A month ago I wrote a post entitled “Stop Funding Church Plants and Start Funding Missionaries: A Plea to Denominations” which got some blog attention and an article written about it over at CT. I basically proposed that denominations rethink the way they fund church planting. Admittedly the idea was simple and probably already being done by many many people. The idea: Traditional church plants put themselves into the uneasy position of having to compete for already existing Christians due to certain numbers/financial expectations. For sure people get converted and the poor are served. Yet they end up largely reaching people who still consider going to church a reasonable thing to do on Sunday. These new churches upgrade Christian goods and services (worship experience, services to divorced, technology, etc.) around dynamic entrepreneurial leaders. All fine and good. Yet they largely don’t reach the growing post Christianized populations. (BTW I’m not saying there aren’t examples of people reached outside the Christian faith in these churches, but if the leaders are honest, it is a small minority.) So, after rehearsing this argument again, I proposed we need to encourage and nurture groups of three leader/leader couples to inhabit neighborhoods that lack a communal gospel presence. Put money here to help leaders get situated within contexts that lack gospel expression. This doesn’t happen naturally. It takes effort and support (some but not alot of money). Here, through inhabiting contexts we enter these places humbly, listening and engaging the places of hurt, need and spiritual poverty with the full orbed gospel. I see this approach to/entrance into culture diametrically different from the approaches typically engaged by Western church – often typified by its mega churches.
Alex McManus, head of the International M Network, comments on my post here and here. I think Alex is generous with me. And I basically agree with almost everything he says. He argues for instance that leaders should be bi-vocational (saying we shouldn’t pay people for being Christians). He talks about successful entrepreneurs as being catalyst leaders. He argues passionately about “not needing to fund any missionaries because every one should be a missionary.” All these things I’ve lived and supported. So Alex and I agree on a lot of stuff, but largely I think he missed my point. After reading his posts, I strongly suspect that Alex (as well as many mega church/traditional church planters) doesn’t get that I am proposing a form of missional engagement that is different from what mega minded church “architects” see as mission.
There’s at least three clues to this in his posts.
1.)“A huge and positive footprint” In MacManus’s first post he talks about Kensington Community Church’s K2 church plant in Salt Lake City. He says “K2 hit the ground with a huge and positive footprint and established a significant mission point in a city.” I see the “big footprint” as typical of mega church ways. To me this smacks of taking up a power position in a context. We go into a context, offer all goods and services and tell people what they need. This smacks of colonialist mission. What I was proposing in “Stop Funding Church Plants” was that we (ala Luke ch. 10) enter a context meekly, humbly, vulnerably, dare I say incarnationally. To go in with a large footprint basically attracts people who already agree with us or who find what we have to offer attractive because of its power. Both I suggest work against the mission of the gospel to those who find themselves lost and totally outside the gospel. I am sure within Alex’s work there are plenty of churches doing otherwise. Nonetheless, the fact that this approach is acceptable to Alex reveals to me why he doesn’t see the need for a new church planting strategy.
2.)“A high impact entrepreneurial leader.” Again in his first post McManus is prone to extolling the virtues of high-impact entrepreneurial leaders. He is adamant that “Launching large, high-impact churches led by entrepreneurial leaders will end immediately following the death of the last born, high-impact entrepreneurial leader.” Yet I suggest the history of such “American” type leaders is that they are best at galvanizing and organizing people to create large organizations. Such leaders lead to an attractional church built around the charisma of this single leader’s gifts. Again, this works well when marketing to existing Christians and/or those with Christian memory who can be attracted to Jesus through an atractive persona. Yet I suggest (and have suggested for years) this works against mission. It approaches culture on the power terms of a power figure. It forms hierarchy. Instead, I argue that we need teams of leaders to inhabit a community and cultivate mission in the fivefold giftings (Apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher organizer, evangelist). We must do this humbly and be among the context. The other works against mission
3.) Mega attractional churches that do small groups in neighboroods are already doing what Fitch proposes. In McManus’s second post he says “I think that the author’s idea of deploying such teams is not only possible, I think it’s already happening. Where ever you have a believing home, there you have a center for world mission. The rim of fire, the cutting edge, of the Christ following mission then is located in the living room of those homes in those places where Christ is not known.” I would like to believe this is happening in mega churches but from my many observations, it ain’t. (Remember Wilowcreeks attempt at this?). Mega churches aimed at attracting can’t work against that orbit by decentralizing its people into homes. It is interesting that the two churches Alex mentioned in his posts are both large mega churches who use video venues as the means to extend their church ministries into various contexts (to be fair, Kensington plants other kinds of churches as well). It is my experience that the mega machine, the drive to attend church under the mesmerzation of the audience under a premier motivational speaker, detracts if not de capitates the leadership formation necessary to do what I am talking about in the neighborhoods. Generally speaking (did you hear me say “generally speaking”?) mega church takes you away from the neighborhood, trains people to think of ministry as production not relationships. It does not train leadership into local contexts in mutual submission to Christ leading together (out of their giftings) in the neighborhood.
