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 19 2012

The Mark Driscoll Fiasco: What the Latest Flap Teaches Us About The Neo-Reformed Movement

You can stop reading this post if you think I am going to review Mark and Grace Driscoll’s book Real Marriage. I have a much more boring post in mind.

Driscoll’s Real Marriage book is to the NeoReformed what Rob Bell’s Love Wins was to the Emerging church last year. They both stir up humongous sales with a media frenzy and in the process reveal the “cracking” (to use Scot McKnight’s word) taking place within the mainline N. American protestant evangelical church. As with Bell’s book, so also with Driscoll’s book, each brouhaha (to use Bill Kinnon’s word) reveals something of the theological pulse driving their respective movements.

This time the Driscoll fiasco revolves an interview done by the Driscoll’s about their book with Justin Brierley on the British radio program Unbelievable (here’s the podcast of the entire hour-long interview with Mark Driscoll). There was a “dust-up” on the interview. Driscoll was offended. He then calls it “the most disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective” interview he’s ever had. And now it’s all over the internet driving up sales of his (and his wife’s) new book.

My take (and the angle I want to pursue) on the interview is that Driscoll’s “act” simply doesn’t translate well into the very post-Christendom context of Britian.  In fact the whole encounter reveals the Christendon assumptions that drive his theology. There are three missional “bugaboos” that he clashes with Brierley on. Each bugaboo represents a theological position we Missionals fear/resist because of the way these things work against mission.  In this interview, these bugaboos  are a.) Driscoll’s singular obsession with penal substitutionary atonement, b.) his commitment to hierarchical male authority in the church, and c.) his blind belief in the importance of preaching/successful preacher to the church’s identity. These bugaboos represent the Christendom assumptions behind Driscoll’s theology and way he operates. Yet I think we can make a case for interpreting Driscoll as  a symptom of the wider Neo-Reformed theological movement. So I think this episode reveals more than just Driscoll’s Christendom theology and mode of operation. I think it speaks to why the current Neo-Reformed revival and its theology will have a hard time leading missional–incarnational-externally driven church. So I put this theological psychoanalysis to the test before all my neo-Reformed friends. Let’s converse. Here goes!

(FYI: I’m riffing off of the account of the interview here and here, Driscoll’s response to the interview here, and Justin’s response to Driscoll as reported here).

1.) The Focus on the Substitionary Atonement. Towards the end of the interview, Driscoll asks Brierley if he believes in the penal substitutionary atonement. When Brierley affirms it as one of many ways to view the cross, Driscoll suggests he’s being cowardly about it.  Driscoll then insists on singular commitment to penal substitutionary atonement is essential to the success of the gospel.

To me this speaks to the singular focus on the penal subtitutionary atonement that is central in many parts of the Neo-Reformed matrix regardless of contextual considerations. Am I right? Driscoll is blind to contextual considerations concerning salvation. In other words, the atonement is many faceted (read McKnights Community of Atonement for example). One size does not fit all. It could be argued that penal substititionary atonement makes the most sense in Christendom, amidst a culture shaped under Medieval Catholicism, it’s theology and penitential system (Driscoll grew up Catholic). Moral guilt, you could say, was (and is) the singular Christendom condition into which Reformed theology was born. It is not however as universal in the West as it once was. If we insist on being locked into this one view of the atonement, we will in essence be narrowing our context for mission.

The atonement is wider, bigger and more multitudinous than substitionary theory. And the hurts and pains of the world we are engaging cannot be put fit into this one theory. I believe in the substitionary theory of the atonement. But it is limited. The work that God is doing in the world includes reconciliation, healing, restoration, justice, and the victory and authority of Christ over Satan, evil, sin and death. It is in short God at work through Christ making all things right.  A narrow focus on substitionary atonement disables the church from engaging the world outside Western Christendom culture. It discounts the manifold ways God in Christ has come to set the whole world right. Mark Driscoll can’t understand this. And so when he enters a post-Christendom context he gets frustrated.

Does not Drsicoll’s frustration then reveal the atonement myopia at the heart of the Neo-Reformed movement. Does it not reveal the weakness inherent in Neo-Reformed theology for those of us minsistering in post Christendom contexts (like Brierley’s Britian)? Does not his whole fiasco reveal how the singular focus on subtititionary atonement hinders missional engagement? Yes? no?

2.) The View that Authority is Hierarchical. Towards the end of the interview the issue of women pastors came up. It caused a bit of a flare-up in Driscoll’s intensity. Driscoll ends up suggesting that the reason why more people did not show up at Brierley’s church was because of a woman in leadership. To me, this has been a subtle persistent theme within Neo-Reformed ecclesiology: that men should be over women in authority in the church. Now it explodes on a radio interview in the UK. This I suggest is a Neo-Reformed habit learned and sustained in Christendom.

Authority in Christendom is viewed in hierarchical terms. Hierarchical patterns of leadership exist readily in established church systems where you have Christianized people who are already conditioned to respect clergy authority, where things can get done, goods and services distributed, decisions made, disputes arbitrated more efficiently among Christians who already submit. It is because of these ingrained habits of hierarchy that most Neo-Reformed views of church authority have struggles with women in authority over men (OK this is at least one of the reasons). Take hierarchy out of the authority question and it becomes much harder to interpret Scripture in a way that excludes women from leadership in the church.

In the post-Christendom world, authority is flattened in the church and pushed outward (Read this post for more info). Positional authority of anyone over someone else is not the way things work in the Kingdom (read Mark 10:42). Instead we work alongside each other out of our giftedness in the communities appreciating one another gifts and mutually submitting one to another in each one’s gifts (read Eph 4, Rom 12:3-8). The authority lies in one’s recognized gift. The idea that women are over men is as unthinkable as the idea that men are over women.

Flattened authority structures push leadership out amidst the organic work of ministry in context. Hierarchy pushes church ministry inward and upward for approval. Hierarchical authority inhibits dispersed missional engagement. Its structures will miss with people who submit to authority only as encountered via authentic relational engagement. Driscoll seems blind to these issues. He’s absolutely frustrated with Brierley’s inability to be impressed with the importance of top down male leadership. My question is: are these assumptions part of the larger Neo-Reformed movement as a whole and does this mean that the Neo-Reformed will always be inhibited somewhat from true missional engagement? (Can I say “just asking?”). It will always be a movement prone to attracting Christianized people who are already habituated to submit to a pre-established hierarchical (male) authority.

