on February 6 2012

Is Church Planting Hard Work? It All Depends How You Look At It

So my buddy and pal Martin Robinson from the UK put this video of me up on his web site. Martin is a missional thinker, author, leader. He’s the principle of Springdale College. He goes back to the days of the great one Leslie Newbigin himself! We were meeting up at Luther Seminary with Craig Van Gelder and Allan Roxburgh and many others. After our meetings were over, and I was heading to the car, he catches me. And then he pulls out this little camera and takes this video of me. What resulted was this interview about church planting. During the interview he (dares to) ask if the approach that I was pitching was “hard work.” My answer is on tape.  Have a look if you have 5 minutes. And then comment as to whether you think church planting is hard work and why. Thanks to Martin Robinson!! He’s the real deal!

David Fitch from Together in Mission on Vimeo.

Tags:

Filed under Church Planting,Missional,Post-Christendom,Uncategorized 6 Comments

on January 12 2012

More Ekklesiaphobia Post #3: The Fear of the Colonialist Mistake

Continuing on the theme of ekklesaphobia from the past few weeks, I often encounter a version of it when I’m speaking somewhere on my (latest) favorite theme – How “sentness extends the authority of Christ.” I try to show how whenever we enter a context, a new culture, and practice the Eucharist or Reconciliation (and other church practices), God’s authority is extended into His Mission, Christ’s presence takes up residence. Upon saying this, some is usually offended. So they will come up to me afterwards (or during the Q&A after the presentation) and object saying something like “but that sounds colonialist” meaning that imposes a preconceived practice/authority on a context. Medieval practices of the Eucharist and Penance probably come to mind and that approach disregards the culture of that context. It dismisses what God is already doing in the midst there. It is coercive, presumptive. Upon which I emphatically agree that these are dangers with all Western forms of church. But I also see here a symptom of what I have been calling ekklesiaphobia, a excessive fear of traditional church practice in mission.  I observe this fear as infecting a lot of missional church types and so it’s healthy to deconstruct this fear and take a closer look.

A Fear of Repeating the Mistake of Colonialism:

“Colonialism” names that process by which the Western church once sent missionaries to other countries and, under the auspices of bringing the gospel, imposed their own language, customs and church institutions on the new converts. The end result was often not the furtherance of the gospel but an extension of an institution (their denomination of church) and an unhealthy dependency upon the West. Making matters worse, these institutions were often aligned with imperialist nations who used the church allegiance to exploit countries foreign to it. The so-called “foreign” country became a client of the colonialist nation.

Today, in these post-colonialist times, we nonetheless see colonialist tendencies even in the way church/mission are done in the North American church. We plant churches as extensions of a particular (denominational) form of church. We enter new contexts, set up mega-church programs, video venues assuming the singular presentation of the gospel that we preach in say Seattle is equally valid in a thousand miles away, say Albuquerque.  We hold conferences falling into the temptation to extend the institution as an end in itself. We continually fall into the bad habit of identifying our own particular Christianity as determined by our own cultural experience as “the gospel” itself for all peoples in all contexts. There is much to discuss in this malady and many versions of it, but this in short, is the Western temptation of colonialism.

Ecclesial Practices as the Means for True Contextualization (and the Resistance of Colonialism)

The Missional church has done a great job of bringing the issue of colonialism to the forefront of N American church discussion. Missional church people emphasize listening, learning, exegeting, being among a cultural context. I love this kind of work.

But we also must remember that we who are sent by definition also bring something into a context. This is what “sentness” means. We are sent from somewhere, from someone with something. To bring this “something” (the gospel) from (and with) someone (the presence of Christ) we have to then contextualize those “some-things”. Some people call this “translation” (Lamin Sanneh). But I prefer incarnation, embodying the gospel and presence/reign of Christ in a place. This is where I’d like to say that contrary to intuitive wisdom, the practices of the church I have been contending for, not only resist Colonialism/de-contextualization, they actually make contextualization (embodiment) possible. They make possible the becoming visible of the presence of Christ and His reign in our midst in a way that is unpredictable and can only truly be understood  post facto, after it has taken place.

To just take an example or two.  When we practice the ecclesial practice of reconciliation in submission to Christ’s authority (Matt 18:15-20), God uses that practice to  bring into material reality the forgiveness of Christ and the “reconciliation of all things” into our social context. It contextualizes the forgiveness of Christ. It’s a simple process, but we must in fact figure out (“discern” is the Biblical word) in each broken relationship, what this reconciliation will look like, what the Spirit is saying, what it might mean to be faithful to the cross.  In this process, described by Matt 18, reconciliation gets contextualized! People get to see it and go “wow.” We start by practicing this reconciliation together as a people of God. But then, as we extend it into every area of our lives and our community, the gospel becomes contextualized into the context. We invite people in our world (outside the church) into reconciliation. The church is birthed anew. The practice of reconciliation actually enables contextualization.

