Blind Copies

By Mark A. Taylor

Maybe you”ve noticed, as I have, the remarkable sameness greeting travelers at each stop along United States Interstates. Parachute a blindfolded visitor before the assortment of franchised restaurants assembled at any random exit, and ask him whether he”s landed in Kansas or Kentucky. He probably won”t be able to tell you. With a few regional exceptions, the same stuff is on the menu just about everywhere.

And it”s true in churches too.

Every October churches large and small, from California through the Bible Belt, promote Trunk “n” Treat as a Halloween alternative.

Soon Christian Standard will solicit pictures for our annual megachurch issue, and we”ll see the same assortment of guitars, drums, amplifiers, and keyboards arranged in the front of worship auditoriums across the country. They appear in reports from smaller churches too.

Our persistent Buzz writer skims a ream of church papers and several megabytes of digital church news every month for something new to report. But the fresh is often hard to find amid the predictable onslaught of announcements about Celebrate Recovery, small groups sign-ups, and pleas for more children”s ministries volunteers.

This isn”t all bad. At least when we find McDonald”s in Omaha or Nashville, we have a pretty good idea the fare will match what we have back home. And it may be nice to know a church in Georgia or Colorado worships and serves God with songs and strategies we use too.

But sometimes I wonder what would happen in America if each church decided to pursue its own unique mission with its own specific approach to its own individual community.

Dave Ferguson spoke to this in Outreach magazine earlier this year:

I am convinced that the reason only 40 percent (that”s being generous) of the population attends church is because most of our churches look remarkably similar and are designed to reach the same 40 percent, leaving 60 percent of the population without a good option for finding their way back to God. We need to engage our missional imagination and let the Spirit bring about innovative missional expressions of church. When we have different kinds of churches that reach different kinds of people, that is a win!

I asked three ministers to react to that quote. Read their responses below, and then consider: How is my church more than a just a copy of what seems to be working somewhere else?

From Greg Nettle, pastor, Rivertree Christian Church, Massilon, Ohio:

“Though I agree with Dave, I think he is being VERY generous with his number of people that attend church.  The latest stats reveal that in the state of Ohio only 18 percent of the population attend church on any given weekend!  It is absolutely imperative that we as followers of Jesus quit trying to make our weekend gatherings (services–for the consumer Christian) attractive and realize that it is only through Jesus being attractive IN us that we will prevent the United States from becoming completely post-Christian.  It is only by re-orienting our individual lives to the mission of Jesus that the church will therefore be missional once again.”

From Jared Witt, minister, Church of the Incarnation, New York City

“I agree with Ferguson’s descriptive remark that many of our churches look “˜similar.”  I also agree with his prescription calling for more “˜imagination” and “˜innovation.”  At Church of the Incarnation, the innovation is, strangely enough, a retrieval.  We’re being “new” by being “old,” which may not count as innovation.  We are doing this for those whose trust in God and reception of the gospel will come largely in terms of imagination, desire, and delight.  These are people who perhaps cannot get themselves in the psychological posture of “˜believing” the whole ball of wax with clarity every day.  Yet, they are glad to join their voices to the singing and praying of a community that is learning to say “˜Yes!” to the gospel.”

From Jeff Krajewski, lead pastor at Common Ground Christian Church, Indianapolis, Indiana

“I agree with Dave”s statement and especially the first sentence.  Focus on your unique calling.  The diversity of the church has been spoiled under the influence of the mega church tsunami.  Everywhere we (young pastors/old pastors/students/church planters etc.) go, we are bombarded with the largest expressions of the body of Christ as the example of what success looks like.  In reality these represent a very small percentage of the body as a whole.  We train young men and women to think big rather than to imagine within their own gifting.  We plant churches with success matrix that focus on growing big.  Note:  I haven”t encountered any organizations that are actively supporting churches whose primary goal is not to grow numerically no matter what their language may be.  They may be out there, I haven”t encountered them.

We overfund high “˜impact churches” with staff and facility costs that force planters into a mold from the beginning that demands that they grow the church numerically with the 40 percent that Dave is speaking of and thus we leave no room for the Missional imagination to find a place to grow.  When the budget needs to be met, planters will be forced to sacrifice their potentially beautiful Missional vision for numbers.

Missional expressions of the church often require exclusion of the 40 percent in order to make an impact on the 60 percent.  It is often the Christians who transfer in who can be the most difficult in launching into new directions of ministry.  We have had to be very clear about our particular vision and calling and be ok with people leaving to find a home church elsewhere.  This can only be done when we are not overly dependent on people staying and giving.  We have a very lean staffing model, a very stretched facility, and a commitment to proclaim the kingdom of God in a very clear geography.

In addition, we are committed to church planting from within, sending out people that we have trained and equipped with our DNA.  Our DNA is not so much a formula for “˜doing church” as much as it is a way of being the church together.  We are not interested in a particular style as much as we are a theology of mission.  We want to ignite every person”s Missional imagination so that they can be the church where they live and with the people they live around.  Our goal is not to get people to the church but to “˜equip the saints unto the work of the ministry so that the body of Christ may be built up.”  We want to live into that calling, equipping the saints.

We have been planting churches with this in mind.  Smaller groups of people moving to very specific kinds of places where the church has had little success.  Our goal is to move into the neighborhood, get jobs, become a part of the community and allow God to grow a church up from within.  We partially support a planter for four years and send with them 8-10 committed families and singles who are already committed to serving and giving.  Year one, we want them to still like each other.  No expectations on growth, numbers, giving etc.  They are moving into the neighborhood, getting to know the culture and beginning to prayerfully imagine their unique place in God”s kingdom that is already making its way through that city.  Year two-four we are working to help them establish some sort of independence around the unique gifting of their community as discerned by their community.”