Why Do We Start Churches?
For the past 25 years, over and over again, the reason given for starting churches is because it is the best known method of evangelism. Sooooo . . . we start churches to do evangelism. Acts didn’t do that. Jerusalem saw a church emerge out of evangelism, and it wasn’t just “pray the prayer”. Antioch was the same. It was disciples living in the society first and then a church emerged. I write about this in my book The Multiplying Church.
Let me give you some other reasons, that I think are huge. First, it has to be the context of the Kingdom. If we focus on the Gospel of salvation, we get converts and a Sunday event. If we focus on the Gospel of the Kingdom, we still get people who follow Jesus, BUT we also focus on the “reconciliation of all things” in the world and in the community. This means that “church” becomes a force for good and transformation, not just a Sunday event. I could talk and write on this all day. We have so narrowed the Great Commission to baptisms that we have unintentionally marginalized the church in society.
Second, we were never commanded to plant churches, but to make disciples. Most western models of church planting are tied to raising up “preachers” to plant churches. We will never get to movement like that. Instead, if we focus on creating a different kind of disciple, not only will we get a different kind of church, but a lot more of them. We really believe in the T-Life model, more and more, as we move forward. Some of us are studying it even more to see how we can ramp it up.
Third, the conversation is no longer private. Muslims, Communists, Bhuddist, Athiest, Hindus, all read my blog and are my friends. Make no mistake, they read yours as well. I do the same with their’s! Salam Alaikum! Namaste! Sinchow! It’s funny to how we write and speak as if it’s an insider’s conversation. That may be true, but it’s an insiders conversation in a public forum and square called the internet.
Here’s what I’ve learned from my friends around the world, most have no beef with Jesus. They like him and his message, even if they disagree with me about who he is. Most people around the world like it when people try to follow Jesus, especially those who call themselves such. Most people around the world like it when we try to serve them in the name of Jesus. It’s our “religious colonialism” they don’t care for.
Soooo, you say, how would the rest of the world feel about churches that “emerge” from people living the Jesus life, in their context, and serving others, in their community? That’s not what they see. What they see is people showing up to start churches, convert people, and get them to change their religion.
Comments?
Blog Categories
Search Glocalnet
Support
Partners
Comments
Oct 21, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Like it. Love it. Want some more of it.
Bob--this is such good stuff. My biggest question is this. I'm seeing this happening more in the city (urban centers) but not so much in the suburbs. The 'rich young ruler' thing (consumerism, individualism) seems to prevail. What is it that you have done practically and tangibly at NW that makes Kingdom come alive in suburbia (and not just for the church but for the individual disciple)?
A follow up to that is this: What are the trade-offs/ sacrifices NW has had to make in releasing people into missional living? Have you ever made a conscious sacrifice of the organization to push forward the missional DNA?
OK...way too much there. I'll take whatever you can give back.
Oct 21, 2008 at 09:46 PM
It's amazing how God speaks! Earlier today, I had a conversation with a new friend that paralleled this entry precisely. We have to connect with people and invest ourselves in them before they'll come to the point they accept John 14:6. People, especially those of other faiths, don't want to be 'converted'. But, they do want to experience what they see in a genuine follower of Christ.
Oct 21, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Didn't this "getting them to change their religion" create a fair amount of hostility in the first century as well?
Oct 22, 2008 at 09:32 AM
Kevin, I think you have to take the suburbs to the inner-city. Down side is sometimes they don't understand it and good intentions can hurt. Example - we just did our home make overs. It was the poorest who got the homes BUT it created jealousy with others in the neighborhood. How do we lift the standard of the city without creating hostility. Lots of trade offs - a smaller worship center, a mobilized laity - which means it's hard to track everything or get the "credit" but those are good trade offs.
Yes Jeff - no doubt about it - I've been studying that a lot lately.
Oct 24, 2008 at 03:23 PM
In the current election I see the major distinction between the two candidates as between suburb and urban mindsets. Obama sees things with a multi-cultural lens while McCain seems to be looking at the world with that white, entrepreneur lens. While not accepting ACORN's voter registration fraud, ACORN is an excellant means of urban change. Community Organizing brings out the power of the people to change their communities for good. Many of the good works of NGOs disempower people by making them dependent on the good works of others. Faith based community organizing does the opposite, and this is one reason it is such a threat to people. We don't want poor people to have power.
Oct 27, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Bob... do you realize how far this is from where most of the evangelical church is? Its' right, and I am with you all the way, because if it's just converts and the Sunday event, I'm going to go do something else. You probably know this, but the language with which you captured this in the blog is language that you should use over and over: The Gospel of the Kingdom vs. The Gospel of salvation. I also liked the term "get to movement". We are not there. We need Jesus-movements making disciples and bringing transformation. Thanks for continuing to inspire me-- the Chicago boys are grateful and chasing the Kingdom.
Leave a Reply