How can we build disciple-making churches that rapidly and naturally reproduce themselves?
The Starting Place
In the New Testament we are not commanded to “go and plant churches.” The great commission is that we go and proclaim the good news (Mark 16:15), make disciples and to teach them the commands of Christ (Matthew 28:18) and be a Spirit-filled witness to the resurrection of Christ (Acts 1:8). Jesus did not have much to say about the church in the gospels. He did say “I will build my church…” (Matthew 16:18). We are clearly commissioned to announce and demonstrate his kingdom, and to go and make disciples of Jesus. Meanwhile, he will build HIS church.
Euripides said “A bad beginning makes a bad ending.” Whatever the DNA of a seed is will be revealed by the fruit. An apple seed will produce an apple tree, an orange seed will produce an orange seed. How we start a work or a church is the most powerful determinant of what the end result will be. If we make planting churches our starting point, we will end up with the wrong result. The starting point must be “preaching the gospel of the kingdom,” and “making disciples.” If we effectively proclaim the gospel of the kingdom to social networks and disciple them to Jesus, churches can naturally be formed.
If our starting point is planting a church, rather than kingdom proclamation and discipling, our focus will be on getting people to a meeting. Our priorities may become developing a good worship band, organizing a Sunday School program or effective advertising. However, if we focus on preaching the kingdom and making disciples, our first focus will be on getting people to follow Jesus and apply His principles in their lives and we leave Jesus free to build his church however he chooses.
Jesus never tried to plant a church. Instead he focused following the father’s initiative (John 5:30; 8:28), announcing and demonstrating the arrival of the kingdom by doing good, healing the sick and setting free the oppressed (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38) and perhaps most importantly, on training a group of between twelve and seventy followers; teaching them to love and serve one another and sending them two by two to share the good news of the kingdom and heal the sick.
Church planting strategy must be built around the great commission; "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20).
Likewise, St. Paul never went into a city just to plant a new church and get people going to a meeting. He preached the kingdom and discipled the new believers. He then either baptized them, or had some of the new leaders baptize them and taught them to begin gathering together to love and encourage one another as they shared the kingdom and discipled others. The primary focus was not on the meeting, but on sharing the news of Jesus’ kingdom and making disciples. As the number of disciples grew in a city, they met from house to house for fellowship, prayer, teaching and mutual encouragement. The primary spiritual energy of the Pauline churches continued, however, to move through their social networks in the marketplace, in the streets, in the schools and in their homes as they shared the news of Jesus’ kingdom and called people to become followers of Jesus.
The result was the advancement of the reign of God in the city and the gathering of committed disciples around Christ. Jesus built his church! The primary focus was never only on attending a weekly meeting but a daily lifestyle of love and obedience to Jesus!
Saturday, June 16, 2007
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
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
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Lewis: A Christian Society
The New Testament, without going into details, gives us a pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian Society would be like. Perhaps it gives us more than we can take. It tells us that there are to be no passengers or parasites: if man does not work, he ought not to eat. Every one is to work with his own hands, and what is more, every one’s work is to produce something good: there will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them. And there is to be no ‘swank’ or ‘side’, no putting on of airs. To that extent a Christian society would be what we now call Leftist. On the other hand, it is always insisting on obedience—obedience (and outward marks of respect) from all of us to properly appointed magistrates, from children to parents, and (I am afraid this is going very unpopular) from wives to husbands. Thirdly, it is going to be a cheerful society: full of singing and rejoicing, and regarding worry or anxiety as wrong. Courtesy is one of the Christian virtues; and the New Testament hates what it calls ‘busybodies’.
If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, ‘advanced’, but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old fashioned—perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. That is just what one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We have all departed from that total plan in different ways, and each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan itself. You will find this again and again about anything that is really Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest.
— from Mere Christianity (Klein:156)
If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, ‘advanced’, but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old fashioned—perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. That is just what one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We have all departed from that total plan in different ways, and each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan itself. You will find this again and again about anything that is really Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest.
— from Mere Christianity (Klein:156)
Friday, June 1, 2007
THE NEED FOR NEW CHURCHES [Organic CP #2]
Like any living organism, every local church has a natural life cycle. Unless a church is able to reproduce itself in every new generation, it will go through a natural life cycle and die in one generation.
