I posted yesterday on the D. Min Church Planting Course I am teaching at Fuller this summer. As I said, I am particularly interested in how we are to go on church planting when the cultural conditions of Christendom can no longer be assumed. How do we in the words of Darrell Guder “call out communities to witness to the Kingdom of God” when there are less and less cultural conditions left that make such a ‘call’ intelligible (such as even the cultural conditions which made possible the apostle Paul preaching the gospel amidst the synagogues of Hellenistic diaspora). I am working on a manuscript on this very subject which, given the pace of my current project The End of Evangelicalism? most likely will appear in about 5 years from now 
. One of the things I try to lead this class towards is the uncovering of the cultural assumptions that underwrite the way we go about church planting. I hope to test my own observations more carefully and broadly with my students at this class.
For example, what are the cultural assumptions that undergird the Neo-Reformed urban church plants as modeled by Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan and the Acts 29 group out of Mars Hill in Seattle? We assume the Holy Spirit is at work in these churches and invigorating any work of God in Christ’s church. Yet God enters culture in Christ in order to become visible, he does not usurp or overwhelm culture, He enters culture (the principle of Incarnation). Cultural assumptions are important therefore. Indeed they give us indication whether any of these approaches to church-planting are indeed reproducible in post-Christendom or indeed are parasitic on the conditions of Christendom (not that there is anything wrong with that – the problem is that these Christendom conditions may either be exhausted or no longer exist to make possible other church-plantings in similar fashion).
In regard to the Neo Reformed urban church plants, I offer the following observations/questions for testing (in the class and on this blog):
1.) ARE THESE MODELS ATTRACTIONAL AND DEPENDENT UPON CHRISTENDOM? Therefore they are not reproducible in a post-Christendom context? Both Mars Hill and Redeemer Presbyterian are attractional models which rely on people seeing the church as a desirable place to come and find God. In both of their church planting manuals and their books they regularly say things to indicate that the strategy is to get people to come to their gathering of some sort whereby they will be engaged in a culturally relevant fashion. For example, in Tim Keller’s church planting guide he says “The preaching and worship was to assume the presence of non Christians even before we knew if any were there.” (p. 13). There are many more of these kinds of references in the first several pages of the manual which narrate the beginnings of Redeemer Presbyterian. Similarly, Mark Driscoll’s Confessions of a Reformission Rev, a blow by blow account of his journey to plant Mars Hill, is strewn with many references to drawing a large crowd and assuming that its goal is to be a large church (several thousand in attendance – see most famously pages 25-32). In both these cases then, attractional-based church is assumed to be capable for the bringing in of people outside of Christ. IS THIS BAD? NO. (I don’t want to bring up the attractional versus missional debate – it’s clear to me why this discussion is tired and getting no where). Neither does this deny the profound work of God in Christ through the Spirit going on in these churches. The question is, are these methods sustainable in decidedly post Christendom contexts? Some might argue pagans will always come to a large gathering to hear about Christ even in post Christendom. I think this is worth talking about.
2.) ARE THESE MODELS DEPENDENT UPON UNIQUE PERSONALITIES AND THEREFORE NOT REPRODUCIBLE? Each of these two churches is driven by the attraction of a personality, Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll. Large crowds gather to hear this one speaker. According to this account (by a man who admires Keller as much as anyone, just as I do) even Tim Keller is an attractional mega church rock star ?. Recently I heard (this is second hand) that of the several satellites of Redeemer Pres in Manhattan, they will not announce where Pastor Keller is actually speaking because this drives down attendance in the other venues. I may have some theological issues with personality driven churches. But this is not my point here at all. I am asking, given the dependence upon personality, whether these churches are reproducible (without the personalities).
