I believe that this document holds not only some key thinking in our religious heritage, but also some important perspective that may be helpful in our discussion of creating missional life in Churches of Christ.

Proposition 1
Christ established one church–just one. This church is made up of everyone who has faith in Christ and is trying to follow him in the ways God’s Spirit in scripture has told us, and who others can see are being transformed into his likeness by the way they act. No one else has a right to be called a Christian.

Proposition 2
It is physically impossible for all Christians to be together in one place to worship and work, so there have to be local groups of Christians that reflect the culture, language, and context of each place. These groups will not all look, think, or act alike, yet they are all part of Christ’s church and ought to recognize it. They must accept and embrace each other just as Christ has accepted each of us. This will happen when Christians have the mind of Christ–that is, when they are willing to give themselves for those Christ died to redeem. This is the rule of Christ. This and this alone will join them perfectly.

Proposition 3
Therefore, nothing should be required to recognize, fellowship, embrace, work, worship, and be fully and visibly united with all Christians that is not specifically made a requirement by God in his word. Nothing should be required in the way local bodies of Christians operate that is not specifically required by Christ and his Apostles for the church. Furthermore, the chief requirements for full fellowship that God has declared are our love for God and for people. This love is formed by our understanding of God’s love for us shown through Christ.

Proposition 4
Both the Old and New Testaments are essential parts of the revelation of God’s nature and work. They cannot be seperated. While it is true that the practices required in the Old Testament (sacrifices, temple worship, priesthood, etc.) are not in force for Christians and that the good news of God’s saving work is found fully in the New Testament, both testaments teach us about God’s nature and work. The Bible is not primarily a constitution that functions as a legal document to consult in legal disputes. It is, instead, the sword of the Spirit; it is a place where we encounter God’s Spirit and are transformed increasingly into the likeness of Christ. Attending to scripture is essential to the visible unity of Christ’s church.  

Proposition 5
The Bible does not spell out in detail everything Christians are supposed to think, do or be–that is just not the nature of scripture. When there are specific actions Christians are told to take, there is almost never a set of detailed requirements for how to do it. Humans often want more detail and try to expand on the specifics, often making them requirements for accepting other Christians or groups of Christians. That is wrong. Again, Christians are those who say they are Christians and who show that they are by the way they live. No one should be allowed to require anything for recognition and fellowship that is outside of scripture and its work of transformation.

Proposition 6
God gave us the ability to think and reason–that is a good thing. If, however, in the process of using our reason we come to conclusions that other Christians do not reach, and that causes us to reject them, we have been deceived by the evil one. Our pride has taken over and stopped our continued growth into the mind of Christ–a mind of complete humility and self-sacrifice. Human reason is not the ultimate standard for truth. Christians ought to be growing constantly in their understanding of the profound truths of the gospel–that’s part of our spiritual growth as communities. But requiring or even expecting others to be where you are is not conducive to the visible unity Christ so much wants.

Proposition 7
Again, it is a good thing to use the intellectual abilities God has given us to plumb the depths of the marvelous truths of God. It is a good thing to think, and struggle and write about these matters. Individual Christians and Christian communities can and should draw great benefit in their spiritual growth from such efforts. Statements of belief can be very helpful in drawing our minds to the unspeakable riches and blessings we have been given and of which we can and should tell others. However, we must realize that such statements are the product of our human reasoning which, like everything else human, is not perfect. Even when we reach a mature level of doctrinal understanding, we need to remind ourselves constantly that there will always be Christians at all maturity levels–but they are still Christians!

Proposition 8
Once again, having an understanding of every Christian truth is not a requirement to be a Christian, a part of Christ’s church. No one who is trying to follow Christ ought to be forced to confess any belief beyond what they understand and know. All a person needs to know to be part of Christ’s church is that they are lost and that salvation is through Christ. When they confess that they believe in Christ and that they want to obey him fully according to his word–nothing else can be required.

Proposition 9
Everyone who confesses belief in Christ and commits to obey him, and who shows the reality of their commitment by the way they live, should consider each other as the precious saints of God, should love each other as sisters and brothers, children of the same family and Father, temples of the same Spirit, members of the same body, subjects of the same grace, objects of the same divine love bought with the same price, and joint heirs of the same inheritance. Whoever God has joined together this way, no one should dare divide.