Right now in the U.S., there are approximately 340,000 churches [note: this is undoubtedly outdated. I don’t have the most recent figures, but due to the emphasis by Bill Bright and others such as DAWN, there has been an effort to plant house churches over the last four years. Plus, there is evidence that large numbers of people have stopped going to organized church services and have started meeting at home with the family and a few friends]. Three fourths of these churches are slowing dying and one fourth is growing[2]. Almost all of the increases of the 25% that are growing are transfers from the 75% that are diminishing.
Over the last twenty years, more than 3500 churches have closed their doors annually.[3] That translates to about ten churches shutting down every day. Only half as many are currently being started. Planting new churches in the U.S. is essential. If there is not a major focus on effective church planting, Christian faith in the U.S. may quickly become as culturally marginal as it is in Europe.
C. Peter Wagner has said that church planting is the most effective form of evangelism. Extensive research by Christian Schwarz of over a thousand churches in thirty-two nations shows that smaller and newer congregations are far more effective in evangelism than large churches. According to Schwarz, numerous churches far excel a single mega-church in evangelistic fruitfulness; “If instead of a single church with 2,856 in worship we had 56 churches, each with 51 worshippers, these churches would, statistically, win 1,792 new people within five years—16 times the number the mega church would win. Thus we can conclude that the evangelistic effectiveness of mini-churches is statistically 1,600 percent greater than that of mega churches.”[4]
If our prime directive is to make “disciples of the nations,” by persuading the unbelieving to trust and follow Christ, we must consider church planting as a mandate. If the church in the United States desires once again to be “salt and light” to U.S. culture, a sustained church planting movement must be launched. It must be the kind of church planting movement that easily and rapidly reproduces itself. If such a movement is to have a major impact on our society, it must not be “resource intensive” requiring multiple 10’s or 100’s of thousands of dollars and highly trained specialists to succeed. The term “organic” church planting communicates the image of something that spontaneously multiplies under natural conditions.
If the church in the U.S. is to continue to flourish in the future, we must also place an urgent priority on church planting among young adults. If the statistics are alarming about the pace of new church planting compared to dead and closing churches, the explosion of youth culture and the relative absence of a Christian influence is even more alarming. No where is the need for new churches more acute than among the millennial and Gen-X generations.
Right now in the U.S., there are approximately 340,000 churches [note: this is undoubtedly outdated. I don’t have the most recent figures, but due to the emphasis by Bill Bright and others such as DAWN, there has been an effort to plant house churches over the last four years. Plus, there is evidence that large numbers of people have stopped going to organized church services and have started meeting at home with the family and a few friends]. Three fourths of these churches are slowing dying and one fourth is growing[2]. Almost all of the increases of the 25% that are growing are transfers from the 75% that are diminishing.
Over the last twenty years, more than 3500 churches have closed their doors annually.[3] That translates to about ten churches shutting down every day. Only half as many are currently being started. Planting new churches in the U.S. is essential. If there is not a major focus on effective church planting, Christian faith in the U.S. may quickly become as culturally marginal as it is in Europe.
C. Peter Wagner has said that church planting is the most effective form of evangelism. Extensive research by Christian Schwarz of over a thousand churches in thirty-two nations shows that smaller and newer congregations are far more effective in evangelism than large churches. According to Schwarz, numerous churches far excel a single mega-church in evangelistic fruitfulness; “If instead of a single church with 2,856 in worship we had 56 churches, each with 51 worshippers, these churches would, statistically, win 1,792 new people within five years—16 times the number the mega church would win. Thus we can conclude that the evangelistic effectiveness of mini-churches is statistically 1,600 percent greater than that of mega churches.”[4]
If our prime directive is to make “disciples of the nations,” by persuading the unbelieving to trust and follow Christ, we must consider church planting as a mandate. If the church in the United States desires once again to be “salt and light” to U.S. culture, a sustained church planting movement must be launched. It must be the kind of church planting movement that easily and rapidly reproduces itself. If such a movement is to have a major impact on our society, it must not be “resource intensive” requiring multiple 10’s or 100’s of thousands of dollars and highly trained specialists to succeed. The term “organic” church planting communicates the image of something that spontaneously multiplies under natural conditions.
