STOP FUNDING CHURCH PLANTS and Start Funding Missionaries: A Plea to Denominations

This is an idea whose time has come. It is easy, simple, saves money, and I think it seeds the mission of God in N America for generations to come: STOP FUNDING TRADITIONAL CHURCH PLANTS and instead fund missionaries to inhabit contexts all across the new mission fields of N America.

Traditionally denominations have funded church plants. They do this by providing a.) a full time salary plus benefits for three years, and b.) start-up funds for equipment, building rental etc. to a well-assessed church planter (read entrepreneur). The goal is a self-sustaining church in three years paying its own pastor’s salary and assorted sundry costs of running the church’s services. The costs are astounding, perhaps 300-400,000 dollars or more to get a church plant going.

Today, in the changing environments of N American post Christendom, this approach to church planting is insane. For it not only assumes an already Christianized population to draw on , it puts enormous pressure on the church planter to secure already well-heeled Christians as bodies for the seats on Sunday morning. This in itself undercuts the engagement of the hurting, lost peoples God is bringing to Himself in Christ.

Of course this approach worked for years. In the post WW2 period in N America, denominations were either:

a.) feeding off disenchanted protestant mainline Christians/ dormant Roman Catholic Christians seeking a more vibrant faith, or

b.) planting their brand in the ever expanding suburbs where there were no churches yet and thousands of young (mainly white) Christians were moving there looking for a church.

In either case, a young man (it was normally a man) with preaching and organizational skills could get a church rolling in three years.

A second wave of church planting began in the 80’s with the rise of seeker service churches. We’ll call this the “Willow-creek” effect. These new plants focus on “making church relevant” to boomers who had wandered away. Hundreds of mega churches were planted. These churches fed off the boomers who had been brought up in church, knew “The Story,” but had left. There were also a large number of dormant ex-Catholics and Lutherans looking for church American style. Also, surprisingly, these churches also fed off an amazing number of younger Christians who left their staid traditional Bible churches.  Three years was doable in this form of church planting as well. It took a pastor however who had unusual entrepreneurial skills and organizational talent.

Times have changed however. The market of these various Christianized (in some way) populations is shrinking and all but saturated in N America. Instead we live in a society that is more and more post Christian, non-Christian, outside the orbit of the regular church. N America has become a mission field of its own.

I contend therefore we should NOT be funding the traditional Christendom based church plants. We should be funding missionaries.

MY PROPOSAL

Instead of funding one entrepreneurial pastor, preacher and organizer to go in and organize a center for Christian goods and services, let us fund three or four leader/ or leader couples to go in as a team to an under-churched context (Most often these places are the not rich all white suburbs where evangelicals have done well planting churches).

Fund these leader/leader couples for two years instead of three. Fund them only with health insurance (in the States) and a reasonable stipend for housing. This gives them space to get a job on the ground floor of a company, at the bottom of the pay scale, learning a skill, proving themselves. They can do this because they have certain benefits and a place to live for two years.

The goal here is NOT (I REPEAT NOT) to have self-sustaining church organization in three years. It is to have three to four leader/leader couples working together with jobs each that can offer 15 hours of labor to work together to organize and form a gospel expression way in their context.  They will be self sustaining in that they all have jobs. They will be committed to this context/neighborhood for ten years.

These leaders will have time and space to then a.) get to know and listen to the neighborhood and the neighbors b.) establish rhythms of life together which include worship, prayer, community, discipleship and presence among the neighbors, c.) discern God working in and among the neighbors and neighborhood, d.)bring the gospel to these places wherever God is working. This includes reconciliation, peace, forgiveness, healing, righteousness, and new creation. D.) develop a way of bringing those coming into faith in Christ into a way of growth and discipleship.

I believe that you put three or more quality leaders together in one place for ten years you will have a new expression of the gospel i.e. a church in each context. Gospel as a way of life will take root. Many will brought into the Kingdom. Imagine what could happen if we funded 100’s of such teams.

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE?