Proposition 10
Division among Christians is a sickening evil, filled with many evils. It is anti-Christian because it destroys the visible unity of the body of Christ. It is as if Christ were cutting off parts of himself and throwing them away from the rest of his body! What a ludicrous picture! Division is anti-scriptural, since Christ himself specifically prohibited it, making it a direct violation of Christ’s will. It is anti-natural, because it makes Christians condemn, hate and oppose one another–people who are actually obligated in the strongest way to love each other as sisters and brothers, just like Christ loved them. In other words, division repudiates everything Christianity is supposed to stand for.

Proposition 11
Two things are responsible for all the divisions and corruptions in Christ’s church through the centuries. One is a neglect or even and fundmental misunderstanding of God’s will for us in scripture–that we have the mind of Christ and be transformed into his likeness. The other comes from the first. Some Christians, assuming they are “right,” that they have gotten the “facts” perfectly, have assumed the authority to impose their conclusions on others as terms of recognition and fellowship.

Proposition 12
In reality, everything needed for the church to reach the highest state of perfection and purity on earth is first to receive as members only those who have understood their lostness and confessed their faith in Christ and commitment to follow him according to scripture; second, to keep as members only those who show those commitments in their everyday lives; and third, to see that ministers who reflect these ideals, preach only what is clearly taught in scripture. Finally, they must stick close to what scripture makes primary, seen in the example of the early church in the New Testament, without being distracted or corrupted by human tendencies toward pride and control.

Proposition 13
Finally, in every body of Christians decisions must be made about precisely how to conduct its work and worship. Scripture does not dictate such details. Whatever the best way of doing things for the local context should be adopted. These procedures, however, should always be understood as expedients or conveniences for that time and place. Others who do things differently should never be denigrated or condemned for such things, and when decisions are made to do things differently in the future, such changes should never be an issue of fighting or division.

In the coming weeks I hope to look more closely at some of these propositions and how they might serve to help us creating missional life in our congregations. What did you see that jumped out at you? Is there anything else in the missional conversation that correlates to what Campbell was saying here?

Our history, our heritage, contrary to the opinion of some, I believe is not a liability but an enormous asset to being people who are called out, formed, and sent for the sake of the world and the glory of God.

In the past we used more of a “general recommendation” approach to involvement. Someone places membership, the elders find out what they are good at, contact the deacon or ministry leader over that area so and hope everything clicks. The results were not very good. Deacons and ministry leaders are volunteer help who only have so much time and attention to give their area. Most have a difficult time keeping up with the general recommendation approach.

We have moved to job descritions rather than general recommendations. By working through the following process we have developed an effective way to involve people in the ministries of the congregation:

1. We start by asking deacons and ministry leaders what their area would look like if it was firing on all cylinders.
2. The deacon/ministry leader is then asked to write down what actions would need to occur for their ministry to be effective.
3. Next we ask them how many people would it take to make that happen.
4. Then they write out detailed job descriptions for people to agree to do
5. Last, they begin asking people to do the job descriptions they outlined.

This has several advantages to the old approach:

1. People know exactly what they are being asked to do and are agreeing to do it. This is way better than saying to them, “I think you would be great in evangelism…” It is saying, “You are signing up to host a Bible study that will be every other Tuesday night in your home. You will be expected to provide some light refreshments and adequate/comfortable space for 6-10 people to study the Bible together.”
2. It is measurable – we can tell if it is happening.
3. The deacon/ministry leader and the volunteer are all on the same page
4. The congregation becomes more mission minded as these needs/job descriptions are regularly brought up before the congregation.

What is salvation?

Some of the responses would be…

• Forgiveness of Sins
• Eternal Life
• Indwelling of the Holy Spirit
• A Home in Heaven (when we die)
• Membership in the church

But for the most part we tend to limit our discussions (and maybe this reflects a limited understanding on our part) of salvation to just a couple of metaphors.

James D. G. Dunn in his book, The Theology of the Apostle Paul gives a list of Pauline metaphors for salvation. Keep in mind this list is only from Paul’s writings and not the rest of the New Testament.