3.) WHY THEN ARE THESE MODELS OF CHURCH SO SUCCESSFUL IN TWO OF THE MOST POST-CHRISTENDOM PLACES IN THE U.S.? I have a theory as to why these two churches became so successful in NY and Seattle at a time when there was such a dearth of churches in these places and the population was so decidedly post-Christendom. I can tell you first hand, after being in a church and exercising teaching leadership in a city church plant (which is now a mega church) during the nineties, there was an influx of people aged twenty five to thirty-five that flooded into the urban landscapes of this country in the nineties. Whereas their parents had all left in the sixties and seventies, these “young adults” came back to the city for culture and financial service sector jobs. They wanted to live in the city (I was one of the early ones). Yet there were no churches. In fact, the only churches that remained were heritage churches, ethnic community based European and Catholic churches. The few outposts of evangelicalism that remained were made up of white people driving into the city and then driving back to the suburbs (like Moody Memorial Church in Chicago). Out of this 100,000 and more migration into the cities of the youth, there were hundreds of younger evangelicals from the burbs, or churched people that wanted a place to go to church (and meet a spouse). Churches therefore that were started in these cities anywhere from 1989-1999 were in an opportune place to harvest this as a foundation for a ministry. These churches were ministering and reaching people in post Christendom urban centers, but they were built on the foundation of Christendom. These were outstanding works of God. The question is, based on the fact this migration of young urbans was a one time thing, and the two other things above, are they strategies that can ever work again?
What do you think?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Dear David I’d say you are right about the dynamic–that there was a move back into the cities by young people from the Midwest and the South. But in NYC this change did not happen until the mid-90s, about 1995. Before that, the place was far too dangerous (the crime rate was horrendous) and expensive. When we moved there in the late 80s 70% of New Yorkers in surveys said they would leave if they could. Then there was a recession in 1990-91. So Redeemer started and grew in NYC several years before those demographic changes kicked in. — Tim Keller
Tim,
Thanks for the input here. I guess that shoots that theory.
My experience in Manhattan during that time gave me the impression this “yuppie” migration was well under way. But my experience was episodic at best.
Sitcoms like Friends (which started 1994) and Seinfeld (which started in 1989) highlighted the kind of migration of “young urbans” to Manhattan and other cities that I am referring to. Blessings and I am admirer of your work for Christ.
Actually, Friends and Seinfeld did not ‘highlight’ the migration to NYC but almost started it. In 1994 hardly anyone knew of big apartments filled with nice, wholesome, looking middle-class white people, as Friends depicted it. When it came on the air, the people and newspapers laughed at it. It was considered a middle-America fantasy of what NYC life was like. It was a much more crime-ridden and far edgier reality. That was then. Now Times Square looks a lot like Disney world, and Friends came true. But that might be passing away too. Hard to say. At any rate, I don’t think I ‘shot your theory’. I do think that a lot of the newer urban churches, including mine (over the last ten years, anyway) have grown in the traditional way that mega churches have grown in the rest of the country. And I also think you are right that this will be or is coming to an end. I only wanted to note that Redeemer originated before the Disney-fication of U.S. center cities occurred. As you know, I think that the neo-Anabaptist missionals are a bit too rigid in what they are putting forth for the future, but its emphasis on process over program, ecclesial liturgy over experientialism, deep community, concern for the poor and justice, and contextualization–are all quite right. and traditional mega churches don’t see this.
Tim,
Thanks again! For those of us living in urban Chicago in the late eighties, early nineties, the time when Park Community was planted off of Moody in Lincoln Park, “Friends” and “Seinfeld” was very much a cultural reality (although fluffed up romanticism like all fantasy TV during those years) in Lincoln Park, Old Town, and even Lakeview parts of Chicago’s northside. Young singles in the urban neighborhoods was happening everywhere. So Chicago was going differently than NY.
Thanks again for the interaction .. and especially the comments about the neo-Anabaptist Missionals .
Wow! Tim Keller commented! AWESOME! lol, sorry, I’m a huge admirer!!!