If the church in the U.S. is to continue to flourish in the future, we must also place an urgent priority on church planting among young adults. If the statistics are alarming about the pace of new church planting compared to dead and closing churches, the explosion of youth culture and the relative absence of a Christian influence is even more alarming. No where is the need for new churches more acute than among the millennial and Gen-X generations.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Organic Church Planting (2003)
Note: this is taken from a research paper I developed in 2003 for ACTS, and has provided a guiding philosophy of ministry for my work in South Florida over the last 4 years. I have made some significant changes in my views since this was written but I decided to publish it here as I wrote it with some addendums. The major shift is that I would no longer use the phrase "church" planting...I would look for something like "kingdom" planting. I have decided to repost this paper, one section at a time to make it more readable to and to invite discussion.
The great commission given to the followers of Jesus is to go into all the earth, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son and Holy Spirit, teaching them all that Christ has commanded us. What has Christ commanded us? He has commanded us to love and serve one another, to encourage and care for one another. The activity of making disciples and teaching them to love and serve one another leads to the church, the assembling or gathering together of committed followers of Jesus.
Church planting is the activity of the Holy Spirit through apostolic workers as they persuade men and women to become followers of Jesus and to gather together with other followers of Jesus for mutual service, encouragement and edification.
The Holy Spirit has provided us with a divine example of organic church planting in the relationship between Jesus and his disciples [note: I no longer feel that feel that "church planting" exacty applies to the activity of Jesus with the 12: it was more like forming an apostolic community -- or kingdom network] . We can also find principles of cross-cultural church planting through the example of the Saul of Tarsus and his apostolic team in the later half of the book of Acts. The more closely we follow the biblical pattern given us through Jesus and the twelve, with Paul’s apostolic band, the more likely it is that we will see the same quality of results that we see in the New Testament, as well as the same enduring nature of “fruit which remains” (John 15:16).
Most church planting methods during the last decades of the 20th century were focused on transfer growth rather than new conversion growth. New styles of ministry were developed in order to attract Christian dropouts from dead or dying churches. Sunday morning worship services were updated into the technological age of sound systems, overhead projectors and electric keyboards and then later to multi-media presentations with PowerPoint sermons and gourmet coffee hospitality. Dress became more casual and preaching styles more conversational as churches scrambled to compete to meet the “felt needs” of a dwindling number of Christian consumers.
As we enter into a new millennium, there is a general dissatisfaction with the kind of Christianity produced by contemporary churches in the West. The pastoral failure rate has never been higher. Despite the proliferation (and blessing!) of seeker and purpose-driven mega churches, overall church attendance from January 1997 through June 1998 dropped by 4%. This translates to 8 million Christians who stopped attending Christian services of any kind over an 18 month period.[1] As the Christian Church steadily loses influence not only among secular society, but even among Christians in the U.S. many people are coming to the conviction that the church must change in substance as well as style. The changes that the church will experience in the early decades of the 21st. century will go far beyond methods, style and strategies, to the heart of what defines the church; relationships and structure.
[1] Leonard Sweet, Post-Modern Pilgrims (Broadman and Holman, Nashville, TN: 2000) p. 39
The great commission given to the followers of Jesus is to go into all the earth, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son and Holy Spirit, teaching them all that Christ has commanded us. What has Christ commanded us? He has commanded us to love and serve one another, to encourage and care for one another. The activity of making disciples and teaching them to love and serve one another leads to the church, the assembling or gathering together of committed followers of Jesus.
Church planting is the activity of the Holy Spirit through apostolic workers as they persuade men and women to become followers of Jesus and to gather together with other followers of Jesus for mutual service, encouragement and edification.
The Holy Spirit has provided us with a divine example of organic church planting in the relationship between Jesus and his disciples [note: I no longer feel that feel that "church planting" exacty applies to the activity of Jesus with the 12: it was more like forming an apostolic community -- or kingdom network] . We can also find principles of cross-cultural church planting through the example of the Saul of Tarsus and his apostolic team in the later half of the book of Acts. The more closely we follow the biblical pattern given us through Jesus and the twelve, with Paul’s apostolic band, the more likely it is that we will see the same quality of results that we see in the New Testament, as well as the same enduring nature of “fruit which remains” (John 15:16).
Most church planting methods during the last decades of the 20th century were focused on transfer growth rather than new conversion growth. New styles of ministry were developed in order to attract Christian dropouts from dead or dying churches. Sunday morning worship services were updated into the technological age of sound systems, overhead projectors and electric keyboards and then later to multi-media presentations with PowerPoint sermons and gourmet coffee hospitality. Dress became more casual and preaching styles more conversational as churches scrambled to compete to meet the “felt needs” of a dwindling number of Christian consumers.