• Justification
• Redemption
• Liberation and Freedom
• Reconciliation
• Waking Up
• Night Turning into Day
• Putting on or Taking off Clothes or Armor
• Receiving an Invitation
• Writing a Letter
• Sowing and Watering
• Irrigation
• Grafting
• Harvest
• Seal or Stamp
• Priestly Service (but not the person of “Priest”)
• Circumcision
• Washing and Purifying
• New Creation
• New Birth

Listen to the concluding thoughts that Dunn offers after this intriguing list…

Two lines of reflection emerge from consideration of such a kaleidoscope of images. One is that these metaphors bring out the reality of the experience of the new beginning for Paul. Evidently they all described something in the experience of his readers with which they could identify. Something had happened in their lives, something of major importance. Underlying all these metaphors was some tremendously significant event, a turning pointof great moment. One does not use images like birth, marriage, and death for everyday occurrences. They only function as images for events which are literally life-changing.

…it means that many of Paul’s first readers experienced the gospel as acceptance, liberation, or rescue, as cleansing and new dedication, as a dying to an old life and beginning of a new. There is little evidence that Paul preached for conviction of sin or to stir up feelings of guilt. Nevertheless, for so many of his converts the gospel was received and experienced as an answer to unresolved riddles, as a solution to their plight. In a word, Paul’s gospel met real and felt needs.

…the very different metaphors Paul drew upon were presumably attempts to express as fully as possible a reality which defied a simple or uniform or unifaceted description. There was something so rich and real in the various experiences of conversion which Paul’s gospel brought about that Paul had to ransack the language available to him to find ways of describing them.

…For the wide variety of metaphors presumably reflects a wide variety of experiences. Given that variety, it would be a mistake to take any one of Paul’s metaphors and to exalt it to some primary or normative status so that all the others must be fitted into this mould. … The danger is that the event of new beginning in faith comes to be conceptualized as of necessity following a particular pattern, the same for everyone.

…To attempt to dispense with metaphors or to reduce their poetry to the prose of clinical analysis would be as great a disservice as any that theology could be guilty of.

(Here he cites Fitzmeyer quoting: [Paul offers us] ”not theories but vivid metaphors, which can, if we let them operate in our imagination, make real to us the saving truth of our redemption by Christ’s self-offering on our behalf… It is an unfortunate kind of sophistication which believes that they only thing to do with metaphors is to turn them into theories.”)

So how can we take into to account the “kaleidoscope” of images that we have for salvation to better understand just exactly what God does, is doing, and will do in the event/process that we call “salvation”?

– The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission

In the following 60 seconds there was a sound bite from Reggie McNeal about missional church being about BEING the church instead of GOING to church and that it really was a challenge to the way that a lot of communities of believers have “done church.”

The reporter concluded that many are joining this “new movement” and that many others are subsuming their ministry and congregations under the banner of “missional” whatever that means.

My questions about what I heard were this…

– Is “missional” really a “movement”?
– If “a lot” or even maybe a “small majority” of people are “joining the movement” would it really be missional?

Here’s why I ask. Being missional, missional theology, missional ecclesiology, or whatever you want to call it is ALWAYS going to be from the margins and therefore will also be marginalized in the wider church. While there may come a time when this theological framework gains momentum and practicioners I think that we must be suspect of much of the “explosion” that we have seen in the “movement.”

And let me be VERY clear. I am not saying that WE need to be suspect of THEM. But that we need to be checking ourselves, our hermeneutics, our theology, our ecclesiology, and our motives to determine if we are truly joining God in his mission, or if we have simply instead (and more dangerously) crafted a new and more “relevant” image of God and are serving in that god’s mission.

What does it mean to be missional? Many people are asking. But I hope that we will simply SHOW them instead of merely trying to tell them.

Welcome to the Journey.

So my buddy from Memphis, Tripp, came into San Francisco yesterday with his wife Nhung (pronouced Young). I picked them up at the airport and brought them over to my house for dinner with the fam.

Tripp and I worked together for several years at 94.1 The Buzz as DJs. If there was a radio function during those years, such as a concert, club, or bar appearance, you could bet me and Tripp would be there and we’d be together (unless one of us was on the air at the time).