So, in summary, I appreciate Alex McManus, the churches he mentions, the ministry of his brother Erwin. I love them all. Nonetheless, I think Alex didn’t get my point and I’m OK with that. No harm done!! I think what he does and the mega churches do is important. It reaches “the markets” of Christians, formerly Christianized populations for the gospel.” What I’m advocating for however is a ministry of a different kind. I am advocating for a kind of missionary presence that can reach the 60% of this country outside of those categories. It requires a different culture. A different approach that cannot be nurtured alongside mega operations simply because the ethos, the leadership, the social dynamics work against it.
Am I off here? Is McManus right? Can what I’m suggesting can be done by mega churches and mega conferences? I’m just asking? You tell me?
________________________
CORRECTION: Erwin has rightly corrected me that both Kensington Community Church and Mosaic are large multi-site churches which do not use video venue screens to transmit the sermon via one single preacher. They use live preaching in each venue. I apologize for the error.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Great response David, I don’t know if I love these posts because you are stroking my ego because this is essentially how we have planted and sustain our church of five years, or because you are articulating something I’ve been dwelling on for a long time.
Something I’ve been playing around with lately and I’d be interested for you to chime in one day is the idea of the amount of time people are willing to invest in church plants (ie. 5 years, 2 years) before they give up, move on or plant a new church. The longer I do this and actually live out this model of church planting I am realizing that these people that come together bi-vocationally need to have extremely long term commitments to what they are doing and reject the nomadic lifestyle of many pastors (they may call themselves apostles, but I’m not convinced we need apostles in that way). Where are the pastors that are planting churches and then committing their lives to that community of people because it is their community now and they need that community to be the kind of person God has called them to be.
Anyway, keep writing David, you have always been at the forefront of our minds while wrestling through these ideas.
I second that suggestion. It’s something I’ve wondered about as well. I’ve heard people say that “staying is the new going,” and while I certainly see the negative impact of people who move on too quickly, I also see the gospel messing with our human tendency to seek security in “place.” Specifically, Halden Doerge’s reflections (here and here) on one of your posts, David, have had me thinking about this for awhile.
Would make for an interesting conversation! Maybe at the next roundtable in Chicago?
Ben, I second that idea. I’ve been working through Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove’s “The Wisdom of Stability”, where he argues that being rooted and committed to a place and the people in that place are essential to growth in Christ. Over and against the cultural undertow to be upwardly mobile and to “keep our options open”, a super-long-term commitment to a place breaks down the temptation to grow in Christ on our own terms rather than on Christ’s.
As far as Halden’s first post goes, it would be interesting to juxtapose his definition of place (“places are not neutral) against Christ’s talk about the Kingdom – if the Kingdom is as much an alternative political and socio-economic force as it is a spiritual one, how would “a place” be in some senses “claimed” by the Kingdom in Halden’s sense, albeit in a subverted and upside-down manner?
Concerning his second post, I wonder if Christ simply challenged the worlds definition of place rather than relativizing the term completely…if we want to act on the worlds understanding of place + power, we should plant a church outside the white house gates or on the steps of the Supreme Court. But maybe being committed to a place with others involves being committed to the people and well-being of a place from a position of service and humility rather than power and control, more likely the exact opposite “places” of where we typically look for things to happen.
Anyways, I’m just speaking off the top of my head now. We should definitely talk about this at the next roundtable.
Ben,
I’ve read those posts and aim to respond (although people like Charlie Collier on that first post do such a good job responding I wonder if I even need to) … Halden’s position – space as territorial or colonialist – is incomprehensible if we take the incarnation to be the mode by which Jesus extends His presence in and thru us. We enter a space – not only divested of power in human terms – but with the posture that we too shall be converted alongside those God is also converting in and through His salvation at work in us and the world. In Guder’s terms, the church itself becomes converted as it enters “a space.”
