Doing the What of Ministry and Forgetting the Why

Yesterday while our family was traveling together from my son's baseball practice back home, we were listening to one of his history tapes (he's homeschooled).  This particular one dealt with the significant changes that shook the world in the late 1800's.  It mentioned among other things the creation of both the Salvation Army and the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) and their dramatic impact not only on England, where they originated, but also upon the world.  I was reminded that both organizations started with an evangelistic intent, seeking to share the Gospel in word AND in deed with those who needed it. 

Yet I am also aware that at least here in America, both groups are rarely mentioned in the same breath as "evangelism."  Each provides significant services to their communities, including addressing social needs, but neither is known today for their "evangelistic zeal."  In some instances, in fact, it may be quite the opposite.

It's interesting to note that their beginnings were different in at least one aspect.  The Salvation Army established churches, which in turn proclaimed the Gospel and got involved in social ministries.  Even to this day, some of those local congregations are still in existence!  The YMCA, though, was more a parachurch organization in its origin, coming alongside the church to do evangelism, but not specifically functioning "out of" it or "for" it.

Could it be that the consequences of those original, founding decisions have determined to a large degree where these organizations are today?  The Salvation Army is largely known as a social service industry; the YMCA, a recreational industry.  One shifting its focus from local church-based evangelism to social ministry; the other shifting from parachurch based evangelism to something even more secular, in some instances, even opposed to support for Christian ministry.

My wife mentioned this morning that perhaps this is because they "did the 'what' of ministry and forgot the 'why.'"  I think she's right.  It's a subtle shift, but significant.  The originating vision of both groups is legitimate and needful.  I'm not trying to suggest that we should ignore meeting the needs of others, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual.  But if we forget why we're doing it, then it's a slippery slope that can digress into something never intended or desired.

The two lessons I draw from this:  first, where you start in the journey--the DNA, the founding vision, the partners involved--all go a long way toward determining the final outcome of the churches we are called to plant; and second, the most important question you may ever answer--and one that you need to constantly ask yourself and the church over and over--is "why do I/we do what we do?"  Without these constraints to guide us, organizational morphing may be inevitable.