Commentary by Robin G. Jordan
Should church starters use the word “church”? Missiologist Ed Stetzer, author of Breaking the Missional Code: Your Church Can Become a Missionary in Your Community and Planting Missional Churches recommends that a new body of believers call themselves what they are – a church. Stetzer addresses a number of issues surrounding the choice of a name in Chapter 19 of Planting Missional Churches. These issues include use of denominational labels and other issues that Tom Ehrich raises in his article.
The word 'church' is derived from the New Testament Greek term "ekklesia," literally "assembly" and is most commonly used in the New Testament for the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole and to a local body of believers. Although the Gospel of Matthew contains the only two instances of Jesus’ use of the word in the New Testament, our use of the word is not contrary to his teaching or the teaching of the apostles.
The word "church" has become associated in the minds of Episcopalians and other Christians with a particular institution and buildings but this association is not sufficient reason to reject its use. Starting a new church offers many opportunities to help people develop a New Testament understanding of what being a "church" is, that is, a local body of believers on a mission.
Ehrich suggests that naming the new church would focus people’s attention upon the external, suggesting permanence and structure. He goes on to suggest that the omission of a name would cause people to focus upon their attention upon the fellowship itself, on relationships, on the bonds they form. He fails to recognize that many people are drawn to permanence and structure. If the object is to create a new community, naming that community is an important step in birthing the community. It helps to create group identity. Groups acquire names even if we choose not to name them – names like "the folks who meet at Sheila and Stanley’s house." There is also a danger in being too amorphous. Groups without some kind of leadership, common purpose, and a vision for achieving that purpose quickly disappear.
A key factor in naming a new church Stezter draws to our attention is knowing the community, the ministry group at which the new church is targeted, and how both the community and the targeted ministry group will react to the choice of a name – or even the omission of a name.
Does a new church need to own a building of its own? More and more new church starts are using rented space – hotel conference rooms, storefronts, school cafeterias, the sanctuaries of existing churches, and the like. The new church start in which I am involved has its large group meetings for worship and teaching in the banquet room or the movie theater of a university student center. Some new church starts are meeting in private homes or similar settings. A few have even met in the picnic shelter of a public park. A new church start may have small group meetings as well as large group meetings, as does my church. The small group meetings are held in the homes, apartments and dorm rooms of members and regular attenders.
What kind of setting in which a new church meets is determined by a number of factors – the availability of meeting space, the particular stage in the new church’s development, the size of the new church, the vision of the new church, the community, and the targeted ministry group. An increasing number of new churches use rented facilities until they have grown to the point where they can purchase land and construct a building without going heavily into debt. In some communities a new church will not gain real acceptance until it has its own building; in other communities a new church may never be able to afford to purchase land and construct a building. Some new churches opt to stay small and meet in a house. Rather than moving to a larger building as they grow in size, they start another house church.
While a new church may not need to a building of its own, it does need a regular meeting place. Even if it meets at several different locations, it is a good idea to have a plan of when and where it is going to meet and not to rely on a last minute email. Groups that drift from place to place, not knowing from week to week where they are going to meet, tend to lose participants. Three resources that I recommend for new church starts and other small groups meeting in homes are Life In His Body: A Simple Guide to Active Cell Life by David Finnell and Eight Habits of Effective Small Group Leaders and Turning Members into Leaders: How to Raise UP Your Group Members to Lead New Groups by David Early.
The "old rule" for a church start that Ehrich quotes in his article must be pretty old. In the 1980s I was involved in my second new church start. In those days a new church was thought to need eleven acres if planned buying land and constructing its own building. Otherwise, it would be limiting its ability to grow. If and when a new church does purchase land, it needs to purchase enough land for future growth.
