Premise

Peter Debelak · 10-01-2008, 10:10 PM

I must begin by saying I have no experiential standing to challenge John Meyer's thesis. But I do have experiential standing to question and share my thoughts, which themselves openly welcome critique and correction...

I just re-read chapter 10. And my first thought, after reading the opening, is that the premise seems wrong to me.

He begins by framing the entire chapter with an analogy of an outdated machine. A machine. Companies which relied on that machine went bust. Others, who replaced the machine, survived.

In terms of "church," the "company" is a church and the "machine" is the "purpose" or "project" of that church.

John notes that LSM churches are still trying to use a machine that is obsolete. His response/solution?....

"Post-Movement churches must fill in the purpose blank if they want to survive."

"Churches" who recognize the obsolete nature of LSM approach much find a new "machine" if they wish to survive.

Of course, I know John would not put it that way, or want his analogy to be extended that far. Except its not extending the analogy at all, really.

My first thought, after recognizing that the LSM "machine" has puttered is: "should there be a company, machine or not, at all???

John assumes, as part of his premise, that we should approach the LSM failure as groups. The "LSM group" failed and our "group" got out. So how should we, as a "group" go on. That may be the case, in the reality of the situation. But is that what the Lord wants? I cannot say, but to the extent that the answer is not clear, perhaps we should not presume it is what he wants with prescriptions of how to go on.

John's book is for leaders of groups, not for individuals. That begs the question for me... Because it presumes the individuals in the group will stick with the leader until another leader convinces them not to. That's what we saw recently with the quarantine.

What would happen if the new "project" of the "leader" was simply this: teach each "member" to know their spirit. If successful, all things are possible. If the group is, in fact, in the "flow" of the Lord's leading, such a one will be lead to join and will do so with grace and power. If the group "deviates," such a one will have discernment to call it out, or to leave.

What if the new "project" was not about the "direction of the group" or the "purpose of the congregation," but rather the nurturing of each member to know the Lord's voice in their lives, even when that is inconsistent with the "vision" of the group??? Is it even possible that the Lord would lead individuals to do a work outside the work of the congregation? If so, should "leaders" encourage it? If so, how? Shouldn't it be encouraged, if at all, before its the case - rather than "ratifying" it after the fact? If so, what sort of teaching or method should "leaders" take up to encourage the individaul pursuit of the Lord? And again, if we believe in His operation, simply encouraging believers to follow His leading does not mean we aren't encouraging a "group purpose" - except that it will be one out from the Head, rather than one the leaders decided upon.

All that to say: how about this for a new "machine": "follow the Lord in your spirit within the confines of the Word." We all believe it. But do we actually take it on as the only "project" out from which all other "projects" and "purposes" will flow (if they are of Him)??? I mean this question...

Sorry, long ramble. I suppose I got bold and moved from questions to propositions. I still intend this entire ramble as a questions, open to correction. So..... thoughts?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. Upon re-reading my post, I think I didn't make clear (in addition to my central thought), that I don't have any problem whatsoever (and, in fact, apprecation) the message John is speaking. John is obviously not proposing a way forward as a prescription or anti-dote to LSM. He has an intimate experience with a congregation emerging from a very particular and peculiar experience and is point a way forward for that congregation which is refreshing and, from what i know, successful. I am just using his writing as a springboard to ask pressing questions about our, perhaps, unanalyzed premises for going forward. I'm sure John would welcome the pressing (and would probably put me in my place in the process!

)

10-01-2008, 10:10 PM	#1
Peter Debelak I Have Finished My Course Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Avon, OH Posts: 303	Premise I must begin by saying I have no experiential standing to challenge John Meyer's thesis. But I do have experiential standing to question and share my thoughts, which themselves openly welcome critique and correction... I just re-read chapter 10. And my first thought, after reading the opening, is that the premise seems wrong to me. He begins by framing the entire chapter with an analogy of an outdated machine. A machine. Companies which relied on that machine went bust. Others, who replaced the machine, survived. In terms of "church," the "company" is a church and the "machine" is the "purpose" or "project" of that church. John notes that LSM churches are still trying to use a machine that is obsolete. His response/solution?.... "Post-Movement churches must fill in the purpose blank if they want to survive." "Churches" who recognize the obsolete nature of LSM approach much find a new "machine" if they wish to survive. Of course, I know John would not put it that way, or want his analogy to be extended that far. Except its not extending the analogy at all, really. My first thought, after recognizing that the LSM "machine" has puttered is: "should there be a company, machine or not, at all??? John assumes, as part of his premise, that we should approach the LSM failure as groups. The "LSM group" failed and our "group" got out. So how should we, as a "group" go on. That may be the case, in the reality of the situation. But is that what the Lord wants? I cannot say, but to the extent that the answer is not clear, perhaps we should not presume it is what he wants with prescriptions of how to go on. John's book is for leaders of groups, not for individuals. That begs the question for me... Because it presumes the individuals in the group will stick with the leader until another leader convinces them not to. That's what we saw recently with the quarantine. What would happen if the new "project" of the "leader" was simply this: teach each "member" to know their spirit. If successful, all things are possible. If the group is, in fact, in the "flow" of the Lord's leading, such a one will be lead to join and will do so with grace and power. If the group "deviates," such a one will have discernment to call it out, or to leave. What if the new "project" was not about the "direction of the group" or the "purpose of the congregation," but rather the nurturing of each member to know the Lord's voice in their lives, even when that is inconsistent with the "vision" of the group??? Is it even possible that the Lord would lead individuals to do a work outside the work of the congregation? If so, should "leaders" encourage it? If so, how? Shouldn't it be encouraged, if at all, before its the case - rather than "ratifying" it after the fact? If so, what sort of teaching or method should "leaders" take up to encourage the individaul pursuit of the Lord? And again, if we believe in His operation, simply encouraging believers to follow His leading does not mean we aren't encouraging a "group purpose" - except that it will be one out from the Head, rather than one the leaders decided upon. All that to say: how about this for a new "machine": "follow the Lord in your spirit within the confines of the Word." We all believe it. But do we actually take it on as the only "project" out from which all other "projects" and "purposes" will flow (if they are of Him)??? I mean this question... Sorry, long ramble. I suppose I got bold and moved from questions to propositions. I still intend this entire ramble as a questions, open to correction. So..... thoughts? In Love, Peter P.S. Upon re-reading my post, I think I didn't make clear (in addition to my central thought), that I don't have any problem whatsoever (and, in fact, apprecation) the message John is speaking. John is obviously not proposing a way forward as a prescription or anti-dote to LSM. He has an intimate experience with a congregation emerging from a very particular and peculiar experience and is point a way forward for that congregation which is refreshing and, from what i know, successful. I am just using his writing as a springboard to ask pressing questions about our, perhaps, unanalyzed premises for going forward. I'm sure John would welcome the pressing (and would probably put me in my place in the process! ) __________________ I Have Finished My Course Last edited by Peter Debelak; 10-01-2008 at 10:18 PM.