As we enter into a new millennium, there is a general dissatisfaction with the kind of Christianity produced by contemporary churches in the West. The pastoral failure rate has never been higher. Despite the proliferation (and blessing!) of seeker and purpose-driven mega churches, overall church attendance from January 1997 through June 1998 dropped by 4%. This translates to 8 million Christians who stopped attending Christian services of any kind over an 18 month period.[1] As the Christian Church steadily loses influence not only among secular society, but even among Christians in the U.S. many people are coming to the conviction that the church must change in substance as well as style. The changes that the church will experience in the early decades of the 21st. century will go far beyond methods, style and strategies, to the heart of what defines the church; relationships and structure.
[1] Leonard Sweet, Post-Modern Pilgrims (Broadman and Holman, Nashville, TN: 2000) p. 39
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Lewis: Avoid Clarity
Upon learning that Wormwood's Patient has become a Christian, Screwtape illustrates techniques for confusion:
One of our greatest allies at present is the Church itself. Do not misunderstand me. I do not mean the Church as we see her spread out through all time and space and rooted in eternity, terrible as an army with banners. That, I confess, is a spectacle which makes our boldest tempters uneasy. But fortunately it is quiet invisible to these humans. All your patient sees is the half-finished, sham Gothic erection on the new building estate. When he goes inside, he sees the local grocer with a rather oily expression on his face bustling up to offer him one shiny little book containing a liturgy which neither of them understands, and one shabby little book containing corrupt texts of a number of religious lyrics, mostly bad, and in very small print.
When he gets to his pew and looks around him he sees just that selection of his neighbors whom he has hitherto avoided. You want to lean pretty heavily on those neighbors…Provided that any of those neighbors sing out of tune, or have boots that squeak, or double chins, or odd clothes, the patient will quite easily believe that their religion must therefore be somehow ridiculous. At his present stage, you see, he has an idea of ‘Christians’ in his mind which he supposes to be spiritual but which, in fact, is largely pictoral. His mind is full of togas and sandals and armour and bare legs and the mere fact that the other people in church were modern clothes is a real—though of course an unconscious—difficulty to him. Never let it come to the surface; never let him ask what he expected them to look like. Keep everything hazy in his mind now, and you will have all eternity wherein to amuse yourself by producing in him the peculiar kind of clarity which Hell affords.
--from The Screwtape Letters
One of our greatest allies at present is the Church itself. Do not misunderstand me. I do not mean the Church as we see her spread out through all time and space and rooted in eternity, terrible as an army with banners. That, I confess, is a spectacle which makes our boldest tempters uneasy. But fortunately it is quiet invisible to these humans. All your patient sees is the half-finished, sham Gothic erection on the new building estate. When he goes inside, he sees the local grocer with a rather oily expression on his face bustling up to offer him one shiny little book containing a liturgy which neither of them understands, and one shabby little book containing corrupt texts of a number of religious lyrics, mostly bad, and in very small print.
When he gets to his pew and looks around him he sees just that selection of his neighbors whom he has hitherto avoided. You want to lean pretty heavily on those neighbors…Provided that any of those neighbors sing out of tune, or have boots that squeak, or double chins, or odd clothes, the patient will quite easily believe that their religion must therefore be somehow ridiculous. At his present stage, you see, he has an idea of ‘Christians’ in his mind which he supposes to be spiritual but which, in fact, is largely pictoral. His mind is full of togas and sandals and armour and bare legs and the mere fact that the other people in church were modern clothes is a real—though of course an unconscious—difficulty to him. Never let it come to the surface; never let him ask what he expected them to look like. Keep everything hazy in his mind now, and you will have all eternity wherein to amuse yourself by producing in him the peculiar kind of clarity which Hell affords.
--from The Screwtape Letters
Monday, May 28, 2007
WORSHIP, TECHNOLOGY AND JESUS’ DNA
For the context of the discussion, go to
Covenant Thinklings: The Heart of Worship
William, I liked how you expressed the modern church building mindset in a way that does not cast it as traditional. As Robert has often and correctly pointed out, we don’t want lose our appreciation for ‘tradition’ as in historic heritage…but some ‘modern’ mentalities may need to be altered in order to reach postmoderns. I like the way you describe that as relational communities. That is actually where our movement started out. When I first heard about the shepherding ‘community’ in Lancaster (where Dennis Coll currently serves), it was called Hope Community. As a hippie who had just planted several communes in New England, it lit the fires of my imagination…I remember telling John M. “I didn’t know Christians could do that!”