Many will say this is impossible. Where would you find such leaders? Who would sacrifice for such a thing?

My response

a.)   More and more “twenty-something” seminary graduates cannot stomach the thought of doing either a traditional church plant or going on staff in a traditional church. They are prime candidates for a new way of ministry engagement

b.)  Such students can make more money eventually (give it two years) by going this route, have a lifetime skill, and learn how to be flexible and mobile in the market place. This only looks like hardship to those who still see with the eyes of middle class professionalism.

c.)   This is impossible under the current grids of professional ministry. Seminary grads however need to be coached. They need to see they have marketable skills. Skills such as reading critically, appropriating, writing, speaking/presenting in front of people, being able to treat people with grace, respect. They can do this because the service industries (among everybody else) are clamoring for such skilled persons. The employers just need to get to know you. In the current economy then, the highly skilled must be able to start at the lower rungs of employment. By funding missionaries in the way proposed, this affords them unusual ability to learn a skill and develop at these bottom rungs of employment. Within two years their value is proven and they are being paid well enough to be self-sustaining.

So there it is. Laid out in full. To all denominations, individuals, churches that want to plant churches, benevolent organizations: STOP FUNDING CHURCH PLANTS. Instead fund missionaries. We can call it “Mission mobilization N America” or something like that (I ain’t good with names). If anyone is interested in funding this revolution let me know via this website! What do you think? Doable? What are the hurdles to overcome? I’ve got ideas, what are yours? Are people already doing this? Let me know if you would. Let the revolution begin :)

186 Comments

James MacDonald’s Lost Vision For the Body of Christ?

One should be careful in criticizing another pastor, especially one in the neighborhood (we both serve in the Northwest suburbs). So I am engaging James MacDonald – not criticizing him – because he invites engagement in his post provocatively titled Congregational Form of Government is From Satan. This post caused a good bloga-stir last week. Like a grenade thrown into the room, it cleared the debris and asked the core questions “Wherein lies authority in the church? How is that authority exercised?” Pastor James answered by arguing that the authority of Christ in His church is best carried out in a hierarchy composed of a senior pastor surrounded by a group of elders, the form of church government otherwise known as “elder rule.”

I’m not much interested in the argument for “elder rule” over congregational forms of church government. Instead, I think pastor James’ post reveals much about his attitudes and understandings of what it means to be body of Christ in N America, and serve that body as a pastor. “Elder rule” is certainly one valid form of church government that has its roots in the Majesterial Reformation. It has made sense in many cultural contexts related to Christendom over the past 500 years. What I am more concerned about however in this post is the apparent loss of a very important part of the NT vision of the local body of Christ. My big question is – are we seeing a loss of vision for the active living organic body of Christ in the world. I offer 3 questions/observations.

1.) Is there Submission of the Leader(s) to the Body (in this post)? Jesus said “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first must be the slave of all. Because the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Mark 10:42-45. The NT church built its understanding of church leadership upon these words. This is why the NT uses the term diakonia (servant, slave) far more than any other term to describe leadership in the church. I take these words of Jesus to be an overthrow of all authoritarian leadership in the church. Instead we pastors are to be yielding, serving the local Body in submission to each other out of mutual submission to Jesus as our Lord and reigning King. We are to trust together that God the Holy Spirit is working in the arena of His people where Jesus is Lord (1 Cor 12). The pastor, prophet, teacher, even apostle or elder always serves in this pattern. I could go on how this pattern is evident everywhere in the NT but instead I refer you to chapter 3 of my 2005 book The Great Giveaway.

What I hear in pastor James’ post is an account of church government that puts one man (or woman?) in charge in a top-down authority alongside a set of elders as support. This form of church government, he says, “frees the pastor from the tyranny of the untrained and the untrainable.” Huh? Where then is the submission of the pastors to the body as servants one to another? To me, the servant nature of leadership, driven by the mutual submission one to another in reverence to Christ is the very foundation of church life (Eph 5:20). How does the pastor lead in submission to the body with a statement like this? How are the elders chosen from among several thousand people church except as they are handpicked by the pastoral authority? How does this form of government not become a single personality driven church where the body has little or no voice?

