I posted yesterday on the D. Min Church Planting Course I am teaching at Fuller this summer. As I said, I am particularly interested in how we are to go on church planting when the cultural conditions of Christendom can no longer be assumed. How do we in the words of Darrell Guder “call out communities to witness to the Kingdom of God” when there are less and less cultural conditions left that make such a ‘call’ intelligible (such as even the cultural conditions which made possible the apostle Paul preaching the gospel amidst the synagogues of Hellenistic diaspora). I am working on a manuscript on this very subject which, given the pace of my current project The End of Evangelicalism? most likely will appear in about 5 years from now .  One of the things I try to lead this class towards is the uncovering of the cultural assumptions that underwrite the way we go about church planting. I hope to test my own observations more carefully and broadly with my students at this class.

For example, what are the cultural assumptions that undergird the Neo-Reformed urban church plants as modeled by Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan and the Acts 29 group out of Mars Hill in Seattle? We assume the Holy Spirit is at work in these churches and invigorating any work of God in Christ’s church. Yet God enters culture in Christ in order to become visible, he does not usurp or overwhelm culture, He enters culture (the principle of Incarnation). Cultural assumptions are important therefore. Indeed they give us indication whether any of these approaches to church-planting are indeed reproducible in post-Christendom or indeed are parasitic on the conditions of Christendom (not that there is anything wrong with that – the problem is that these Christendom conditions may either be exhausted or no longer exist to make possible other church-plantings in similar fashion).

In regard to the Neo Reformed urban church plants, I offer the following observations/questions for testing (in the class and on this blog):

1.) ARE THESE MODELS ATTRACTIONAL AND DEPENDENT UPON CHRISTENDOM? Therefore they are not reproducible in a post-Christendom context?  Both Mars Hill and Redeemer Presbyterian are attractional models which rely on people seeing the church as a desirable place to come and find God. In both of their church planting manuals and their books they regularly say things to indicate that the strategy is to get people to come to their gathering of some sort whereby they will be engaged in a culturally relevant fashion. For example, in Tim Keller’s church planting guide he says “The preaching and worship was to assume the presence of non Christians even before we knew if any were there.” (p. 13). There are many more of these kinds of references in the first several pages of the manual which narrate the beginnings of Redeemer Presbyterian. Similarly, Mark Driscoll’s Confessions of a Reformission Rev, a blow by blow account of his journey to plant Mars Hill, is strewn with many references to drawing a large crowd and assuming that its goal is to be a large church (several thousand in attendance – see most famously pages 25-32). In both these cases then, attractional-based church is assumed to be capable for the bringing in of people outside of Christ. IS THIS BAD? NO. (I don’t want to bring up the attractional versus missional debate – it’s clear to me why this discussion is tired and getting no where). Neither does this deny the profound work of God in Christ through the Spirit going on in these churches. The question is, are these methods sustainable in decidedly post Christendom contexts? Some might argue pagans will always come to a large gathering to hear about Christ even in post Christendom. I think this is worth talking about.

2.) ARE THESE MODELS DEPENDENT UPON UNIQUE PERSONALITIES AND THEREFORE NOT REPRODUCIBLE? Each of these two churches is driven by the attraction of a personality, Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll. Large crowds gather to hear this one speaker. According to this account (by a man who admires Keller as much as anyone, just as I do) even Tim Keller is an attractional mega church rock star ?. Recently I heard (this is second hand) that of the several satellites of Redeemer Pres in Manhattan, they will not announce where Pastor Keller is actually speaking because this drives down attendance in the other venues. I may have some theological issues with personality driven churches. But this is not my point here at all. I am asking, given the dependence upon personality, whether these churches are reproducible (without the personalities).

3.) WHY THEN ARE THESE MODELS OF CHURCH SO SUCCESSFUL IN TWO OF THE MOST POST-CHRISTENDOM PLACES IN THE U.S.? I have a theory as to why these two churches became so successful in NY and Seattle at a time when there was such a dearth of churches in these places and the population was so decidedly post-Christendom. I can tell you first hand, after being in a church and exercising teaching leadership in a city church plant (which is now a mega church) during the nineties, there was an influx of people aged twenty five to thirty-five that flooded into the urban landscapes of this country in the nineties. Whereas their parents had all left in the sixties and seventies, these “young adults” came back to the city for culture and financial service sector jobs. They wanted to live in the city (I was one of the early ones). Yet there were no churches. In fact, the only churches that remained were heritage churches, ethnic community based European and Catholic churches. The few outposts of evangelicalism that remained were made up of white people driving into the city and then driving back to the suburbs (like Moody Memorial Church in Chicago). Out of this 100,000 and more migration into the cities of the youth, there were hundreds of younger evangelicals from the burbs, or churched people that wanted a place to go to church (and meet a spouse). Churches therefore that were started in these cities anywhere from 1989-1999 were in an opportune place to harvest this as a foundation for a ministry. These churches were ministering and reaching people in post Christendom urban centers, but they were built on the foundation of Christendom. These were outstanding works of God. The question is, based on the fact this migration of young urbans was a one time thing, and the two other things above, are they strategies that can ever work again?

What do you think?

When my wife and I were asked to plant a church in the Northwest Suburbs of Chicago we found a difficult situation. The area had been mega-churched to its maximum. Three of the largest mega churches in the country were well-established and attracting thousands upon thousands. They were setting up satellite churches using video technology where they would take two to four hundred of their people that were driving to the main site and transfer them to the new site. These transfers would fund the video church with a full 8-10 person staff, providing every goods and service a Christian family could want. Then in a short period of time the crowd would swell. Meanwhile, smaller churches, with limited budgets that had no wherewithal to provide such services on such a scale, literally went out of business. Often they were bought out – taken over (hostile take-over?) by the mega churches (Wilowcreek was not involved in such activity to my knowledge). The size and scope of these churches influenced significantly the culture of Christians living in these burbs. These mega churches were the first and obvious choice to all people who were Christian in upbringing. This was the established Christendom of the NW Suburbs. Planting a church here would be difficult because most Christians were already encultured to attend a large church with all the goods and services. It would difficult to gather a group of even the smallest size to begin something in any neighborhood.