Dr. Keller, regarding this post, may I inquire as to what your thoughts are on Dr. Fitch’s point #2? It seems to me that many of the successful, growing churches are based mainly upon the personality of their pastors (i.e. Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, and of course you, lol). Is it possible for there to be a large church without such a dominant pastor figure? I mean, I understand it’s all about the “gospel”, but in large part, isn’t it also a lot about the pastor?
Thank you for this post and the great interaction between Drs. Keller and Fitch.
As to the personality question…I just wanted to interject that the phenomenon seems so pervasive that there are more and more churches who are “beaming in” images of the pastor from the “mother ship” into the worship of satellite plants. One friend of mine quipped that one well known pastor could die and his satellite congregation wouldn’t know it until they ran out of recorded sermons.
But then what does “personality” mean when the person is only an image? Would a better word be “pastoral image- centered ” churches?
I recently heard a large church pastor bemoan the decline of the evangelical church in Canada and blame it on the absence of preaching the gospel. I think the opposite is true. It seems to me that the evangelical church has declined because all they’ve ever done is preach. The gospel has never made it out of the building and into culture, therefore the culture moved on.
Preaching the gospel (in its traditional sense) is dependent on Christendom, to be sure – but living it is not (incarnation). To me, the issue is not whether a church is attractional or personality-based, but whether the preaching of the gospel translates into living the gospel in the community. I think that is certainly true of Redeemer. (not sure about Mars Hill…)
Sometimes I think that the lure of being right and affirmed in belief is the success of large, highly populated churches. They seem to be very conservative churches filled with people who need to feel good about knowing the truth. And the gospel becomes telling people they’re wrong…
all that to say that living the gospel is reproducible anywhere, anytime. Preaching? Not so much. I’ll never preach like Keller or Driscoll. Ever. I think Redeemer and Mars Hill should be concerned about reproducing what our potent, small churches are doing in our communities, not the other way around.
I think Malin’s comment re Dr. Keller is indicative of the whole personality thing. Until recently I had never heard of Dr. Keller. Already I hear you saying “who are you?!” But who is Dr. Keller? who is Driscoll in the great grand scheme of things? Outside of the US, probably few have heard of either.
It reminds me a little of 1 Cor. 1:12; ch3.
Let our focus be Christ-centered not attractional.
Dear Tim (and all)– I admit that in Reformed circles preaching is often seen not only as a panacea but even, in some ways, as an idol. (That would be an interesting essay!) But with all due respect, I’d like to suggest that many in the incarnational/missional camp are over-reacting to this. Paul did a lot of preaching–and that wasn’t in a Christendom setting. Living the gospel out isn’t enough, because if you don’t explain with words why you are living the way you are, no one will understand it. And as soon as you explain it, you are preaching. If you look at the ‘popular’ preachers such as Piper or Driscoll or Lloyd-Jones you may be distracted by the impossible-to-replicate features (I’ll call them icing) that attract a lot of people to hear them. They may be unusually smart or well-read, may have an indefinable charisma, may be extraordinarily bold in a way that others can’t pull off with integrity, etc, etc. But I’d submit that those things are not the core of what their preaching does that changes lives and builds a community. Those core things are a deep grasp of Scripture, wisdom (knowledge of the heart and the ‘times and seasons’) and never missing the forest (the gospel) for the trees (all the Biblical doctrines and ethics.) Those core things are things any minister can do, I think, and if they do they will see lives changed and communities formed. The ‘icing’ features are either there or they aren’t. There’s nothing you can do about them. If they are there, you may draw a crowd, with all the particular problems which that brings.
Thanks Tim Keller for another zinger, and Tim Bailey for provoking thought on these important matters.
I too agree with Tim K. about the importance of preaching (I think Tim B. does as well). I see it as essential, as a truth-event (the proclamatory aspect of preaching), which in essence calls truth into being by the Spirit from which we as His Body (and then the world) are called to live into the reality that is ‘Jesus is Lord.’ It is also an interpretive moment (the incarnational aspect of preaching), for it leads the congregation to see where God is working through the lens of The Story, Scripture as given and handed down through the apostles.