In the same way, the practice of the Eucharist requires contextualization. It is socially disruptive and demanding (read 1 Cor 11: ) It is Kingdom in that our relational bonds with one another, the ways we are committed to one another under Christ’s Lordship, the living together under the victory and forgiveness of God in Christ together, the way our money is each other’s in Christ’s Kingdom, is all made manifest in this Eucharist communion. But this requires contextual discernment (read again 1 Cor 11:29). And this becomes the basis of a unique contextualized hospitality anytime we eat together and with anyone else. From Eucharist together as church, I go share a cup of coffee in McDonald’s and I actually share the forgiveness and the bond in Christ’s Kingdom (“I confer on you a Kingdom” Luke 22:29) with someone who may not know how to receive grace, forgiveness, love and communal bond.  This ecclesial practice undercuts injustice and the social bonds based on coercion, torture (and dare I say capitalism)., It demands of us contextualization.  Kingdom breaks out. I’ve seen this happen. Likewise with all the other practices including gospel proclamation, fivefold ministry, sharing life with the poor, etc. Each practice forces contextualization (For instance, it is not gospel proclamation if transmitted via a Video feed).

All of these ecclesial practices extend the Kingdom, Christ’s authority. But we are so right to recognize that we can not own these practices and make them our possession and use them to extend our power. We must recognize they can (and have in the past) become the instrument of colonialist evils.  On the other hand, properly lead, released from Christendom control, these same practices become the means for the continual contextualzition of the gospel in our midst. In their practice, the church is rebirthed, or as Darrel Guder famously described, the church is continually being converted.”  We therefore must deconstruct our phobia of church practice and recognize the dangers of the past allowing us to go forward into the world as instruments of his Kingdom.

What do you do with the colonialist temptation? How do you resist it as you seek to lad you church into Mission? Do you see how the fundamental church practices can shape community in mission as opposed to against it?

 

 

Tags: , ,

Filed under Church Planting,Ecclesiology,Ekklesaphobia,Missional Ecclesiology,Uncategorized 8 Comments

on December 1 2011

On Planting Churches That Do Not Cannibalize: The Luke 10 Project

For much of post World War 2 North America, we have planted churches by using strategies that depend on drawing upon a market of already existing Christians (see this article where I expound on these dynamics). One way or another, church planting in North America has been taking what’s left of Christianity and creating new versions of church over against the failures of existing churches. We organize ourselves as “the next new thing” to make up for what some other churches lack. (Here I argued this is another form of  “organizing ourselves over against what we are not”)

This has been the modus operandi since the break up of Christendom. It began with the protestants telling the Catholics that they had lost justification by faith. Then the holiness/pietist churches told the established Reformer protestants they had lost the deeper sanctified life of God’s people. In N. America, we started Bible churches when the liberals took over mainline Protestantism in the 1920’s. They had lost the authority of the Bible. In the 1980’s we started seeker churches when the Bible churches became too entrenched in their own Bible speak and Bible rituals that they can no longer make sense to lapsed Baby Boomer Christians. They had lost their ability to speak the gospel in relevant ways. In the last fifteen years, we started progressive “Emergent” churches when the seeker churches become consumeristic and distanced from challenging injustice in the world. They had lost their ability to engage the world for God’s justice. And on and on it goes. We organize ourselves against what the other people aren’t.

One of the points of The End of Evangelicalism? is that we’ve reached the end of  this long history.  We can no longer expect to successfully cannibalize on ourselves in the planting of new churches. We’re running out of Christians/churches to reform to some truer, purer more relevant form of Christianity. As I said here, lets stop funding church plants (has anyone noticed it ain’t working?) and fund missionaries here in North America. We need to seed fresh expressions of the gospel that engage those outside the faith with the gospel and create the space for God work to bring people to Himself.

With this in mind, I’ve been working on a framework to fund and nurture missionary church planting in North America. I am doing this in partnership with Ecclesia Network and Fresh Expressions here in the United States. What I sketch below is a starting point for this effort.  I put this framework out there as a starting point to invite people to let me know how they would change it/develop it (in the comments). If you’re candidate to participate in the program, either through funding it, partnering with it (say if you are a denomination), or being an actual missionary in the program, let me know through e-mail and I’ll keep you up to date on opportunities, and set up meetings when we can.

So here goes! My first shot at laying out a structure for the Luke 10 Project!

Luke 10 Project

THE GOAL

We seek to plant missionary communities/new expressions of the gospel in North America. We desire to plant missionary communities. Over against the patterns of the post WW2 years of franchise church planting where churches were either competitive, ordered towards extending a particular brand/denomination of church, or revising the church for relevancy, ALL OF WHICH CATERS TO ALREADY EXISTING CHRISTIANS, we propose to embed missionaries to plant churches that will reach people outside of Christ with the gospel of the Kingdom. We believe all people are ultimately lost until they are reconciled to God and living their lives as life with God and His mission.

WHAT WE DO

Plant three leaders/leader couples in a context. These leaders will know each other (their respective gifts/callings and how they work in complementarity). They will know how to submit to Christ through submitting to each other as a model for discerning life with God in His Kingdom. These leaders will understand the basics of ecclesiology, gathering a people into the Kingdom as a witness to the context.

Give them two years – of housing stipend and health insurance. They will be coached to get a job that can sustain them within this context for the long haul. Yet, with this aid, they can afford to go into a lower paying status where they can learn a skill, grow with the job and become indispensible with their skill. In two years they will be viable, sustainable without any further support. The goal is not to have a financially self-sustaining church organization in 3 years. The goal is to have 3 financially sustainable missionaries/missionary couples inhabiting a context in 2 years.