3.) The assumption that “success” is best measured by the number of people who show up to hear a male preacher preach. When Mark Driscoll finds out that Justin Brierley’s wife is a pastor and is questioned on the validity of a wife whose husband supports his wife’s leadership, Mark asks about the size and growth of his wife’s church.  He says among other things “You look at your results and you look at my results and look at the variable that is the most obvious.” In other words I have thousands in my church, and you have a few hundred. That proves female leadership is inferior.

To me this is more than blind Driscollian machismo. This reveals something deeper in the Neo-Reformed ethos. There is a tendency in the Neo-Reformed movement to put a large emphasis on the gathering to hear preaching. I believe in preaching! But I see its function differently in the mission of the church. For the Neo-Reformed – correct me if I am wrong – there is a confidence that non-Christian people will still come to church to hear a good sermon. There is therefore a default tendency in Neo-Reformed churches to see success in terms of the numbers of people gathering on Sunday to hear a male preacher preach. This is a missional bugaboo. Success in mission will not always look like big numbers listening to a preacher (has Driscoll ever heard of Fresh Expressions in UK?). I see preaching as formational for a missional people, not a place where mission actually takes place (although I am uncomfortable with making that split). As a result, though often unintentional, the Neo-Reformed movement often devolves into a male led preacher attracting already existing Christians to come hear a good sermon. It thereby mistrains the congregation to think this is what church and mission is all about. That’s perhaps an over-characterization. But is there any truth to it?

Again, I think Driscoll’s question about the size of his wife’s congregation is more than a slip of the Driscollian machismo, I think it reveals something at the heart of the Neo-Reformed movement that will hinder it in the formation of congregations for mission. What say you?

In Conclusion

I see in the Mark Driscoll dust-up with Justin Brierley a revealing of some of the Christendom habits deep within the Neo-Reformed movement although often covered over by the many good things they do. The fact that Mark Driscoll’s flare-up happens in the UK – a very post Christendom place – only reinforces my case.

Some have said in response, that Mark Driscoll’s church is in Seattle, the most post-Christendom city in the US. But here, in this post, he says boldly admits going to Canada or the UK is much harder to do ministry than even in Seattle. He states “You are in a cultural context that is more non-Christian, and even anti-Christian, than even the most liberal cities in the United States. I’ve taught across Scotland, Ireland, and England. Each one is more difficult to reach than my hometown of Seattle, which is one of the historically least-churched and most secular-minded cities in America. I’ve said for years that Britain and Canada are more secular and difficult than the United States.” He basically admits that he himself with his particular approach to ministry would have difficulty succeeding in his own approach to ministry. Does this then not reveal what I am saying here? Driscoll is largely dependent upon the harvesting of already Christianized populations in Seattle area (what’s left of them)? Is this then why he then goes with video churches to go capture other such populations elsewhere? Does this then reveal some things that my Neo-Reformed brothers have to examine about their own theological modus operandi? I genuinely ask these questions for the furtherance of God’s Mission in our times.

It may seem unfair to stigmatize the entire Neo-Reformed movement with the likes of a Mark Driscoll temper flare-up. But I’ve learned that these kind of escapades are the best places to look at the cultural forces at work in theology and poitics. For myself, Mark Driscoll is an irruption of sorts on the skin of the Neo-Reformed movement.  His flare-up, if closely examined, can reveal some of the theology at work and the forces behind these theological allegiances. How other leaders in the movement respond to him, like Tim Challies,  Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, Tim Keller, Collin Hansen,  James McDonald, will reveal perhaps even more. Is Mark Driscoll just an outlier for the Neo-Reformed movement or is he the truth that lies at its core?

Tags: , ,

Filed under Acts 29,Mark Driscoll,Missional,Missional Ecclesiology,Missional Leadership,Missional Theology,Neo-Reformed,Post-Attractional,Post-Christendom,Rob Bell,Soteriology,Uncategorized,Women in MInistry 116 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 September 27 2011

Tim Keller’s “Gospel Ecosystem”: 3 Dangers In a Noble Idea

In the last year or so, Tim Keller has put forth a bold theory of engaging the city which he calls the Gospel Ecosystem (you can read about it here, here and here). I applaud his effort!! Basically he calls for several elements to work in concert with one another to eventually reach/change an entire city. This is a model of church engaging culture worth paying attention to. These elements include:

1.) A kingdom-centered, city-wide prayer movement that is clearly not the turf of any particular church or network.
2.) Specialty evangelistic ministries, especially university campus and youth ministries.
3.) Justice & mercy initiatives, e.g. Christian involvement in local government, development of specialized nonprofits.
4.) Faith & work initiatives, particularly Gospel-centered fellowships for people with similar vocations, e.g. a regular fellowship of Christian artists.
5.) Educational and family-support organizations.
6.) Leadership development systems.
7.) Influential leaders from varied disciplines collaborating for city transformation, e.g. industry, media, government, church, education.

I’m a fan of Tim Keller. He has a heart and vision for reaching cities. I like that he is provoking a church based strategy for engaging the whole city. I like that he is pushing churches and para-church organizations to work together for the justice of the city. I like the bigness of the vision. I like his “tipping point” idea (learned from Charles Colson) that once we achieve a 10% presence, the entire culture becomes affected on a broad scale towards the gospel. I just think (and here’s the rub) that the way we get to that 10% is from the ground-up as opposed to (what might come off as) a totalist strategy implemented from above.

So I have my qualms (this is a permanent state of discomfort for Ana-baptists in order to maintain their status as Anabaptists). There are some dangers here. I pose them as questions to Tim Keller and the neo-Reformed fans of the Gospel Ecosystem. I mean this post to provoke conversation to further the cause, not as an indictment.