When we give up the submission of the pastor to the body, I suggest we have lost Christ’s vision of the body of Christ. Has pastor James lost this vision of the body of Christ?

2.) Is There a Body of Christ Active Here in Discerning the Future? In Matt 18:15-20 Christ gives us an account of discernment (“binding and loosing” is a Rabbinic term for discerning disagreements and conflicts). Here the community of Christ, from ground up, discerns disagreements and sin among themselves by going to each other and speaking truth and confessing in love.  From these on the ground conflicts we see key issues in the church rising up to communal wide discernment. Together we gather and a council forms, and we discern together (1 Cor 2:16) the mind of Christ. We engage new territory for the gospel together. Pastor James seems to think all division is bad.  It is “good people being held hostage to bad people.” On the contrary, I suggest, conflict is ground zero for moving the church into mission (see this link here).

This way of being a people is admittedly untidy, often inefficient (although I don’t think it needs to be). But frankly, this is (one of the places) where Christ inhabits the church (“there am I with you”)and the future is discerned. But under “the elder rule,”as pastor James describes, it seems as if one man should dictate which way to go. The one senior pastor goes up to Mt Sinai, gets a word from the Lord, comes down and delivers from God the way we are to go. You as a parishioner can then decide to stay or go. I don’t think we should trust one man or a group of men (notice it’s mostly men) because I think any one man or woman is too narrowly constrained to see where God might take us. We need the body to discern, and as we engage new and different cultural challenges that we’ve never seen before, we need the body fully activated to discern. Admittedly this is impossible when you get over 200 people.

A top heavy organization run by “elder rule” naturally moves its people in and upward. The people are always looking to the one man and his elder rule for rulings on matters of “should we do this?” or “how do we reach these people, needs in our community?”  The community becomes inward focused and centered on a single voice who unilaterally drives the vision of the church. I believe a church loses its dynamism and its flexibility under these conditions. It is driven by one man’s vision for a single time and place. The body of Christ created in Christ by the Spirit for mission (John 20:23) becomes static. When this happens, churches run this way via “elder rule” have lost the vision for the active living body of Christ?

3.) Is There an Alive Body Engaging Fully in the Ministry of the Kingdom? 1 Cor 12, 14 give us a vision of the body of Christ functioning in all its gifts. Eph 4 shows how 5 gifts are prominent. This fully alive body is discussed in Rom 12 and elsewhere. It is called by the apostle Paul “the fullness of Christ” Eph 4:13. This is where the body comes to life to bring forth the fullness of life in Christ.

Where does this full participation in the body of Christ take place in a church governed by “the elder rule” polity he proposes. For pastor James, the “priesthood of all believers” refers to the protestant denial of any mediator between the individual and God. He grieves the “eldership of all believers” where each person, regardless of training,” considers their thoughts about the future to be of equivalent value” (to those with training?) Huh? Again?

The true pneumatocracy of the church relies on the plurality of the gifts all recognized within the body. Is there a place for this in James McDonald’s “elder rule”? Too often, in an “elder rule” church, I fear “gifts” and “gift inventories” turn into another organizing matrix to train volunteers to sustain a top heavy organization. The gifts become internally focused. They are not mutual participants in what God is doing in the church and the church in the world. This to me is the real tragedy of the lost vision of the body of Christ this kind of church polity represents. You tell me, have I missed something?

Conclusion

In summary my three concerns can put in the following three statements for discussion.

A. The Elder Rule form of church government (as outlined above) is prone to work for Christians who want minimal involvement in church life and want to be spoon-fed Scriptural teaching/spiritual upliftment as a regular product on Sunday morning Yes? No?

B. The Elder Rule form of church government (as outlined above) is prone to encourage pastors to function as dictators versus participants in the flowing life of God’s Kingdom at work in the living Body of Christ. Yes? No?