These leaders will then do the following:

  • Exegete/get to know relationally the nooks and crannies of this context. Listen. Get to know people. Get to know where the third places are. Get to know where the hurts are. They will be immersed in a context as a rhythm of everyday life.
  • Begin Rhythms of Inhabiting – strategies of living life with intentional inhabiting of third places, places of ministry (like hospitals, food sites. Etc.)
  • Begin Rhythms of Mission: Having located places of hurt, or third places, we will join in. We shall be prepared to proclaim the gospel when the Spirit leads. This could take years.
  • Begin a Rhythm of discipleship: We will cultivate a discipleship practice among us.  We will work with, contextualize the discipleship shapes of Mike Breen and the missional practices of David Fitch, as well as other sources and means of developing a discipleship culture.
  • Begin Rhythms Together: of prayer, gathering for worship/eucharist/ sending, discipleship pods, acts of mission engagement all as part of a way of life.
  • Start to Gather and Relate: These three leaders will be getting to know other church leaders in the contexts so as to work in concert with them. We seek a renewal of the church as a whole. There will be those who have left church because of its hollow shell. We shall call them back into the Kingdom. There will be people who go to other churches. We refuse, SIMPLY REFUSE, to take them from their church home. But we will invite them to join in with us in Kingdom living in the neighborhood. There will be many outside the gospel who we will invite to join in with various mission engagements we are doing.

I firmly believe that all of the above is to be carried out as a sustainable way of life, not as an excessive work of human effort that consumes and destroys people’s lives. Each leader is to order his/her life so that he/she can work a job of 35 hours a week, and give 15 hours of labor to the cultivation of the Kingdom as everyday life in the context (see my post on the 15 hour rule)

Commit to This Place for Ten Years I firmly believe, if we put three leaders/leader couples in one place, committed to a context for ten years, there will be a fresh expression of the gospel in this locale until the Kingdom is consummated in Christ’s return.

PRINCIPLES

1.) We Work With All Denominations For the Renewal of the Church of Jesus Christ in North America

We will work with all Christian denominations for “evangelical renewal.” By evangelical we do not mean traditional mainline evangelicalism. We mean a vital commitment to the gospel, the whole gospel of the Kingdom of God in Christ. This of course includes personal conversion, and the forgiveness received oin and through Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross. Yet this conversion is also a turning into what God is doing to make the whole world right, not only one’s individual relationship with God. By “evangelical” we also mean a renewal of submitting to Christ by His Spirit for a fresh expression of God’s Kingdom via planting communities in each unreached context in N America.

We seek a commitment to a.) creedal orthodoxy, b.) the inbreaking and coming reign of Christ to renew the world as made manifest among us by the Holy Spirit c.) the fresh expressions of the gospel that result. We uphold a high view of Scripture, the commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ as Lord, the commitment to transformational salvation available to all by invitation into God’s Kingdom in Christ via reconciliation with God and all relationships through the person and work of Christ in the cross and the resurrection, d.) the commitment to the church as God’s means to bear witness to the world of God’s work to reconcile the whole worl to Himself.

2.) There must be at least Three Leaders/LeaderCouples

We seek to embed (at least) three leaders and/or leader couples in places that have need for a renewed witness to the gospel or have been previously resistant to gospel. Our belief is that if we can locate three such leaders in a context, have them committed to the context for ten years, so that they learn it, love it, engage relationally with it and begin a rhythm/way of life out of the gospel, if these same leaders cultivate/discern the Kingdom andsubmit to the Spirit and what he is doing, there will be a fresh expression of the gospel in this context in ten years.

We believe that contraints such as building a self-sustaining ministry that pays a single pastor’s entire salary plus all costs contrains true missionary work. The planting of churches via these means most often devolves into competition for other church members, competition for best religious goods and services to already existing Christians, depletes and exhausts most church planters within three years because such a model is not sustainable (in post Christendom contexts). One person cannot meet the needs that engendered from such a calling of gathered people in.

These three leaders must have a solid foundation theologically in order to stand and plant and discern God’s work in a context. Yet so often, the seminary education that gets a person to this level, trains them to go get an established position in church or try to make their entire living via the church which counteracts mission. Instead, we need to find a way to fund these leaders long term, less stress financially, as well as train them to understand bi-vocationality as a way of life that has flexibility and capability to resist the demissionalizing structures of the church.

AT THE END – I ENVISION TEN YEARS – THERE WILL BE BY GOD’S GRACE AND THE WORK OF HIS SPIRIT – A NEW VISIBLE EXPRESSION OF THE GOSPEL AND HIS KINGDOM IN OUR MIDST UNTIL HE COMES.

FUNDING

To start such projects, we need funding for three plus leader/couples for

a.) housing stipend/health insurance for two years.

b.) part time theological education.

c.) Coaching/assessment for each team

d.) Theological education provided within a context for each leader/couple according to need.

IN CONCLUSION

LET ME JUST SAY THIS!! I know there are organizations already out there doing this. If you are one of them, feel free to list your organization and web site on this blog post’s comments. Get the word out! Let us spur on this kind of development.