1.) A REDUCED GOSPEL: Is there an agreement on what the gospel is in this ecosystem? This of course is a gospel ecosystem. But is there a singular understanding of the gospel in this Gospel Ecosystem that is focused around the justification of the individual believer in Christ? Not that I don’t believe in this part of God’s salvation, but I don’t believe one can enforce a single understanding of God’s salvation in the world across an entire spectrum as large as a metroplitan city. Yet the fact that Keller calls for the use of specialty evangelistic ministries in no. 2.) and seems to separate this evangelism from justice ministry in no. 3) suggests Keller’s Gospel Ecosystem might be susceptible to a reduction/focus on this one part of the gospel (justification by faith). This could become the singular focus of church plants whereby we miss numerous other entrance points in each local context for the gospel. A reduced gospel proclamation installed theologically across the board limits the power of the gospel in Christ to transform whole structures. Over against this approach, I strongly suggest that the gospel proclamation take shape on the ground out of each specific context. Here we proclaim the victory of God over oppression, the forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God and the many other aspects of God’s reign in Christ as makes sense (and is compelled by) each local context. I don’t see Keller reducing the gospel, yet I intuit that Keller’s Gospel Ecosystem could be used in this way. Am I intuiting wrong? Is there the danger that this system could promote a bunch of individuals being saved from hell only to go on living comfortably within the existing unjust systems?     

2.)AN IMPERIALIST IMPULSE?: Is there an imperialist impulse here that could derail the whole project? This vision of the Gospel Ecosystem is a grand vision. It imagines Christians infesting every area of life in the city. The goal of item no. 7.) is to put key influential leaders in every institution of cultural power including the arts, media, business, government, education. My problem with this is it reads like a “blueprint to takeover the city.” It approaches the city from a position above the city, as one in power. But this is not the way of Jesus. Indeed Jesus is Lord, we are not. So we enter humbly, asking what is God doing. Locally we inhabit each space. There will be times to join in seeing God at work in gov’t. There will be times to withdraw and subvert because “the powers” have taken over. We discern these things humbly as a local infestation of the Kingdom. We allow the politics of Kingdom righteousness to be made manifest and birth the Kingdom in contagion into the city. Now I know from reading Keller’s Lausanne speech on Gospel Ecosystems, that he knows the theology of “Resident Aliens” (1 Pet 2) well. But is there not a potential for some unhealthy triumphalism here in the Gospel Ecosystem? Are there the seeds of another Jerry Falwell movement here of another kind? Just asking?

A byproduct of this approach is that it subconsciously assumes these systems are in themselves good. They just need to be reformed by good Christians. That by changing leadership these structures can be directed to their God ordained purposes. In fact these structures may have to be done away with entirely. Maybe the large City gov’t system does not need to be redeemed. Maybe it needs to be dismantled entirely. It is so corrupt, taken over by the evil powers, that it must come down. It may be heresy to say, but maybe the public schools just need to end. A new system of local schooling, church schooling, home schooling would be God’s answer to the city. On the other hand, maybe pubic education can be redeemed!! Of course, these calls are not our calls. Jesus is Lord of all. But putting people in positions of power tends to assume the existing structures are from God and we just need to transform them. This is the “tell” that the Gospel Ecosystem is Reformed in impulse (Kuyperian).  Such a Kuyperianism can be blind to when the structures in power have in fact become given over to the powers. We then might have to subvert them instead of participating in them.

3.) INDIVIDUALISM: Is there an individualism here that does not recognize “the principalities and powers”? There seems to be an assumption in Keller’s Ecosystem (from no. 7.) that if we send individuals into the various spheres of power, e.g. arts, industry, media, government, church, education, that they shall become influencers instead of being influenced. But this is anathema to an Ana-baptist like moi. For we know that power corrupts. That indeed some systems (NOT ALL!!) are too far gone. That sometimes (NOT ALL THE TIME!) participation in them at all is participation in its sin and the corruption thereby.  How shall individuals not be absorbed into the systems that have become the very enfleshment of the unjust powers. Some of us are literally asking this about some of the structures of U.S. society. For sure this is an extreme, but it is becoming less and less of an aberration. Many of our systems (including church systems) corrupt us with money/salary and make any resistance from inside almost impossible. Is there a healthy awareness of this dynamic in the Gospel Ecosystem? Or will we see more Christians ala George Bush enter the system only to look more like the system 8 years later?

IN SUMMARY, I urge caution in a church’s strategy for the city. Let the words “seek the welfare of the city” (said from Exile Jer 29:7) drive us to cultivate the Kingdom humbly in each neighborhood – a local expression of the gospel on-the-ground in people’s everyday lives or work, family, government, education. These expressions, by their presence, shall then be able to call into question the unjust powers, as well as cooperate with the structures and bring life to them when they are of God and His Mission. Let us pay attention to Bryan Stone’s exhortation that ?”the evangelism of Jesus … is unintelligible apart from the announcement of a new government to which we are called to convert, embodied in such concrete practices as the rejection of violence, justice for the poor, love to enemies, economic sharing and the relativizing of national and family allegiances”(p.149) By infesting society on the ground in this fashion, God will surely bring in His Kingdom to the city.

I am sure Tim Keller’s speech at Lausanne could be seen as just this kind of strategy. Yet there lies within it, some seeds for undermining the Kingdom.  So I offer these questions with the hope of furthering the work of Tim Keller, and the idea of the Gospel Ecosystem.

BTW: I think the Gospel Ecosystem should be in conversation with CCDA. I like the way CCDA a.) centers their efforts in a wholistic gospel of Jesus Christ, a.) emphasize entering humbly within a locale, and c.) seek God’s justice in and through Christ as a communal development under the Lordship of Christ.

What say you? Over paranoid ana-baptist? Am I misreading the Gospel Ecosystem?