Unfortunately, what I see happening too often (not always) via the attractional personality driven preaching is a commoditizing of the Word. Here the Word is packaged for helping one live a better Christian life, complete with application points, whereby, with good notes, the Christian can go home and make ‘good use’ of the Word. The Word gets domesticated and the subject, in the hearing, somehow becomes the user making an object out of the Word. The incarnational aspect is lost because the preacher is too far removed from the congregation and the local context to preach into the situation, to in essence interpret the situation in terms of God’s Word.
Likewise, the proclamatory aspect is diminished by the personality/video screen because here preaching becomes spectral. The listener, removed from the preacher who has now become bigger than life because the listener in the pew has never nor will never know the preacher in any way, becomes a gazer, enamored and enthralled. He or she becomes a spectator to the word because it seems too removed. The hearer is passivized.
Nonetheless, preaching, if it does not succumb to these tendencies too often prevalent in personality driven churches, is absolutely essential to the shaping of His Body in the world, and the infesting of the world with the Truth of Jesus Christ. This is where I see Neo-Anabaptist Missionals (as Tim K. calls us) need to take preaching.
Dr. Keller,
Yes. I agree. I don’t want you or anyone to “stop preaching so well”. PLEASE don’t.
May we never begrudge the ‘icing”. But I think the particular problems it brings are larger than we want to admit. Even in my setting, where I am far from gifted, my absence is not announced for fear that attendance will suffer. (how backwards is that?) The forest gets missed sometimes, not because of the trees, but because of the planter. Apollos was an example of that, I think. Paul fought the same issues, and I think Jesus did too. Those miracles were some serious “icing”!
I agree, explaining why we live out the gospel is great, but what happens when we aren’t living it out? Preaching then becomes explaining why we should. And although both are needed, if the bulk of preaching was simply explaining why we were living the way we were, instead of how we should be living, there would be fewer superstars, methinks.
I don’t think preaching with a firm grasp of scripture and wisdom is what changes lives and creates community. I think community is discovered and lives are changed within it when the gospel being lived out on the street. And like you said – preaching is explaining it.
When the cart of preaching is behind the horse of gospel-in-action, anyone can replicate it in any culture. But flip it around, and only the icing can help you.
(I can’t believe I’m rambling in response to Tim Keller. I’m shutting up now.)
[...] [...]
Great interaction here, raises a lot for me. The personality issue seems to be more broadly an issue of perception around leadership and power, which is highlighted by TB who notices that even in his small ch his absence causes a drop in attendance. People like to get close to leaders even if they are not charismatic or beautiful people. Its a social/psychological phenomena, perhaps relates to our own family history and unfulfilled father hunger. Which raises the question I wrestle with often: how to lead in such a way that my leadershp does not create or foster dependence but genuinely empowers and points to Christ? The stronger the leader, the more this is a problem and honestly we are fighting a culture hugely passive and esp when it comes to spirituality looking to be spoon fed not recognzing that it requires personal and difficult soul work.
Re: the preaching/tching issue – I spoke last sunday at a ch plant in the urban core (city of 110k isolated geographically) on the kingdom of God from Isaiah, Daniel, then to Mark and on to Revelations. What shocked me is that while the 50 or so middle class folk not only lacked a framework for understanding the kingdom but many even lacked the language. Yet average age 40 years and most grew up in church. We have been far too dependent on sunday mornings for forming disciples.
Thanks for making this convo accessible to us a little further down the ladder.
My question is re: comment #3 from Dr. Keller: “And I also think you are right that this will be or is coming to an end.” re: the urban gentrification, what some call “white flight” back into the cities. Growing up in NY I was more used to watching “The Jeffersons” and like the others scoffed @ the unrealistic picture of “Friends”. But it became a reality.
