Aaron at The Road Less Traveled has written an excellent series on microchurches that I think is well worth your time to read. He has written it in four parts and I am including all four links under the following titles:
Microchurch 1: Disciple Making
Microchurch 2: Stewardship
Microchurch 3: Simplicity
Microchurch 4: Reproducibility
Aaron is not condemning one model to try to justify the microchurch model and he gives his disclaimer before talking about the good points of microchurches. Here are some nuggets from both the text and the comments:
"Everyone we talked to within our church said that the main environment that helped them become a follower of Jesus was our small groups."
"We spent about $800-$1000 a month on facility rental... We had thousands wrapped up in equipment. We spent most of our week getting ready for Sunday... All on an event that didn’t contribute to making disciples. The cost/result ratio was ridiculously out of whack. And we weren’t putting near enough into what was really making disciples–small groups. So we cut out the Sunday service altogether."
"It all revolves around relationships."
"If we see church as a lifestyle instead of an event, then our systems will be simpler."
"...there’s a lot of effort being put into making things 'relevant'… which, to me, is trying to make up for that vacuum for no relationships. A lot of effort is placed on 'assimilation,' which has to happen if there are no relationships."
"But because our system is simple, reproducing churches has been simple. Now we’re looking to multiply (and multiplication always starts slower than addition… but it eventually surpasses it)."
"Pick up 'Organic Church' by Neil Cole. It gives a pretty decent overview of organic churches."
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Aaron.
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
The Machine
There once was a scientist who built a machine. It was a rather large machine. In fact, it filled up his entire laboratory. It was a complicated machine and took him years to build. It had parts and pieces and all kinds of handles and hoses. It had belts and bearings, chains and chambers, gears and gaskets. The cost of building the machine was no small investment, either. The scientist spent $347,000 for each of the 4,000+ parts, though he did "borrow" some parts from other broken down or inefficient machines in the area.
When he started it up it would shake and shiver, purr and peddle, beep and bellow. The scientist spent most of his time adjusting the idle, lubricating the moving parts and attaching more mechanical accessories to the machine. Because the machine generated so much heat when it ran, he had his entire laboratory climate controlled in order to accommodate the machine so it wouldn't overheat from its own activity.
The machine also required quite an array of fluids. There were the standard greases and oils, hydraulic fluids and coolants. Then there were some more specialized chemicals--helium, liquid nitrogen, hydrochloric acid and mercury to name a few. All of these different and expensive fluids had their parts to play in the running of the machine. But the fluid most consumed by the machine was the gasoline it took to run. The scientist was constantly seeking new grants and government funds to purchase more fuel to feed the machine.
Because the machine took so many years to build the scientist was always updating it with modern technology to keep it current and keep it running. The scientist rarely shut the machine down. Mostly, he kept it running, running and running.
One day a group of children visited the scientist at his laboratory to see his machine. They were all members of the Science Club at their school. The scientist was very proud to show off his machine. It represented his life's work and his blood, sweat and tears. With gleaming pride he demonstrated to the children how the machine runs. He pointed out each part and each process. He explained the history of the machine and how he decided to construct each part. He spent not a small amount of time explaining problems that occurred--both those in the past and recurrent problems. The scientist had become an expert in solving things like broken belts or busted bearings. He stressed to the children the never-ending necessity of lubrication with oil.
Finally, one of the children raised his hand. The scientist was delighted to have someone so interested as to ask a question. "What does the machine do?" the child asked.
"Let me show you!" The scientist led the children around to the back side of the machine. He fired it up and adjusted all of the gears. He turned cranks, pulled on levers and pressed buttons. Lights lit up, monitors beeped and the engine roared. The scientist scrambled to add more fuel. He watched the analog and digital readouts very closely for the next hour and was so consumed by running the machine he seemed to forget that the children were watching. But right when the children started to become bored, he turned to them with a big smile on his face.
"Look!" he said, pointing at a small dispenser-like opening protruding from one corner of the machine. The children all turned their attention to the dispenser and slowly but surely they began to hear a "clink-clink-clink," like something was dropping down the chute. Then in a moment, into a tray on the dispenser, fell a single gumball.
"That's it? One stinking gumball?" the child asked the scientist.