For these reasons I find Halden’s critque of the way I talk about entering a space as misconstrued … Thanks for raising this issue!!
DF
David,
No. I don’t think your proposal can be accomplished by mega churches. As you say, for the most part churches attract church people. If I read you correctly, you are aiming at the non-church people.
I was interacting with some posts on Kevin Rain’s blog and Chris Marshall gave me a new term: “acceptable role in the culture”. He was applying it to pastors being bi-vocational. Wait. No. Not bi-vocational. More like just having a “real job” in the community–something that a non-church person can identify with in a non-church way.
That said, as long as one is acting as an extension of a church they will have a hard time (both personally and with others) building an “acceptable role” in the culture–or at least the type of role that won’t cause guards to go up with non-church folks. The missionary we’re talking about here needs to have the unfettered freedom to simply live as a person rather than a church person. That means doing what the culture is doing but approaching it in a Christ-like manner. Believe me simply doing that provides more than ample “witness” and opportunity.
I read Mr. McManus’s series of responses pretty much at the time he posted them, and I also thought he missed the point. As best I could discern, it seems to me he has a significantly different paradigm from Dr. Fitch. And although his system supports some similar activities that may *look* missional, they are not at all derived from the same system Fitch uses for his recommendations. More than just missing the point, I think McManus has missed the paradigm.
From my perspective, we talk over one another when we confuse methodological models for paradigm systems. It’s a sincere mistake, but methodologies aren’t the same as a full paradigm, but we often think they are because we use some similar concepts and terms for both. In my understanding: Every model derives from an underlying set of assumptions about how to process information and what to value. That combination of epistemology and axiology determines how we construct our theology, because they only fit together *with internal consistency* in a limited number of ways. Likewise, our theology only supports a limited number of ministry models and methods that are consistent with our system, and those resulting strategies and structures create a culture and lifestyles befitting our paradigm.
From everything I can determine from these readings and without any further research, it looks to me like McManus uses an economic strategy for creating and measuring “successful” impact of mega-church. The church is a source of goods and services, and requires consumers to shop there. Once they do, they may become a patron … but they are still consumers. Even those consumers who eventually participate in the ministry are doing so to produce additional consumers, aren’t they? To me, this misses the mark of “missional”; that’s just a version of multi-level marketing. And unless a mega-church can demonstrate specific and qualitative improvements in the lives of people in neighborhoods where there small groups are, they can’t really claim missional impact. A small group simply is not necessarily a micro-church just because it is a gathering of disciples.
Anyway, I wonder what would happen if these mega-church “high impact entrepreneurial leaders” would have gone into a vocational route of creating viable businesses in communities and regions, instead of into building big church institutions. I wonder if having a community-appropriate, eco-sensitive, and economically prosperous business would yield more opportunities for missional contact and spiritual transformation. After all, a lot of people might work for such a business, and be exposed to biblical values, ethics, and worldviews there, than might ever step inside a supposedly high-impact mega-church. And perhaps some of the profits could fund the kinds of support Fitch recommends for giving discipleship-oriented Christians to “root into the hood for planting long-term good.”
As I mentioned in response to your first post David, I’m a both/and guy. I like what you are proposing but still see (first hand) an amazing amount of good coming out of church plants, and I commonly see young churches that are genuinely missional and incarnational in their approach to being the church.
That said, when I say such things I generally have in mind relatively small church plants, where people are deeply connected to each other and have a real sense of connection to their community. I think doing that is much harder in a mega church, though it does happen.
And in Alex’s defense, I minister near Mosaic (where his brother pastors), and it is one of the best examples I’ve seen of a large church that consistently reaches genuinely unchurched, thoroughly secular people (of every ethnicity I might add), and makes a concrete difference in their city. And their people for the most part really do live as missionaries in their communities. If people don’t stumble over the fact that they are big, there is a ton to learn from them.
It shouldn’t surprise you to see me say I’m right on board with you.
I just don’t see how “mega-church” in any form escapes the provider-consumer dynamic. Now, to some extent this is something that could be seen as latent to any kind of “clergy/laity” distinction. For example, in the Catholic Church, it would be very easy to see the priest as the provider of a religious service (the sacramental body of Christ, absolution, etc.) and the people in the pews as consumers. I don’t think that’s actually the case, mind you, but it can easily point in that direction.
