Tipping points for revival?

I recently read Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Tipping Point” on holiday. Gladwell sets out to explore (very entertainingly) the factors that trigger the emergence of epidemics (i.e. ideas, trends or diseases that rapidly emerge in a population to massive effect).

As a Christian, it immediately had me thinking about revivals. By Gladwell’s definition, revivals could be thought of as a ‘gospel epidemic’ - a sudden and dramatic response to a message that had been prevalent in the population before. It got me thinking “What (humanly speaking) might contribute to the “tipping point” for a revival?” Was there anything to be learned from the mechanics of how epidemics spread that might raise useful questions for our approach to evangelism and church planting?

Gladwell describes an epidemic as having three characteristics:

1. At heart there is something contagious (a disease, an idea, a fashion, or a funny youtube clip,…).
2. A small change in inputs causes a massive change in results (out of all proportion with the apparent change)
3. Epidemics are marked by sudden and dramatic rises and falls.

So far so good! This framework would fit many revivals. Gladwell goes on to discuss three factors that he sees as contributing to the tipping point. I was struck by their obvious parallels in mission and church planting:

You need a powerful message: For a social epidemic you need a message or idea that is sticky (memorable, personally impacting) and which leads to transformed living. We have that in the gospel! The power of God for the salvation of all who believe! (Rom 1v16). Perhaps in Gladwell’s writing there is a challenge to contextualise our proclamation of the gospel more memorable and impacting (“sticky”). But in the timeless gospel God has given us a powerful and transforming message!

You need a supportive context: “Tipping Point” spends plenty of time talking about how the even the smallest details of our contextcan affect our receptiveness to learning. It highlights the need to be deliberate in our community life. I found it encouraging to remember that in the life of the church, God has given us the perfect context. A community loving one another as Christ loved them (John 13v34) and living out the wisdom of life in the Kingdom (Deut 4v6-7) is surely intended by God to be just that (a plausibility structure for the gospel if you like). Again, perhaps there is a challenge to commend the gospel through the relational quality of life in our churches, and to engage with defeater beliefs as part of preparing the soil for the gospel seed.

Motivated messengers: Gladwell gives examples of where a tiny fraction of the population can have a disproportionate impact in introducing trends and ideas that go on to have a massive and far-reaching effect.

In connection with my post on being missional and relational, I was particularly struck by this last group. The opening chapters of the book describe three different types of messenger:

• People experts: These are people who establish friendships easily, have a vast number of social acquaintances and are well known. They are the “glue” that holds together their social circle.
• Knowledge experts (“Mavens”): These are people who introduce new ideas to their social circles. Gladwell talks about guys who research where to buy a cheap TV, or what car to drive and then delight in sharing that knowledge with you. Knowledge experts aren’t just information geeks, they are socially motivated – looking to serve others by sharing their knowledge.
• Persuasion experts (“Salesmen”): These are folks who establish rapport quickly and impress upon others the need to act in response to a social trend, idea…

A church planting team is typically heavy on types (2) and (3). Pastor-teachers fit the mould of the “knowledge expert” (2). He explores the riches of God’s word with a strong social motivation – to bless others by sharing with them his newfound knowledge - to show them the riches and splendour of the gospel. The evangelists on the team are the persuasion experts (3)– they are the guys who most readily impress on people the need for a personal response to the gospel.

But what about the people experts?

My guess is we think of them as less core to a church planting team. Even if we have a number of extroverts on the team (“people people” who are extremely relationally connected in their present context) those connections are often developed over years. It takes time to develop the same roots and network in a new church planting context. Gladwell talks about a particular kind of people who rapidly (almost effortlessly) develop and go on to maintain weak social connections with loads of people. These are the people who know everyone, but who everyone would like to know better than they do.

What is the challenge here? Perhaps to think more strategically about recruiting “people experts” to a church planting team. An alternative approach might be to intentionally build relationships with the “people experts” who act as social hubs connecting the community we are looking to reach. Who is “the person everybody knows”? Is it worth deliberating devoting time and prayer to getting to know that person and gospelling them?