So Tripp is a mass media big-shot now. He’s a program director at a station in Memphis, and I was joking with him yesterday about how I might call him up for a job someday. He came back with a response of his own: “Well, what are you doing right now? Want your own morning show? You’ve always wanted to do mornings, haven’t you Wood?”

Ha! Wouldn’t that be fun.

I told him I appreciated the thought, but that I was a little busy in San Francisco right now (and would be for a few years). But it got me to thinking – what kind of missional opportunities might present themselves for a person who were in a position like that? If I had my own mildly entertaining morning show, how many people would be willing to listen to me tell them about Jesus because of my job?

Now, don’t worry. I’m not going anywhere – just thinking out loud. I think some people’s ministry would be most effective if they weren’t working in ministry full-time.

What do you think?

[Originally posted on WestCoastWitness.com]

        AS                                            

First let me say that I am unoffically ADD so I get distracted very easily. So as I was reading and writing, I kept looking up to see what was going on around me. I noticed something that is fairly rare around here, diversity. Outside of the seminary and college, Jessamine County Kentucky is probably one of the least diverse places on earth or at least in the United States. Almost 95% of the people are white and the average income is well above the average in KY.

The library however painted a very different picture, which now that I look back on all the public libraries I have visited, seems to be true all over the place. There was a wide variety of skin tones, socio-economic backgrounds, education levels, and ages at the library. I even had conversations with a black man working on his Ph.D, a white stay-at-home mother of three, and a working class grandmother. There were those who appeared to be homeless surfing the internet and keeping out of the rain, while a lady continuing her education was sitting at the coffee shop and a group of kids were browsing the DVD section.

This to me is a great vision of what church should be. It should be a place where people of all backgrounds, from every walk of life, can come for refuge and for knowledge and information. It should provide a variety of services, free of charge, and give all people an opportunity to better themselves. 

Our library here even has a book delivery van that takes a variety of media to those who cant make it to the library building. Again, we see a good example for the church we should go to those who can’t or won’t come to us and take them the good news of Jesus and the resources to better themselves.

Next time you meet with your congregation I challenge you to look around. What do you see? Do you notice a relatively homogenous group or do you see people from a variety of races, cultures, socio-economic situations, and education levels? If you see mostly people that look like you, then how can we change that? How do we learn from the public library as we seek to bear witness to Jesus and his diverse Kingdom.

When I was in graduate school in Gainesville, I heard a guest speaker one Sunday night at church say that shy people didn’t really have to share the Gospel. They could use other talents for God besides talking to people about Jesus. When he was done I lovingly shared with him the fact that I was an introvert but I didn’t mind sharing Jesus with people. He said, “You don’t seem like an introvert to me.” I didn’t mind being so non-introvert like by walking up to him and sharing my view because I thought it was an important thing to do. I told him that when we think things are important we will find a way to talk about them. Take the biggest introvert who is a sports fan and talk about their favorite team around them and how extroverted they become. Why? Because the subject is important to them. Sharing the Gospel is for all of God’s people because the message is too important not to share. We all have comfort zone issues to overcome and we cannot let that keep people from hearing about Jesus. When the message is important we will find a way to share it.

“Their injunctions are like this. ‘Let no one educated, no one wise, no one sensible draw near. For these abilities are thought by us to be evils. But as for anyone ignorant, anyone stupid, anyone uneducated, anyone who is a child, let him come boldly.’ By the fact that they themselves admit that these people are worthy of their God, they show that they want and are able to convince only the foolish, dishonorable and stupid, and only slaves, women, and little children.”

“Other mystery religions trying to gain converts say this: ‘Whosoever has pure hands and a wise tongue.’ And again, others say: ‘Whosoever is pure from all defilement, and whose soul knows nothing of evil, and who has lived well and righteously, come to us.’ Such are the preliminary exhortations of those who promise purification from sins. But let us hear those Christians call. ‘Whosoever is a sinner they say, ‘whosoever is unwise, whosoever is a child, and, in a word, whosoever is a wretch, the kingdom of God will receive him.’”

“Why on earth this contemptible preference for sinners?”

Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987; reprint 1993), p 563

PS – Thanks to Jeremy Morris for sharing this quote.

The writer of the article had a sit down with Neil Cole and Ed Young Jr. – two very different leaders with very different outlooks on how the mission of God should be carried out.