Filed under Neo-Anabaptist,Neo-Reformed,Post-Christendom,Uncategorized 16 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 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

on February 15 2011

Yoder’s Jeremian (dispersed missional) Ecclesiology: What Yoder got right according to Leithart

I’ve been reading Peter Leithart’s Defending Constantine lately. A lot has been said about Leithart’s bashing of John Howard Yoder. To me, it’s just not that big a deal. I think Yoder’s proposals for ecclesiology in post-Christendom are exactly right (I’m a “homer”). And since the new post Christendom cultures of N America is where I believed I’m called, I’ll follow Yoder. The squabbles over history and assessing Constantine’s Christianity are certainly interesting. But I don’t see it as much of an issue. The question is, how do we Christians be the people of God when we are not in power, or losing power, or indeed when we are in the missionary situation. I agree with Leithart that the question “what do we do when the emperor converts to Jesus as Lord?” is more complex than Yoder would have it.  And indeed there is something positive to be learned from Constantine about Christians “in power” in these ways. But we’re not there right now. And I don’t see the pursuit of the world’s power, the power of the sword, or the corporatist power that is polluted by all things Mammon, as the legitimate pursuit of Christians. So let’s get on to how we are to be Christians in the post-Constantinian cultural situation we find ourselves in (which is large parts of N. America).

And here is where Yoder got it right eh? Let me quote Leithart on Yoder’s description of how to be church. This is what Leithart describes as Yoder’s Jeremian ecclesiology based in Jer 29:1-7. Leithart says:

For Yoder, the Jeremian model of Jewish life and identity does more than simply provide a way of making sense of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels. It provides a model for the church in its relation to the powers …Yoder’s Jeremiah instructed the people to settle into the galuth, exile, not as a temporary “hiatus” before a new kingship and temple were established, nor simply as a punishment for their sins. Jews were to “seek the salvation of the culture” of Babylon by accepting their dispersion as a call to mission. They were to retain their separate identity by adherence to a peripatetic moral and liturgical life, … (they) established places of worship without priesthoods whenever ten households gathered, … (they) found the “ground floor of identity” in the common life, the walk, halakah,” and confounded kings and emperors “with the superior wisdom and power of one authentic God.”

Jeremiah’s vision for Israel in exile was neither an effort to “Hebraize” Babylon … nor a retreat from cultural engagement. Jews served “the entire ancient Near East world as expert translators, scribes, diplomats, sages, merchants, astronomers.” … Far from being a place of resignation and lament, “Babylon itself very soon became the cultural center of world Jewry.” … (according to Yoder) this is the cultural and political program that the church inherited from Judaism.” 294-295.

Leithart says that Yoder’s vision of Christian engagement is “invigorating and just right in many respects.” He disagrees with Yoder over whether such a vision is the permanent social strategy for Christians. There is the goal of history, Leithart says, to move back from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Leithart asks what happens when the emperor becomes Christian.

This is good stuff. I’ve enjoyed the book. But for right now, I want to emphasize two things that have become clearer after reading Leithart. 1.) Leithart’s critique aside, Yoder’s vision of the church is the one most apropos for the current cultural situation many of us are living in – i.e. N America’s New post Christendom cultures. It is compelling. 2.) We can learn from Constantine something similar to what we learned from Yoder – We should not seek power as dictated by “the world,” the power of the sword, or the corporatist power that is polluted by all things Mammon. This applies for in the church as well as outside. For whenever we do this, we doth separate ourselves from the gospel. We should not try to compete or win (for Jesus) against the existing people in governmental power on the world’s terms. That very second, the world has won, Jesus has been lost. Our witness absorbed into the ways of sin (Did not pres. George Bush lose his ability to rule as a Christian the moment he slung the sleaze and the mud at John McCain, nevermind Al Gore or later John Kerry.) We should never seek to exercise power in the world’s terms. Instead, the most subversive thing we can do to change the world is seek the salvation of the individuals in government, and ask them to renounce the world’s corruption at all costs. When one of these people, truly gets saved, happy days!! But as Hauerwas reminds “Yoder also encouraged Christians to believe that emperors could be Christians. He observed that if they tried to rule as Christian, it might result in an earlier death than they had anticipated- but, he observed, most emperors die early anyway.”

I think the Jeremian vision for the church is the way of the gospel for the challenges the church faces in Mission in the West. What say you? I’m off to Ambrose University for a few days, but I’ll try to chime in when time and internet allows.

Filed under Missional Ecclesiology,Neo-Anabaptist,Post-Christendom,Stanley Hauerwas,Uncategorized 19 Comments

on January 19 2011

The Attractional Basis of Neo-Reformed Church Plants YES OR NO?: or Don’t try this at home if you live in the secularized North

In a recent post on this blog I made the statement:

“I have no doubt that the success of many of the New Reformed Missional churches in the cities is the result of the influx of twenty-something populations into the cities in the past fifteen-twenty years with little or no place to go to church.” Collin Hansen – author, editor at CT, and a contributor to the Gospel Coalition – asks 2 questions in response “Could you point me to research that led you to conclude (this?)  Then he also added “I would also be interested to know more about your observation that Redeemer City to City and Acts 29 “depend largely on existing Christianized populations.”

On Collin’s questions – I don’t have statistical research that is irrefutable eh? (Is there such a thing?). I think we could get such statistics if mega churches and some of the more notable Neo-Reformed church plants (Mars Hill, Redeemer) would simply survey their regular attenders and ask their congregants the question “prior to this church, did you come from a previous church or Christian upbringing?” Again and again, every growing mega church I know has simply ignored, pushed to the side or outright refused to survey their burgeoning congregation by asking this question? And yet, I have NO PROBLEM with re-invigorating dormant Christians. I simply want it recognized that attractional strategies are a poor way to engage those truly outside the Christian faith with the gospel. They are not missional in that sense. They often get caught up in competition for existing Christians.

So, In response to Collin’s legitimate questions, I think I can answer his two questions with something better than statistics – the logic of the way the New Reformed church plants carry out their strategies. I offer these two insights:

1.) On Redeemer and Acts 29 and other Neo-Reformed Church Planting Strategies being dependent upon Christianized populations.