The scientist was surprised at the insolent little child who didn't appear to appreciate the magnificence of the machine and the complexity of its functions. So he began to explain the machine in greater detail--how each part was necessary to address problems that arose in other areas of the machine--how this belt turned this gear and how that gear turned this motor which addressed that specific problem that resulted in the oscillation sector because of the activity of a distinct combustion arising from the capacitating performance of the flux manifold on whose chassis was built the dual processor that operated the timing of the ignition of the central magneto calculator for the signaling of critical mass in the execution of the Fangoli process in general.
"Don't you see how it all works?" The scientist couldn't appreciate the children's lack of appreciation.
"Well, that's a cool machine, sir. We just wish it actually did something more than produce one gumball an hour."
When he started it up it would shake and shiver, purr and peddle, beep and bellow. The scientist spent most of his time adjusting the idle, lubricating the moving parts and attaching more mechanical accessories to the machine. Because the machine generated so much heat when it ran, he had his entire laboratory climate controlled in order to accommodate the machine so it wouldn't overheat from its own activity.
The machine also required quite an array of fluids. There were the standard greases and oils, hydraulic fluids and coolants. Then there were some more specialized chemicals--helium, liquid nitrogen, hydrochloric acid and mercury to name a few. All of these different and expensive fluids had their parts to play in the running of the machine. But the fluid most consumed by the machine was the gasoline it took to run. The scientist was constantly seeking new grants and government funds to purchase more fuel to feed the machine.
Because the machine took so many years to build the scientist was always updating it with modern technology to keep it current and keep it running. The scientist rarely shut the machine down. Mostly, he kept it running, running and running.
One day a group of children visited the scientist at his laboratory to see his machine. They were all members of the Science Club at their school. The scientist was very proud to show off his machine. It represented his life's work and his blood, sweat and tears. With gleaming pride he demonstrated to the children how the machine runs. He pointed out each part and each process. He explained the history of the machine and how he decided to construct each part. He spent not a small amount of time explaining problems that occurred--both those in the past and recurrent problems. The scientist had become an expert in solving things like broken belts or busted bearings. He stressed to the children the never-ending necessity of lubrication with oil.
Finally, one of the children raised his hand. The scientist was delighted to have someone so interested as to ask a question. "What does the machine do?" the child asked.
"Let me show you!" The scientist led the children around to the back side of the machine. He fired it up and adjusted all of the gears. He turned cranks, pulled on levers and pressed buttons. Lights lit up, monitors beeped and the engine roared. The scientist scrambled to add more fuel. He watched the analog and digital readouts very closely for the next hour and was so consumed by running the machine he seemed to forget that the children were watching. But right when the children started to become bored, he turned to them with a big smile on his face.
"Look!" he said, pointing at a small dispenser-like opening protruding from one corner of the machine. The children all turned their attention to the dispenser and slowly but surely they began to hear a "clink-clink-clink," like something was dropping down the chute. Then in a moment, into a tray on the dispenser, fell a single gumball.
"That's it? One stinking gumball?" the child asked the scientist.
The scientist was surprised at the insolent little child who didn't appear to appreciate the magnificence of the machine and the complexity of its functions. So he began to explain the machine in greater detail--how each part was necessary to address problems that arose in other areas of the machine--how this belt turned this gear and how that gear turned this motor which addressed that specific problem that resulted in the oscillation sector because of the activity of a distinct combustion arising from the capacitating performance of the flux manifold on whose chassis was built the dual processor that operated the timing of the ignition of the central magneto calculator for the signaling of critical mass in the execution of the Fangoli process in general.
"Don't you see how it all works?" The scientist couldn't appreciate the children's lack of appreciation.
"Well, that's a cool machine, sir. We just wish it actually did something more than produce one gumball an hour."
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Rut of Church
I have been thinking about BAM (Business as Missions) for a while now as I have been doing this here in The Location. Over the past three years I have thought about how BAM might work as a ministry model in the States. As I have stated before, being a missionary in a different country with a completely different culture has helped me to think about how some of these same principles might work back home.
I love the fact that here in The Location there aren't as many "ruts" as there are in America when it comes to Christianity and how we "do church." It is more of a clean slate here, but there are already some ruts in the national congregation. But back home we tend to think about ministry in the same terms that we've always thought about it. Usually, the only challenges are to do things better and to make things more culturally relevant. That's not bad, but we often improve things as we travel along those same ruts.