C. The Elder Rule form of church government does not work to develop a dynamic flexible externally focused social body that can engage new cultural challenges easily (without first getting approval from the hierarchy) Yes? No?

To those who see these things regularly occur in this form of church, who seriously wonder if there is any other way to be church, I encourage you to read this link, and then look for a missional community being birthed in a neighborhood near you.

OK, thanks to pastor James MacDonald for spurring on the conversation. That’s it for now … just putting all these questions out there … over and out …

43 Comments

Me and Max on Father’s Day via Twitter: 5 Reflections on Leadership in 140 Characters or Less

To all the fathers and mothers out there, on this Father’s day, here’s 5 tweets recording some conversations between me and my 6 year-old son Max (yes I know I don’t look young enough for that). They reflect some hard won lessons on leadership as well as some of my better moments as a father. I admit I have much to learn eh? So please add your own tweets to these  … to help push us all forward into raising our children into God’s inbreaking Kingdom!  (FYI the inserted picture is of all three of us having just got out of bed this past Christmas morning in Indiana).

Tweet 1: Just told Max: You don’t tell people what to do. You invite them to do something with you. Leadership lesson #1 accomplished

Tweet 2: To Max whining about being 1st in line: Go to the back of the line. The 1st shall be last. U can’t lead if u can’t follow. Leadership tip #2

Tweet 3: Max:”But I don’t want to” Me w/ love: Son, do it anyway. u can only grow up by doing the things u don’t want to. Leadership lesson #3

Tweet 4: To Max: You are an amazing little man, God created you, loves you and has big plans for you in His mission. The foundation of leadership

Tweet 5: Max complaining “I can’t wait, I can’t wait” Me: What is patience? Max: Waiting and trusting Daddy (and Mommy). Leadership lesson # 5 :)

 

No Comments

On Teaching a D.Min Seminar and Blogging

I’m teaching a D.Min seminar this week which means I haven’t had much time for blogging.  Being in this seminar has produced several clarifying thoughts and issues within the missional church for me. There was also a gathering of missional church people in Hyde Park last Saturday that produced some important clarifying conversations. As a result, I have more posts in the queue than ever. So I’ll be back at it next week!

In the meantime, I offer this quote that appeared at the header on an article we handed out yesterday by Hauerwas. It’s a quote by John Howard Yoder. It provides some food for thought.

The political novelty that God brings into the world is a community of those who serve instead of ruling, who suffer instead of inflicting suffering, whose fellowship crosses social lines instead of reinforcing them. The new Christian community in which the walls are broken down not by human idealism or democratic legalism but by the work of Christ is not only a vehicle of the gospel or only a fruit of the gospel; it is the good news. It is not merely the agent of mission or the constituency of a mission agency. This is mission. (Yoder, Royal Priesthood, 91)

How do we lead a church into being this? That’s the subject of this D Min.

This quote heads an article where Hauerwas is trying to show that the church cannot be de-materialized in mission. In other words, we must be careful when we say “missiology precedes ecclesiology” lest we think the church is a mere pragmatic enterprise. We cannot devise a technique to lead us into being this (the church in mission). Hauerwas would rather say not “missiology precedes eccelsiology” but “missiology is ecclesiology” and of course, “ecclesiology is missiology.” In other words, there are certain practices given to us by Christ that shape us as a people that God inhabits incarnationally through the Spirit to in essence extend His presence into the world where He is already bringing in His Kingdom. I remain fascinated by this line of thought and am continuing to work it out in our seminar this week.

Blessings, I’ll be back on the blogging rhythms next week. (P.S. Due to some students who had to drop out last week, we’re letting in a few more into the D Min Missional program, if you’re interested check out this link.