But the origin and methodology of the megachurch and modern church growth ideas in American business culture puts that very dynamic – consumerism, salesmanship, individualism, etc. – at the very core of its historical being. The point is not whether or not megachurches can provide this or that kind of religious experience or program. The point is whether that’s what churches are and should be doing at all, or if we should rethink the very basic nature of what we consider regarding “doing church.”
Do you really think that we shouldn’t “fund any missionaries because every one should be a missionary”? I understand the resistance to the professionalization of ministry, but I think there is adequate Biblical support for people being financially supported (both fully & in part) to function in the vocation of “missionary”. This doesn’t dismiss the reality that all believers are called to mission and perhaps even hope for a distant future where they are less needed, but in the present reality, it sounds dishonouring and dangerous to simply say they should not be funded.
Alice,
that quote was from Alex. I see this post and the prior one as promoting the funding of missionaires, albeit on a different basis.
DF
well said, dr fitch.
[...] Blog Search- Pastor Leaders: Reclaiming the Mission » Stop Funding Church Plants 2: Three Clues … Category: Blog News | Tags: css, [...]
David, I ‘get’ what you are saying and I could not agree with you more. It is a paradigm issue and that is why Alex could not “see” what you are saying.
i don’t know. there is a lot of stars in the sky, for every star you see there is that many people or more that are going throw the something you are going throw. there is a ministry. so, the question is not can it be done, but how do we get Christians up, out, and off there hands to build something with what GOD has gifted them with? building a biblical, Christ centered movement.
Lots of talk on recent posts about different FORMS and approaches to missional church: ie mega, organic, incarnational etc., but LITTLE, if anything, about the theology of the movement. So I will repeat the point that I have made many times before, that the missional church movement needs a coherent and credible theology if it is to be genuinely reformative.
Jim, I agree with you that “the missional church movement needs a coherent and credible theology if it is to be genuinely reformative.”
But I also think that many have begun to do this. Christopher Wright, Lesslie Newbigin, NT Wright to some extent, and Fitch too.
Plus, talking about “FORMS and approaches to missional church” is always rooted in a theology. I think the reason people “don’t get” what missional church folks are talking about is because of underlying theological differences.
For example, discipleship hardly ever takes place as a matter of course in places where salvation is equated with forgiveness of sins and entrance into heaven upon death. But when one takes a larger (more biblical) view of salvation (being caught up in the life of God on earth now), discipleship suddenly begins to be the obvious next step, because we have to learn from Jesus how to live life in God’s kingdom.
Ben, agreed. I see the progression as theology-formation-praxis (a lot of what I’ve seen is praxis forming theology). If you don’t have fresh theological perspectives and the praxis that are naturally produced you will, of course, have the old Christendom model dressed up in trendy missional rhetoric.
At any rate, two major developments, very broadly speaking, have impacted modern Western evangelicalism over the last decade. With regard to praxis the missional church movement has challenged traditional patterns of church life. With regard to theology the New Perspective has challenged the traditional rationalized presentation of evangelical beliefs arguing that the New Testament is not a systematic of personal salvation.
These two developments need each other. Despite the endeavours of popularizing bloggers, writers and scholars such as N.T. Wright, Richard Hays, Daniel Kirk, Kurt Willems, Scot McKnight and many others, the New Perspective has remained largely confined to the academic sphere, a matter of difficult abstractions concerning Judaism and justification. We are only slowly beginning to grasp the revolutionary and re-invigorating implications of its shift in outlook for teaching and formation in church communities. I imagine that the future of the people of God after Christendom lies not with, say, the reactionary neo-Reformed folks, for all their good intentions, but in the convergence of these two powerfully creative forces.
The missional movement, then, will stand or fall not on leadership terminology or the kinds of spaces people gather in, but on whether or not a timely theology is the driving force behind it. Praxis is a natural outflow of a theological emphasis. The form will come, and it will come naturally and necessarily. And the new theological perspectives that are coming forth are clarifying the nature of God’s character; that he is a Covenant God, intervening in history and his fundamental direction is outward.
Good thing the majority of people (post Christian and not likely to engage or go to “power churches” don’t read our arguments on the web. I agree with David… the power of the Gospel travels on the dinner plate of meals shared in relationship, on the hands of saints who unconditionally and radically love (=serve, bless, help, heal) these post Christian people.
This is our mantra, our life and our heartbeat. Dave – thanks for saying this. We bless and endorse, not as experts, or celebrities, but as practitioners in the trenches.
