in our own image
I have been giving some thought lately to the discussion on what is the “best” model for church. Some people speak passionately about their own approach or model to claim that it is the answer to the predicament of the western church. I know that I have the same temptation - if only other churches could see that the multi-congregational approach is the way to go…. goes the line.
But it is not just me. Some Church planters seem to be convinced that they can overcome all the problems associated with the western church by starting again. They rail against the instiutionalism of the western church (me too!), and say if we can get back to something more simple, something new, magically the problems we are experiencing now will disappear.
Is it just me, or is this just plain naive?
Everything has its strengths. And all new attempts at creating some brand new have one thing in common with the established church - people. The people that start the new endeavours have the same tendencies, the same temptations and carry with them in their new endeavours either the same problems, or react so much to the problems that they end up swinging the pendulum too far.
We need some wisdom injected into the conversation and our attempts to grapple with what it means to be the people of God in this new exciting and terrifying missional context.
Some people will church plant and some of these churches will be new, fresh and incredibly exciting. Some of these new plants will quickly struggle with the same people issues that led them to move away from the established church. Some will stay and hang in there with the established church - fully aware of the shortcomings and sharing the frustrations of these church planters — but, also feeling called to work with this part of the people of God.
The apostle Paul’s imagery of the body is apt here I think. We need both and all the shades of grey that go with it.
One is not a cop out and the other THE answer. One is not easy and the other hard. I have heard people gleefully quoting statistics that show that transitioning an established church is basically impossible, conveniently forgetting the incredible failure rate of church planting. I have also heard others gleefully quoting the failure of church planting, as if it means we should not do it anymore. We need to better than that!
Both are hard, painful and a huge challenge as we attempt to be in community with imperfect people grappling with the hard teachings of Jesus. And both may not “succeed” but we are called to give it a go in different places and contexts.
July 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
yes it was Paul talking but there was someone else involved!
I would consider very apt because of that
July 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
This is why I feel the church structure as a whole needs to change… we need to stop thinking we’ve got the answers when we set up new institutions… the problem is the very fact that all new churches are just that, a new institution meant to convey the body of Christ. When the institution disappears and the body becomes one as it’s supposed to be, then perhaps it won’t be the sleeping giant that it’s referred to.
July 5th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
My own reflections this week, lead me to the conclusion again that we need the church that is right for your context. This is where the ‘model’ idea can fall over itself. Models are intended to replicable and maybe even franchisable
Truth is each form of church has its inherent viruses and concerns. Where I get toey is where diversity is not permitted - or paid lip service to.
I don’t expect everyone to buy my thing nor your thing, nor MarkConnor’s thing - it would be poor missionary form to do that. It would be a lack of attention to context.
The problems come when we spout any way as THE way. I would have done this as a teenager, but the benefit of years makes me appreciate a very diverse church - some of it I would want no part of - some of it I don’t like and other parts I could slot into.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Transitioning an established church is not only possible, it has been done successfully.
I’m a member of the Presbyterian church which has gone through so much ungodly and heretical theology over the past 100 years that you’d think God would have had enough of it. Not so. Since 1997 the denomination has moved from being liberal to being bible based.
The church I am currently a member of was quite typically liberal in its theology back in the 1950s and 1960s. Like many liberal churches this caused entropy but in the 1980s and 1990s a number of evangelical ministers came to the church to minister there and preach the truth. It was hard, but eventually the older members came to appreciate the gospel and many came to faith as a result (over a long period of time and quite undemonstrably). Now our church is bursting at the seams, though I need to point out that this was a long process and other churches have had different results (some closed permanently).
We’re now seriously considering planting a church in the next few years, as well as “overplanting” an established church that we have responsibility for (and which is in a state of entropy).
The only things that I would jump up and down about when it comes to church is the following:
1) Have regular biblical, expository sermons in which the preacher explains the meaning of the text and how it applies to us.
2) The entire focus of corporate worship is upon the person and work of God and how he has saved us by Grace through Christ.
3) Have leaders / elders / pastors who exhibit godliness rather than giftedness. If there’s a combination of the two, then great… but always err on the side of godliness.
4) Have a structure in which the church leaders (the pastor most essentially) have meaningful relationships with church members, to ensure that godliness is not just exhibited, but also experienced and modeled.
5) Make decisions based upon God’s Word, rather than on personal experiences.
There’s more, but I have to make dinner now.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I meant to say from 1977, not 1997
July 5th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
1) Have regular biblical, expository sermons in which the preacher explains the meaning of the text and how it applies to us.
2) The entire focus of corporate worship is upon the person and work of God and how he has saved us by Grace through Christ.
3) Have leaders / elders / pastors who exhibit godliness rather than giftedness. If there’s a combination of the two, then great… but always err on the side of godliness.
4) Have a structure in which the church leaders (the pastor most essentially) have meaningful relationships with church members, to ensure that godliness is not just exhibited, but also experienced and modeled.