Neil Cole is the founder of Church Multiplication Associates and writer of Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens (good book, btw).

Ed Young Jr. is the senior pastor of Fellowship Church- a multi-site, satellite-linked megachurch with four campuses in the Dallas metroplex and a fifth in Miami, FL.

I had some fun with this post the other day (and hope you did too), but just for clarification: I see value in what each of these men, and others like them, are doing. I don’t know that one model is necessarily better than the other. They have the same core goal in mind (to help people know Jesus); they’re simply different. 

I do, however, know that one model will resonate more or less with different people. In other words, the megachurch model will work splendidly for some, while the simple church model will work splendidly for others.

Rather than polarize the reading audience here by advocating one over the other (there are pros and cons with both), are there any creatives out there that can think of ways we could weave these models together?

Please take some time to read the article and do a bit of thinking out loud in the form of a comment.

How could a new church plant utilize concepts or methods from each model – simple church and megachurch - to carry out the mission of God in their community?

Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.
(Acts 8:26-35 ESV)

“The world must know, beyond all contradiction or confusion, the identity of the living God.” – (Wright, ‘The Mission of God’ p.102) Christopher Wright proposes that the mission of God to be known drives the whole narrative of Scripture. How does that mission, the purpose of God to be known as the unique and universal sovereign creator and lover, handle this passage from Acts?

This is one of our favorite brotherhood texts, because we believe that it clearly displays the appropriate response – IDEAL – the appropriate timing  – IMMEDIATE – and mode of baptism – IMMERSION. I mean, you can’t go down into a pitcher, right? Yes, I am caricaturing our traditional response to Philip and the Ethiopian treasurer (no, I’m not going to identify the poor guy by his missing parts! I think after 2000 years, he’s probably really sick of being called that! He’s the treasurer for the queen of the most noble nation in Africa! Let’s show some respect, hey?). I know many of our ministers have treated this passage wth respect. But I was thinking about it after worship today, and there are some key missional ideas that Luke shows us.

Evangelism is our co-mission… it is GOD’s mission, and he is always ahead of us working. The Holy Spirit is DRIVING everything that happens in this story! Luke also shows us a deep commonality between the student and the teacher. Look again above and look for the following ideas:

1) Both are GOERS. Once someone is grasped by the gospel of God, they will move! We don’t have to make it happen, and we won’t be able to control it. They’re not going to go where we want them to go, but where Scripture and Spirit carry them.

2) Both are LISTENERS. The treasurer would never have been on the road unless he listened to the Word of God. Philip would never have met the treasurer if he did not listen to the Spirit of God. But even more important, Philip and the treasurer would never have shared this moment if Philip had not begun their relationship by LISTENING. Imagine if Philip had chased down the treasurer’s chariot and just started his schpiel, without showing any interest or concern for who this man is. How far would this have gone, do you think?

3) Both are QUESTIONERS. Philip does not begin their conversation with a lecture, but with a question. This shows great respect for the lives and real concerns of the people around us. Our assumptions and judgments crush the people around us, and we try to choke them (good-heartedly, of course) with the pearls of our Bible knowledge. Little surprise, then, when they turn and bite us. The treasurer, too, takes a chance and asks Philip the question that Scripture has sparked in his mind. At some point, if we are living missionally, people around us will have questions like this. Maybe not scholarly questions about Isaiah 53, but questions about theology and mission and identity. Unless they trust us, they will save their questions and get their answers from the cracked cisterns of pantheism, self-help, and televangelists.

Which brings me to the most missional statement of the passage: “Beginning with this scripture, he told him the good news about Jesus.” Listen: the good of the whole creation requires that God be known and praised as Creator. As the centerpiece of his self-revelatory mission, God is now to be “known to all humanity through the unique humanity and self-offering of Jesus the Messiah” (Wright, 125).

It is not our mission. It is not our story. We who have been caught up in the grasp of the great and eternal God, who owe our eternal lives to his compassion and mission, must tell – with our words, our hearts, our lives – the story we’ve been caught up in. Changing the story – telling about ourselves, telling about all the things that we try and tell people INSTEAD OF just telling them about Jesus – makes our gospel anathema. NO gospel at all.