Communitas
New Orléans
Am I off here? No, you’re right on in a powerful way.
Is McManus right? No. He’s like my brother-in-law who plants consumer/attractional churches in the Philippines. He say’s he agrees with me on bi-vocational, reproductive leadership with participative gatherings. He then proceedes to seek to convert everyone of those gatherings to hire a Bible lecturer – otherwise called a pastor. In America this dynamic consumes 75 – 85% of the “giving” to buy help for the “givers” (poolers). In the Philippines, a very poor culture, this dynamic consumes 99% of the “giving”. There are thousands of Filipinos ready and eager to be sent into Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, etc with the good news but have no real giving to send more than 20 or so over the last 50+ years. This is soooooo sad.
Can what I’m suggesting can be done by mega churches and mega conferences? No and Yes.
No, because the institutionalized system cannot refer to anything it does as in disagreement with scripture. It can only come up with “fresh ideas” to “try to see if it works”. When the “fresh idea” colapses due to many counter-Biblical realities in the system, they merely say “we tried that and it did not work”.
Yes, because in spite of the consumer oriented nature of the system, God’s grace raises up a few saints to minister beyond the attraction campus without any support from the hired experts.
Alex will be nice and agree with what you say. But little or nothing he does will match what you say. I have a comic I scanned out of Leadership Journal that pictures this dynamic so colorfully. I also have a Far Side comic that is also a strong picture of this sad reality.
Well said.
I should say, well said Mr Fitch. I’m of the opinion and belief that the words “church” and “marketing” should not be used in the same sentence.
>>>>Am I off here? Is McManus right? Can what I’m suggesting can be done by mega churches and mega conferences? I’m just asking? You tell me?<<<
No. Yes. Possibly, but probably not.
What I mean is there is a purpose and place for both—and more. It's not one or the other. Not all plants follow a consumer-driven model. Not all mega-churches attract just churchies. We all have different purposes and different missions. Mr Fitch if what you propose is on your heart, by all means go for it. I'm sure many would follow your example.
You make some very valid critiques of the mega-church model—and propose some outstanding initiatives. However, spot-on as they may be, not everyone would follow such a model. Nor would they be compelled to. Or be equipted to. If not, they might serve in some capacity in a megachurch. Different strokes. Or perhaps a different level of spiritual maturity?
Many megachurches not only appeal to churchies, but in large part to seekers as well. The megachurch model is excellent for seekers to learn to serve. Baby steps. If a seeker, generally speaking, dove right into the intense relationship-building model you propose Mr. Fitch, I think many would be ill-prepared spiritually, psychologically, and ill-suited for such a commitment. The megachurch is great at attracting those who might not go to church otherwise: those who have previously been burned by church; those who bore liturgical boredom; those who look at churchies as hypocrites, or those who just never thought of stepping into church.
What I see as a big problem, and you mention, is the competition of churches. If you all were wise as you all are smart, you might see the solution is knowing your own missions, and knowing not all missions are the same—and working together as one body. If one is yet drinking milk, perhaps they should be directed to a church that can nurse them. If one reaches a certain maturity the megachurch should direct them to a more suitable mission, perhaps like yours Mr. Fitch. No "church" is a be-all for everyone. No one method is "it." You all should realize that! In what ONE WAY did Christ heal the blind? Quit trying to hold onto every soul that walks in your doors. All you different churches, quit trying to mold them into a particular model—liberate these souls—and direct them to where THEY are best suited. (And quit being divisive! Many of you who commented here.)
That's the way I would tell it, since you asked.
BTW, nice opinion/belief Mr McCollum.
John,
While I don’t disagree with your assertion that not everyone would follow the model Mr. Fitch is here suggesting, nor that mega-churches appeal so-called “churchies” and “seekers”, I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing, or that it is our call as Christians to appeal to anyone.
I think the Church today has, in large part, attempted to smooth over the very sharp edges of the gospel so as to accommodate the (spiritually) lazy middle and upper classes. While many within the mega-church movement have wonderful intentions and have scores of statistics to back up their effectiveness, I wonder if these are a type of veil that covers up a rotting core.
Jesus’ ministry while on earth was neither efficient nor effective by contemporary or present-day standards. It lasted around three years and all of its original members died violent deaths. You act as if we are called to go where we are most comfortable and most well-suited to have a positive impact, which is in my opinion a denial of Jesus’ very harsh call to deny ourselves and take up the cross. It is a cross of suffering and rejection. We are also not called to take what you call “baby steps,” but to let the dead bury their dead and follow. It is a decision to made in the moment, not something we “ease into.”