Gladwell’s writing is entertaining and raises some challenges (to revisit Biblical wisdom rather than to simply adopt his empirical views!). That said, his description of the anatomy of social epidemics simply describes what a deliberate church-planting based approach to mission likely does already. It’s always encouraging to read something that basically says “keep doing what you are doing”!

Nurturing church plants to have BOTH a mission mindset and strong relationships with the local community (Part 2)

This post was originall ywritten for Radstock ministries and appears on their blog here.

-----------

The challenge we are faced with is to build a mission-minded Christian community with deep and wide-ranging relational connections. We want everyone to end up in area C. In discipling the church, we want to create a steady movement up and to the right on the graph.

But how to do that?...

Two brief suggestions:

1) Get locals and planters engaged in mission in the community alongside one another: Our experience suggests that deliberate bringing together of folks from each cluster accelerates the process. Locals are able to act as “door openers” into a wide range of subcultures and groups that would otherwise be closed to the new arrivals. They help them to build friendships more quickly than would otherwise be possible. Meanwhile, planters help model missional priorities and gospel the “locals” as they seek to gently and appropriately evangelise their (now common) friends.

2) Build relationships of trust between locals and planters: The above necessitates strong relationships of trust within the church. The planters will need to learn from the locals about what is culturally appropriate. Trust will be required as locals in “opening doors” have a great deal more relational capital at risk (they risk offending friends they’ve known for years with the gospel rather than acquaintances they’ve known for weeks). The locals may need to be challenged about their responsibility for mission and what it means to truly love their friends.

For us it’s early days! That we start with these two clusters is I think inevitable to they way our church has come about. We continue to pray that we’ll increasingly move together towards the missional “sweet spot” - a mission-minded Christian community with deep and wide-ranging relational connections.

Nurturing church plants to have BOTH a mission mindset and strong relationships with the local community (Part 1)

This blog was done for Radstock ministries and appears on their blog here.

----------------------------

Since planting 3 years ago, by God’s grace, we have grown in two ways. Firstly, a small but growing group of mission-minded Christians have moved into the area from outside to play a part in reaching the local community for Christ. And secondly, local people have joined the church community through a variety of means (Sunday meetings, midweek meals and Bible studies, socials… In time we hope young men will join us through the free weights sessions we run for them, but that is a longer term goal).

As I reflect back on recent years, we have experienced a twofold challenge:

• · For church planters build relational connections in the community and
• · For local Christians to capture a vision for mission to their friends and neighbours

Here’s why…

In these early days, the church community is clustered into two main groups:

1) Planters - mission-minded, but relationally unconnected:

These guys are Christians who have moved into the area for the sake of mission through our local church. They have born the cost of leaving prior church families, and intentionally made mission a priority in making work, financial and housing decisions! They are highly committed to mission.

However, in almost every case, (having moved in for the purposes of the plant) they have no prior friendships or connections to the community we seek to reach. These guys are “starting from square one” relationally (and inevitably take some time to understand and adapt to the local culture). (These guys are Cluster A on the graph).

2) Locals - relationally connected, but often less mission-minded:

These are members of the local community who have joined us. In many cases they are longstanding residents with strong connections to the area through extended family, friends they have grown up with. They have years of shared history having lived through the defining highs and lows of their neighbours’ lives. They instinctively “get” the local culture.

However, generally these guys are less mission-minded, either because they have taken on some of the culture's pluralism, or because they lack a clear grasp of the gospel (many in our church community would rightly not identify as Christians). (These guys are Cluster B on the graph below).

(Continued...)

Evangelism in the early Church

Here are a few sentences from a great book I’ve been reading (“Evangelism in the early church” by Michael Green). In them he’s observing what it was about the church in the early church that led to the explosion of the Gospel. It’s a really exciting picture of what the church can be!

----------------

One of the most striking features in evangelism in the early church was the people who engaged in it… Evangelism was the prerogative and duty of every church member… The spontaneous outreach of the total Christian community gave immense impetus to the movement from the very outset.

What is more, this infectious enthusiasm on the part of such diverse people of differing ages, backgrounds, sex and cultures was backed up by the quality of their lives. Their love, their joy, their changed habits and progressively transformed characters gave great weight to what they had to say… Paganism saw in early Christianity a quality of living, and supremely of dying, which could not be found elsewhere.

