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.
No comments:
Post a Comment