On the importance of corporate worship. I believe it was Émile Durkheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Durkheim), who in his study of cultures came to the conclusion that every community, human collectivity or tribal group has some form of worship. Even though he was not a believer himself, he believed that it was an essential part of developing a cultural or tribal collective identity (Robert: I love the quote by Peterson of Keillor—Brian got me reading the book).
Robert: on your question about the influence of electronics and other aspects of modern technology on worship. Excellent question! I remember being in a little Mayan Indian church in Guatemala once, with about 12 to 15 people attending. The amplifiers were each bigger than me…when they cranked up the “worship” I could actually feel my internal organs vibrating! That’s when I started rethinking some things.
George Patterson, a Baptist church planter in Central America tells a story that has some application. He found a jungle village of indigenous Hispanics who did not have a church, priest or the scriptures. He arrived in his Jeep with a overhead projector and showed them the “Jesus Film” and led the village elders to Christ. He then taught them that they need to begin to reach the outlying families around the village. When he returned several months (or maybe weeks) later, they had done nothing. When he asked them why, they told him that they could not evangelize because they did not have a jeep or an overhead projector. The next time he visited them, he was riding a mule with a bag of Bibles in Spanish (even the Bibles can be problamatic in such a context when people are often illiterate).
In Mexico, we once visited a little church associated with Sebastian Vazquez that could only be reached by foot, or by horseback. A three hour hike up the mountain. The Pastor’s house was falling down. When we asked how we could pray for them, they gave us a “shopping” list, they need a electronic keyboard, sounds system and an electric guitar. The old acoustic guitar they had was not adequate to bring them into God’s presence. They were not a “real” church without electronics. Don’t laugh….how many us feel we are not a real church without a powerpoint projection system!
This is why I started on a process of ‘descontructing’ the church (not our historic traditions – just some of the 20th century accretions). I posted something in this process on my blog: http://c-far.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html on May 6th called DECONSTRUCTING THE CHURCH. At some point along the way, I realized that I could not keep up with the pace of electronic technology and seeker oriented strategies for growing a church so I just completely opted out....got rid of most of the technology and went back to 'simple' (2 or 3). I have heard Charles talk about the need to ‘digitize’ the church and to find out what the basic ‘byte’ of church life is (hint: I think he thinks it is the cell – where two or three are gathered).
Some people prefer the term “liquid modernity” over postmodernity. One of the reasons we need to allow new churches to be organic “bytes” (without losing our connection to historic tradition) is to be able reconfigure and flow as needed in this liquid modernity. The church needs to be able “be the church” with an acoustic guitar (or no guitar) on the top of a Mexican mountain, or to use powerpoint and multimedia with 20,000 people in Chicago or LA without one or the other being more correct or more 'church'. The church also needs to show up, and be visibly present in the midst of darkness among the tribal vampire people at Stick & Stein’s in Homestead when my daughter is bar-tending. That is why I try to always take “one or two” with me.
I think that the DNA of the church (don’t get nervous Brian!) and the kingdom and for worship is uber-flexible. Jesus’ corporate DNA can go anywhere, and adapt to and infect any people group, culture, socio-economic lifestyle, technology (or lack thereof) or world view, and like a out-of-control virus begin to transform and uplift them into his eternal kingdom--as long we don’t try to box it up.
Covenant Thinklings: The Heart of Worship
William, I liked how you expressed the modern church building mindset in a way that does not cast it as traditional. As Robert has often and correctly pointed out, we don’t want lose our appreciation for ‘tradition’ as in historic heritage…but some ‘modern’ mentalities may need to be altered in order to reach postmoderns. I like the way you describe that as relational communities. That is actually where our movement started out. When I first heard about the shepherding ‘community’ in Lancaster (where Dennis Coll currently serves), it was called Hope Community. As a hippie who had just planted several communes in New England, it lit the fires of my imagination…I remember telling John M. “I didn’t know Christians could do that!”