…

Together with this enthusiasm on the part of the ordinary members of the church as well as its ordained ministers to share the good tidings with those who had never heard them, went a deep sense of the seriousness of the issues involved. They really believed that those without Christ might suffer eternal and irreparable loss, and this thought drove them to unremitting labours to reach them with the gospel. (p.380-382).

Should the meeting or the community take priority at the outset? (Part 3 – Understanding “the culture gap”)

This post is one of a number I'm doing for Radstock Minstries blog which can be found here.

-----------------------------

I’ve asked the question whether establishing a church meeting is always the best strategy for building church community, or whether there are contexts where other approaches are more appropriate.

To make the point I’ve suggested two “extremes” of church planting strategies: A meeting-led plant (whose immediate focus is to establish a public meeting) and a community-led plant (whose immediate focus is to build relationships with the local community).

The two extremes are somewhat artificial - for a church plant in practice, these twin foci will always be present to a greater or lesser extent. (A Christian community seeking to be a local church will inevitably meet. Meetings will create community). But the early days of a church plant are hard - time and other resources are short - so I think it’s worth asking the question: Where should a particular church plant sit between these two extremes?

Here are some brief thoughts as to when each might be more appropriate. For me, the defining question is: how wide is the cultural gap between the planting team and each of (i) the local churched culture, and (ii) the local unchurched culture.

a) Where the context favours a community-led plant

The cultural gap is significant. The watching world is largely unchurched and it will take time to address their misunderstandings and stereotypes through the sharing of lives (1 Thess 2v8-9). Public church meetings are not initially a fruitful pathway into church community. Time is required to contextualise the communication of the gospel and the church’s practices, which will then shape the public meetings when they are established.

b) Where the context favours a meeting-led plant

The cultural gap to either the local churched or unchurched cultures is not great. Church is an appropriate pathway for some in the wider community, allowing the church plant to expand quickly (initially through isolated Christians joining the church or through some transfer).

Where the wider cultural gap is significant, the church will need to listen to the local joiners and be critiqued by them. The perennial question will be: “What differences are gospel and what are not?”. (The challenge is not to conform local people to the likeness of the church planters, but that both groups would be conformed to the likeness of Christ!).

Where the cultural gap between the planted community and the wider community is not great, it may be appropriate to duplicate many of the practices of the planting church. I would suggest these practices need to be held with an open hand, and intentionally reviewed to overcome cultural inertia.

(Aside: The benefits of “rent-a-crowd”

There may be contexts where a public church meeting is appropriate, but where the size of the planting team makes such a meeting practically difficult or simply odd. (e.g. if the pastor is preaching to his wife and two others, the atmosphere is somewhat intense/intimate for anyone joining off the street and expecting a “service”!).

We faced this difficulty on a central London social housing development. The issue was addressed through the support of the network of churches of which we are a part. Our sending congregation encouraged it’s members to attend our public meeting (which ran at a different time) and to support aspects of it’s practical running. These volunteers were essentially “rent-a-crowd”. The meeting became less intense (because it was 12-15 people not 3!) and local people joining experienced something more like “church” as they were used to it. The outside support meant the church planters who had moved to the area were freed up (from practical aspects) to chat to visitors and build relationships.

The “rent-a-crowd” joined on the understanding that they remained committed to another congregation as “their church” (i.e. barriers to commitment were much lower than the core planting team). As the church grew, they were able to reduce their time commitment. After three years, some of the original “crowd” have made the plant “their church”, the majority no longer join us on a Sunday. We are however massively thankful to God for all they did to help us establish a public meeting early on which proved to be a suitable pathway into Christian community for many in the local area).

Should the “church meeting” or the “church community” take priority at the outset? (Part 2 – A “community led” model)

This post is part of a number I'm doing for the Radstock Ministries blog, which can be found here.

-----------------------------

COMMUNITY-LED CHURCH PLANTS:

Under this approach, the church planting team focus on community formation through strengthening relationships within the team, and building new connections with the community they seek to reach. Their concern is to commend the depth and quality of Christian relationships to the watching world, and to listen to the new culture before establishing a public meeting (if ever).

