Did we really export our way of doing church?
Years of missionary endeavors through the American Church while good intentioned have exported the westernized approach to ministry of doing church or being the church in the flawed definition or sense.
Do you think that now in hindsight that we messed up?
In Africa the church is widely doing the building "come and see" thing. And as soon as they have buildings that they cannot afford the mission of disciple-making slows and in some places it haults. Worshipping in a building they cannot accord they bring in the sound systems and begin praise teams and blast the small church house with loud music. As they settle into the building and use the sound system they don't need and cannot afford they become entrenched in a "come and see" approach and widely leave the "go and be" part of missional Christianity.
While this is not a universal problem for all, do you think we westernized Christianity around the world? I'm not blaming but if we did it we didn't know we were hurting the mission.
On the other hand, other countries are experiencing a move of God's annointing where disciples are making disciples and are engaging an out of control movement of exponential advancement of Christianity.
Read: "Church Planting Movements - How God is Redeeming a Lost World" by David Garrison.
My pastor friend agreed with me that God is working in a new paradigm around the world but that it would not work in America. He said we need buildings and programs and our society demands that we have them.
What say you?
posted by Bob Carder @ 1:04 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
It's obvious that churches which have their own buildings focus on those activities that happen when the church is gathered. You then create more activities that happen at "the church" to justify the capital campaign or the mortgage and maintaining the campus.
However, when this happens, believers tend to view their Christianity through events and activities that happen on campus. Those activities that happen off-campus are often designed to get more people to come to the campus.
The reason that some pastors believe that "our society demands that we have them" is because that's what they know. It's familiar. Since most churches have buildings, the paradigm in which they operate is building-centered, rather than mission-centered.
When I planted a church, our vision was always to have our own building. We believed that we would reach more people if we had a building. We also believed that we arrived as a church when we established a "permanent presence" in the community. We felt that unbelievers would then see our church as legitimate.
The reality is, there are some unbelievers who will never go to church in a school or a home on their own initiative. There are other unbelievers who will never go to a church building, but may check out a church that meets in a home or a school.
Believers who are missionaries to their neighborhoods and communities know that having a building is not the key to reach lost people. They know that it's about incarnating the gospel message and developing authentic relationships with those around them. As they learn to "be Jesus" and show and then tell the Gospel, those around them may actually ask you "to give an account for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
One of the pitfalls of American Christianity is edificialism - which is "a preoccupation with property and buildings."
My friend Neil Cole observes in Organic Church, "Jesus seemed to not have plans for buildings....If we could figure out how to do church without needing buildings, we would be better off. Buildings are not wrong or immoral. It is not the buildings that are really the problem. Unfortunately, we often begin to function as though the church buildings are our life source. Though none of us would openly admit this, we do feel we need them. It is as though our church's life depends upon them. Many a church continues long after the soul of the church has departed because the building itself keeps them going. A building can become an artificial support system that keeps a church alive even though it died long ago." (pp. 36-37)
Sorry for the long quote.
I wonder if your pastor friend is too focused on what's familiar and what has worked in the past - instead of focusing on what is necessary to "be the church" and to fulfill the Great Commission!
Excellent comment Dave - The familiar is often more comfortable than the new or unknown. I refuse to believe that people demand a building. The idea of legitimizing the church by a building is the wrong thing that gives it legitimacy. Jesus Christ legitimizes the church and to allow people to settle for anything less is sad.
The very first question I always get asked by new people – Where is your church located? If I say St. Charles County they always ask for an address. The idea of the church being the building is deeply entrenched in our society. While many Christians will say the church is not a building, it is these same Christians that are asking these questions.
The sadest thing I heard a missionary from Bosnia say to was in answer to the question I asked her about how her church was culturally different from america.
she said "Oh there is no difference church there looks about the same only smaller."
Dave, Terry and Jerry, you are hitting the bullseye. Thnaks for the contribution. These serious questions that deserve serious answers and you have done that.
More than thanks!
Dave -you did more than hit the ball out of the park! You are fueling missional movements. Keep plowing the hardened and rocky soil.
Only then will we get below the surface.
Post a Comment
<< Home