The Neo-Reformed church planting strategies, as represented in Mark Driscoll’s Confessions of a Reformissionary, Tim Keller’s Redeemer’s Church planting manual, as well as Ed Stetzer’s manifold publications are attractionally driven. They depend heavily on the “draw” of a charismatic male preacher. They all speak about the importance of the opening service. They speak about the importance of preaching being a culturally relevant communication. Preaching is the main thing. Preaching is the draw. All of this assumes people outside of the gospel will want to come to a place in order to hear a sermon preached. It depends upon a cultural orbit where people outside of Christ would naturally go to church to hear a sermon in order to come to Christ. THIS DYNAMIC IS CHRISTENDOM. Don’t get me wrong – I UNEQUIVOCABBLY BELIEVE PREACHING IS CENTRAL TO THE FORMATION OF GOD’S PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. It just is not the foundation of church planting in mission – which is engaging a community with the gospel. It is not the basis upon which a Missional church plant begins because by definition such a Neo-Reformed  church plant seeks from the outset to draw in Christians or the Christianized into this place to hear a sermon.  Missional church plants on the other hand seek to engage those outside the Christian faith with the gospel.  Conclusion? These church planting strategies are dependent upon Christianized populations. Yes?

I say this not to disparage the many good works for Christ among my Neo-Reformed brothers (and sisters- wink wink). I applaud pastor Driscoll, Keller, Stetzer and all the others for their great work! There are many out there who are still culturally conditioned by Christendom. And there will always also be the occasional person totally outside Christ who likewise gets caught under these influences who will come to Christ. Praise be to God! Yet, I argue that there can be little doubt, that in post Christendom, those who number among the growing populations of the secularized, have little or no intention of ever going to go hear a sermon when they seek God. When they seek God they will go other places first (Oprah, a discussion group, a book club, the pub). Granted there will be exceptions, but as a strategy for mission, it relies on an orbit of a Christianized culture. To me this is irrefutable.  What say you?

I think everything what I have said here is evident in places like Mark Driscoll’s Confessions book, Redeemer’s Church Planting Manual, or Ed Stetzer’s most recent set of posts on church planting. To offer just a few examples of literally hundreds:

a.)Almost the entire structure of Mark Driscoll’s church plant of Mars Hill in Seattle is attractional based on his accounts in Confessions of a Reformission Rev.. From the way they did a “launch” to the intense drive on measuring the attendance of the Sunday gatherings. It is common throughout the book for pastor Driscoll to talk about things like how they “survived the horrendous hip-hop and expanded to two Sunday services in time for the fall push, which is when we have our biggest attendance increase” (p. 93). This kind of emphasis is ubiquitous in the book. Attractional is adopted under the argument for being “attractive” (p.31). It is really disconcerting that pastor Mark does not recognize that the “3000” who were saved (Acts 2) on Pentecost were not gathered as a mega church (p.94). They were gathered from all over the Middle East at the Pentecost festival and were part of the Jewish dispersion. Upon being saved, THEY WERE DISPERSED back into their locales to form communities back home.

b.)Tim Keller’s Redeemer church planting manual has also many revelations about how deep the attractional strategy is here.  In Redeemer’s manual, there are tremendous efforts to detail how the services at Redeemer were crafted to draw non-Christians into the services. Likewise, conversions are recounted of non-Christians (and we must discern carefully what this might mean). And yet we see again the assumption that must be talked about over and over to get at the issue I am targeting here. We are depending on attracting “non-Christians” to come to a gathering for the teaching of the Bible. Can we at least admit that the average secularized non-Christian does not naturally seek to attend a church service whose main purpose is “to teach” from the Bible even if that teaching and worship always “assumes the presence of non-Christians in it even before we knew if any were there (p.13).”

Tim Keller is one of the most culturally savvy, gospel centered, “restoration of the city” oriented pastors I know. Can I say this clearly I LOVE TIM KELLER! I cast no aspersion WHATSOEVER on the impact of his/Redeemer’s ministry. I’m just saying, it is attractionally driven and depends upon Christendom habits, habits that are in decline in many parts of our culture. I don’t know if his strategy is reproducible in the years to come. Eventually as what is left of the Christianized foundation of city culture diminishes, such church planting strategies will turn into competition for the Christianized peoples as opposed to mission.  Redeemer is to be commended for not advertising where Tim Keller is preaching (of the many sites Redeemer has in NYC) because they recognize that attendance would go way up where he preaches, and way down every where else. Nonetheless, this reveals the attractional foundations that lie at the base of Redeemer’s beginnings.

c.)In Ed Stetzer’s recent post about his own church planting venture and his research, he reveals his proclivity toward attractional church planting. Again, Ed has taught me a lot. And I agree with a lot of what he puts out there. But read these words from his post here: “

“Think about the person who shows up on launch Sunday due to a postcard in the mail the week before. Your hope is that your first attendants will be made up of seekers and people open to the first-time consideration of the gospel. And, that means people who are asking questions and starting their spiritual journey– they are often not ready to be spiritual leaders since they are just considering things of faith. … This Sunday we had our first preview service at Grace Church, where I am serving as lead pastor … And, as in the couple hundred people we had come Sunday, we know it to be true that we often encounter a fair number of new, seeking, and sometimes hurting on that first Sunday.”

This is worthy labor for Christ! Yet the idea of having 200 people on an opening service reveals how much this approach assumes people want to come to an opening launch of a worship service. The idea of this happening even with flyers, advertising, a famous rock star musician, IS SIMPLY NOT REALITY FOR THOSE OF US MINISTERING INS SECULARIZED CULTURES. Granted, Ed is working with a church plant in Nashville, the bastion of Christendom in United States. His approach makes sense there. I applaud his work. All I’m saying is, please don’t try this at home! If home for you is post Christendom secularized cities.

2.)  On Collin’s second part of his question, regarding my contention that the success of many of the New Reformed Missional churches in the cities is the result of the influx of twenty-something populations into the cities.

I think it is irrefutable that masses of white (a lot of them evangelical) populations moved out of the American city in droves to the suburbs in 1960′s to 80’s. Starting in the nineties this reversed itself. There was a huge migration back into the city by yuppie, white twenty something populations. That wave hit peak in early nineties to 2000 (this wave was symbolically represented by the popular TV show Friends – a bunch of white twenty something’s who lived in the city). I was part of that wave and attended (and was a leader) in Park Community Church in Chicago in its early years. I often attended and knew people who went to Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan (where I often worked). These massive populations entered a city where the previous white evangelical churches had long since left, closed, or became minority churches. These new professionalized populations had no place to go to church. Maybe only 5% of these new professionalized city immigrants were Christians, but that still was a huge number and I firmly believe that places like Park Community Church and Redeemer became feeding grounds for these highly educated young professionalized Christian peoples.