The mission of God is wrapped up in the identity and mission of Jesus of Nazareth. Philip and Candace’s treasurer pledge their allegiance to that mission and spend their lives in HIS service. Let’s remember that between us and our neighbors is a great deal more commonality than difference. The God who loves us, loves them. Our commission is to show them that love. Let’s get to work!

in HIS love,
nick

This has certainly been my struggle with the missional conversation. It has begun to take on its own vocabulary:

• Missio Dei
• Contextualization
• Context(s)
• Liminality
• Incarnational
• I’m sure there are at least another 25+ words out there.

My point is this: If the missional life is really the Christian life that has been able to correct some of the “reductionisms” of the Gospel that have resulted from thr Christendom project (did you catch the two special “missional words” in that sentence?!?) then why does it need to be couched in language that causes it to become suspect or ignored?

It is because of this struggle that I want to begin writing and creating a resource and materials under the title…

Life in the Jesus Way

So, if you were to teach a series, write a book, or create some type of resource to help people fulfill their missional identity without ever using the word missional or the other language that is associated with the conversation what would you say?

Here are a couple of initial thoughts as to how I might organize such a resource. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Life in the Jesus Way in the Life of Jesus

“…this is why I was sent…” (Understanding the Mission of Jesus)
“…you have heard that it was said, but I say to you…” (The Upside Down Kingdom)
Savior (What is salvation according to the life and teachings of Jesus?)
Servant (The first will be last, and the last will be first.)
Lord (The “Creed” of the Early Church…how this reality shapes all of life)

Life in the Jesus Way in the Life of the People of God (a.k.a. the Church)

The Greatest Commands (as Scot McKnight calls it, The Jesus Creed)
The Mission of the People of God (“…you will be my witnesses…”)
The Witness of the People of God (What is the message we are proclaiming?)
The Fruits of the Spirit
The Body
Our Ongoing Death, Burial, and Resurrection (Romans and “Sanctification”)

————————————————-

These topics are not necessarily in order of importance or organization. What else needs to be included? What approach would you take to creating such a resource? Is it even needed?

My questions were as follows:

1) Since they’re not going away, what are some suggestions for how church buildings/property can be used missionally?

2) What would Christianity look like if church buildings didn’t exist?

Here’s Phil’s response:

——

Wes, I like your two questions. For now I’ll let churches with buildings think through the answer to #1. I like the ideas presented so far, though.

Answer #2 is similar to another question someone recently asked me: “What if churches weren’t exempt from paying taxes to the government and therefore had less financial resources available to them?” I’m not sure how big of a financial hit U.S. churches would feel from this, but the point my friend was trying to make was this. If churches had far fewer dollars available to them it might actually be a good thing! Meaning, if we didn’t have enough money to maintain and renovate our buildings, employ our pastors, and keep all our church programs running, it might motivate some of us to live differently as Christians. No longer would we be able to count on ministry staff to spiritually feed us, on large worship events to define us, and on big programs to spread the gospel and meet felt-needs in the community. Those needs would have to be met without staff and buildings and the leaders who run the programs. They’d have to be met by every Jesus-follower living missional lives in their own communities. The point, we often to refer to our buildings and resources as a “blessing” from God, but they sometimes distract us from fulfilling our role as Jesus-folllowers.

For two years we’ve been church planting in LA without buildings and paid preachers. There are pros and cons to this approach but in our case the pros far outweigh the cons.

Downsides to not having a building include: It’s a foreign concept in the U.S. to have a church without a building. Even “unbelievers” come to the table with preconceived ideas of what a church is. You learn to be patient and retell your vision over and over. In some cases it has been too foreign for religious folks to accept. Other pastors and already-Christians have the hardest time with this. It’s difficult for them to accept us as a legitimate group or take us seriously. They raise an eyebrow to us and continue to ask us to pray that God will help their groups to find a bigger or less costly venue for their worship services. They also complain how tired they are from keeping all the programs running. Naturally, our top priority prayer requests are different, and there is a disconnect.