On the importance of corporate worship. I believe it was Émile Durkheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Durkheim), who in his study of cultures came to the conclusion that every community, human collectivity or tribal group has some form of worship. Even though he was not a believer himself, he believed that it was an essential part of developing a cultural or tribal collective identity (Robert: I love the quote by Peterson of Keillor—Brian got me reading the book).
Robert: on your question about the influence of electronics and other aspects of modern technology on worship. Excellent question! I remember being in a little Mayan Indian church in Guatemala once, with about 12 to 15 people attending. The amplifiers were each bigger than me…when they cranked up the “worship” I could actually feel my internal organs vibrating! That’s when I started rethinking some things.
George Patterson, a Baptist church planter in Central America tells a story that has some application. He found a jungle village of indigenous Hispanics who did not have a church, priest or the scriptures. He arrived in his Jeep with a overhead projector and showed them the “Jesus Film” and led the village elders to Christ. He then taught them that they need to begin to reach the outlying families around the village. When he returned several months (or maybe weeks) later, they had done nothing. When he asked them why, they told him that they could not evangelize because they did not have a jeep or an overhead projector. The next time he visited them, he was riding a mule with a bag of Bibles in Spanish (even the Bibles can be problamatic in such a context when people are often illiterate).
In Mexico, we once visited a little church associated with Sebastian Vazquez that could only be reached by foot, or by horseback. A three hour hike up the mountain. The Pastor’s house was falling down. When we asked how we could pray for them, they gave us a “shopping” list, they need a electronic keyboard, sounds system and an electric guitar. The old acoustic guitar they had was not adequate to bring them into God’s presence. They were not a “real” church without electronics. Don’t laugh….how many us feel we are not a real church without a powerpoint projection system!
This is why I started on a process of ‘descontructing’ the church (not our historic traditions – just some of the 20th century accretions). I posted something in this process on my blog: http://c-far.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html on May 6th called DECONSTRUCTING THE CHURCH. At some point along the way, I realized that I could not keep up with the pace of electronic technology and seeker oriented strategies for growing a church so I just completely opted out....got rid of most of the technology and went back to 'simple' (2 or 3). I have heard Charles talk about the need to ‘digitize’ the church and to find out what the basic ‘byte’ of church life is (hint: I think he thinks it is the cell – where two or three are gathered).
Some people prefer the term “liquid modernity” over postmodernity. One of the reasons we need to allow new churches to be organic “bytes” (without losing our connection to historic tradition) is to be able reconfigure and flow as needed in this liquid modernity. The church needs to be able “be the church” with an acoustic guitar (or no guitar) on the top of a Mexican mountain, or to use powerpoint and multimedia with 20,000 people in Chicago or LA without one or the other being more correct or more 'church'. The church also needs to show up, and be visibly present in the midst of darkness among the tribal vampire people at Stick & Stein’s in Homestead when my daughter is bar-tending. That is why I try to always take “one or two” with me.
I think that the DNA of the church (don’t get nervous Brian!) and the kingdom and for worship is uber-flexible. Jesus’ corporate DNA can go anywhere, and adapt to and infect any people group, culture, socio-economic lifestyle, technology (or lack thereof) or world view, and like a out-of-control virus begin to transform and uplift them into his eternal kingdom--as long we don’t try to box it up.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
C.S. Lewis on the Church and Culture
"People say, ‘The Church ought to give us a lead.’
That is true if they mean it the right way, but false if they mean it in the wrong way. By the Church they ought to mean the whole body of practicing Christians. And when they say that the Church should give us a lead, they ought to mean the some Christians--those who happen to have the right talents--should be economists and statesmen, and that all economists and statesmen should be Christians, and that their whole efforts in politics and economics should be directed to putting ‘Do as you would be done by’ into action. If that happened, and if we others were really ready to take it, then we should find the Christian solution for our own social problems pretty quickly.
But, of course, when they ask for a lead from the Church most people mean they want the clergy to put out a political program. That is silly. The clergy are those particular people within the whole Church who have been specially trained and set aside to look after what concerns us as creatures who are going to live for ever: and we are asking them to do a quite different job for which they have not been trained. The job is really on us, on the laymen. The application of Christian principles, say, to trade unionism or education must come from Christian trade unionists and Christian schoolmasters, just as Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and dramatists--not from the bench of bishops getting together and trying to write plays and novels in their spare time."