Ehrich raises an important question. Does a faith community need an ordained pastor who serves as designated liturgist, caregiver, volunteer recruiter and leader? New Episcopal churches tend to organize around a priest. This has been part due to the denomination’s reliance upon an educated, seminary trained clergy and the influence of Anglo-Catholic sacramental theology. The result has not only been local Episcopal churches that fall far short of the New Testament model but also slow denominational growth. Outside the Episcopal Church we are seeing church planting teams replacing the Lone Ranger church planter. Lay leaders are recruiting volunteers, planning and leading worship, and doing much of what has in the Episcopal Church been considered the preserve of the priest. An ordained pastor may lead the team but worship, financial organization, preschool children’s ministry, evangelism, welcome coordination, and spiritual gifts mobilization are the responsibility of lay leaders. We are also seeing new churches increasingly recruiting new leaders from within their membership and training them at the local level. Indeed the ability of a new church to recruit and train new leaders is a determining factor in its ability to grow. Small groups are providing pastoral care in place of an ordained pastor.
Doing Church as a Team by Wayne Cordeiro is a good introduction to team ministry. Evangelism Through the Local Church by Michael Green is full of practical and workable suggestions on how lay leaders may be given a greater role an Episcopal or Anglican church. His ideas can be adapted for use in other denominations and independent churches. His Freed to Serve challenges his readers to rethink the ministry of the church.
On the other hand, I have serious problems with Ehrich’s description of Jesus’ earthly ministry. He represents Jesus as teaching a few people and drawing them into "a radically inclusive circle of friendship." He goes on to urge his readers follow Jesus’ example and "meet on hillsides, in living rooms, over meals, and talking about the in-breaking kingdom of God.'"However, if one reads the gospel narratives, it is clear that Jesus did a whole lot more than Ehrich represents him as doing. Whether Jesus gathered around himself "a radically inclusive circle of friendship," as Ehrich understands that phrase, is a matter of interpretation. Ehrich, I think, is reading into the gospel narrative his own ideas of what Jesus did instead of taking his cue from that narrative. Jesus certainly gathered a small group of disciples around him. He also gathered a larger following. Jesus did more than chat about the in-breaking of God’s kingdom. He taught and equipped his inner circle of followers to be his witnesses. He not only modeled for these disciples what he wanted them to do but he also sent them out on trial runs. He sent out members of his larger following too.
Jesus also preached repentance from sin and faith in him. He commissioned his followers to make more disciples. He empowered them with the Holy Spirit so that they could do what he had been doing. He came on a mission and he sent his disciples on a mission. He calls his followers today to be missionaries just like he called his first disciples. We are to make more followers who themselves will be missionaries wherever they find themselves, whatever they are doing.
One thing became very evident in the Decade of Evangelism in the last decade of the 20th century that for many Episcopal clergy and laypersons evangelism is a dirty word. For years Episcopalians have created for themselves an identity that is a rejection of what they see as leading characteristics of those denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention that highly value evangelism. As a result Episcopalians have not only acquired prejudices against evangelism but also distorted ideas of what evangelism entails. Episcopalians have also picked up attitudes from our culture that discourage faith sharing with others. One increasingly hears expressed in the Episcopal Church theological views that denigrate evangelism. Consequently, Episcopalians who want to obey God’s call to be missionaries in the world must work through a lot of baggage. They need to learn that it is not arrogant, “hyper-righteous” or “holier than thou” to share one’s faith. One of the reasons that God has called us to become disciples of Jesus is to pass our faith on to others. No new church start can succeed without some form of evangelism.
Two approaches to evangelism I believe would particularly suit the disposition of most Episcopalians and Anglicans in North America. These two approaches also compliment each other.
The first approach is outlined by George Hunter in his book The Celtic Way of Evangelism. Hunter points out that the mindset of our culture has changed and that we need to tailor our method of evangelism to this new mindset. He believes that the early Celtic Church’s model for reaching people would be effective in today’s emerging postmodern world. This model is: (1) First establish community with people or bring them into the fellowship of your faith community; (2) Engage them in conversation, ministry, prayer, and worship within that fellowship; (3) In time, as they discover what you believe, invite them to commit.
The second approach is described in Irresistible Evangelism by Steve Sjogren, Dave Ping, and Doug Pollock. Sjogren, Ping, and Pollock stress that "our most important task is to represent Christ by finding lot and lots of little ways to connect with people’s physical, emotional/relational, directional and spiritual needs". They advocate a low-risk, high grace approach to evangelism, one that employs the skills of active kindness, active listening, active wondering, and active sharing.
No comments:
Post a Comment