I have NO DOUBT the ministries in question are vibrant and real. The question is, as these Christianized peoples find their churches, and there is less of that “market” left to be re-churched, what will become of mission to the secularized peoples. Shall we continue to plant churches on the Redeemer or Acts 29 model and fight over the Christianized?

In conclusion,

I applaud the work of the Neo-Reformed church planting movements. The work accomplished for Christ on many levels is irrefutable. Praise God! Seriously and sincerely! In this post, I am merely trying to point out that this strategy’s effectiveness is inherently built on attractional premises, which will become increasingly more difficult and competitive amidst the secularized cultures of the West. The remnant of Christianized populations will run out unless they are mobilized for mission among the lost cultures. For these challenges we need a new vision for church-planting. I’ve sketched in brief my ideas on this in this post?  I think we need a discussion.

Am I valid in saying that Neo-Reformed church planting – in that it emphasizes the singularity of the culturally relevant preaching service as the means to form a gathering – attractional? Dependent upon culturally Christianized populations? And therefore less than missional in its vision for reaching a secularized post-Christendom culture? YES OR NO? and why? Blessings

Filed under Acts 29,Church Planting,Incarnational,Post-Attractional,Post-Christendom 83 Comments

on January 12 2011

Death of a Church Plant – Some Reflections and Hope for the Future of Missional Church Planting

I don’t know Jason Coker (except through blogosphere), but I love reading Jason Coker. And what he has done in a recent series of posts is simply amazing. In these posts (here, here, here, here, and here), Jason reflects on the sorrows of closing down a church that he and his wife Jenell worked so hard to plant in San Diego. Jason is a good writer. Yet Jason does more than that, he is brutally honest. He gives us a window into the world of church planting. I think everyone who seeks to plant a church should read these posts.

After I read Jason’s posts I couldn’t get them out of my mind. I often find myself  worrying about church planters who do the kind of church planting that Jason and Jenell were doing. Jason’s posts fed that angst. Jamie Arpin-ricci’s recent post poured more gas on the flames of that anxiety. So I started to write this post. This post is not meant to tell Jason or anyone else what they did wrong. I do not dare to suggest I know Jason or San Diego or anything else enough to be able to do such a thing. I admire Jason, Jenell and Jamie and a whole bunch more church planters of their ilk. I’m just reflecting on their experience out of my own experience. If it helps everybody, so be it.

Planting missional communities is a different animal from the prototype church planting that is so familiar in denominations and places like Acts 29 and Redeemer City to City. The attractional dynamics that often typifies these kinds of church planting depend largely on existing Christianized populations. The emphasis is on meeting the dynamic of the population group so as to present the gospel in a cultural savvy way.  I have no doubt that the success of many of the New Reformed Missional churches in the cities is the result of the influx of twenty-something populations into the cities in the past fifteen-twenty years with little or no place to go to church. Of course this is worthy work, and it has its own costs – let me tell you. And just so every body hears me – even in missional communities – there is the coalescence of already existing Christians of some sort for the task of listening to God and living in mission in a neighborhood. But the task of missionary church planting is different. Can I say that one more time? MISSIONARY CHURCH PLANTING IS DIFFERENT and the demands require a “mental training” of a sort.

So I have just a few observations to offer from reading Jason’s posts.  After all I need the therapy! And thinking through Jason’s posts are like good therapy for every church planter I know. Again, just to reiterate, I don’t know Jason and I have only visited San Diego so these comments aren’t really about him. I applaud the hard work and the journey. Church planters like Jason and Jenell are golden. I hesitate to comment because perhaps people will think I’m saying they did something wrong. NOT! I think they are extraordinary for their work. I offer up these reflections as fodder for the much needed conversation on the nature of church planting for our time.  Feel free to go at me on these comments.

4  Observations of Jason Coker’s post-mortem reflections on the closing of a church plant.

1.)Church Planting in Post Christendom is hard. I really can’t tell if Jason/Jenell were intentionally engaging post Christendom contexts, but their emphasis on justice, culture, and various approaches to ministry articulated here suggest that that they were doing just that. They were avoiding the competition and negative orbits associated with attractional ministry. Going against this grain is hard.

Nurturing community with an external focus and vibrant missional life often goes against the cultural assumptions of denominations and support networks. Denominations/American business want to see (immediate) results. They think like business people. Jason never said the Vineyard people placed these expectations on them. But the pressure is there regardless. It’s an American church cultural thing. Yet has anyone ever doing missionary work in India ever been expected to produce a self-sustaining church in three years? Overcoming these cultural pressures is hard.

Missional community also goes against the grain of already existing Christians who simply see the church as a place to sustain their own lifestyles/families in the Christian ethos. Leading people into a new imagination for the way God works in our lives and mission is painstaking. It is asking Christians to take discipleship to a new level. This – IMO – takes several years of cultivation. As such, many church plants have neither the patience, internal security or plain finances to be able to work that long on this kind of cultivation. Many get way-layed, pulverized by the turnover and the plain stubborn headedness of American Christians. All this makes church planting in Post-Christendom hard. Jason, Jenell should be commended for their true hearted commitment to work as missionaries … BECAUSE THIS KIND OF CHURCH PLANTING IS WHAT IS NEED IN A COUNRTY WHOSE ACTIVE CHRISTIAN POPULATIONS ARE SHRINKING.