P.S. The article by Hauerwas is “Beyond Boundaries: the Church is Mission” in Walk Humbly With the Lord: Church and Mission Engaging Plurality edited by Viggo Mortensen and Andreas Nielson

 

5 Comments

How We Ended Up Making God About a Personal Inward Experience

I’ve been studying the Trinity in my early morning readings at McDonalds. You’ll have noticed this theme in my morning tweets if you follow me. One of the books I’m reading is An Introduction to the Trinity by  Declan Marmion & Rik Van Nieuwenhove. Below they offer a brilliant summary of their take on modernity and what it did to the formation of our relation to God as modern Enlightenment people. As a result, we focus on inward experience (we’re narccissitic in our relation with God). Oprah is the paradym for the way we think of religion and God. We have a separation of sacred and secular, something unthinkable before the Enlightenment. We, as moderns, do not come naturally to seeing all of creation, work, family, etc. as the arena of the glory of God. Read it will you? And then tell me if this helps explain where evangelicalism has become trapped within modernity. All comments welcome.

The emphasis on religious subjectivity (begun by Descartes) continued throughout the Enlightenement period  and its religious counterpart the Pietist and Puritan movements, taking the form of of an analysis of consciousness or a focus of the believer’s faith experience. At the same time, there emerged a scientific worldview that posited an underlying intelligible structure in nature which could be studied, that is observed and measured without reference to God. David Hume’s (1711-76) naturalistic view of the world would effectively eliminate God from a world that no longer reflected its divine ground. Instead, the locus for God was restricted to the inner self, preoccupied with personal conversion and sanctification. The emerging worldview, exemplified in the discoveries of Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo (1564-1642) and above all Isaac Newton (1643-1727), culminated in a deistic ‘colckmaker’ God, who set the universe in motion, but who did not otherwise intervene. Immanuel Kant (1724-84) ultimately selaed the fate of natural theology when he limited human cognition to the phenomenal realm. We can have no knowledge of ‘noumena’ – objects lying beyond experience – by way of pure reason. Philosophers and theologians would subsequently find it difficult to argue from sense experience to transcendent reality such as God. religion was in danger of being reduced to morality and God to a guarentor of happiness for the religiously virtuous. p. 9 An IntroductionThe Tinity

——

P.S. I took the post down on “On Not Giving The Finger to Your Local Church” because I was concerned it might be misunderstood in some conversations we’re having at our own local church. Not wanting to give anyone the finger unawares, I took it down and maybe will post it at a later time when more appropriate.

 

12 Comments

Five OverReactions that Kill The Community: Navigating Community in the Post-Evangelical Backlash

Most of us have faced “church-abuse” in one way or another. Perhaps we’ve experienced the abuse of “being judged,” the abuse of being manipulated to do something by someone telling us it is Biblical, the abuse of being manipulated to do something  by a leader for his/her cause under the auspices that this is God’s Mission, the abuse of being manipulated to support more programs at your local church under the guise that this also is God’s Mission, or maybe the abuse of being manipulated to “make a decision” for Christ and/or get someone else to make this decision under the fear that we’re all going to hell if we don’t. Have you experienced sany of these abuses?

I think you could interpret alot of post-evangelicalism as a reaction to these abuses. In their wake, we get overreactions. So we often hear people gathering for church saying: all judgment is bad, the Bible’s authority is purely personal, all authority in the church cannot be trusted, we don’t need organized church, and conversion is abusive. We overeact to these things by rejecting these things. I contend such an overreaction to the point of rejection is catastrophic for the formation of church life together, family life and personal transformation into Christ. These days, every pastor has got to be able to lead through these overreactions and keep them from becoming rejections. Here’s the five rejections with some of my observations on how to think about them in shaping a community of Christ for His mission.

1.) Rejection of organization: Many of us have been turned off by the excessive programming of modern evangelical church. They are tired of being over busy. They find church controlling as it centers everyone’s life in the church organization away from mission. Soon, life becomes about keeping the organization going as opposed to living in Christ for God’s Mission in the world. Many (especially us missional’s) as a result reject organization. I think we who are pastoring need to nurture this reaction into a healthy appreciation for organization that facilitates mission. WE need to nurture a healthy resistance to organization whenever it deviates from mission. We need to cultivate organic organization that organizes around life in the neighborhoods. Yet we must pay attention to the organizing that is necessary to bring people together into networks for life together (1 Cor 12, Eph 4 etc.).  Let our organization stay organic, de-centered, de-programmed always directing people into becoming the social presence of Christ in the neighborhood. Without such organization, the community will be a frustrated morass.

