Tim Keller has been a big influence in my view of mission in the city and world. His church is set on reaching the city of New York with a view to reach the world. I was reading his article on why we should plant churches. I offer this humble critique as the stepping stone for dialogue with how we view and practice church.

There are four reasons Keller offers for why we, as Christians, should plant churches:
1. We want to be true to the Biblical Mandate
2. We want to be true to the Great Commission
3. We want to continually renew the whole body of Christ
4. It is an exercise in Kingdom-Mindedness

Keller seeks to respond to three arguments against planting churches in cities that already have churches. A) We need to churches we have to be full before we plant more churches; B) New churches will just take people from the other churches; C) Help struggling churches first and then plant more. While I have heard all three of these arguments in my short existence as a man who desires to plant churches, all of which have an element of veracity, Keller does a good job of answering these three issues in his article.

I am going to take a risk and disagree with some things Keller says – not for the sake of contention and indivduality – but because I think there may be some presuppositions that I do not think are justified. These is much I owe to Keller (especially by way of how all of the Bible applies to the individual Christian’s life).

In Keller’s first argument, he makes the assumption that we must plant churches in order for there to be true evangelism of changed lives. While much of traditional evangelism seeks to merely get a decision, a culturaly relevant church wll do what he says only church plants can do. In fact, he goes on to say that there are many people who are converted in the context of a church plant, but their journey ends up in an established church (due to the frequent instability of a church plant (see point 4 under argument three).
Keller then cites the Apostle Paul’s example of planting churches to be set up as our modern-day example. Keller says, “Once he had accomplished this in a city, he moved on” (emphasis added). Paul moved on because he assumed those churcheshe planted would continue to expand the Kingdom through evangeism and cultural engaged-ness. Surely Paul didn’t continue to plant churches in Ephesus. How does this vision of having an established outpost mesh with Keller’s view of planting churches? I am not sure.

Keller’s second argument is the one that sits the least well with me. He says that established churches do not ‘reach younger generations.’ While it is true that we want to reach younger folks, we also want to reach middle-aged and elderly people. Far too many church plants make the mistake of being hip and abandoning those who listen to the oldies of 1960’s and 70’s and 30’s. I see Keller’s point, but it doesn’t have to be that churches become monolithic and cadaveresque. Perhaps the implosion of new churches would be prevented with more stability. Additonally, there wouldn’t be the pressure inherent in a church plant to get someone in leadership before they have proven themselves in the small responsibilities.

There is a need to reach people of diverse backgrounds.

I think what Keller is insisting on is that churches not be content to be stagnant and aim to have their buildign paid off. I figure this from the fact that Redeemer Presbyterian is a church that is infiltrating the culture with grace and truth. I see in some excited church planters that put a primacy on planting without counting the value in revitalizing a church. So many scoff at the situation the church is in and figure they will go plant a church to start their own brand of church.

What frightens me is the implicit pride of abandoning the things that God and his people have done to reach the community around them. There are some dear saints in First Baptist Church of Anytown, USA. They are starved for the Word of God. They are ripe for spending their sage-like years investing in young people who need to get a little perspective on the world. The work of revitalization is difficult – no doubt.

What we need to do is bring the Gospel to bear on ovetilled ground and begin planting seed. We also need to be pro-active in sending men out to plant churches in order to reach the city with the Gospel. This way there can be accountability to a ‘mother church’ as well as the financial stability available. Not only this, but because of the relationship, the ‘mother church’ would get a taste for mission and their fires would be stoked. That is, instead of a competitve reason to reach the community there would be a co-operative effort. Instead of saying, ‘Everyone is going to that new church down the road.’ People would say, ‘Why don’t you try out that new church down the road.’ What a beautiful day when Christians co-operate rather than tear down or operate out of a greedy heart.

I know that this is the road that Keller espouses due to what his church is doing. They are a church that plants churches. The thing I want to make sure is that church planters do not disdain the ministry that God is doing in the establied churches.

Previous ArticleNext Article

This post has 3 Comments

  1. Keller puts out some great stuff! I have only in the last few months come to know of him and have been blessed by his ministry! By God’s grace more churches will be about planting churches.

  2. excellent reflections. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I’m amazed by how much of my views on orthopraxy are governed by experience. May God grant the church wisdom in multiplying the Kingdom.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

What Is Sunday Worship?

I’m gonna keep this simple, but hopefully not simplistic. As you consider your corporate gathering of believers (typically on the first day of the week), there are three ways to think about it. You can think of it as an event, a participation, or a transformation.