Do you guys see this continuing, or a phase slowly beginning to peter out? Are people headed back to the ‘burbs? Has Disney left the building?
Hi Wayne– The high number of high paying jobs were crucial for the gentrification of the center cities. Are such jobs drying up? Or permanently becoming less lucrative. It seems so. Will that stop the flood back into the cities? It will definitely have some effect, I think. Some in urban planning are talking about ‘bi-polar’ neighborhoods, saying that the older model–in which some areas of the city are very poor and ‘bombed out’ looking, and others are exclusively ‘rich’–may be eroding. Now the poor are being distributed throughout the city instead of being ‘warehoused’ in just certain areas. Changes are definitely coming, I’m not completely sure what they will look like.
I’m coming in on this conversation a bit late, but here goes anyway.
Fitch–Great questions. For #1, I’d say in order to be megachurches they will have to be both attractional and personality driven. And they will depend largely on Christendom’s remaining strength. However–I might be able to talk myself out of that regarding post-christendom. I’m sure there are many non-churched people who have been introduced to the gospel & Christian community through large urban churches. If the smaller communities within the megachurch adopt a missional lifestyle and inhabit their neighborhoods, I could imagine large churches being sustainable in a post-christendom society.
Tim Baily, you got me thinking with your gospel-in-action prior to preaching idea. Kind of a chicken-and-the-egg problem. But I’d have to throw my lot with the idea that preaching changes lives which go into action and transform communities. Even in the absence of people living the gospel, preaching is much more than “why we should.” (If it is “why we should,” then it would be a pretty guilt inducing sermon series!) Rather, it’s encountering the Living Word as a community, announcing who God is, hearing the identity God gives us, and reorienting our whole selves toward the Kingdom. Living the gospel, in my mind, doesn’t typically happen prior to that kind of formation, but out of that kind of formation.
Matt,
I certainly agree that smaller communities within a mega size church can be missionally engaged – the question is why would we start out with this design in the first place? Small communities certainly have enough hurdles to overcome in order to engage their neighorhoods, mega size chuches create additional and significant organizational inertia that makes organizing such communities even more difficult. The biggest problem that concerns me is church planters looking to models such as these to have traction in post Christendom places. I think it is therefore important to understand the underlying dynamics.
I think you and I agree on some things related to preaching.
Thanks for engaging here at the blog!
DF
DF, Apparently you connect large numbers with Christendom and prefer small to large. In a neo-anabaptist sense, what does 10,000 believers look like? More specifically, when the Holy Spirit is moving and more people are becoming disciples, what do you do with those disciples when the limit of the small community has been reached? It’s easier for me to compare 2 or 3 success stories than to look at a single model.
And I think the personality issue is overblown because how do you separate personality cult from apostolic leadership without discernment. And is it any more or less reproducible to develop 1 personality out of 10,000 that could lead ten thousand than to develop 100 personalities to lead 100 each. What happens when some of those 100 leaders happen to have the ‘personality’ lead 1000 or more?
Can you give some more insights on neo-anabaptist reproducibility and/or growth in regards to church planting?
DaveR,
Thanks for the questions.
When the Spirit is moving I can only assume that churches upon churches will be birthed, centers of activity of the Holy Spirit, gatherings where people know one another, care for one another, worship and eat together, and spread the ministry of the gospel in their neighborhoods. For here, as the best statistics show, is where discipleship happens, in the day to day small communities of discipleship, not via the massive intake of impersonalized information. Why would you build a bigger place to meet? just send 12-15 people out to seed a new community? When you attract more and more numbers to a production or a spectacle, or even a personality, you in essence passivize the discipleship process, it diminishes the Eph 4 potential of a congregation. Isn’t this what Willowcreeks’ Reveal Study suggests to some extent at least?