If while reading this, you can think of anything to add to this document, any missing pieces, please comment in this post’s comments.

And, if you are interested in participating in this either as a leader or denomination or just knowing more about it once we get this started, pleas e-mail me with your name address and brief three line description of how you’re interested (being a pastor-leader-church planter, being a funder, being a denominational partner etc.). I’ll keep all the names and contacts in a file when we’ve got opportunities!

Blessings on this foray. Let us see where it goes!

Tags: , , , ,

Filed under Church Planting,Missional Ecclesiology,Post-Christendom 61 Comments

on November 15 2011

Hangin Out at The National Church Planting Congress of Canada

I thought I’d have some time to post this week. Ain’t gonna happen. I’m here in Winnipeg at the national church planting congress of Canada put on by Church Planting Canada. I’ve been thinking through with several people these days what forms church-planting must take if we are not to repeat merely cannibalizing the church. In other words, much church planting is updating church for the Christians who grew up in older forms of church. How do we do church planting so we actually engage people outside the gospel? I hope to post some of these thoughts maybe in the next couple days. If not this week, I’ll get to it next week.

Meanwhile, I’m speaking on this topiv here at the Congress. My topic for the Wednesday night plenary (here at the CPC) is “The Ideological Cycle: How Not To Plant a Church.” My topic for the Wednesday afternoon plenary session is  “Planting a church thru Missional Practices: How “SENTNESS” Extends His Authority.” Come join us if you’re in the neighborhood.

Filed under Church Planting,Uncategorized 3 Comments

on November 1 2011

“The Fifteen Hour Rule”: A Challenge to All Church-Planters – Quit Working More Than 15 Hours!! (on your churches)

The idea of the singular professional pastor running a church doing all 18 spiritual gifts (depending on how many you read in the NT etc.) has fallen out of favor. No one believes this is possible any more. This is a relic of the hierarchies of Christendom where such consolidation made organizational sense (if not ecclesiological sense).  Any pastor trying to do this will expire from burnout. It is a denial of the Holy Spirit’s work in the body (I Cor 12). (Should we then get rid of the M Div degree as well?)

Of course mega churches are able to keep the hierarchy going by building massive staffs which employ full time specialists in each gifting, and then they employ huge cadres of volunteers for massive programs which they then call “gifts.” (which is a complete misnomer – but that is a subject for another day. On this kind of false volunteerism read Bill Kinnon here and Jamie Arpin Ricci here). But this is another story of the prolongation of Christendom past its time.

Why then, WHY WOULD WE think about planting a new missional church with a singular leader/pastor at the head of the ship?  The only reason is if we are comfortable with the notion that we can recruit enough already existing Christians to be subservient to said singular leader and form a Christendom organization for managing and distributing Christians goods and services to them. But is this church planting or church reconfiguring? Is this Mission or Marketing?

This is why, when planting a missional church/community I prefer the leaders implement “the 15 hour rule.” The “15 hour rule” says that NO PASTOR/LEADER CULTIVATING A NEW MISSIONAL COMMUNITY SHOULD WORK MORE THAN 15 HOURS A WEEK ON MISSIONAL COMMUNITY ORGANZIATIONAL FUNCTIONS (including preaching, organizing, leadership, etc.).

Of course, this is heresy in the traditional world of evangelical church plants. Most assume the new pastor works 15 hours per week just on the sermon.  Over against this traditional model I believe “the 15 hour rule” works to do the following:

 1.) It says no one pastor/leader can nurture a Christian community. It requires a minimum of 3 pastor/leaders who know the inter-relationship of their giftings according to the Eph 4 APEPT schema – Apostles/Prophets/Evangelists/Pastors/ Teachers. These pastors must work together in mutual submission to one another modeling the life of submission one to another in Christ. I’m of the mind, you put three mature leaders who know their giftings in one place for ten years who can lead out of mutual submission to Christ and His Mission, and you will have a fresh expression of the gospel (not dependent upon already existing Christians) in that place 10 years later.

2.) It promotes bi-vocationalism. This is obviously a bi-vocational model where each pastor has a job sufficient to provide a level of support which can sustain these three pastors together in the work for 10 or more years to come. Yet this also reinforces the idea that to do bi-vocational ministry as a singular pastor is VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE!! To do bi-vocational ministry – 15 hours a week max – requires at least three leaders together on the ground, praying, discerning, leading.

3.) It prevents any pastor from thinking the work of the Kingdom is dependent upon how hard he/she work. Instead, I have 15 hours to give and that’s it.  It is God who will do this work not me. I do not have to worry about results, people in the pews, offerings because by and large I am being supported in and through a job and a community. I can exercise the patience necessary to see God work among new and unreached peoples.

4.) It promotes an active body dependent upon the Spirit discerning what God is doing. Because every one in the community sees “the body” modeled by the pastorate, this kind of leadership automatically fosters a “body mentality” in the rest of the church that regularly depends upon the Spirit. We become participants in the rhythms of God’s grace in His Spirit, no meglamaniacal leadership that has predetermined goals (financial and otherwise). The community therefore becomes the arena in which and around which the Spirit can work. Leadership does not control the organization. It fosters an organization of a different kind, an organization that post facto the Spirit facilitates what God is doing.