The Event Model can take on two modes: emotionally-driven or cognitively-driven. The emotionally-driven mindset, of course, could baldly mean that you show up to hear some great music and hear a message. You go to watch and experience something. The cognitively-driven mindset could mean that you highlight the sermon so much that it becomes the point of your showing up. You hear this a lot in evangelical churches that the sermon is the most important aspect of the worship experience. The problem with such thinking, though, betrays an onlooker mentality. That is, I go to church to observe and consider and think and have my thinking changed.

In this model, there is an I-Thou expectation of the worship service. I go to that. I consider that. I am separate from and participate in that. In other words, this kind of approach to the corporate gathering is apart from who I am. I go to there. I leave from there. Sure, we talk about taking the message home with us…but come on! You and I both know we forget what was said within 10 minutes of leaving the building. When we are confronted with traffic on the way to the buffet. And then, we get bored. Bored with our lives. Bored with our faith. We find greater joy in our team winning the game than in our eternal salvation won at the cost of the Son of God.

The Participation Model is a little bit better than the event model. This puts the onus on the believer to come to the service seeking to be engaged in other people at church. For all the talk about this being a need in churches, and people nodding their heads in agreement…this does not happen in reality. People cognitively ascend to this truth, but they don’t fully grasp this truth.

If they do grasp a hold of this participation model, it often devolves into judgmentalism (others aren’t as serious about their faith as you are) or complacency (I asked someone how their walk with God is going and they gave me the cold shoulder). So what’s the problem with this model? Write simply it remains in the realm of I-Thou. That is, I bring something to you. I come to serve you. I am apart from and wholly different from you. At its root, it is simply another (albeit more spiritual rendition) of the event model. 

The third, and I believe more biblical model (of course!), is the Tranformational Model. This way of approaching the Sunday morning gathering sheds itself of the event. It doesn’t come in judgment of the service–I didn’t like that song. I liked the sermon. I really engaged with God this morning. Wow, what a wonderful time. Instead, it views Sunday morning as another step in my being conformed into the image of Jesus. It does see it as an event you come to. It is something we participate in. But preeminently it embraces the fact that over time we are being changed by the service itself. 

What does this look like? Well, it understands that every time we attend an event or participate in a service, we are slowly changing. You are much more different from the fifth football game you attended, than the first. You understand the language, the traditions, the cheers. 

So it is with a church service…and this is where it gets a bit thorny. With the typical evangelical liturgy (and it is a liturgy) of two fast songs, two slow songs, a sermon, and dismissal, we are slowly becoming consumers. Or better put, our already-ingrained consumer mentality is reinforced as we observe (and maybe participate). We watch the stage. We critique the songs–or what the song leader was wearing. We sit down and hear someone wax eloquently–or not. 

I fear that much of the problems we see in modern evangelicalism stem from us offering goods and services to people and not inviting them into be transformed. This fact is betrayed in much of the assumptions underlying decisions made on how the liturgy ought to roll. For example, since we need to be engaging and winsome in our communication of the Gospel, we need to play this popular radio song and do a Jesus juke to talk about how real love is only found in Jesus. Of course I’m not saying messages and songs ought to be fuddy-duddy and boring! Stop putting baby in the corner. 

What I am saying is that churches ought to be very clear in what they are shaping their people into becoming. We ought to understand that we are in the business of transformation–from one degree of glory to another. Not filling seats. Not being entertaining and relevant at the cost of depth. 

This is why at Christ the Redeemer, we have been intentional in our liturgy. We believe that the primary purpose of the Sunday morning gathering is the transformation of people. We have an explicit order to our service that follows the biblical storyline of Creation>Fall>Redemption>Consummation. Over time, people’s being is changed. It unwittingly becomes easier to say “I’m sorry, please forgive me” because you are trained to confess your sin every week. You more readily accept forgiveness because you are trained to hear God’s Word of Forgiveness to you after confessing. You more readily come to fellowship with God in spite of and because of your sin because you are trained that at the Lord’s Table you find satisfaction and rest for your souls.

Yes, Sunday morning is an event. But not merely so. It is something we participate in. But not merely so. It is preeminently another step in our being transformed into the likeness of Jesus. The primary goal of Sunday morning is our transformation through intentional liturgies.

Brief Thoughts on Church Membership (altogether incomplete)

I have been reflecting on the subject of church membership for the last few weeks. This stems from planting a church and having folks join who are members of existing churches. This also stems from folks who joined our church plant and have moved their membership–both issues had to do with distance to our new location and a desire to be involved in a more specific way to those who attend another church for purposes of ministry (both great reasons!).

