As many of you know, I am finishing up my last year for my Master of Divinity degree. I have had so many conversations about the future it makes me feel like I forget about living in the now. Hours have been invested in “What are you going to do after you graduate?”

You can’t get away with an “I don’t know” without following it up with some plans. So today I wanted to ponder (and have you help me) whether one should plant a church or (what has been come to be called) “revitalize” a church.” The former means that you (and some other folks) go and start ministering in a specific area and start something new in an area. The latter is where you (and some other folks) go to a church that is languishing and begin to preach and teach, trusting God to rebuild his church.

Too many times there is verbiage that leans towards a dichotomy between the two professions. Let me say that they are not at odds. They are siblings. They need each other. The question is which type of ministry is needed in a specific locale. The latest buzz is planting a church. Perhaps it is the thrill of something fresh. Perhaps starting from scratch and not having to worry about church splits. I have many friends who are planning on planting a church (or who are doing so). I have listened to Tim Keller’s talk on his rationale for planting churches.

One of the things he says is that there can never be too many churches. Since I heard him say that two years ago, I have wondered whether that is right. In the theoretical world this is right. But here, in this world, is this the case. I know what he is getting at and I agree at one level. But I am nagged by the fact that so many folks say they will not plant a church in the south becase there are so many churches already. Am I missing something? Please lend me your thoughts so I can think through this as I lean towards both church planting and church revitalization (more on this later). I am getting whiplash, so help me think through this, please…

Previous ArticleNext Article

This post has 5 Comments

  1. “revitalization” might take a different sort of person than church planting. Revitalization takes a patient, plodding sort of person, one who is willing to really trust exclusively in God’s word and His love. No gimmicks, no amount of charisma, will unseat the previous powers. Only God and His love. Church-planters seem to need a broader array of skills and giftings. also, church planters will see results much more quickly than revitalizers.
    As to whether we need more churches or the churches we have to become faithful again, some might say it’s a both/and. But many of these “churches” that we might want to be revitalized are not churches, but church buildings. And those who attend it are coming to a social club more than hoping to meet with God. Are they churches when there’s no faithful? No. I wonder if some people’s desire to revitalize churches is more a desire to circumvent a building program or renting a place than a recognition that here IS a church that needs a pastor. Well, maybe it’s just a group of old people in a neat building, and that a building and group of people with a negative “testimony” among their neighbors. If you can get funding for a church plant, do it. If not, labor in the building, amidst unfaithful people, with oppressive politics, and pray.

  2. Good points, David ~

    I think you are exactly right about the patience aspect of a person. I would also think that the church planter must also be extremely patient as he evangelizes his area and waits for the Lord to move. I like what you mention implicitly when you speak about gimmicks and such. I fear that too many church planters are buying into the latest toys (yes, toys, not tools) to make their church grow. The generations of X and Y do not want a hokey-pokey sermon with cutesy phrases. They are hungry for the Word of God. This is also true of the former generations. I see the reason for the persistence of the quaint is due to a disconnect with the world. Christians think a cool skit will communicate a deep truth. It may. But have we leaned on such methods to do the work of solid proclamation to our friends and families? Probably.

  3. “There can never be too many churches”- I think that is ridiculous! I admit I’ve only heard a little bit of Keller so I’m reacting to this one sentence (He could be referring to biblically sound churches).

    There can be too many churches. I’m in the SBC so I’ll pick on them. Over 40,000 SBC churches exist in Amerca- supposedly. Being gracious, lets say 1,000 of them aren’t preaching the Gospel but are catering to felt needs- throwing out God’s word, the atoning sacrifice of Christ and the need to pursue holiness. Let’s say another 1,000 (being gracious again) are encouraging a false understanding of conversion by conducting altar calls, baptizing those who give no evidence of true conversion and naming them “sheep” in Christ’s sheep fold. Think about the number of mislead non-Chrisitans and the mislead Christians.

    Why not tear down a negative witness by building a new one in its place? And with the Christians already there?

    Christ uses both revitalizers and planters but I don’t think I’m ready to lift one up over the other. It’s dependant on the specific situation. I do disagree with David and would not encourage someone to revitalize a church as “plan B.” The pastor’s job is to shepherd the flock (unfaithful or faithful) and help them see Christ by clarifying the Gospel through his word. That is never a plan B.

  4. matt, this is a great topic and one that i too have been thinking on much as of late. you are familiar with some of my own struggles here, and i have often wondered if it would not be much easier to simply start a church, clean-slate (church planting). yet, in spite of the ‘baggage’ that may come with an already established church, i cannot deny that there are also advantages to revitalization and building onto or altering a structure already there. certainly, there is merit in and need for both.

  5. Hey brother, great to find you over on wordpress. This is a great post and great thoughts! I will be praying for you as you wrestle with the Lord’s will on this and trust in His providence to lead you to the perfect place to serve Him and His church.

    My two-cents are that we ought to sincerely wrestle with whether God might have us go where there is NO witness and no church (ala Paul’s desire to go to where the Gospel has not been proclaimed and the reality that Jesus will not return until all the nations have a witness). If you have sincerely wrestled with the Lord through that one and your heart is filled with a burning and longing for the church to be planted in everyplace for the sake of his name then I believe you can with good conscience follow God into His call to serve Him here. I love what Floyd McClung says, “Only those who long to broadcast His glory to the nations have the right to stay.”

    Then the question is church planting or existing and where. One thing I have seen as someone living in the ‘city of churches’ (Charlotte, NC) is that there is still a great need for bible-saturated, missional, christian-hedonistic, culture-engaging churches. I know of only one and I hope I am wrong. Personally I would lean toward planting because of the baggage that you get when you go into an existing church but with planting comes other challenges (which are probably no tougher than existing church baggage).

    Man, keep me posted! You are in my prayers. It was great to have lunch at TFG!

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.