5.) It says that there should be more than one preacher, teacher. If it is true that it takes 15 hours of prep for a good sermon, then we need to rotate it among the three pastors (and others gifted as well) so that theoretically the fifteen hours are spread out over a longer period of time than one week. This keeps the mission from being centered around one personality.  It keeps the preaching grounded in the mission and life of the community (not a single person studying 20-30 hours a week for the most brilliant exegesis).

NOW LET US BE SURE TO RECOGNIZE that there will be times when “the fifteen hour rule” must go by the wayside. As the church grows, as one’s gifts become more fully recognized, as the fruit of one’s ministry dictates more devotion to the work on the ground in fostering the Kingdom, more hours will be appropriate. This happened all the time in the NT. But, I’m of the mind that every pastor, no matter how much he/she is working within the structures of the church, must always have the ability (i.e another job skill) to go back to “the fifteen hour rule.” Because it simply re-disciplines the church to be the arena of the Spirit from which it can participate in God’s Mission in the world.

Your thoughts on “the 15 hour rule”? Outrageous? Impractical? This Can’t Be Done?

Tags: , ,

Filed under Church Planting,Ecclesiology,Missional Leadership,Uncategorized 42 Comments

on October 4 2011

Put off the Launch!! When Going Public (with your Worship Service) is a Bad Thing

The word “ecclesia,” used  in the New Testament over 100 times to describe the local gathering of Christians in each city, was a word that actually referred to the public civic assembly in Greco Roman culture. It was a very public gathering where people could gather and participate in the governing of their city.  Using the word to refer to the Christian church gathering then indicates a public aspect to it. The Christian assembly is the called-out ones in each city who seek to be governed by the Lord of the universe.

By using the word ecclesia, the NT emphasizes two different aspects to the gathering. There is its public aspect to the gathering. These people are called to gather together to witness to the Kingdom before the watching world. Yet there is also the unique aspect to this gathering amidst the culture. These people are called “out” in order to witness that Jesus is Lord and not Ceasar. The ecclesia is a calling to another way of being governed– the Kingdom of God – which is at work in the world. Going public then is essential to its witness in the community. Yet it shall not be attractional in the sense of appealing to people’s immediate tastes, preferences, conveniences or needs. This is about God’s Kingdom under the rule of Christ.

All this to say it is important and essential to the witness of the gospel that a church eventually go public with its meeting. Yet, when starting a church, or as I like to refer to the process – seeding an expression of the gospel in a community – I think it best to move with caution when going public with the gathering. Take it slow. The time has to be right. Obviously, this goes against the majority of received wisdom on church planting where the so-called “launch” of the public gathering is actually viewed as the legitimating event, the founding moment – of the church plant. But I can think of at least 3 reasons to go slow.

 1.) Going public too early can derail discerning God’s Mission together in this community. When you go public before a culture of mission has been established, the community can get derailed by the newcomer Christians who “come” to your church gathering. As we all know, new church plants attract disgruntled Christians looking for something new. The new church seedling can get caught up into knitting these new folk into a cohesive body of Christ seeking God’s mission, not their own perceived wants and needs from a church. This can set back a church’s development into mission. My advice: Resist at all costs building a church body around disgruntled Christians. Instead, one by one, relationally, through prayer, the study of Scripture, the sharing of the communty’s gifts, and discerning the context, work out together what God is doing among you and in your context, seeking where God is calling you into, in the first years of your community’s life.  Then go public.

2.) Going public too early can change the focus of your gathering to numbers and success.  I can’t explain why, but for some reason when a gathering is opened to the public, and numbers of people show up, leaders start to concentrate on “how many.” If you are not well ensconced in your mission you can get immediately distracted and start focusing on the numbers coming on Sunday morning and how you can keep them coming. THIS ALWAYS DEFEATS MISSION. As Courageous Church pastor Shaun King said “I sold my soul for church attendance in our first week and I could never quite get it back.” See his story here. This automatically sets back the ecclesia formation that needs to take place as now we are focused on keeping people/Christian happy.  My advice: Resist at all costs the temptation to work to keep Christians happy and more people coming to your Sunday gathering. Focus on discipleship and mission. The church will be the outrgowth

3.) Going public too early can put the cart before the horse. A worship gathering should be a part of a rhythm of an already existing community. We should gather as part of a shared life the rest of the six days a week. It is a gathering and sending rhythm. There must be an integrity to our life together before we go public or else the Sunday morning gathering becomes a performance to attract people, as opposed to a coalescence for the celebrating of what God is doing among us and the shaping of our lives to understand it and participate in it.

It is very important to form good “political” habits in the founding of a new expression of the gospel. By “political” I mean the things that drive us to be together and live life together. There will be a correct time to go public but DON’T RUSH IT! Any stories out there of going public too early? Any other cautions we should consider when we go public with our church gathering in the world?

————————-

Reminder! Oct 28 and 29 the Missional Learning Commons is coming to Chicagoland. We’re centering our presentations from real live missional practicioners on the issue of discipleship. What does the practice of discipleship look like in a missional church?? How do we cultivate a discipleship culture into God’s Kingdom? as opposed to just producing another program?  We will hear from and have discussions built around on-the-ground practitioners. Mike Breen and the team from 3DM will be hanging out with us to share some of what they have learned and help facilitate our conversations.