There is far too much to be done to waste our time on whether or not such and such a believer feels comfortable on a Sunday morning or whether such and such a person who once left the church can be lured back into it by a friendly setting.
This is more than just different strokes for different folks. I do not think Mr. Fitch is claiming to know the “one way,” nor am I, but to sit idly by while churches pour literally millions of dollars into building campaigns and pastor salaries, something I see as a disgusting perversion of Christ’s teachings, is to implicate me with them.
Sometimes the tables of the temple must be turned over.
A couple things to consider Mr Horwedel:
Mark 9:38-41 – “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.
A lot of cups of water have been given out in megachurches, emergent churches and other churches who may not do church as you church. These churches are not preaching a different gospel, exceptions aside. They are not preaching a different salvation. Or a different God.
>>>>I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing, or that it is our call as Christians to appeal to anyone.<<<<<>>>>You act as if we are called to go where we are most comfortable and most well-suited to have a positive impact<<<>>>which is in my opinion a denial of Jesus’ very harsh call to deny ourselves and take up the cross. It is a cross of suffering and rejection<<<>>>>We are also not called to take what you call “baby steps,” but to let the dead bury their dead and follow.<<<<>>>>but to sit idly by while churches pour literally millions of dollars into building campaigns and pastor salaries<<<<
Sounds like you are wasting time being a busybody worrying about what others are doing, when perhaps you should just be reaching out with the good news as God has commission YOU to do.
Again, different strokes. Not one method. And do keep in mind Jesus' words, "Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward."
A couple things to consider Mr Horwedel:
Mark 9:38-41 – “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.
A lot of cups of water have been given out in megachurches, emergent churches and other churches who may not do church as you church. These churches are not preaching a different gospel, exceptions aside. They are not preaching a different salvation. Or a different God.
—–I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing, or that it is our call as Christians to appeal to anyone.—–
I’m assuming you meant to say, “to everyone.” Either way, I think you are wrong. Evangelists (and that doesn’t mean EVERY Christian) are indeed called to take the message to all the nations, to the entire world. God’s love is to save all mankind. Read your scriptures man.
—–You act as if we are called to go where we are most comfortable and most well-suited to have a positive impact—–
I never said or indicated that! I said, “there is a purpose and place for both—and more. It’s not one or the other.” It’s NOT just one way. I think, using Jesus’ example of healing the blind illustrates my point [somewhat]. If you read through the gospels there are at least three different ways in which Jesus healed the blind. There was no one prescription. The binding factor was faith. Not method.
—–which is in my opinion a denial of Jesus’ very harsh call to deny ourselves and take up the cross. It is a cross of suffering and rejection—–
All I can think of is compassion for you. For your misguided ignorance here. Christ bore “the cross,” which means bore the penalty of all mankind’s sins—mine, yours, our grandfathers, our progeny—sins of ALL mankind, throughout the ages—so we wouldn’t have to. A feat we couldn’t. It’s not a cross of suffering and rejection. It’s a cross of love. The Creator of this universe, the Living God became a man to bear mankind’s penalty. It’s a slap in the face to Christ to re-bear that penalty. What you illustrate is as if one who loved you paid your unpaid parking tickets to prevent a warrant for your arrest, but out of your own self-righteous guilt you paid the penalties again just to say you did it. What a smack in the face to the one who already paid your penalty! Yes we are called to follow Jesus Christ. His teachings. His commands. Not his suffering!
—–We are also not called to take what you call “baby steps,” but to let the dead bury their dead and follow.—–
Again man, read your scriptures. First what you say here is apples and carrots—not related. Two different concepts altogether. Yes, follow. Immediately. But even the apostles, those most intimate with Jesus didn’t immediately gnarl on steak, even as they followed. They followed, but were fed milk. Some were dumb as door nails for quite awhile and didn’t quite get what Jesus spoke for quite some time.
And further Paul says to the Corinthian church (and this is where I’m basing this analogy), “Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly.” As are many Christians who flock to emerging churches. Still babies in their knowledge and walk.