One of the ruts is "church." Now when asked, virtually every Christian will tell you that the church is the people not the building. We know that. We've been taught that. But in our everyday lives and in our subconscious thinking (where ruts live) we still refer to the church as two things it is not: One, a building or location. Two, a service.
We "do church" by putting on a service. When we think of what our church is like, we think about how the service is conducted. In a service, you have people who contribute and people who consume (view, take-in, receive, etc.). The contributors spend a lot of time each week getting ready to put on a show, er..., service for all the people they hope will gather to watch, er..., attend. But no matter how well we do our Sunday services (music, speaking, visuals, ambiance, etc.) we can't get around the rut of a starting time and an ending time. It is a service.
I'm not against services or meetings with set times. I just think that the Bible describes something so much better than simple services when it talks about the church.
I used to spend a lot of time talking trying to help people understand what the "church" is really supposed to be like. And I thought that if we understood what the church is and what the church isn't, then we can really become what the church is supposed to be. But I found that no matter how hard I tried to redefine "church" in people's minds, the old connotations would inevitably come right back and the subconscious assumptions would hold on as strong as ever.
So, you know what I want to do now? Stop using the word "church." Blasphemy? Well, I don't think so. No matter how much I tried to help people understand the real meaning of the Biblical word "church" they would always conform right back to our general society's connotative understanding of the word church. So, perhaps real blasphemy comes from re(mis)defining this word to mean something else. But I don't want to go down this path...
Actually, I'm not talking about replacing the word church with other, sexier terms like "assembly" or "faith community." Because, if we still do the same model of putting on Sunday services this is the typical conversation that would ensue: "What are you doing on Sunday?" "Oh, I'm going to North Pointe Faith Community." "Really? What is that?" "It's a church. I'm going to the 11 am contemporary service." Back to Square One.
So, I would like to do a real church by not only NOT calling it a church, but by doing a different model than the typical Sunday morning service.
People will then say, "Oh, that's not a church!" And that will be fine with me! If they mean to somehow illegitmize it as "not a real church" because it doesn't meet on Sunday or do the typical traditional Sunday morning service things... then those people will probably be just fine at their traditional Sunday morning places of worship. If they mean it is not a church according to people's connotative understanding of what "church" is--Great! That is what we're going for.
I feel the term "church" in the Bible is more descriptive than proscriptive. I think that if we are doing what God wants us to be doing as his followers and in fellowship with other believers, then we are the church--it doesn't matter if we're called "church" or not.
As an undergraduate student at the state university I was very involved in a Christian campus ministry. We had fellowship together throughout the week, had Bible studies, did weekly service projects, did on-campus evangelism, had weekend events and during school breaks went on mission trips together. Never once did we meet on Sunday mornings during the regular course of the semester (well, maybe at a retreat), but different people attended different "churches" on the weekends.
When I would go to "church" I hardly knew anyone sitting in the pews around me as we viewed the same service together on Sunday morning and as we passed by each other on the way out the door shaking the minister's hand. But during the week, I regularly prayed together, had fellowship, studied the Bible and served together with many people in the campus ministry. But no one would dare call it a church, even though it was a community of Christians who were in fellowship with one another as we sought God, grew in our faith and served the community around us.
There is a whole other can of worms to be opened when discussing the "first day of the week" deal that has had Christians meeting together on Sundays since the Bible times. There is a lot to say on this topic. I am one, however, who believes that biblical precedent isn't binding as is biblical commandment. And even if precedent were binding then we might as well take the precedent of Acts 2 where the early Christians met together every day in public and in their homes.
So if I were to start something in the States, what would this new model look like? My ideas are not yet complete, but I will share some in coming posts... For now, do you have any ideas? Please share.
I love the fact that here in The Location there aren't as many "ruts" as there are in America when it comes to Christianity and how we "do church." It is more of a clean slate here, but there are already some ruts in the national congregation. But back home we tend to think about ministry in the same terms that we've always thought about it. Usually, the only challenges are to do things better and to make things more culturally relevant. That's not bad, but we often improve things as we travel along those same ruts.