 You can register here to come to the Commons. It costs practically nothing (10 bucks) I pray God’s blessings on this year’s Missional Learning Commons!

Filed under Church Planting,Ecclesiology,Missional Leadership,Uncategorized 15 Comments

on September 6 2011

Church Planter as Mythic Hero: 5 Reasons Not To Go This Route

There is a standard storyline in American evangelical church that goes like this: Young man is a natural leader (these leaders are always male – in particular “alpha male”). Young man gets saved and has powerful conversion experience. Young man has a “vision” to start a church to change the world. Young man in mesmerizing fashion begins to challenge his friends and acquaintances into coming along with him to plant this church “wherever God might call” (read “launch team” here). Young man visits some prime spots and says “we looked around this place and found no vibrant alive church here” (this irritates all the other small churches to no end). Young man puts out a video and raises money. They purchase a state of the art sound/video system. Young man is attractive, a weight lifter and therefore attracts all the younger people from the launch team’s various churches to come to this new one. Then the launch team does something positively out of the ordinary/ even outrageous that draws attention to the church launch. Media takes notice. Enough people disgruntled/disengaged from other churches show up. A crowd (especially a young crowd) draws a crowd (most people don’t go to a church for the service – they are seeking connection). A mega church is born. Young man is lifted up as the exemplar holy man leader. People all talk about him with reverence (even though few people actually know him). From here the staff works tirelessly producing programing to keep the activity going. The pastor has to produce enough catchy sermon series (which is why he often hires marketing type people on his staff) to keep the illusion ongoing that something positive is happening in people’s lives. A slick video production crew has to find the best stories (out of thousands of people we only need one) and produce it so that the hundreds of people gathering can vicariously participate (hyper-reality is the best way to experience Christianity without having to change your life).  Often this young man will build staffs of other people around him who idolize him. Dissent is rarely encouraged. Mantras are generated that create an “ideological” consensus, a buzz: “One Church, One Mission, One Goal” or something like that.

From here the aura of our mythic hero is enhanced through books, websites, DVD’s, going on speaking tours.  And somewhere along the line, we produce this story and make it so appealing that every American young seminarian thinks he has to be one of America’s top 100 fastest growing churches, or he is a failure.

 

If you are a church planter I’d like to offer 5 reasons not to do this.

1.)  This way of “church” too easily becomes about the mythic hero and not about who Jesus is and what God is doing in and through the work of Jesus Christ in the world for the salvation of the world (and so when he leaves, dies, or has a moral failure – the church collapses – proving it was not really a viable church in the first place)

2.)  The mythic hero becomes elevated upon a pedestal. His life now too easily becomes an image to be managed as opposed to a real life lived among a people. This will make the mythic hero’s life into a living hell (eventually).

3.)  This route of church planting has been tried. There are many mega churches around as a result. Many of these mythic heroes are in their fifties now. This approach worked well in the 70’s and 80’s as the country was full of disenchanted Catholics, Lutherans, and Bible church boomers. It makes little to no sense as the “market” for disenchanted pre-churched people is shrinking in the North East, North West, Other Urban Centers and Canada. It still works however in the southern United States and to some degree in Alberta Canada. So, if you choose to go this way, know your chances of success are shrinking. And you are now being put into the position of “competing for that market.” In my mind, there is nothing worse than being caught up in competition with other churches for attenders. It’s disingenuous and bad (very bad) for your character.

4.)  The mythic hero will become a workaholic. His whole identity will become the success of this “enterprise.” His life and ministry will not incorporate everyday relationships as part of a normal healthy life (because of reason no. 2).  As a result, he will become a candidate for massive burnout, abusive behavior and/or moral failure before he is fifty.

5.)  Because the mythic hero has no relationships (because people everywhere call him “pastor” with the aura of the man lifted up on pedestal), the mythic hero must suppress any doubts he has about life, ministry, God or even himself.  He has no relationships to work out everyday life, stress, and sin. Because of this coccon, the mythic hero becomes incapable of receiving criticism apart from a well scripted defense and deflection. This is also is a recipe for a nervous breakdown.

Now don’t get me wrong. There are many sincere believers and Kingdom-seeking “young men” who are involved in church-plants that look like this. I just think we need to be careful – real careful. There are plenty of church planter videos out there (just google for them) that script this mythology.  They need to be chastened. It is very tempting to look at these Hollywood crafted videos and get sucked in. I say “don’t do it.” Look to the simple ways God works to change lives and to know this: the revolution, the real revolution, the revolution that will move beyond a cultural evangelicalism, the revolution of the Spirit, where lives, towns and villages are changed, this revolution will not be televised. It will happen low, on the ground, beneath the lights, in the daily cultivation of life in the Kingdom. And occasionally, a mega church might result (as something we never could have predicted :) ).

If anyone has any other reasons not to go this route (no cynicism please) please comment eh? Has anyone seen these examples of video-ography? Your thoughts?

Filed under Church Planting 58 Comments

on August 18 2011

Me and Alex McManus Take 2: Here’s a “Both/And” I Can Live With!

