In conversation with someone the other day the point was made that even though there seems to be a church on every corner it's still a drop in the bucket to the amount of people who are moving into any given area. Of course I'm referring to the "Bible-Belt" area of the U.S.
I wonder if we are too building/attendance oriented for our culture? Let me explain.
Is our emphasis on having everyone gather in one place on Sunday going overboard? Even the larger churches don't have "everyone" together! The impact of the most effective ministries is still very small in light of the unchurched living around them.
Are we still being too locked into a single facility? Are our people still wrapped up in ministry inside the building as well as organized ministry endeavours! Are our finances too dedicated to paying the bills and staff, rather than meeting each others needs as well as the needs of widows and orphans.
The only solution to this is home based cell groups. Where the emphasis is on meeting at homes and not in a large building. This would eliminate all the legal junk as well as all the money that's needed to do ministry the way it's being done. Christianity would become more personal rather than corporate. It would also be more "first century!"
Numbers are important, but not for the sake of numbers. Who cares how many you have in attendance! Why do we need to report baptisms and small group counts?
Here's an idea about organization:
Elders: Elders would spend time investing in area leaders. Say, one elder per ten area leaders. One area leader per twenty home group leaders. This would ensure that the work of discipling was being carried out properly! Instead of first time member classes there could be mentoring from inside the home groups. Children's ministry and Youth ministry wouldn't be such a big deal either. The family unit would be priority. Families are the best place to train kids anyway right!
Maybe once a month you could have a corporate celebration! Rent out an arena and have an awesome worship and preaching time! You could have Children's ministry and Youth ministry during that time. All the leading and volunteers would be the elders, area leaders, and home group leaders.
The final question is: What about money? All the money in the O.T. went to the temple to meet the needs of the Levites and conduct daily worship! What about today? What should the money be for? Meeting needs, advancing local and foreign missionary work, paying the elders and area leaders, monthly corporate worship...etc. A group of elders can gather a certain percentage of the tithe and leave the home groups to reach out and meet needs out of the abundance of their hearts!
Could this model be more effective?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The obvious strong points of this model are:
1) Family Development. These churches always do a good job of developing strong families. Though, I am not so sure that is a product of the model or a product of the type of people who embrace this model. I mean, the kind of people who fill these churches (houses) would have strong families regardless, and I don't know how effective they are at helping radically unchurched families get saved and then get strong (though because of the large amount of other strong families I am sure this is often the out come)
2) Community. These churches, are usually very close knit and help each other a lot. Very "everyone is involved in the ministry" kind of folks. They do this part great to me.
The problem with these churches is evangelism. While I won't even mention the fact that 99% of these kinds of churches reach practically no one with the gospel because I don't have the proof, I will mention that this style of these churches tend themselves toward not reaching people.
Often these churches are more focused on protecting themselves (and their children) from the world than invading it.
No church should be a First Century church. Any church church that is a first century church is not just traditional, it is 2000 years too old traditional. The result is a church that is not relevant to the culture it i trying to reach.
In the NT as is today, the best way to reach people is event evangelism. Whether that be the sunday morning event or the mass evang. event. Mass preaching events were effective then and they are effective now. If you can produce an excellent sunday morning event that is relevant and revelational (presentation of Biblical/theological truth) then you will reach people. If you do not, in the long run you will not or, if you do it will be the exception not the rule.
Good churches have good organizational flow. Whether it is Foyer to Kitchen at a Northpoint or Love God, Love Each Other, Love the World, somewhere else, good churches have good flow. Home churches all too often become too focused on celebrating how special we Christians are. Does the model produce that or is that just a stereotype?
That is my question...
Just a thought. I think that the "home group" churches that are around today-Vodie Bokum types, really arn't what I'm hitting at. Just for the sake of developing the model lets pretend that they don't exist.
Those models are typically a bunch of homeschool families that don't like anyone else. They do whatever it takes to propogate their life style-Biblical or not. Lets discuss something new and different. We all know that home groups are effective as well as relational evangelism. These two elements would be the emphasis. The monthly or bi-weekly meetings would be a huge emphasis as well and would be done with over the top quality! Yes that could be the open door! I suppose it would be a debate as to which is most effectve-relational or event evangelism. This model would use both. Newspring church in Anderson, SC seem to emphasize inviting people to church. At the same time they have a wall of names that they are praying for for salvation. Individuals placed those names there. These individuals are encouraged to do whatever it takes to reach their friends. I hear more about relational than anything else. Billy Graham mastered event evangelism in his day so I guess that's something to contend with.
I suppose the difference between the "new" home model and what's happening today would be less of a church building mentality and more of a home group mentality. You seek to reach your community that you're placed in. If they never come to the big gathering that's fine. They will be able to fulfill all that's required Biblically in their neighborhood.
Real quick-I spelled Voddie Bockum wrong so sorry. Also, Voddie is all over the place and really can't be pigeon holed into the family church scene-so don't do that!
OK, Joel invited me into the conversation so I'll share a few thoughts.
There have been a number of "proven" methods over the past 2000 years. Some have been effective for seasons while others have enjoyed longer term effectiveness. I, however, wonder if our standard for effectiveness is too small.
I get just as excited as the next guy to hear about a local church reaching 10,000 - 20,000 - or 45,000 people. It's a miracle.
But is there a way of "doing church" that doesn't hit a ceiling when it gets to 20,000 - 50,000 people? There must be. It's happening in other countries.
Is there a way that we could "do church" in the U.S. where a singular church could reach 100,000 - 200,000 or even half a million people?
Whatever that model is it cannot be centered around any building or person. It must be much more fluid than that.
Post a Comment