One of the ruts is "church." Now when asked, virtually every Christian will tell you that the church is the people not the building. We know that. We've been taught that. But in our everyday lives and in our subconscious thinking (where ruts live) we still refer to the church as two things it is not: One, a building or location. Two, a service.
We "do church" by putting on a service. When we think of what our church is like, we think about how the service is conducted. In a service, you have people who contribute and people who consume (view, take-in, receive, etc.). The contributors spend a lot of time each week getting ready to put on a show, er..., service for all the people they hope will gather to watch, er..., attend. But no matter how well we do our Sunday services (music, speaking, visuals, ambiance, etc.) we can't get around the rut of a starting time and an ending time. It is a service.
I'm not against services or meetings with set times. I just think that the Bible describes something so much better than simple services when it talks about the church.
I used to spend a lot of time talking trying to help people understand what the "church" is really supposed to be like. And I thought that if we understood what the church is and what the church isn't, then we can really become what the church is supposed to be. But I found that no matter how hard I tried to redefine "church" in people's minds, the old connotations would inevitably come right back and the subconscious assumptions would hold on as strong as ever.
So, you know what I want to do now? Stop using the word "church." Blasphemy? Well, I don't think so. No matter how much I tried to help people understand the real meaning of the Biblical word "church" they would always conform right back to our general society's connotative understanding of the word church. So, perhaps real blasphemy comes from re(mis)defining this word to mean something else. But I don't want to go down this path...
Actually, I'm not talking about replacing the word church with other, sexier terms like "assembly" or "faith community." Because, if we still do the same model of putting on Sunday services this is the typical conversation that would ensue: "What are you doing on Sunday?" "Oh, I'm going to North Pointe Faith Community." "Really? What is that?" "It's a church. I'm going to the 11 am contemporary service." Back to Square One.
So, I would like to do a real church by not only NOT calling it a church, but by doing a different model than the typical Sunday morning service.
People will then say, "Oh, that's not a church!" And that will be fine with me! If they mean to somehow illegitmize it as "not a real church" because it doesn't meet on Sunday or do the typical traditional Sunday morning service things... then those people will probably be just fine at their traditional Sunday morning places of worship. If they mean it is not a church according to people's connotative understanding of what "church" is--Great! That is what we're going for.
I feel the term "church" in the Bible is more descriptive than proscriptive. I think that if we are doing what God wants us to be doing as his followers and in fellowship with other believers, then we are the church--it doesn't matter if we're called "church" or not.
As an undergraduate student at the state university I was very involved in a Christian campus ministry. We had fellowship together throughout the week, had Bible studies, did weekly service projects, did on-campus evangelism, had weekend events and during school breaks went on mission trips together. Never once did we meet on Sunday mornings during the regular course of the semester (well, maybe at a retreat), but different people attended different "churches" on the weekends.
When I would go to "church" I hardly knew anyone sitting in the pews around me as we viewed the same service together on Sunday morning and as we passed by each other on the way out the door shaking the minister's hand. But during the week, I regularly prayed together, had fellowship, studied the Bible and served together with many people in the campus ministry. But no one would dare call it a church, even though it was a community of Christians who were in fellowship with one another as we sought God, grew in our faith and served the community around us.
There is a whole other can of worms to be opened when discussing the "first day of the week" deal that has had Christians meeting together on Sundays since the Bible times. There is a lot to say on this topic. I am one, however, who believes that biblical precedent isn't binding as is biblical commandment. And even if precedent were binding then we might as well take the precedent of Acts 2 where the early Christians met together every day in public and in their homes.
So if I were to start something in the States, what would this new model look like? My ideas are not yet complete, but I will share some in coming posts... For now, do you have any ideas? Please share.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Church Identity
I have some more church thoughts tonight...
In the last post I said that often our churches don't grow because we have a misunderstanding of what church really is. And I would love to spend time... and I certainly will as time goes on... talking about what the church is really supposed to be in God's eyes. But tonight I want to talk a little bit about the importance of knowing what the church is really supposed to be.
I don't think it is important.
What!!! That can't be! Well, let me explain...
I do think that it is important to dismantle misunderstandings about the church in order for us to get out of the ruts and get moving in the right direction. And, with correcting misunderstandings you will probably be using correct understandings to do so. That is fine. But...
