A Coalition of the what!
There is a thought out there in business and even in the church that leaders and institutions ought to focus on those who are "willing". Willing to go along and try a new thing out. Willing to change. Willing to be a part of something. Willing to do. From former presidents use of the phrase coalition of the willing to even those who advocate for businesses to focus on the company fans, putting your emphasis on those who are "willing" is not really the description I would use to speak of the mission of the church.
Too often the church sets up events and programs in order to attract those who are 'willing' to come to it. We ask people to be in leadership who are 'willing' to give of their time. We even have been known to change the form and function or date and time of a ministry in order to coincide with the leaderships level of 'willingness'. But the fact of the matter is if we are looking for those who are willing then we will surely drive the church into the ground.
Rather than looking for the willing, perhaps the church is at its best when we are looking for the faithful. I know people who are willing to pray but it seems the world needs people who faithfully pray. I know people who are willing to serve but the world needs people to faithfully serve.

Faithfulness does not always mean one is willing.
Jesus was not willing to die as he prayed in the garden but he was faithful and found himself at the cross. Rosa Parks was not willing to give up her seat because she was faithful to the cause of justice. Some people are not willing to take a new job but remain faithful to the cause of providing for their family and so they take a job they hate. Some people are not willing to support a political candidate but remain faithful to their political party and vote for her/him anyway.
What the church needs is not to focus on being willing but being faithful. When we are faithful to the Culture of God, the world is changed.
If we are just willing, then change may never come.
Too often the church sets up events and programs in order to attract those who are 'willing' to come to it. We ask people to be in leadership who are 'willing' to give of their time. We even have been known to change the form and function or date and time of a ministry in order to coincide with the leaderships level of 'willingness'. But the fact of the matter is if we are looking for those who are willing then we will surely drive the church into the ground.
Rather than looking for the willing, perhaps the church is at its best when we are looking for the faithful. I know people who are willing to pray but it seems the world needs people who faithfully pray. I know people who are willing to serve but the world needs people to faithfully serve.

Faithfulness does not always mean one is willing.
Jesus was not willing to die as he prayed in the garden but he was faithful and found himself at the cross. Rosa Parks was not willing to give up her seat because she was faithful to the cause of justice. Some people are not willing to take a new job but remain faithful to the cause of providing for their family and so they take a job they hate. Some people are not willing to support a political candidate but remain faithful to their political party and vote for her/him anyway.
What the church needs is not to focus on being willing but being faithful. When we are faithful to the Culture of God, the world is changed.
If we are just willing, then change may never come.
Peaches as a way forward
Drought for peaches means that a plethora gives way to potent.
The Church talks about being in a bit of a drought. The rise of the "nones" (as nicely articulated in the recent Time magazine) highlights that the Church is not going to get a plethora of members anytime soon.
What would it look like if the Church mimicked the peach trees? What if we gave up on getting a plethora of members and focused on creating potent disciples?
To be honest, the crop may have been small but last years peaches were the best I have had in years.
Worship is like meatloaf?
Have you ever heard, or perhaps you might have said, something about worship on Sunday morning that could be mistaken for a critique of a restaurant?
When we are hungry we have any number of food options at our disposal and it really does not matter which restaurant we go to because they all ultimately serve the same thing - calories - just in different styles.
"Well, that was good."
"I really liked it today."
"I will be back next week."
All of these comments, and others like them, are built upon the idea that Sunday worship is very much like a dish that is served up for our consumption. And just like after a meal at a restaurant, we have a number of comments that "evaluate" what we just experienced.
"The service was slow."
"After that, I feel full."
"I am not sure I would go back."
"I could not read the menu."
Worship "evaluation" is built on the idea that it is just another thing we consume. If we do not like the "head chef" then we will not go back to that restaurant. If we had a good experience we might attend again, but we really would tell someone about our dislike of the music (selection or volume).

Worship is consumed like meatloaf.
Worship is not something to consume. We do not attend worship in order to, like a meal, "get something out of it". We are not looking for a "nugget" that we can "chew on" for later this week. We are not attempting to "fill ourselves up" with an experience with the Holy or Mystery.
Worship is not something we just consume, but something we participate in.
It is the difference in going to a restaurant and ordering the meatloaf so that someone else makes it and serves it to you or going to a kitchen and learning to prepare meatloaf in a class.
It is the difference in going to a restaurant and ordering the meatloaf so that someone else makes it and serves it to you or going to a kitchen and learning to prepare meatloaf in a class.

Be the change by Jason Valendy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.