Some have asked me to expand on the in/out discussion at Mars Hill... and I'm planning on doing that, but first I want to share a brief conversation I recently had while waiting on some food yesterday.
I was at Chic-Fil-A, which was packed by the way, with my pastor picking up some lunch. Looking around I saw that restaurant completely packed out. I wondered how many there were connected with a Jesus community... then about the same time I had two converging thoughts. The first was how could our "established" church connect them with Jesus and the second was how all the statistics say that planting a church is the most effective form of evanglesim. Then... it happened. You know, one of those moments when you say "what if..." then you have to decide whether or not you have the freedom to turn your edit button off and let your mind and heart ask. So I continued thinking... what if we started over? completely changed our mindset from that of an established/traditional/old church to that of a church plant. What would be the first thing we did? the next? the next? Continuing to roll this over in my mind... I decided to share it with my pastor, who thought it was a great idea and we spent the remainder of lunch talking about what that would/could look like. What if we tore down 2/3s of our existing sign and replaced it with a vinyl sign that just said "We're starting over." Now I know there are some inherent difficulties, some folk don't like to change, but could it happen?
So, what do you think? Is it possible for a church to start over? What would you do first? next? next? What are the difficulties, both practically and theologically? Feel free to agree or disagree...
10 comments:
I believe that our buddy McLaren did this with his church. As for your church, I have no idea, since I've never been there. For every church, I don't know that it would work - for as excited as we theology Geeks get about this reinvention stuff, many people don't care for it at all (a lot of them our own age).
But hey, for me, I think it's fantastic thing to do. The question is do you make a cosmetic change, where things are essentially just tweaked or maybe streamlined. Or, do you deconstruct everything... down to your very doctrine? Would you even go so far as to ask if your particular congregation belongs in the fellowship (in this case, the CoG) it is in (i.e. does the denominations ideals and foci and goals match or mirror our own)?
Hmmmm....
Theoretically, it is good.
I'm not sure practically. Of course it depends on the context of each church.
Our church is in the middle of a lot of changes. There is a temptation to make cosmetic changes and call them a big deal.
Ripping the guts out of a church and starting over would be difficult in my context, I dare say impossible.
And here's a questions Alex McManus asked Robb and I at the re:formation conference this past fall. "why should your church change?" if they like who they are then let them have it and move on. He could not think of one example of a church that make deep changes that lasted.
I have been thinking about your post all weekend. While the question posed to me by McManus has been the impetus for my contextual ministry, or incarnational ministry. I also think one would have to think through how "starting over" signs would reach out to unchurched/indifferent people. I have been really concerned with all the advertising I have been seeing around here that seems to just want you to leave your church and try theirs. I am not sure how "starting over" would be recieved by your "target audience" (sorry for the market talk). It will also be a thing about seeing what percentage of your congregation gets behind such a measure. If we are talking about genuinely attaching people to Jesus communities who have previously not been attached, I am curious to see if a church building will be a reasonably base of operations. The South is so inundated with churchiness, It will be interesting to see if one could overcome those preconceptions (which is as much an architectual question as anything).
What it could do is bring in Christ followers looking for a place to start over themselves, thus providing a force to reach out more effectively to the unchurched. That would be awesome to see. The revamp could make a harbor for people as concerned with Jesus following as this starting over church, and it could really galvanize a great community of faith to minister in your context.
Don't take any of the preceding the wrong way. I am all for it, but my (limited) experience makes me a bit pessimistic. I want it to go, and I would love to sit and talk through it more with you.
thanks for the comments thus far... they are very helpful in thinking through this some more. just to add some more thoughts to the original post... you know how some churches will sponsor the planting of a new church, both financially and with people. I know of some church plants that started with 200+ people because they were planted by a sponsor church. Could a church do this to themselves... could a church "replant"?
Take two houseplants and put them to the test, set 'em both in front of speakers and let the music do the rest...
Sorry... Audio A flashback there
a couple of questions for you?
1) Is planting a church the most effective form of evangelism?
2) What is an established/traditional/old church mentality?
3) Who makes the decision to start over, is that a pastoral/hierarchical decision or is it a democratic/congregational decision, or in your case one the overseer makes?
4) Can humans as a collective group or as individuals ever start over? How do you wipe the slate clean?
Those are a couple questions i have at the moment, please reply and i will try to expand my answer.
There are quit a few blogging on the ISB conference. I've posted a link of all I could find on my site.
nic... i'll try to answer your questions... briefly and in order. I hope this makes sense.
1. Many would say that yes, church planting is the most effective form of evangelism. Part of it has to do with the desire to be part of something new... there's usually a good energy and excitement about the faith in those planting... a willingness to enter a community that doesn't connatate (sp?) certain baggage...
2. In my context, the mentality that I'm speaking of is the unwillingness to risk... granted, what I am proposing is a huge risk... ends up being a kind of cyclical problem.
3. Regarding the decision, i've recommended that we choose a focus group that represents a diverse slice of the people in the church. Do a good bit of discussion... then go from there. I don't exactly know what this part would look like. But no overseers.
4. I don't necessarily think about wiping the slate clean. I've suggested that we possibly look at it as re-membering the passion of the history of our church... John Dawsey, log cabin, etc. Now... as far as do I think that humans can genuinely change, then yes.
Hope that helps.
ecclesiologically i want to say that the church is out there (much as the truth is). and not wanting to fall into a consumeristic model that says that we come to church to have our tanks refilled or something like that so that we can then leave the safety of our ghetto to minister to those on the out. i see the gatherings of the whole body as times of celebration and opportunities for those in the body that normally do not have a chance to minister due to the usual distance of space and time as having that chance (i'm thinking of the jewish festivles in jerusalem where the whole of the nation came together, of course it is easier to gather these days due to the advancement of technology, thus we can drive 15 miles to church on Sunday instead of a 2 day walk). thus the church is found in our lives everyday, in the relationships that we have, that we make, and that we conciously choose to continue. i think what we are doing right now, blogging and commenting, is church. i think that church and kingdom (and i mean everything that you can pack into that term) are a lot closer than we have been led to believe. i say all of this to ask, why start over? yes there needs to be change, we all must change giving our unique position as social creature in a world that is constantly changing. We need to adapt, to evolve.
Is starting over a falling back, a devolving? Does the language of starting over nullify or trivialize all the good that has happened up to that point?
I dare say that what we find in the established/traditional/old church mindset is a combination of some who have found their community there and want to protect it, thus no change, and some who have their community elsewhere and are apathetic and indifferent towards change in the church. The evangelistic goal may not be to introduce new communities, but rather introduce/find Jesus to existing communities. We followers of the way must be sacrament in the relationships that we are in/create in our day to day living. a little leaven leavens the whole.
also in response to the idea of change from above, i think that we are also called to be agents of active change, we adapt and evolve not only in response to our environment, but in order for the environment to respond. We become Christ-like by adding a new variable to the equation. Thus in our "church start over" context there needs to be a newness, but perhaps a start over may be the wrong terminology. I think i am leaning towards "re-centering" and i also like your "re-membering"
o well that was probably incoherent as i was interrupted 4 or 5 times in the 1 1/2 it took to compose. sorry
I think it's a fantastic idea. There are more people tired of the old ideas of church than there are people who don't like change.
There are people starving out there for a church that isn't afraid of it's faith, that probes and asks hard questions, all while believing that our faith can actually defend itself!
~Chris
Post a Comment