I think when the Bible uses the word church it is a descriptive term and not a proscriptive one. The Bible describes the church, and refers to the church, but I don't think it ever says... This is what the church should be.... Now, it does say how people should be in the church, but never gets down to defining what the church should be at each location around the world. (Please correct me if I'm wrong and I'm missing something.)
Church is what happens when people come together as they seek, serve, follow and praise Jesus in their lives. Church is the people of God who are called by Christ's name. Church is those people who are a part of God's family. Church is everyone who has pledged their allegiance to Christ. And if we talk about a local church, that is just the same thing as above for those who live close enough to share that faith, fellowship and service on a regular basis.
But do you see where the focus is? It is on Christ. Do you see where their identity lies? In Christ. Do you see where their commitment is placed? On Christ. Their identity is defined by being in Christ. Nothing else defines them further other than location.
In our day and age we might have a hundred "churches" in a given city. Usually we can see the definitions between churches by looking at their buildings. Others we can see the definitions by seeing who is in attendance on Sunday morning. If we looked deeper, we might see the lines of definition in the membership registries. We can certainly see the definitions between various denominations. We have made all kinds of sub-divided categories in which we "identify" ourselves as being this church and not that church. But what possible identity could/should we have as a church that is different from what God wants for all churches?
So, even if we are trying to do a new work and remove many of the misunderstandings about church I don't think it is important to somehow define our new group as "the church that doesn't have misunderstandings about church." I don't think we need to find a niche or a special identity, "Our church is...." Sure, we will have an identity. Sure, our group will have a definite flavor, style and emphasis. Sure, we may be more on target than other groups of Christians that meet together regularly. But it just doesn't have to be consciously defined.
The only thing that has to be consciously defined is Christ. We find our identity in him. We should gather because we're excited about him not because we're excited about ourselves gathered together. We must take our focus off of "our church" and put it on Christ.
So I don't think it is so important for us to consciously know what the church is really supposed to be because if we are consciously seeking Christ and are really following his will then we are already what the church is supposed to be.
In the last post I said that often our churches don't grow because we have a misunderstanding of what church really is. And I would love to spend time... and I certainly will as time goes on... talking about what the church is really supposed to be in God's eyes. But tonight I want to talk a little bit about the importance of knowing what the church is really supposed to be.
I don't think it is important.
What!!! That can't be! Well, let me explain...
I do think that it is important to dismantle misunderstandings about the church in order for us to get out of the ruts and get moving in the right direction. And, with correcting misunderstandings you will probably be using correct understandings to do so. That is fine. But...
I think when the Bible uses the word church it is a descriptive term and not a proscriptive one. The Bible describes the church, and refers to the church, but I don't think it ever says... This is what the church should be.... Now, it does say how people should be in the church, but never gets down to defining what the church should be at each location around the world. (Please correct me if I'm wrong and I'm missing something.)
Church is what happens when people come together as they seek, serve, follow and praise Jesus in their lives. Church is the people of God who are called by Christ's name. Church is those people who are a part of God's family. Church is everyone who has pledged their allegiance to Christ. And if we talk about a local church, that is just the same thing as above for those who live close enough to share that faith, fellowship and service on a regular basis.
But do you see where the focus is? It is on Christ. Do you see where their identity lies? In Christ. Do you see where their commitment is placed? On Christ. Their identity is defined by being in Christ. Nothing else defines them further other than location.
In our day and age we might have a hundred "churches" in a given city. Usually we can see the definitions between churches by looking at their buildings. Others we can see the definitions by seeing who is in attendance on Sunday morning. If we looked deeper, we might see the lines of definition in the membership registries. We can certainly see the definitions between various denominations. We have made all kinds of sub-divided categories in which we "identify" ourselves as being this church and not that church. But what possible identity could/should we have as a church that is different from what God wants for all churches?
So, even if we are trying to do a new work and remove many of the misunderstandings about church I don't think it is important to somehow define our new group as "the church that doesn't have misunderstandings about church." I don't think we need to find a niche or a special identity, "Our church is...." Sure, we will have an identity. Sure, our group will have a definite flavor, style and emphasis. Sure, we may be more on target than other groups of Christians that meet together regularly. But it just doesn't have to be consciously defined.