The indefatigable Alex McManus responded to a recent post of mine (in which I responded to him) while I was out of the country last week. In his post, Alex disagrees with (among other things) my assessment of the “big and positive footprint” approach to entering a context to plant a church. I was contending, over against the “big footprint,” for a humble inhabitation of a context as the necessary pre-amble for planting a church. McManus responds:

“It is OK for something really good like the gospel of the kingdom to enter a context and make waves, to spread like wild fire, go to supernova. I also think that your proposal to go in quietly, vulnerably, delicately is also worth doing … often necessary. I think it is OK for people whose intent it is to announce the kingdom in a community to do so either way, according to the spirit that has been given them, and the dictates of the contexts they enter.”

In other words, Alex argues that it should not be an “either/or” but rather should be a “both/and.” There will be some, according to Alex, who because of the kinds of leaders they are, will enter into a context in a big way making a big and positive footprint. On the other hand, others, who don’t have that leadership gifting, will enter quietly vulnerability. Alex says we need both kinds of approaches to church plants.

Upon reflection I think I agree with the notion we need both kinds of church plants. But Alex, you still missed my point. My point is that these two approaches – option 1 (entering humbly) versus option 2 (big footprint) –  are really doing two different things contextually, and which option we do HAS NOTHING TO DO with how we’re gifted. (In fact you might need to be more entrepreneurial in the option I than option 2.). IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH OUR CALLING. Let me explain:

1.) With option 1, we enter a context humbly, vulnerably, listening first and then responding. We follow in the way of the incarnation ({Phil 2:5-11). We go as lambs  with no power or money (Luke 10:3-4). We do not set up our worship services and then expect people to come to our services and the many things we can give them. We do not assume we already know what their needs are. We inhabit a place first as servants to live, listen and learn. This is how we go to people who are outside the gospel who do not know our language, who do not respect our position inherently as professional pastors (without even knowing us). This is how we engage a community outside of the gospel for mission.

2.) With option 2 we enter a context  by announcing (launching) a large worship service. Here we offer every kind of Christian goods and service (children’s ministries, single adult ministries,  Alcoholics/Divorce recovery groups etc. etc. ). We announce we’re coming with postcards and advertising. We offer services to the community to meet needs on a massive scale. We make a “large and positive footprint.” This is how we go to already Christianized peoples (in some way) who need to be called into the gospel anew. These people are already familiar with the gospel (raised Catholic, or Lutheran or traditional Bible church in their childhood and left). They may even recognize the habit of going to church from their parents. They need to get past the perceived  cultural irrelevance of their church experiences of the past. This approach still works for these people. They will come. This is attractional in its very nature (don’t see how you can get past this) and this WILL attract the Christianized masses who still have lingering memory of their Christian cultural upbringing.  The people above (in option 1) however, will generally not be attracted to this (and please, I know there will always be examples of the few coming from totally non-churched backgrounds  in the mega churches. I speaking about the majority of people who flock to big positive foot print churches.)

So I agree with Alex McManus, there is a place for both approaches. It isn’t an either/or it’s a both/and. Yet both are valid but for different reasons! Option 1 will be post Christendom missional engagement of a context. Option 2 will be a Christendom engagement of already Christianized masses. This has nothing to do with gifting (in fact Option 1 takes as much if not more entrepreneurial gifting). It has everything to do with calling. This is a “both/and” that I can live with.

But let’s be clear. The market for option 2 is shrinking. There are less and less of the culturally Christianized left in N America and Europe. And so when we plant with option 2 in these contexts we end up competing against one another. In “market terms,” we end up competing for the leftovers of Christendom. For these reasons, in a post from two months ago, I suggested denominations in N America (and Europe) start funding Option 1 versus Option 2. I suggested we stop funding church planting and fund missionaries.

What say you? Do you buy this “both/and”?

To my bro Alex, thanks for provoking.
You’re a good man and I love you too.

Blessings on what you’re doing for the Kingdom!!

Filed under Church Planting,Missional,Missional Leadership,Post-Attractional,Post-Christendom 44 Comments

on August 8 2011

Stop Funding Church Plants 2: Three Clues Alex McManus Doesn’t Get What I Was Talking About (And I’m OK With That)

A month ago I wrote a post entitled “Stop Funding Church Plants and Start Funding Missionaries: A Plea to Denominations” which got some blog attention and an article written about it over at CT. I basically proposed that denominations rethink the way they fund church planting. Admittedly the idea was simple and probably already being done by many many people. The idea: Traditional church plants put themselves into the uneasy position of having to compete for already existing Christians due to certain numbers/financial expectations. For sure people get converted and the poor are served. Yet they end up largely reaching people who still consider going to church a reasonable thing to do on Sunday. These new churches upgrade Christian goods and services (worship experience, services to divorced, technology, etc.) around dynamic entrepreneurial leaders. All fine and good. Yet they largely don’t reach the growing post Christianized populations. (BTW I’m not saying there aren’t examples of people reached outside the Christian faith in these churches, but if the leaders are honest, it is a small minority.) So, after rehearsing this argument again, I proposed we need to encourage and nurture groups of three leader/leader couples to inhabit neighborhoods that lack a communal gospel presence. Put money here to help leaders get situated within contexts that lack gospel expression. This doesn’t happen naturally. It takes effort and support (some but not alot of money). Here, through inhabiting contexts we enter these places humbly, listening and engaging the places of hurt, need and spiritual poverty with the full orbed gospel.  I see this approach to/entrance into culture diametrically different from the approaches typically engaged by Western church – often typified by its mega churches.