2.) Finances are really important and often out of our control This is why I encourage those who plant a missionary church to have a minimum of a 5 year financial plan. You can raise these funds, but often, for many reasons, the work of this kind of fund raising CAN (ALTHOUGH NOT ALWAYS!) work against the very missional impulses your working to go with. I urge beginning church planters to get a job, especially if they’re in the twenties. Gaining a skill and experience in the workplace is monumental for your own personal development. It offers years of flexibility and freedom. I suggest church planters get a job where you can learn a skill and commit to getting good at. I urge church planters to only think about working 15 hours a week in their missional community pastoring. I urge every missional church plant to have three core leaders/couples who similarly have jobs who together can give 15 hours a week to the cultivating of this community.  This is enough time for pastoring/cultivating (it’s actually the equivalent of one full time pastor). Since the community is very small (maybe only a few people to as many as thirty) you’re going to be ordering your life together in mission in the community. You aren’t going to be spending 50 hours producing an attractional service to compete and draw Christians from other places. 15 hours a week by three people is sufficient to lead and nurture the beginnings of such a community.

The job that these pastors get then provides the means to take all the pressure off and spend 5 years cultivating. It will also help each pastor gain a sense of identity and reality. This changes everything. It changes the way we look at ministry. Changes the dynamics of why we get paid and the pressures. And it provides the seeding ground so necessary in a missionary plant. It puts you out and about and alongside the community.

Jason had difficulty finding work. he got caught in the 2008 financial collapse vortex. It took a toll on him big time. For me, this issue of a job is perhaps the key part of navigating one’s entry into missional church planting. It’s a hurdle so many M Div’s can’t get past. Many M Div’s place their entire identity into getting a pastorate (this was definitely NOT THE CASE WITH JASON). They struggle to see tent-making as an identity marker that marks you as a revolutionary. Jason already was past this hurdle but couldn’t get that job for a long while. I suggest an alternative might be to raise funds with the plan for those funds to provide the time necessary to find a job.

Finances are probably the single number one debilitating factor in planting churches. I think it’s more psychical than it is material. For these reasons, as we plan a missional church plant, we must take the time to get firmly planted within a sustainable life financially that is also a walk of faith.

3) Finding at least two other strong mature leaders/couples that can join in with you and lead this communal imagination is essential. It is the APEPT principle – it takes an Apostle, Prophet (preacher), Evangelist, Pastor, and Teacher (organizer) to nurture a community into existence and flourishing (Eph 4). Until then you struggle.  Jason certainly struggled to find the right partners. He struggled courageously. At the Vine, it took us four years to get our leadership together. We struggled awfully until God led us into the right partnership with the right leaders. I feel like I nearly died psychically several times as a single leader with others who did not understand the mission with me. But when God provided the right partners, life changed, it made sense, and things started to take on a life of its own, the life of the Spirit.

In Christendom, one guy(or woman), with some charisma, can rustle up a crowd of Christians using Facebook and attract them with some preach-tainment long enough to establish a base from which he/she then builds systems. Not in missionary situations. One charismatic person cannot carry the load, and if she/he does, it will primary be an internally focused mega-church servicing Christians of some variety. Nothing wrong with that (necessarily).  But it won’t be a missional community like Jason and Jenell were seeking to cultivate.

4) 5 Years. I simply don’t believe cultivating such a community will even begin to take on sustainable way of life that breeds life in the Spirit for a minimum of 5 years. Many disagree but I just don’t see it. The cultivation work is too important.  It takes long patience and sustaining of oneself financially. Jason and Jenell had to close the church after 2 to 3 years. Yet I don’t think they should see this as a failure. Certain contingencies worked (all of which I have no knowledge of) to prevent from continuing. But 2 years is too short to consider this community a failure. I don’t believe in missionary work you can expect to see vibrant transformational growth until the end of year five (this may even be too short). I realize there are exceptions – this is just my historical perspective. For some reason, many many times, the Holy Spirit requires cultivated ground, open minds, prayer that opens the minds and hearts of the world to His working.  TO ME MISSIONAL CULTIVATORS MUST EXPECT TO CULTIVATE MANY YEARS before they see the kinds of numbers, conversions etc. that Christendom has gotten us so used to.

Missional Communities Aren’t Worth It!

Some may look above and read of the struggles of Jason, Jenel and Jamie and others and say “missional communities then are not worth it.” Uh, I think Jason, Jenell and Jamie would disagree (although maybe not today).  It does however require a different imagination, a different set of expectations, seeing ministry as a way of life, dare I say a sense of identity as a revolutionary, a Jesus radical. The kind of pastor I tried to describe HERE. To me Jason, Jenell and Jamie ( to what degree I know them which is only through blog world) provide us some examples as to what such “radicals” might look like as we go forward as missionaries in N America. Way to go!! Jason, Jamie today and yesterday I have been praying for you guys. I don’t know you, but you inspire me and others. I pray for you as God leads you into the future of His Mission!!

Filed under Church Planting,Missional,Post-Attractional,Post-Christendom,Uncategorized 36 Comments

on September 27 2010

The Greg Laurie Crusade and 2 Other Signs Christendom Ain’t Done Yet

Christendom names the social alliance of Christianity with cultural power/institutions. The government opens its Congress with a Christian chaplain praying, stores are closed on Sunday respecting that many employees want to go to church, various Christian forms of sexual morality are either encouraged by society/school systems or actually written into the law. These are some examples of a Christendom society. Because of these various reinforcing structures, the average citizen of said culture understands the Christian Story, gives Christianity an inherent respect (even though he/she may not believe or practice) and looks to go to church when feeling the need for God.  For years America has been a nation under such cultural conditions.

Churches in the United States have conducted themselves for years as if we are still living in a Christendom. For many parts of U. S. and Canada however, this culture is vanishing. Much of the U.S. is in transition.  NOW THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH CHURCHES MINISTERING IN CHRISTENDOM!! (at least I am not arguing this right now – I’m waiting for this book here). Christendom ain’t done yet! And there are a lot of cultures where these social conditions can be played off of successfully (whatever that means!) and to the furtherance of the Kingdom. Yet I think we should at least acknowledge that this is what we are doing as churches and that these Christendom conditions are rapidly in decline. Where Christendom has disappeared, the church that still operates out of Christendom assumptions ends up largely talking to herself. We end up providing answers to questions nobody’s asking (as Rick Cruse reminds me on my facebook thread).