The only thing that has to be consciously defined is Christ. We find our identity in him. We should gather because we're excited about him not because we're excited about ourselves gathered together. We must take our focus off of "our church" and put it on Christ.
So I don't think it is so important for us to consciously know what the church is really supposed to be because if we are consciously seeking Christ and are really following his will then we are already what the church is supposed to be.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Vendor-Dispenser
One reason the church doesn't grow very well (anywhere in the world) is because we often misunderstand what the church is.
Now, I am not one to blame those who come to church for having wrong ideas about the church. I don't think it is effective. I don't think we make much of a difference when we build big beautiful church buildings, encourage people to give special offerings to build it, have dedication services and prayers, refer to the auditorium as a "sanctuary," pretty much only use it for Sunday worship services, adorn it with crosses and other lavish decorations and then tell people, "Now remember... this is not a temple. Your body is a temple of the Lord." Even if we repeated that every Sunday (which we wouldn't do because that would get too repetitive) people still wouldn't get it. They would still have notions of the building being some sort of sacred place. They would still call it a "church."
I agree we need to teach people what the truth is, but I also think it is up to those who are in charge of things to be responsible for not reinforcing misunderstandings by how we set things up or do them. One good way of not allowing people to think of the church building as a sacred place (a temple) is not to have one. One good way of not allowing people to think that the preacher is clergy is not to have one preacher, but to regularly have people with full-time money-making jobs do the preaching and share responsibility for it. One good way of not allowing people to think that church is a service on Sunday morning (a mass) is not to offer regular public services, but have meetings with people in the community many times a week and new people who come are those who are invited by those who are already a part.
In any case, one of the main misunderstandings about the church is that it is a place to get some spiritual goods. Now, if we view it as buying these goods (because we give an offering) then the church is a Spiritual Goods Vendor. If we view it as receiving it for free, then the church is a Spiritual Goods Dispenser. Either way we have some big misunderstandings. Read what Aaron Saufley writes in his blog The Road Less Traveled:
“If you see the church as a provider of spiritual goods and services for you, you’re not seeking the good of the church… you’re a parasite. But if you see the church as the forgiven community of God (it’s a beautiful mess, really) who is on mission with Jesus to take back people and places for the kingdom, then you seek the church’s good.”
Aaron gets it. I hope that we can see the church as God's community on mission with Jesus. Very good.
Now, I am not one to blame those who come to church for having wrong ideas about the church. I don't think it is effective. I don't think we make much of a difference when we build big beautiful church buildings, encourage people to give special offerings to build it, have dedication services and prayers, refer to the auditorium as a "sanctuary," pretty much only use it for Sunday worship services, adorn it with crosses and other lavish decorations and then tell people, "Now remember... this is not a temple. Your body is a temple of the Lord." Even if we repeated that every Sunday (which we wouldn't do because that would get too repetitive) people still wouldn't get it. They would still have notions of the building being some sort of sacred place. They would still call it a "church."
I agree we need to teach people what the truth is, but I also think it is up to those who are in charge of things to be responsible for not reinforcing misunderstandings by how we set things up or do them. One good way of not allowing people to think of the church building as a sacred place (a temple) is not to have one. One good way of not allowing people to think that the preacher is clergy is not to have one preacher, but to regularly have people with full-time money-making jobs do the preaching and share responsibility for it. One good way of not allowing people to think that church is a service on Sunday morning (a mass) is not to offer regular public services, but have meetings with people in the community many times a week and new people who come are those who are invited by those who are already a part.
In any case, one of the main misunderstandings about the church is that it is a place to get some spiritual goods. Now, if we view it as buying these goods (because we give an offering) then the church is a Spiritual Goods Vendor. If we view it as receiving it for free, then the church is a Spiritual Goods Dispenser. Either way we have some big misunderstandings. Read what Aaron Saufley writes in his blog The Road Less Traveled:
“If you see the church as a provider of spiritual goods and services for you, you’re not seeking the good of the church… you’re a parasite. But if you see the church as the forgiven community of God (it’s a beautiful mess, really) who is on mission with Jesus to take back people and places for the kingdom, then you seek the church’s good.”
Aaron gets it. I hope that we can see the church as God's community on mission with Jesus. Very good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