2.) Rejection of Authority in Leadership: Many of us have been abused by the pastor  who acts like an autocrat ordering the whole congregation (and staff) under his/her rule for the purpose of achieving “his” vision. The reaction by many has been to disavow leadership in toto (I get accused of that a lot). We who are pastoring need to nurture this over-reaction into a culture that recognizes the decidedly servant-charactered leadership of the Christian community. Always acting in submission to one another, the pastors model the shared nature of life together under His Lordship. This is a flat leadership led by multiple pastors who are empowered to act in the authority of their gifts. This in turn empowers the congregation to recognize authority in their own gifts. Without such leadership the community will die. I have written much on this elsewhere

3.) Rejection of Judgment: Many of us have been abused by harsh judgment by people who don’t know us, who do it out of a sense of superiority, and who do not empathize or bring love/forgiveness/hope in Christ Jesus. This kind of judgment in the church is a denial of Christ. This has led us to reject judgement altogether. Yet we need judgements – i.e. discernments of the truth in our lives. We who are pastoring need to nurture this overreaction into a culture of love where love means commitment to the growth of the other in Christ. This demands we learn how to speak truth ONLY in love and care for the other. We start by admitting we are incapable of telling the truth to ourselves apart from a community of the Spirit. And so without truth-telling in love and submission to the other, we will all go on in our lies. We need to learn how not to lie. There will be no healing, no salvation part from learning the truth about ourselves. We do this by learning to live together out of His love, acceptance and humility always willing to hear and confess our sins (Eph 4:14-15; James 5:16). Such a culture of love will not judge those outside the community(1 Cor 5:12-13). For those inside the family however we are committed to judge/discern as we do it together in mutual submission. We need truthtelling, discernment and judgement for life itself . Without it the community will dissolve into a mutually enabling sin addicted dysfunctional mess.

4.) Rejection of authority in Scripture: Many of us have been abused by heavy-handed abusive narrow interpretation of Scripture by pastors. Pastors have taken Scripture and abused it to manipulate people into their own agendas under the auspices of the Scripture as God’s Word. This has led us to reject the idea of an authoritative Scripture altogether. It then becomes a book of human experiences with God to get in touch with individually. But this is the Story of our lives in Christ. It orders the way we see the world and participate in life with God and His mission.  We who are pastoring need to nurture this overreaction into a respect for the authority of the text as it carries the authority of Jesus handed to the apostles and then to us. We must preserve its unique authority in our midst and learn how to read it together as a community in submission to the Lord always holding interpretation up to the confirming work of the Spirit in our midst.  Without the Scripture the church becomes an identity-less people without a Story.

5.) Rejection of Conversion. Many of us have been abused by altar calls, by threats of going to hell, all in the name of getting a decision.  This sometimes excess coercion/manipulation has led us to reject conversion altogether. But there can be no entrance into the Kingdom’s dynamic power apart from repenting and entering what God is doing through Christ in the bringing of His Kingdom into the world (Mark 1:14). We who are pastoring need to nurture this overreaction into a full appreciation of each one’s intentional entrance into God’s Kingdom and what He is doing in the world. We need the means to invite those who “belong before they believe” into the Kingdom life via a conversion – a move from one world into the next. This is personal and intentional. This is baptism. Without conversion, the church will forever wander in the wilderness, never being intentional about what God has done, is doing, and will do in and among us.

Hope this helps. What other abuses in the church have led to overreactions that can in turn be nurtured towards a new faithfulness?

21 Comments

Webfonts HTML & CSS provided by FontsForWeb.com - free fonts download. See this Wordpress fonts(webfonts) plugin here