Again, this approach has a number of immediate positives:

• Creates a strong & immediate emphasis on relationship building: The church plant is established with a culture that is all about mission through relationship building (as opposed to a “hold a meeting and they will come” approach). The business of mission is more likely to be understood as a deliberate pattern of life rather than a something limited to times in the week.
• Energies are devoted to relationships which then act as a pathway into Christian community. In the early days (when resources are limited) energies can be given over to spending time with other Christians (e.g. house church, team bible study and prayer,…).
• Builds a strong awareness of local culture before committing to forms/styles of public meeting and teaching. Delaying setting up a meeting, delays the first impression until it can be more tailored to the context.

However, this approach also has potential limitations:

• Delays creating a potentially important pathway into Christian community: In many (sub)cultures, a church meeting remains an normal/acceptable thing to do, and an easy way, low commitment way to “check out” a new church plant. Likewise, it delays “flushing out” Christians in the community the planters seek to reach.
• The danger of intensity: A small group of people who know each other well, and share important common features (e.g. a lifestyle shaped by the gospel, middle class accents, everyone in work…) can be intimidating for newcomers. A public meeting provides a degree of distance and freedom to opt in or opt out. A private gathering does not.

These portraits of meeting-led and community-led plants are simplistic (even caricatured) to emphasise the contrasts. They do I hope serve to highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses of the two extremes.

The question then is: How do you establish a right balance in a particular context?

Should the “church meeting” or the “church community” take priority at the outset? (Part 1 – A “meeting led” model)

This post is on the Radstock ministries blog here.

-----------------------------------------------------------

What should be the focus in planting a new local church? Is establishing a church meeting the best strategy? Or are there contexts where a church planting team would be wise to focus on to building the church community in other ways?

In a way, it’s a “chicken and egg” kind of question. A meeting helps establish community (as people gather together). A community will inevitably meet (to sit together under God’s word and share lives). So it might seem strange to ask “what should a church plant focus on?”. But at a time when resources are often stretched, the team’s focus needs to be clear and deliberate. Where is prayer and energy best devoted?

I would suggest that the “culture gap” between the church planters and the community into which they plant is the key determinant of whether to focus on a meeting or community building.

To help make the point, here are two (intentionally polar and slightly caricatured) examples:

MEETING-LED CHURCH PLANTS:

With an undergirding of prayer, this church plant’s immediate focus is to establish a church meeting (which then gives the scope of the church community). In all likelihood the “sent church” closely resembles it’s sending church in the way that it meets.

This approach has a number of immediate positives…

• The public meeting creates an immediate pathway into the new Christian community. Local people familiar with the new churches meeting (or with an independently awakened spiritual interest) can simply walk into the meeting and encounter Christian community from day one!
• The public meeting may bring in relationally connected Christians. Advertising may bring in like-minded Christians from the area who were unknown to the team, and who might join the church! Local Christians bring deeper more longstanding relationships with the locals than any of the planting team possess.
• A public meeting can be quick to establish: Since new meetings are often based upon the forms and practices of the sending church, they are often quick to establish, and the “sent” planting team is immediately familiar with what’s going on.

However, meeting-led church plants are not without potential limitations…

• The danger of focussing on the meeting to the exclusion of other priorities: The planting team typically lack the resources that the larger sending church. Valuable time and energy can be drawn away from friendships and (pre)evangelism to meet the practical requirements of a public meeting.
• The difficulty of contextualising the meeting: You only get one chance to make a first impression. Setting up a meeting after little contact with local community means it can be hard to contextualise to the new setting. Subsequent review and change by the team has to do battle with inertia and habit (on the part of the church planters). In the worst case, the first locals to experience the new meeting may go away thinking the church doesn’t “get people like them”, share that impression with others putting them off, and may be slow to give the church a second chance 6 months later when the church has changed to be better contextualised.
• The risk of being job-led rather than gift-led: The desire to reflect the sending churches practices can mean that less attention is paid to team members’ God-given gifts and more “we think this job needs to be done, someone will have to do it”.

(Continued...)