Thursday, June 7, 2007

THE NEED FOR A NEW KIND OF CHURCH [Organic CP #3}

It is not my desire to discourage faithful pastors in effective church communities who are heroically sharing God’s word and making disciples within their congregations. Nevertheless, the overpowering evidence indicates that a large number of struggling pastors are laboring in ineffective churches who are failing to reproduce disciples, often even among their own children.

Not only do we need new churches in the U.S., we also need a new kind of church. Just planting more of the same kind of churches is not the answer. Despite the faithful presence of many good churches, the “American church model”[1] has in many ways failed to be effective salt and light in our generation. Barna’s research has shown that there is statistically little difference between those who call themselves “Christians” and those who do not claim faith, in virtually every area of moral behavior that can be measured.[2] George Gallup concludes in his study on spirituality that, “faith in America is broad but not deep,” [3] and that “born again citizens are as likely as their counterparts to believe in astrology, consult astrology charts and to have consulted a fortune-teller.”[4]

The last two decades of the twentieth century saw a variety of innovative approaches to church life such as seeker churches, cell churches, purpose-driven churches, prophetic churches, G12 churches and mega churches. Despite this growing diversity of forms and styles of worship, church goers are voting with their feet in massive numbers and opting out of participation in organized church life as we know it. At the same time, those who continue to attend Christian services show little or no difference in their lifestyle from those who avoid affiliation with formally structured Christian churches. Not only are new churches needed, but a new kind of church is desperately needed [note: I wrote this before I was aware of the emerging church movement: I do not necessarily endorse the ECM as the answer to the problem I am presenting here, although I welcome any and all attempts to become more effective in mission and disciple-making to a new generation]

There is a need for churches that are centered on relationships rather than meetings. We need churches that are life-oriented rather than program-oriented; organic rather than organizational, spontaneous rather than highly structured. We need churches that produce committed disciples rather than meeting facilities and institutional programs; churches that focus more on sending than gathering; incarnation rather than attraction.

Pastors in record numbers are burning-out, dropping out or falling out. My wife just last month attended a women’s Prayer Summit in Miami. There were 22 pastor’s wives participating. Almost every one of the wives said that their husbands were discouraged and thinking about quitting the ministry. The American church model is no longer workable, and is quickly losing its leadership base.

In my opinion the most pressing need in United States is not bigger churches, more seeker churches or more purpose-driven churches. I say that with the deepest respect for the valuable contribution that spiritual pioneers like Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Ralph Neighbor and Dr. Paul Yunggi Chou have made to church life at the end of the twentieth century. The research both Barna and Gallup show us that we need more “disciple-making” churches that effectively form men and women into highly committed followers of Jesus rather than simple church attendees or even lay workers in church programs.

We need churches that really do change people’s lives. Churches where people actually do encounter God and experience His active, transforming presence. Churches where people are challenged with scripture and held accountable for their moral behavior. Churches where people learn to serve and love one another. It my opinion, the formation of one single highly committed follower of Christ has a far more powerful effect on our society than gathering ten or a hundred “seekers” into a church meeting.

Not only do we need “disciple-making” churches; we need disciple-making churches that effectively reproduce themselves. Often, churches that focus on forming quality discipleship in believers do not seem to grow or reproduce. They turn inward and focus on perfectionism, always raising the standards of excellence but never reaching outward to those outside the circle of grace.

How can we build disciple-making churches that faithfully and naturally reproduce themselves?
[1] Phrase coined by Dr. Dow Robinson in lectures on New Testament church life. 1995
[2] George Barna, The Second Coming Of The Church (Word Publishing, Nashville: 1998) p. 6
[3] George Gallup, Jr. The Next American Spirituality (Cook, Colorado Springs, CO: 2000) p. 128
[4] Ibid, p. 131

4 comments:

  1. Yes, indeed. We need communities of faith that are like families--whose goal it to raise mature children who can in turn form new families which will reproduce and fill the earth. One of the problems we have in the west is a very individualist approach to life. This is brought into communities of faith. We go to church for what it does for us. If it does nothing we leave. This is one of the problems of the institutional model. A family model of Kingdom community is much closer to what Jesus set as his example with his disciples and what they took to the world in the book of Acts. They did not save individuals and then build them into an institution. Instead the apostles took the gospel seed and planted it in existing communities (eg. Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian Jailer, etc--all of which already had communities around them). These communities became Kingdom communities as they injested the gospel and translated the seed into effective life that spoke to a dying world. That is what turned the world around then and what will do the same today. Reproduce and fill the earth with Kingdom communities/families of faith!

    ReplyDelete
  2. amen! excellent comments Dick...of course you know that I agree. This is what we are attempting to do in South Florida.

    Do you have any suggestions for existing churches that perhaps have been built on a more institutional model? Some of my friends sometimes feel that our emphasis on "re-thinking" the church is critically pointed at them and creates pressure for them to continually "re-invent" church life...something that I don't think is necessarily desirable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joseph--
    I like this just fine; I agree with the approach you're taking. I think part of where I got snarled up is by thinking that the apostolic/missional folks were down on what happens at Covenant Church in Arlington mainly because we own a building, meet on Sunday mornings, have some of the trappings and practices of the failing churches of the west. As I read through this section, I say Amen to your points about the kind/s of new churches we need, and think we're actually attempting to do something along those lines in our local situation.
    I'm not sure how well we're doing them, and whether we'll be successful in reproducing ourselves. I wonder if the covenant movement won't become something like the charismatic movement: no one really speaks of "the charismatic movement" anymore--it has gone "into" the Church and has ceased to be a clearly identifiable "movement" any longer... but nearly every denomination speaks of the Spirit and the gifts and body life, etc. in ways they didn't before the charismatic movement. I'm certain that our church isn't doing as well as we think we might be, there is denial aplenty, there are large areas where we are simply weak (i.e., lacking the gifts and wisdom we need), and others where we are resistant to God. I guess my point is that this situation is far closer to the actual "normal Christian church life". I'm really not meaning to offend you or punch any buttons, I really am attempting to discuss this honestly with you. Please note that this paragraph is focusing on my practice, my church, not on anyone or anything else.
    I do think Hirsch and many of the Emerging folks get messianic about the church rather than about the Messiah. I do not mean that they aren't followers of Jesus or anything like that. Instead, I think I see a postmodern echo of the modernist impulse to explain and control: "If we could just get church "right," the work of the kingdom would proceed flourishingly. I note an absence of a sense of sin's reality and pervasiveness within the church, even amidst those who sincerely seek to reform it. But none of this means that we shouldn't seek God's wisdom as to how he purposes to make all things new in the context of our contexts. I agree that we need to risk, experiment, innovate... likely 80% will prove to have lasting fruiting power or staying power, but that other 20% could be something!

    ReplyDelete
  4. good points Brian, YOu said: " I think I see a postmodern echo of the modernist impulse to explain and control: "If we could just get church "right,"

    this is something that was naggingly on my radar also as I read his book.

    ReplyDelete