The shocking reality that we found was that the numbers of Christians during the previous decade had not been growing at all. And these churches accounted for only about 45,000 people in a population of 1.4 million. Churches were growing largely via transfer growth of one variety or another (I can not get into the question here of whether the Catholic who leaves his/her parish and has a “conversion” experience at a mega church, counts as conversion growth or transfer growth). Stunningly, years later Chicago remains the least churched city in the United States (something I still find hard to believe). In the midst of these circumstances, the question becomes how do we in fact plant a community that engages people on their turf (doesn’t make them drive to a large church, mall-like facility). How do we reach those outside of the faith those who will not come (drive) to a church no matter how relevant we say we are to their lives? There are simply humongous hurdles in calling out a community to witness to the kingdom of God in our midst. Where will the people come from? How will we gather a community when no one will come to a gathering for any other reason than to get a religious need met? And the mega churches do this better than we could ever hope to do? How do we seed missional communities in the midst of this? How do we nurture an ethos of God’s Kingdom, an ethos of the community where His Lordship has “broken in” and by His Spirit is working to save and restore and renew all of creation?

These questions, and many more, drive the course I will teach in the Fuller D.Min program this summer. We are going to first dissect Christendom/post Christendom assumptions, modern-postmodern assumptions, and what constitutes the practices of being His Body in the world. Then we are going to dissect and analyze some church planting manuals. We will look at Tim Keller’s from Redeemer Presbyterian and Mark Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network published materials. We will also look at my friend Joe Manafo’s One Size Fits All? documentary as well as a book edited by Len Hjalmarlson entitled Fresh and Refresh: Church Planting in Canada’s Post Christendom. I’m hoping this later book comes out in some form or another before the class. We are also looking at three other church planting manuals – they are all in the ECD (syllabus) there at Fuller. The class aims to sketch approaches and stoke imagination for planting communities in ways appropriate to whatever our context might look like. If you’re interested in learning, thinking, exploring on this issue, and you’re interested in the course, feel free to e-mail me (fitchest@gmail.com). I have stories to tell! And so do many more. I’m working on a book (When They Will Not Come) that this course should spur along.

To borrow a phrase from the early 90′s TV talk show host Arsenio Hall, there are things over the blogland recently that are curious, odd or just plain absurd if we just took the time to think about them. They make me go hmmmmmmmm.

Like:

1.)  Chicago is the least churched city in USA? I can’t believe this. But if this is true, how can hundreds of conversions be happening in this megachurch in Chicagoland, along with all the other happenings in Chicagoland, home of some of the most respected megachurches in N America, and Chicago still become the least churched city in U.S.? Either we’re playing musical chairs or this just ain’t true.  It makes me go Hmmmmmmmmm.

2.) Blogging Book Reviews Losing Street-Cred? Recently Bro Maynard “was discussing blogged book reviews with someone who suggested that there seems to be a dearth of books about which everyone can blog excitedly and/or favorably – at least for those of us in the emerging/missional conversation, and it was wondered whether all the blogging about books we aren’t passionate about was negatively influencing the conversation.” I know I’ve been asked to review alot of books lately on this blog. I’m honored. But I am also swamped. And I have to wonder whether blogging is being absorbed by the marketing machines of corporate publishing. I have to wonder whether people are even reading the blogger’s book reviews now that they are sensing that this is corporate marketing? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

3.) What’s New about Calvinism? Time Magazine called the New Calvinism the third biggest idea changing the world right now. I just don’t see how there’s anything new here (NOT THAT THAT”S A BAD THING) And I find it odd that (Southern) Baptists became Calvinists, and the attack on the NEW Perspective on Paul (and NT Wright) is somehow called new. I admit I have an axe to grind here. It still makes me shake my head (and go hmmmmmmmm).

4.) Insulting Brian McLaren has never been easy. He’s too charming. But when I read this recently I decided to confess my sin and recommit myself to never talking (or writing) about any one PERSONALLY no matter how badly I disagree with him/her. I recommit to addressing only someone’s writings or their public comments (which are game for conversation and discernment), and to never take a deliberate shot at someone for insult value. Because in statements like this, what’s being accomplished (for Christ)? Again makes me go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. (Thanks to my friend up north for the link)

5.) What Evangelicals Can Teach Rush Limbaugh. When Rush Limbaugh said “he hopes Obama fails” and challenged him to come on his radio show and debate I shook my head.  I thought about a lesson I’ve learned from the pastoral ministry. Never go into an argument for the sake of winning it. Go for the purpose of discerning the Kingdom together. If the mentality is “to win” only guerilla logic results. Especially if you are on the other guys turf which as Christians we most often should be. Unfortunately evangelical churches have little to teach Limbaugh on this score. We often argue in the same pathetic way (even worse since we try to be loving and “Biblical”)  that Limbaugh does and it brings down the church everytime. Who models the mode of Christain discernment more: Limbaugh and his Christain followers, or Obama and his? Makes me sick to my stomach and go hmmmmmmmm.

6.) Kudos to Michael Spencer on an issue I believe will only become more relevant (I have a book forthcoming 2010 The End of Evangelicalism? Discerning a New Faithfulness). Thanks IM.

Just some thoughts that make me go hmmmmmmmm .

I’m off to Toronto the the Evolving Church Conference to participate and enjoy. Please stop by and say hello if you’re around.