--from Mere Christinanity
That is true if they mean it the right way, but false if they mean it in the wrong way. By the Church they ought to mean the whole body of practicing Christians. And when they say that the Church should give us a lead, they ought to mean the some Christians--those who happen to have the right talents--should be economists and statesmen, and that all economists and statesmen should be Christians, and that their whole efforts in politics and economics should be directed to putting ‘Do as you would be done by’ into action. If that happened, and if we others were really ready to take it, then we should find the Christian solution for our own social problems pretty quickly.
But, of course, when they ask for a lead from the Church most people mean they want the clergy to put out a political program. That is silly. The clergy are those particular people within the whole Church who have been specially trained and set aside to look after what concerns us as creatures who are going to live for ever: and we are asking them to do a quite different job for which they have not been trained. The job is really on us, on the laymen. The application of Christian principles, say, to trade unionism or education must come from Christian trade unionists and Christian schoolmasters, just as Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and dramatists--not from the bench of bishops getting together and trying to write plays and novels in their spare time."
--from Mere Christinanity
Saturday, May 26, 2007
"The evangelical movement is evolving" NY TIMES
This from the New York Times:
"The evangelical movement, however, is clearly evolving. Members of the baby boomer generation are taking over the reins, said D. G. Hart, a historian of religion. The boomers, he said, are markedly different in style and temperament from their predecessors and much more animated by social justice and humanitarianism. Most of them are pastors, as opposed to the heads of advocacy groups, making them more reluctant to plunge into politics to avoid alienating diverse congregations....
Mr. Warren, along with Mr. Hybels, 55, and several dozen other evangelical leaders, signed a call to action last year on climate change. The initiative brought together more mainstream conservative Christian leaders with prominent liberal evangelicals, such as the Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners and the Rev. Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, who have long championed progressive causes. Notably absent from the list of signatories were several old lions of the Christian right, some of whom were openly critical of the effort: Mr. Falwell; Mr. Robertson, 77; and Mr. Dobson, 71, founder of Focus on the Family."
"The evangelical movement, however, is clearly evolving. Members of the baby boomer generation are taking over the reins, said D. G. Hart, a historian of religion. The boomers, he said, are markedly different in style and temperament from their predecessors and much more animated by social justice and humanitarianism. Most of them are pastors, as opposed to the heads of advocacy groups, making them more reluctant to plunge into politics to avoid alienating diverse congregations....
Mr. Warren, along with Mr. Hybels, 55, and several dozen other evangelical leaders, signed a call to action last year on climate change. The initiative brought together more mainstream conservative Christian leaders with prominent liberal evangelicals, such as the Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners and the Rev. Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, who have long championed progressive causes. Notably absent from the list of signatories were several old lions of the Christian right, some of whom were openly critical of the effort: Mr. Falwell; Mr. Robertson, 77; and Mr. Dobson, 71, founder of Focus on the Family."
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Einstein interview on NPR radio
I heard a great interview today on NPR radio with Walter Isaacson, the author of a new biography on the life of Einstein.
You can access the audio file at http://wamu.org/programs/dr/
The author discusses how Einstein used his creative imagination to General Theory of Relativity. I have ordered the book from Amazon.com.
Einstein was humble but was confident in the “spirit” guiding the material universe. He did not believe that science and faith conflicted. He said science without religion is lame, but religion without science is blind. He was also a rebel and nonconformist.
Einstein believed in an absolute underlying reality, for this reason he was uncomfortable moral relativism. It was an interesting interview... the audio is available at the link above.
Here are some of my favorite Albert Einstein quotes:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein
Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile." -Albert Einstein
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." -Albert Einstein
"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." -Albert Einstein
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
You can access the audio file at http://wamu.org/programs/dr/
The author discusses how Einstein used his creative imagination to General Theory of Relativity. I have ordered the book from Amazon.com.
Einstein was humble but was confident in the “spirit” guiding the material universe. He did not believe that science and faith conflicted. He said science without religion is lame, but religion without science is blind. He was also a rebel and nonconformist.
Einstein believed in an absolute underlying reality, for this reason he was uncomfortable moral relativism. It was an interesting interview... the audio is available at the link above.
Here are some of my favorite Albert Einstein quotes:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein
Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile." -Albert Einstein
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." -Albert Einstein
"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." -Albert Einstein
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