Upsides to not having a building include: It has freed us to be more adaptable to people’s changing needs – home churches can change venues and times as needed and still be church. It has allowed us to be a church on the move and ‘take church to the people’ (kingdom lifestyle not fortress lifestyle) because we are not tied to the concept of getting everyone to come to us. It has helped new and veteran Christians to see more clearly (from our practice not just our lip service) that church really is a people not a place or event. Not having a building with an office has forced us to SHOW the community we are a legitimate church by our actions and lifestyle rather than by pointing to an address. (In John 13:34-35 Jesus said the world will know we are his disciples by loving one another the way he loved us… not by our ability to rent/purchase buildings, pay a preacher, and start a myriad of programs.)

More upsides: Not having a static place to meet each week has forced us to blur the lines between the sacred and the secular in a good way – now we realize God wants every moment and place to BECOME sacred. We get to live out more fully the Romans 12 teaching that worship is a sacrificial way of life not an event on Sunday. Without the overhead costs it has freed us to pour the majority of our offerings into foreign and domestic missions and serving the poor and have more on hand to give directly to people as needs arise. In the U.S. we find people who are turned off to traditional churches and religion are often more open to pursuing God in the context of a home, park, coffee shop or other everyday place.

The biggest benefit though is that it is easier for a new church (community of Jesus-followers) to see themselves reproducing more churches if they don’t have to rent/purchase and manage a building (or provide for the living expenses of a preacher and his family) to do it. We unnecessarily burden new Christians and hinder the spread of the gospel when we imply or flat out tell people they can’t be a real church or start a new church without a building or paid pastor. For me, it’s not about it’s not about whether or not to have buildings or paid pastors. It’s about what’s indefinitely reproducible for the spread of the gospel?

And it’s also about who gets to make those decisions like “Will we get a building?” I say that is better when we leave it up to the new believers themselves to make those calls. Why impose our culture or preferred ways of doing church onto people when planting the gospel? Let’s just plant the seed and allow the Spirit to grow it up however he wants – with or without a building, with or without paid staff, etc. When we plant the gospel and help Bible study groups to transition into home churches, we’re not trying to prove the viability of a house church model. Neither are we trying to disprove the viability of a brick-and-mortar church. We go into it acknowledging that some of the home-based, laity-led churches we help new believers to start will remain home-based and laity-led. Other churches will decide they want to get a building and become “big church.” Similarly, some will decide they want to compensate one of their own to be a paid pastor. Some of the new churches may morph into a variety of different models as time goes by and their situations change.

We plant the seed (gospel) not buildings. As the seed grows it may involve buildings sometime in the future or it may not. Our job as missionaries in Los Angeles is to make disciples and teach them to obey all the commands of Christ. We teach obedience-based discipleship that sees disciples reproducing disciples, leaders reproducing leaders, and churches reproducing churches. We don’t tell them how to put church together in their culture. Rather, we teach them that the Word of God is the teacher and train them to discern from God’s Word and the guidance from the Holy Spirit how their obedience gets expressed in their context. This means church gets put together differently in different cultures and at different times, but obedience remains the same.

While part of me is tempted to imagine a world where all churches have no buildings, I’d rather imagine a church where we are committed to planting the seed alone. Let’s preach Jesus, not Jesus + __________ (fill in the blank with our preferred ways of doing church). Let’s train people in obedience-based discipleship to Jesus Christ and let them figure out for themselves if their obedience would be better expressed right now with or without a building, paid staff, or tiny communion cups, or this or that worship style. We can work with the indigenous leaders of the new churches and serve as a guide to them in the process. But let’s not shortchange them by making those decisions for them.

Good questions, Wes. Let’s keep imagining in Jesus’ name!

——

Now that’s worth reading right there.

Phil – thank you very much for your thoughtful response. I have a deep respect for what you’re doing and the motives driving your methodology. Bless you, brother!

Anyway, I’m feeling a bit cheeky, so I’ll leave you with this:

I dare you to show that at your next building committee meeting … Ha!

     In Luke 17, our loving Jesus reminds us that we as Christians have a duty to serve Him and His purpose in our lives. We don’t do this job to receive gratitude from Him, our Master, but for purpose.  In verses 7-10 Jesus explains that our life is one to be spent in service (WORK) for Him.  Jesus reminds us that this is a thankless work in verse 9 and that we are foolish if we expect payment from Him prior to His needs being met.  Even then, we are not worthy of payment because we are simply doing our duty.

