Image via Wikipedia“To Make Disciples of Jesus Christ
for the Transformation of the World.”
That’s the mission statement of the United Methodist Church. To me, then, this is a nice framework for the questions that need to be addressed in any ministry context.
- To Make Disciples
- Practicum: What forms of education and training are you offering your members?
- Of Jesus Christ
- Theology: What “Jesus” is being preached at your context? Is it a Jesus who proclaims an open hatred for sin or who offers sinners welcome arms?
- For the Transformation
- Ministry: What does transformation look like? What does ministry look like?
- Of the World
- Mission: Who is “the world?” How does your context answer questions of “who is at the table” (inclusiveness) and understands how they interact with the world (evangelism)?
Just some random thoughts on using our Mission Statement as a structure that people can easily understand.
I’d love to take this to every ministry in my church and encourage them to answer the questions for themselves. I’ve got a feeling that some of them (including some of them that I’m involved in) wouldn’t be easily answered.
Interesting framework Jeremy. However, I’m more interested in how the UMC is using the word “mission”. Do we have a mission statement or are we on a mission, or are we a mission-oriented people? God sent Christ, Christ sent the apostles, and we think up a great mission statement?
Bishop Janice Riggle Huie is leading the Texas Annual Conference to a new way of making appointments, calling them “mission-field appointments”. http://www.txcumc.org/page.asp?PKValue=1051
Which leads back to my question – do we have a mission statement or are we a missional people? And how hard will it be for clergy to begin to see their appointments as mission fields rather than a place they take a short term mission team to, most often in another country?