With this in mind, here’s 3 recent signs in my neighborhood that Christendom ain’t dead yet. The question we need to ask in each case, by engaging in these practices, are we the church largely talking to ourselves? Or is there engagement with those outside the church for the gospel – folks I will call for lack of a better term – secular.

THREE SIGNS CHRISTENDOM AIN’T DEAD YET

1.) Greg Laurie Crusade
The Greg Laurie Crusade happened over the weekend in Chicago suburbs. In what seems like a resurrection of the Billy Graham crusade strategy of the 50’s – 70’s, a reportedly 2 ½ million dollars was poured into advertising, renting of a large stadium, bringing in first class musicians to “attract” a crowd. Several hundred churches backed the crusade with funds, volunteers and vehicles that bussed their people into the stadium. Christians were encouraged to invite a friend. The messages by pastor Laurie where driven towards inviting people to make a decision based on the question “where are you going when you die?” I listened intently to the internet stream.
The obvious question is, would the average secular person be remotely interested in attending another mega church service at a stadium to hear a gospel evangelistic sermon? Would a questioning Muslim come to something labeled a “Crusade”? As good as this was! Just asking? Was this stadium filled with mostly churchgoers?  Just asking eh?
Growing up in Canada as a boy, we invited our neighbors to the Billy Graham Crusade in Toronto. They came. They had a mainline church background and had largely drifted away.  That Crusade had a positive impact on their lives. It was a day when Billy Graham was a culturally interesting (in some sense a “must see”) “event.” I have no doubt that there were many of these folk who came to the Greg Laurie Crusade.  They were maybe ex-Christians, or people who grew up in some form of Christian church who simply had never been challenged to follow Christ in a committed way. There were many people like this I suspect who were positively affected by this Crusade. In this way, the success of the Greg Laurie Crusade is a sign that Christendom ain’t dead yet.

My question is: Are these kind of situations diminishing? Is it worth spending 2 1/2 million dollars? How many “decisions” were actually new ones from people outside the faith? How many were lapsed Christians? Was this in essence a bunch of Christians getting together to feel good about our message? (I heard rounds of applause every time Greg Laurie mentioned eternal life). In other words, was this the church talking to itself and feeling much better about the success of its version of Christianity? Do any of you out there know of non-Christian conversions? Did any of you invite secular person? A Muslim? An atheist? Seriously, no negative take here, just asking.

2.) The Alpha Program

Ok, I’m driving by the local Baptist this week. They are putting up a flashy sign in the front of the church announcing “The Alpha Course Here!” I like the Alpha Program, a program set up basically to operate out of the neighborhood (I like that!), to invite neighbors to ask questions about God (I like that!). It is a program of a set number of weeks, getting people to commit to a journey. It emphasizes the work of the Sprit in our lives (Again I Like that!!). I have seen many curious people on the edges get initiated into the faith via Alpha. It comes from U.K. a post Christendom place in many ways.
And yet I know few people who are secular who come to such an invitation. They would view it with suspicion. The ones who would come have backgrounds in Christianity and have come to a point in their lives where they are seeking intensely a connection to God in Christ. This is cool. But again, my question is: Is this a strategy dependent upon Christendom? Yes or No? tell me, you folks out there. Are you successful on your block getting secular people to come over for an “Alpha Course”? Or would you be more successful inviting someone over to your backyard for a barbeque? BTW that wouldn’t even work for several of my secularist friends. To me, the Alpha program is a sign that Christendom ain’t dead yet. It has been good for the church operating on the edges of Christendom. But will it succeed in the new cultures of post Christendom? Or will it become another example of the church talking to herself?

3.) One on One Tract Evangelism in The Park

Recently I’m sitting in the local park with some friends who are either post Christian secular or post Muslim secular. I see a group of young twenty-somethings praying in the corner of the park. They then break (like a huddle in a football game)and spread out over the park. I knew what was next so I went and sat on a bench where two older unsuspecting people were sitting to take in what was happening. One of the “young evangelists” approached the people where I was sitting and asked, “Do you know where you are going when you die? We’re all going to die right? So it’s an important question. Would you agree?” (They were handing out a million dollar bill with Obama’s face on it with the million-dollar question on it).  I then proceeded to listen as this zealous young evangelist tried to convince this man to join him in what amounted to “the sinners’ prayer.” The man being evangelized, it turned out, was a disillusioned ex-presbyterian who was gentle, kind and willing to listen and debate.  He was asked at least 5 times, “would you let me pray with you right now …?”
I returned to my friends about twenty minutes later only to hear one of them run up to us and say, “I was here last weekend. We’ve got to get out of here now. These people are rude and pushy.” I inquired some more and we had a bit of a conversation about how their approach is unfortunate. As we left, I looked over the park and I saw a mass exodus of people leaving the park area.
This experience leads me to conclude that a.) Christendom ain’t dead yet. There was an older ex-presbyterian who was willing to engage in serious conversation. b.) Time may be running out on this form of evangelism because there are less of these people, already familiar with the terms of the claims of Christianity, sufficient to make sense of this version of the gospel. Furthermore, it is a version of salvation so reductionist that it is questionable whether it communicates the right things to people uninitiated into the assumptions necessary to make sense of this version of the gospel.  To me the question is, is this form of evangelism vastly becoming another example of the church talking to itself?

I, and others, have argued for a revamping of the way we think about evangelism, the gospel and witness. You can start by looking at these posts here, here and here. There’s more elsewhere on the blog. For now, I am interested in your reflections on these three experiences over the weekend. Are these signs that Christendom ain’t dead yet? Are these examples of the church talking to herself?

______________________

Notes on what’s coming next:
I aim in the next two weeks to begin a promised series of posts engaging the Neo-Reformed Missional efforts which include Tim Keller, Jim Belcher, Acts 29, The Gospel Coalition etc. I’m doing it off of reading this book here. Thanks Gordie for the heads up.

For those interested in Missional, Don’t forget the Missional Learning Commons coming up. It’s free (except for 10 bucks to help for children’s care).

Filed under Evangelism,Post-Attractional,Post-Christendom,Uncategorized 15 Comments

Older Entries »

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