Missional: The Leaf…ex cofc preacher

A church hasn’t sold out just because it is large. And I’ve noticed that people from house churches tend to come to the larger churches when they’re looking for financial support to do missions.
But, in addition to large, growing churches, we absolutely must have an outbreak of new “plants” in houses.

It reminds me of something on the sanctuary doorway of the church I grew up in (I can call it a “sanctuary;” it’s a Baptist church. It didn’t get to be an “auditorium” till I converted.). On the external side, above the door, was printed “Enter to Worship” and as one exited, above the door, “Exit to Serve.” Except I think it sets a false dichotomy between serving and worshiping.

The forty days thing is a great starting point, whether communally or personally. It’s just that too many finish the forty, feel accomplished … and sit back, relapsing until the next ‘fix’ comes along. I don’t think God meant for his church to be fad-based. But as a consumeristic society, we’ve been more than willing to make it one: from The Prayer of Jabez to the Rick Warren methodology, and even Max Lucado, we’ve followed them with all the zeal of the 1980’s parallel “quests for excellence.” Maybe we should shelve the books and simply quest for God.

And being missional shouldn’t only mean inviting someone to an event. As the body of Christ, let’s refocus. We need to find genuine ways to “make disciples,” not just make converts. Disciple making often is not done in churches over 200 people. That is just the dead-honest truth.

I’ll leave you with this question:
What would the body of Christ wherever you are do if…
…100 people came to Christ tomorrow?
…1,000 people came to Christ this month?
…1,000,000 people came to Christ this year?
Would we know what to do with them? Would we “plug them in” (give me a break!) at the local mega-church? I think not.

The unchurched population has increased by 95 percent.

Check out the research here: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=163

Does anyone else see a discrepancy? Does anyone else also feel like the U.S. has more evangelical Christian churches with more praise and worship radio stations and more “voice” than any other time in its history? That’s because this nation does. And somehow, these institutional churches are not getting the job done. People are walking away from church buildings in droves, and Christians automatically turn to bigger buildings as the solution. Forgive us, Lord!

Mike is absolutely right, and the statistics support him: The time of the mega-church has expired. I’d go even further to say that the time of the institutional church has expired. Don’t get me wrong: I think God still works in the midst of believers in existing institutional churches. But if missionaries in America (basically all Christians in a post-Christian nation) are to start from square one, they need not look to buildings and programs to bring in the people. In fact, they need not look to “bring in the people” at all. Our call is to “GO OUT into all the world.” Since when did we expect the un-saved to just meander onto our territory? They haven’t and won’t. Count me out if the aim of church planting continues to be developing into a mega-church (which is technically any church over 200).

Want to join God in how he’s spreading his Kingdom in North America and the world? I dare any of you to read any of the following books. You’ll catch a new vision for what the 21st Century church can be in a post-Christian, post-denominational country.

“Cultivating a Life For God” by Neil Cole
“Houses That Change the World” by Wolfgang Simpson
“Simply Church” by Tony and Felicity Dale

I say all of that to say that I am encouraged by your words. Not that you have it figured out, but that you (as one of those guys that the rest of us look up to) are trying to figure out things like how to be missional in an emerging culture, and how to help people form into the image of Christ. I see and hear a longing in the hearts of many that want to join Paul and Silas in turning the world upside down, but as those that are “emerging” from something to something else we are struggling against the cocoon of the institution to which we have devoted so much time and energy.

My tendency, as one that is short on patience, is to chuck the whole thing and start over. And while I’m impressed with my friends that have become church planters and bi-vocational ministers, I still think that there is potential for the institution to emerge and make a difference in the world in which it exists. I think that there will be pain along the way. But I believe that God will reward us as we venture into terra nova with his guidance and a reminder of the transformational power that his grace can have in the world when his people are living out his word and work.

I warned you initially that it was late…so enough of the rambling. Thanks for your heart for Kingdom.

As for mega-churches, I don’t think they will die out soon. In the ATL area, some of the most mature Christian people I meet come from those churches. Granted, the secret is a vibrant small group ministry. But I also believe that small group discipleship coupled with the seemingly unlimited resources and opportunities provides a great atmosphere for spiritual development.

Churches great and small do have a purpose in the Kingdom. That’s why God positions them. I know you weren’t saying anything other than that, but God’s work is found not in the size of the congregation, but the size of the heart of the congregation.

Thanks for the last couple of posts.

Great post. I’d like to comment on one of the points you made - the blurb about megachurches being a thing of the past. I think you are right, and I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

I read a good book two years ago by Nancy Eiesland (from Candler/Emory) - it’s called “A Particular Place: Urban Restructuring and Religious Ecology in a Southern Exurb.” I find her use of the term “religious ecology” fascinating - basically, religious ecology is the manner by which individual congregations relate to one another in a particular geographic area (Eiesland explores Atlanta).

It seems that lots of good can be done in megachurches…but lots of bad can happen when those who find themselves in neighboring churches of a “non-mega” variety desperately want to be a megachurch. Our only frustration with our church in Michigan was the small number of individuals who wanted to turn it into a megachurch by instituting megachurch methodologies and megachurch bureaucracies on a church of 150 - it didn’t work. Eiesland looks at how the ascendance of a megachurch in a particular town can wreck/ruin other churches in ways that creepily look like what happens when a Wal-Mart Supercenter lands in town (anyone who lives in Nashville or Dallas probably knows this better than I!).

Again, I think megachurches do wonderful things…but to intentionally set out to become the next Willow Creek or Saddleback or Southeast Christian instead of seeking to transform lives really does no one a service.

That’s probably nowhere near what you meant to write about!

Your visioneering is right on!

Just a hunch, my guess is that your training was based on the underlying premise that the primary role of the minster is to “preach the Word.” Your seminary had “an end in mind,” and you were well trained to “be all that they believed you should be.” Leading a congregation to become a “missional church” was probably not one of their objectives.

The past few years, it has been very interesting to observe preacher friends who have left their “heritage” and started missional churches. I visited one of these churches several times when I was working in the area. It was amazing and refreshing to witness a “preacher” humbly leading a church, reaching out to people that for some reason felt uncomfortable going to the “heritage” church. The difference I believe is not that he is preaching or leading any different; it is a difference in perception. One church perceived him as a preacher of the Word who would be best served by leaving leadership up to the “appointed.” However, his present church perceives him as a leader who preaches the Word as part of his leadership responsibilities. He is definitely not a one man show. He is a part of a leadership team. I guess what I am desribing is “an empowered minister.”