Furthermore the author of Hebrews states, “We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.” Yes this may be a chastisement, but nonetheless illustrates the point that not all who call themselves Christian or who seek Truth are yet mature enough to handle the full ramifications of Truth. Explain to my five year old why God created this universe to create beings to have a relationship with, knowing beforehand that its very Creator would have to become like one of its creation in order to save all creation. Explain that to all of us.
—–but to sit idly by while churches pour literally millions of dollars into building campaigns and pastor salaries—–
Sounds like you are wasting time being a busybody worrying about what others are doing, when perhaps you should just be reaching out with the good news as God has commission YOU to do.
Again, different strokes. Not one method. And do keep in mind Jesus’ words, “Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.”
One of the most thought provoking things I’ve heard aside of the Rob Bell sentiment Mr. McCollum paraphrased, WAS at one of Alex McManus’ conferences. The topic of debate was megachurch vs. home churches. One of the speakers asked (paraphrased), “Would you rather operate your church dictated by a $50,000 a month mortgage, or operate on a shoestring with total freedom.”
Speaking as a pew-sitter, I see the high-impact, entrepenurial, large foot-print model as someone who has convinced thousands of people to buy into his entrepreneurial dream by giving 10-40% of their income and their undivided loyalty to boot. As the empire grows, it does many helpful and charitable acts. But, eventually, sooner than later, all spiritual insights, growth and maturity steps are all tied into growing the empire. Every 3 to 5 years you can always expect a capital campaign to expand the empire. Helping people follow Jesus means building the empire so more people can follow Jesus, so the empire can grow larger. Eventually, you need a church planting expert to explain the high-impact model so the cycle can continue on and on. Will people find Jesus? Yes, maybe, but not unless another capital campaign is involved….this makes no sense to me.
Sounds kind of cynical. What are you basing these assertions on? If I may ask?
Dare I say John, that the experience Tim relates is that of tens of thousands of pew fodder. Rather than cynical, it is simply truthful. I was one of them. And I was also a senior staff member in a church that operated… and still operates in this manner. (Though it’s market share is dropping as people catch on.)
I think John’s question comes from a good place, so I can understand why he would say that my statements was on the cynical side. Perhaps it is in a small way, but in my 20-25 years experience in these kind of churches my comment also comes from a good place.
The contradictions inherent in the model Mr McManus represents are striking. For example, I think its fair to say that these churches all offer small groups regarding personal finances such as the Dave Ramsey program. This is very good for the participant—no doubt—but the contradiction lies in the (the large footprint, high impact church) annual financial disclosures and reports. For example, in a local mega church in my area, as a percentage, they allocate more money to their mortgages, special effects, marketing, and just all the stuff that is required to put on one of these productions each Sunday—up to 5 or more times each weekend, than to charitable programs. To be fair, substantial monies are donated to these programs, but this is in addition to the necessary giving to pay the mortgages and costs associated with helping people find Jesus on Sunday. When the economy contracts, it’s usually the charitable programs that suffer first because the mortgage has to be paid. While they advocate financial freedom for their people, they themselves are in the same predicament that Dave Ramsey preaches against.
[...] offers three clues that demonstrate that I don’t get his point about church planting. I want to extend to him the benefit of the doubt because I can be slow. But, in my experience, [...]
Okay Tim, well said for the most part. I suppose my next logical question would be, “What is the monetary value of a human soul?” Outside these megachurches what amount of money, what monetary value is deemed too much to reach an individual. Sure I hear about these megachurch production expenses and $50,000 a month mortgages, but say one person a month gets “saved.” What it not worth $50,000 to reach that one individual?
Of course it can be argued that 10,000 people could have been saved elsewhere with $50,000. And that may be true. But what of that one hard core individual? Is his or her single soul not worth the effort? Is that one soul to be discounted because it cost too much? Maybe come back when the economy is better? Is churching really a numbers game? Is it really based on ROI?
Again, I’m not arguing megachurch vs. this or that method, nor even defending one method over another. I did say one of the most profound things I’ve heard was, “Would you rather church dictated by a $50,000 a month mortgage or totally free on a shoestring budget?” A $50,000 a month mortgage does dictate the way one must church. It may even cause its leaders to compromise their initial intent and fall into a different numbers game—”My church has 5,000 members… We have ten plants… $50,000 a month production costs…. 146 baptized last year…” But that becomes an issue of pride, not method. And despite one’s short fallings, God can still use it for good. Even if one person. Was it not worth it?
