste down...very rarely in between where it counts.
My other problem with MM is that it becomes another thing to add to the proverbial plate of overprogrammed ministry offering. No wonder men have not gone deep into relationships...have we given them too many offerings?
Both of these issues were discussed at the meeting, although there was no resolution. In listening to the guys that have done this before, there does seem to be a huge need however - a ministry focused on men. My question though...is this ministry needed because of another area the church has not been forthright in speaking to? How about marriage or mentoring or fathering? You might be thinking, "those are the topics we'd discuss in men's ministry."
Yeah, sure. But where is the practice and where are the people who are most directly affected in relationships brother?
I don't know. If you asked a week ago. I'd tell you that I was totally oppossed to MM and that the focus and culture of the church should be calling boys into manhood through leadership and discipleship. But hearing these perspectives has made me stratch my head.
What are your thoughts on MM? Keep in mind...our demographic might be the least likely to attend. What does it look like if you think there should be one?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
To segment or not to segment...that is the question. Both / And Theology works nicely here. Determining where to place the fulcrum on the teeter-totter though is the hard part if you really do want both pieces to be up in the air.
I like your questions Rich. I am glad things are stirring in you and that you are meeting others to round out perspective. I had a similar discussion with Pavi a few weeks ago regarding young adult ministry. He threw out the idea of us interns heading up the young adult ministry and doing some type of gathering. I told him my gut reaction was no thanks, because I have a hard time segmenting the church and creating age appropriate services for them...Laura and served in cross trainers for 2 years but I'm not convinced that's the best route. It ends up being that high schoolers go to crosstrainers, men go to m-life...young adults go "this gathering"...and then Sunday mornings are sort of seen as periphereal or an add-on. I also question how such custom designed age services / events might prolong the maturity process of young people such that they never know how to fit into the adult version of church. They knew middle school ministry...they knew how high school ministry works...and then campus ministry..and that's fine...but now, you're telling me I have to act and be an adult and attend a regular service that's not catered specifically to my 5-10 year age demographic.
So I've heard the polls that say college students know campus ministry and they assimilate well into it. But after college, very few ever assimilate and commit themselves to a local church body....why is that?..perhaps because it seems so foreign to them and the adjustment is just to hard...it doesn't look feel or smell like campus life so now what. Moreover, most who go to a campus ministry see it as a substitute for belonging to a local church during their college years, not as a complement. Whose fault is that? I don't know? So no church commitment in college for 4 years...the campus has a ministry!..and then once out of college do we expect them to just jump right in? No way. Yet this is right at the time in their life when they need to...instead, young men go on being young men, avoid growing up, avoid marraige, avoid the responsibilities of being a man, and instead consider becoming a lifelong student after a few meaningless years wandering around in the marketplace.
So that's my hesitation in creating yet another age specific gathering for such a targeted group of post grads.
Anyway, Pavi made a good point and we came to a good conclusion. There are two extreme views on this matter. Extreme segmentation or Zero segmentation. Both will probably self defeat the church. Extreme segmentation b/c old and young are to learn from eachother in the midst of worship service and relationship. Zero segmentation b/c some things, that are needed, can only be effectively done with a similar cohort of people. So we should embrace both approaches, but with this caveat. Any form of "pure" segmentation, like men's ministry, or a hip cool high school service, or a lifegroup of young adults, should serve to complement the ministry of the large group worship / preaching / fellowship. It should not grow into a substitute. If it competes for people allegiance, and draws them away from Sunday gatherings, then re-evaluate it's purpose, location, and time commitment. Establish boundaries with it. Use segmentation wisely, cautiously and in a way that always promotes the unity and fellowship of the larger corporate body. For example, men perhaps feel no need to attend on Sundays and hear the preaching because the get live "teaching" on Wed mornings. That's enough for them for the week. So, perphaps m-life needs to avoid replacing the Sunday sermon with it's own sermon...let m-life serve mainly as a connecting point of fellowship, for coffee and sharing of life, but not a weekly conduit of biblical teaching, etc. You're undermining what you do on the weekends.
So here's the tension. Their exists a real need for some segmentation of ministry. Our lifegroup was precisely successful because we all shared the same stage in life and future dreams. We were very similar in that regard. Lose the segmentation and blur all the lines and you lose a lot of the chemistry. However, sometimes this need may arise because other areas of the church aren't functioning properly. Perhaps men's issues should be dealt with mainly in lifegroups and they break out men & women like we used to. So what about all the men who want to deal with their issues but don't want to join a lifegroup? That's sort of contradictory right? The issue must not be that bad I guess. That being the case let m-life or w-life serves to complement that time and identity of the lifegroup relationships, not replace it with a new identity to belong to walk with week-to-week.
phew, I'm done rambling. later.
Post a Comment