My thoughts haven’t just been a result of circumstances. Rather, they come from a desire to think theologically about this issue.

First, I want to make clear that membership in a local church is the primary means of discipleship in the Christian journey. We make commitments to others to love and serve and be loved and be served by others. It is a beautiful and necessary commitment that we take way too lightly.

BUT too often pastors and church leaders speak about church membership in very unhelpful terms. We speak about it being like a marriage. It most certainly is not. It is not a covenant either. Scripture speaks about our membership in the Body of Christ. The local congregation is a physical manifestation of that reality. Everything we do is in the context of local–geographically and temporally. My fear is that church bodies can begin to assume that members of a local congregation cannot leave. Much like the Hotel California, people are often guilted in staying. People are made to think they are being less committed to the mission of the Church (yes, that’s a large C, signifying the Church Universal).

We have a membership class coming up for Redeemer in a few weeks. I take great pains to help people see that our congregation is one among many faithful churches in time and space. We do not have a corner on the market of faithfulness. We are one very small player on the great stage of history. The more we recite this truth, the more humble and grateful we will become. Every time we say this, we are reminded that God’s purposes are much larger than us. We are reminded that we have certain proclivities and characteristics that may set us apart by way of trends and passions. We are reminded that there are many other brothers and sisters seeking to do the same thing as us–take up our crosses daily and follow Jesus (individually and corporately).

One of the things I make sure to tell people is that if they want to make a commitment to be a member of Redeemer, it ought to be based on it mission and vision. We try to keep it very simple, as you’ll see from our website. How we go about accomplishing these things are called our Core Values. That’s how we seek to accomplish the vision right now in 2018.

But the Church is an organization, but it is also a living organism. As with all organisms, change is inevitable. Indeed, it is desired. As human beings we necessarily grow and change if we are alive. It is inherent to the very definition of life. Change is beautiful. Inevitably, our church will grow as people are added to our congregation. This is beautiful because it enables and empowers people to contribute their gifts and passions to the whole, and for the whole to shape the particular person.

Over time, there may be people who have changes of convictions for how “to do” church. That is, they may disagree with our emphasis on church planting, mission, and mercy. They may disagree with our commitment to simplicity. At the end of the day, as a pastor I want people to be freed to serve and be served by others. If they are staying at Redeemer just because they made a commitment in 2018, that is not healthy. Rather, my desire is that they be involved. Intimately involved in the growth and development of our church. If they cannot do so, it is healthier that they find a congregation where they can faithfully live out their convictions.

This doesn’t have to be an ugly thing. Rather, it can be a very beautiful thing where we are again reminded and remind each other that we do no have a corner on the market of biblical fidelity. Jesus promised to build his Church. I get to be a small observer in that construction project–stone upon stone.

We want people to be a part of Redeemer who believe in the vision and mission and who want to play an integral part in seeing that vision become a reality in our small corner of the universe. So when folks leave, we don’t need to guilt them. Sure, we will miss folks as they leave, but may we depart to meet again.

Less Hype. More Humility.

Please. Embedded in our consumeristic culture, there is the assumption that newer is better than older–though I prefer aged beef and cheddar to new. There is the assumption that grand and renovated and powerful is preferable to meek and lowly and weak.

The church often adopts this form of communicating in an effort to gather people into its doors. “God is doing awesome things here at Church _______.” The fact is that God is doing awesome things everyday and everywhere. He’s sustained your life. He’s given you sight and hearing and legs. And if you have none or only one of these, he’s still given you life and a mind to engage the world around you. Truly miraculous. What is more, is God not also doing something in the old, decrepit church that meets faithfully every Sunday? Is God not at work in the mundane? Is the changing of laundry and washing of dishes and working through an argument devoid of God’s presence?

I see so many churches trying to drum up excitement about the latest outreach or project, when what our culture needs is the staying power and sobriety of faithfulness in the ho-hum drudgery of going to a job you hate or a marriage that is contentious. What we need is not more hype, but more humility. More service and less heavy-handedness. We need more gentleness and less power grabs.

If we don’t, what then becomes of the senior citizen who is tired? What becomes of the baby who is sleeping? What becomes of the unemployed and outcast and burdened? They are forgotten. They are seen as less valuable because they aren’t producing the kind of energy requisite for assumed faithfulness to the disciples’ call.

In reality, we need less loud voices and red faces and sweaty brows and more silence and calmness and a deep well of contentment.