On the other hand I’ve been to church where it’s the pastor literally preaching to JUST the choir. In a cocoon. What are they accomplishing? Who are they reaching? They might spend no more than $50,000 in twenty years, yet if they just reach themselves in twenty years, that’s simply like masturbation.
My point, my argument is simply as I originally stated, “It’s not either or. There’s no “right” method. There’s a mission for many different ways and means.
Personally, I say go out and engage into the world, not try to bring the world into your doors—whether or not those doors are gilded gold megachurch doors or falling off the hinges storefront doors. That means engaging with people where THEY live, where THEY are at—whether on Skid Row or on Wall Street. That means stepping into the fire—developing relationships with individuals you might otherwise sidestep—and that does risk getting burned. But that’s just the way I see it. But I’m not fool enough to think this way is the way, or even the best way. It’s a way. And I’m sure the way of dining with sinners isn’t for everyone. But it’s a way God may have equipped ME. Find your way, but don’t be fool to think your way is THE WAY. It’s a way.
I don’t really know the answer to your initial question, “What is the value of a human soul.” Maybe the answer should be “priceless” in one sense. From a pew sitters perspective, it seems many church planting programs see human souls in terms of what they can do for the empire. Many church leaders are chosen, as one told me once, by the amount of money you can deliver to the church coffers. We tend to use people’s gifts to further the empire instead of viewing them as gifts themselves.
On another note, I think it’s important for anyone who is contributing to this conversation to make an effort to understand the POV of the author, David Fitch. Personally, I’m trying to do this by reading his book. I am half-way through it and it’s apparent to me that Mr Fitch’s differences with Mr McManus are only scratching the surface of their arguments. The state of Evangelicalism is dismal and the Church is to blame. I am unable to fully understand Mr McManus’ POV because his book is not published as of this time. Most of what I know about Mr McManus is in terms of marketing a product palatable to the masses. Mr Fitch seems to be arguing for a new world-view regarding this issue. Perhaps there is a compromise between the two. Maybe these two gentlemen can sit down together and work together on this issue. Both seem to have a valuable contributions to make.
Again, why does it have to be one or the other? Or a compromise? Why does one have to be right to make the other wrong as if everything is black and white? Everything is not black and white. There are 254 shades of gray too.
As I originally stated there is a place for both and more. If one doesn’t particularly go for the megachurch approach or the church planting approach, don’t go for it. But just because one doesn’t go for it, that doesn’t mean that approach is invalid. Do you KNOW enough of God’s ways to know you are not trampling on something God may indeed be behind? And just because one may have a bad experience with one type of church, it’s foolish to apply that to all like churches.
Low blow slam against McManus too, “I am unable to fully understand Mr McManus’ POV because his book is not published as of this time.” I know what you mean by this. Not cool Mr McCollum. Not proper Christian behavior either.
“Most of what I know about Mr McManus is in terms of marketing a product palatable to the masses.” Not cool either, and just reveals what you do know.
And besides the shades of gray, there is a world of 16 million colors too. It’s NOT one way!
Maybe you are missing the point: ” Maybe these two gentlemen can sit down together and work together on this issue. Both seem to have a valuable contributions to make”
Grace and Peace, over and out.
David, can I ask if you (or anybody here) have some examples (the first comment counts as at one) of missionaries working in the mode you express that are experiencing conversion/growth/multiplication? It’s not that I don’t think there are. I’ve been on this road (toward missionary thinking and away from attractional HUP thinking) for awhile. As a guy on the road toward moving to a neighborhood in North Portland and planting, I’m just looking for a little solidarity and to hear from people that are seeing fruit in it.
It seems to me that gospel movement in the form of discipleship multiplication is extremely attractive, and is something we should pray and strive for in the power of the Spirit. Big churches that attract many people have the appearance of both movement and vitality (more than appearance for some) and as long as that’s the case, they will still draw leaders and the everyday American.
My church, which is mostly traditional, really gets this stuff because they understand overseas mission, but moving that way of thinking home is a challenge, because not many are doing it. It is new territory for us and I want to hear how it’s going.
[...] 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 [...]
“And I’m okay with that” – Sounds like the Canadian approach to picking a fight.
btw good job initiating an intriguing discussion that’s easy to miss
[...] Fitch offered three clues that I missed his point. I entertained the first clue, “A huge and positive footprint”, here. Now, I entertain [...]
[...] I agree with Fitch’s opinion that by and large McManus was talking past him. As Alex argued passionately for a both/and style of church planting and expansion (both mega- and [...]