Alex McManus, head of the International M Network, comments on my post here and here. I think Alex is generous with me. And I basically agree with almost everything he says. He argues for instance that leaders should be bi-vocational (saying we shouldn’t pay people for being Christians). He talks about successful entrepreneurs as being catalyst leaders. He argues passionately about “not needing to fund any missionaries because every one should be a missionary.” All these things I’ve lived and supported. So Alex and I agree on a lot of stuff, but largely I think he missed my point. After reading his posts, I strongly suspect that Alex (as well as many mega church/traditional church planters) doesn’t get that I am proposing a form of missional engagement that is different from what mega minded church “architects” see as mission.

There’s at least three clues to this in his posts.

1.)“A huge and positive footprint” In MacManus’s first post he talks about Kensington Community Church’s K2 church plant in Salt Lake City. He says “K2 hit the ground with a huge and positive footprint and established a significant mission point in a city.” I see the “big footprint” as typical of mega church ways. To me this smacks of taking up a power position in a context. We go into a context, offer all goods and services and tell people what they need. This smacks of colonialist mission. What I was proposing in “Stop Funding Church Plants” was that we (ala Luke ch. 10) enter a context meekly, humbly, vulnerably, dare I say incarnationally. To go in with a large footprint basically attracts people who already agree with us or who find what we have to offer attractive because of its power. Both I suggest work against the mission of the gospel to those who find themselves lost and totally outside the gospel. I am sure within Alex’s work there are plenty of churches doing otherwise. Nonetheless, the fact that this approach is acceptable to Alex reveals to me why he doesn’t see the need for a new church planting strategy.

2.)“A high impact entrepreneurial leader.” Again in his first post McManus is prone to extolling the virtues of high-impact entrepreneurial leaders. He is adamant that “Launching large, high-impact churches led by entrepreneurial leaders will end immediately following the death of the last born, high-impact entrepreneurial leader.” Yet I suggest the history of such “American” type leaders is that they are best at galvanizing and organizing people to create large organizations. Such leaders lead to an attractional church built around the charisma of this single leader’s gifts. Again, this works well when marketing to existing Christians and/or those with Christian memory who can be attracted to Jesus through an atractive persona. Yet I suggest (and have suggested for years) this works against mission. It approaches culture on the power terms of a power figure. It forms hierarchy. Instead, I argue that we need teams of leaders to inhabit a community and cultivate mission in the fivefold giftings (Apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher organizer, evangelist). We must do this humbly and be among the context. The other works against mission

3.) Mega attractional churches that do small groups in neighboroods are already doing what Fitch proposes. In McManus’s second post he says “I think that the author’s idea of deploying such teams is not only possible, I think it’s already happening. Where ever you have a believing home, there you have a center for world mission. The rim of fire, the cutting edge, of the Christ following mission then is located in the living room of those homes in those places where Christ is not known.” I would like to believe this is happening in mega churches but from my many observations, it ain’t. (Remember Wilowcreeks attempt at this?). Mega churches aimed at attracting can’t work against that orbit by decentralizing its people into homes. It is interesting that the two churches Alex mentioned in his posts are both large mega churches who use video venues as the means to extend their church ministries into various contexts (to be fair, Kensington plants other kinds of churches as well). It is my experience that the mega machine, the drive to attend church under the mesmerzation of the audience under a premier motivational speaker, detracts if not de capitates the leadership formation necessary to do what I am talking about in the neighborhoods. Generally speaking (did you hear me say “generally speaking”?) mega church takes you away from the neighborhood, trains people to think of ministry as production not relationships. It does not train leadership into local contexts in mutual submission to Christ leading together (out of their giftings) in the neighborhood.

So, in summary, I appreciate Alex McManus, the churches he mentions, the ministry of his brother Erwin. I love them all. Nonetheless, I think Alex didn’t get my point and I’m OK with that. No harm done!! I think what he does and the mega churches do is important. It reaches “the markets” of Christians, formerly Christianized populations for the gospel.” What I’m advocating for however is a ministry of a different kind. I am advocating for a kind of missionary presence that can reach the 60% of this country outside of those categories. It requires a different culture. A different approach that cannot be nurtured alongside mega operations simply because the ethos, the leadership, the social dynamics work against it.

Am I off here? Is McManus right? Can what I’m suggesting can be done by mega churches and mega conferences? I’m just asking? You tell me?

________________________

CORRECTION: Erwin has rightly corrected me that both Kensington Community Church and Mosaic are large multi-site churches which do not use video venue screens to transmit the sermon via one single preacher. They use live preaching in each venue. I apologize for the error.

Filed under Church Planting,Incarnational,Missional,Missional Leadership,Uncategorized 40 Comments

on June 28 2011

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 :)

Filed under Church Planting,Post-Christendom 186 Comments

Older Entries »

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