As for your second question, what does apostleship have to do with huge numbers? And what makes 1000 member church not reproducible is that they are heavily dependent upon Christendom Christians or Christendom influenced dechurched. The assumption I was working on was that there are less and less of these people around (as the ARIS statistics reveal). We then should not be surprised if this means of starting churches is not reproducible. THIS DOES NOT DISCOUNT THE GOOD WORK OF REDEEMER OF MARS HILL, it just suggests we should be careful in trying to replicate it in post Christendom contexts. Does that clarify I hope?
I am not an expert on church planting, churches, or even theology, but just a house painter in Middle America. I stumbled upon your blog by accident while cruising the net.
I live in an area of approximately 60,000 people and I just counted over 3 pages of Christian churches and 33 Protestant denominations in the Yellow Pages. I don’t think we need any more church buildings. When did a church become a building not “two or more gathered in His name”? Christians don’t need any more church buildsings “planted”; we need to quit going to church and start BEING the Church! Be the Church at the sub shop, Be the Church at the coffee shop, Be the Church at the gas station, Be the Church at the Applebee’s, and even Be the Church of Jesus Christ at the local tavern!
Forgive me for my forwardness, but quit talking about and analyzing being the Church, and start BEING IT!
Matt,
I hear you. But we can’t really believe that preaching changes lives, can we? I think we all believe the Spirit is what/who changes lives. And the Spirit moves in community. I love what you said, ” it’s encountering the Living Word as a community, announcing who God is, hearing the identity God gives us, and reorienting our whole selves toward the Kingdom.”, but that sounds more like a community teaching/sharing together than what the evangelical church has become. It sounds like something we could do “as we are going” so to speak. (as far as the “guilt” thing…I think that is exactly what much preaching has become, unfortunately).
In a post-Christendom world, I think preaching must come behind the kingdom as it comes. The Christendom form of preaching “about it coming” will not work anymore.
Quite the interesting read. Coming from someone who has been involved and participated in church plants and on a denominational church planting board, I can say that at the onset most people want to know numbers and statistics. How many people are you attracting, etc? There have even been goals of needing x number of people attending within 3-5 years to be considered a viable plant. Thank God that is changing!
I must say I prefer smaller church populations rather than bigger ones, because it enables me to interact with others on a more personal level. I can actually get to know them. I find bigger churches have to put on a “show” every week, because they are just to big to have actual interaction. I’m not saying that the “show” is bad. I find it good most of the time being able to worship God with so many others, but there’s definitely a disconnect, even when you become involved.
johnR – I understand and agree with your frustration regarding “doing” church and “being” church. Although I tend to disagree with your feelings about quitting talking about it. I think there is still a need for people to talk about it. If no one talked about it, many (me included) would most likely still feel alone, frustrated, and angry with “church”. There are still many people out there discovering and also trying to figure out what it all means. Ending the conversation would only hurt and possibly hinder “being” the church.
Just some of my thoughts.
HI,
My name is pastor Fanuel iam a Kenyan aged 32 and am married to Petina aged 28 and all together we have on son aged 5 his name is Genesis, we are doing fine here in Kenya knowing not how is over there!. We want to say that we have been enlightened through what we have read through your website, for sure servant of the most high God we want to say that we have suffered enough in the hands of different Bishops in the city not less than seven years since we were ordained as pastors. We know very well the purpose and the vision and the mission of God over our lives, the purpose of God over our lives is for us to dedicate our lives to him and him alone Romans 12:1, our vision which the Lord gave to us is to raise up a generation that is knowledgeable of the word of God Matthew 4:4,7,10, our mission is to reach the unreached people with the word of God. Therefore we call up on you to stand with us in guiding,counseling,prayers and if possible to support us as we look forward to start up a local church soon and very soon.
God bless you,
Pastor Fanuel and Petina
[...] Church Planting Assumptions of the Neo-Reformed. I think Reformed theology has its problems (I confess my sin!). And I think this manifests itself [...]