5) Make decisions based upon God’s Word, rather than on personal experiences.
I agree with points 2-5 however point 1 arouses some questions for me. If regular biblical, expository sermons in which the preacher explains the meaning of the text and how it applies to us is required, ten explain how in a time when perhaps only 1 or 2 pages of scripture were available (not even a whole testament or book) did the chinese hurch manage to grow from perhaps 2,000,000 pre Mao tse tung to around 60,000,000 in a little over 50 years? Thay had no preachers, no insititution, no visible suport structures, and yet the grew - how?
I like good bible teaching but i don;t think expository preaching rates place 1 in a oist of things the church requires in order to thrive and grow!
July 5th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
list of things - not oist of things!
July 5th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
not that i am any sort of expert in this area at all but intuitively i would have said an organisation along the lines of AA or Gamblers anon would have been something to be modelled. acknowledging your faults and encouraging each other to stay on the wagon.. and then having Adulterers anon Enviers anon etc etc etc…
hang on .. isn’t that what the church is supposed to be?
now that would be interesting .. Church modelled on AA !
July 5th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I believe that the structures need to be challenged, I believe that power must always be power with, not power over others. This can and will look like very differently, but I do believe that whenever there are controlling structures that will resist change you are in for a long, hard fight, and you may not get out alive.
rev
July 5th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
I’m reasonably certain that the underground church in China did have preachers and the church did have access, albeit limited, to God’s word.
In other words, it WAS God’s word that transformed the church in China.
You have to understand that I’m Reformed and Calvinist in my theology. One of my major influences is Sydney Anglicanism where expository preaching is considered the norm. I also trained at Sydney Missionary and Bible College where we have Expository preaching drummed into us by the principal, David Cook.
Paul told Timothy to “preach the word, in season and out of season”. The Word is the logos - the written word. It is also the divine word, Christ. Expository Preaching thus preaches from the Bible and points towards Christ and his work on the cross.
Part of this argument is based upon the Reformation belief of “Sola Scriptura”, which says that the Bible is the only thing we need to know about God and how to live (2 Tim 3.16-17). It is the work of the Holy Spirit in inspiring the biblical writers so that, when the Bible is read and preached from, the Spirit works. The work of the Spirit cannot be divorced from the Word of God.
So, the argument basically is that if you want the Spirit to work in the church, then the Word much be preached. It is the sword of the Spirit.
Now I realise that many of you come from a Pentecostal background and may disagree with me on this issue. Nevertheless I would argue that the problems you see in modern Pentecostalism arise from one basic problem - ignoring what the Bible says.
Please come back to me on this. This issue is very close to my heart and I am more than willing to discuss it further.
July 5th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
“I would argue that the problems you see in modern Pentecostalism arise from one basic problem - ignoring what the Bible says.”
Pentecostals come in many shapes and varieties - Hillsong and its theology are actually in the minority . Its true that Pentecostal theology is not Calvinist or reformed but I grew up as a Pentecostal and we took the bible very seriously . We didn’t ignore what it said at all . Let’s not keep up the same old stereotypes .
July 5th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
OSO - maybe I’m misreading you, but I think the “transitioning an established church” Phil is talking about is different from your case.
You describe more of a theological shift, from liberal to evangelical. The missional reformation people are talking about these days is a lot about making the mission of reaching the world is not just the church’s priority (as it has been) but its organising priciple. Hence a lot of the talk about the shape of churches.
Phil’s church went from being a few churches (fairly traditional evangelical ones, presumably) to a diverse group of congregations, some of them quite different-shaped from the usual. The premise is that the Gospel is for everyone, but the typical modern church is not.
I don’t explain it well at this hour, but you don’t have to look far these days to find blogs talking about this sort of thing. My church is trying to be a bit like Northern - a handful of congregations, some traditional and some not so.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Eric, you sum up what I was talking about well. I would love to hear more about your church.
I am about to post something up to collect some information about churches doing this.. stay tuned.
July 6th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
i still think the aa model is worth discussing
not that i belong to aa
i betya greg does .. if you’ve seen his photo’s … man what a likely character
July 6th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Phil - My church is the GO Christian Network. You can read all about us at http://www.go.asn.au now that our website’s having a good year. Now you’re probably thinking “darn, that was one of the few I knew of already”.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Ooo Andrew Turner is one of the few good preachers I have heard in Adelaide over the years - and anyone who has been to Adelaide will know how absolutely woeful preachers are in the city of (mostly empty) churches so you kind of remember the good ones.
And I say that as a non-Baptist.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
The aa model certainly has something to teach us. The book - the starfish and the spider talks about aa as one of the models we can learn from in developing networks.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Saint - I have to agree with you there mate - Andrew does preach well and is also doing some good outreach amongst his community - even though he is a Bapo.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Yeah, there are a few good’uns around (those that don’t swing from the chandeliers that is). Yeah Hamo, if you’re listening, that means you too.