     This sounds so different than the prosperity gospel that is so prevalent today.  Today, and I fear even in the Church of Christ, people are being taught that they simply need to be baptized, come to church, and quit their bad habits and that Jesus will pour His blessing upon them.  I call foul!  This teaching is not in line with Christ’s teachings.  Christ is using the parable in Luke 17 to forewarn us that if we expect to meet Him, it’s time to get to work.  Our mission is one of duty, not namesake.  If we want to be member’s of Christ’s kingdom, it is time to get to work.

     So, the question then arises over why are we not teaching this from our pulpit’s, mission fields, Christian publications, and Sunday School classes?  I fear that the answer is that like Jack Nicholson’s character in “A Few Good Men” we are telling believers and non-believers alike that “You can’t handle the truth.”  Are we afraid that if we really tell people what is required of them after baptism that our numbers might drop?  Is our faith in Jesus really so weak that we believe we have to withhold the actual truth about the narrow gate in order to get people to accept Him?  Have we allowed the gospel to become so sugar-coated with political correctness that our churches are now full of members who will walk out should we tell them they are not doing enough to advance Christ’s mission for us?  Where are the men and women who will stand up in love and honor and tell our brothers and sisters we see slipping away from the field of duty that they are hindering Christ’s return?  All of us are unworthy but none of us have a right to ignore our mission.  

     Imagine with me:  You are standing at the throne of our loving and most powerful God on Judgment Day.  God then inquires from you about not only the community around you and those who are lost but those of your home congregation.  God may ask “Why did you not tell Jack and Jill that you thought they could do more to help in spreading the gospel?  Why did you not tell them they were disgracing the cross by thinking they had done enough for Christ’s kingdom?  Why did you not sew these people I put at your feet?”  How will God respond when you answer “I didn’t think they could handle the truth?”

“Never setting foot inside another church building – ever,” I said.

And I was serious too.

Please read the rest of what I have to say gracefully. I am just one man with one opinion. I don’t claim to speak for anyone but myself, but don’t believe I’m alone in feeling the way I feel (quick sidenote: a pet peeve of mine is preachers and teachers who say ”we” this and “we” that in describing some sin, spiritual shortcoming, or organizational error when very often their “we” should be their own ”me.” Speak for yourself, buddy! Moving on …).

I still consider myself quite green in many areas of life. I’m only in my late twenties, have only been in ministry for half a decade, only been married for a few years, and my two kids are both under two years of age. I have no problem saying that there’s much in the world that I’ve yet to understand and much future experience will teach, but one thing I have come to understand in my limited experience is the redemption Jesus brings into the world, and the joy that comes with not only having it myself, but in sharing it with others – that “it” that’s embodied and manifested in Him.

Before giving my life to Christ I’d done nearly every kind of drug known to man, and I can honestly say that nothing – nothing - compares to the high I get in seeing someone who was lost, jaded, hopeless, and dead in sin to come to know Jesus and experience that total transformation from the root of their soul out. Nothing compares to that, and if too much time passes without my having witnessed another soul saved, I’m like an addict going through withdrawals – like there’s this itch that I just can’t seem to scratch, and the only relief I get comes from pouring myself into another person who doesn’t know my Savior.

Ok, so maybe that sounds a bit over the top, but its the best way I can describe how I’m feeling right now, and the best way I can describe how I was feeling last night when I made that statement to my wife.

I get excited when I read stories like this, and in a world where this can happen, you shouldn’t be surprised at hearing a full time minister and missionary saying he never wants to set foot inside another church building.

I’m so tired of the status quo and spectator Christianity, and I’m tired of being part of a system that, despite claims to the contrary, is strictly event focused. I’m tired of church buildings and what they’ve come to represent, and I don’t believe I’m the only one who feels this way.

I don’t believe I’m the only one dissatisfied, and dissatisfaction breeds revolution.

Anyone else reading feel like I do?

Despite my feelings or your feelings, I don’t think for a moment that church buildings are going to go away. In fact, my employer guarantees it (pfffttt :p).

Two questions:

1) Since they’re not going away, what are some suggestions for how church buildings/property can be used missionally?

2) What would Christianity look like if church buildings didn’t exist?

Please respond to #1 in a comment, and, if nothing else, take some time to reflect on #2.

Thanks for letting me vent :p

in HIS love,

nick