I believe that all types of church that build the kingdom of God and make disciples of Christ are good. However as a missionary I want to find ways to reach the culture I am in. I have started a network in Sweden called SMOC (Simple, Missional, Organic Communities). Our goal is to build a network of this kind of Church in our city through multiplication.
Watch the following video and let me know what you think and how or if this form of church could function in the CGGC.
posted by Douglas Molgaard at 3:13 PM
33 Comments:
I like how you began your post about all kinds of churches. I agree. Interestingly, it seems like a lot of large churches aren't fond of simple church and a lot of simple churches seem to think that simple church is the way to go. Not surprising.
I thought that the video was a bit long and not the most engaging, but that's beside the point.
To answer your question, I think that organic/simple churches should fit into the cggc anywhere that leaders have a vision to do so and culture proves it to be fruitful. I understand that there are currently some issues that make this difficult. I think / hope / believe that things will change in the future to accommodate them.
Furthermore, many the concepts of church that the people in the video spoke about MUST be brought to fruition in every size church. I believe this can happen in smaller expressions of the church that also gather for larger worship gatherings.
There are so many questions / issues / opinions here, but I don't want to write too much. Plus I'm usually wrong so I'll give others a chance to correct me :-)
Doug,
Awesome video. Thanks.
One thing I believe is true that the video states is that simple/organic is a coming thing. It is THE way in China and many other places in the world where the Jesus following movement is growing.
I'm asking myself: Will the CGGC embrace it as a fad on its typical 15 years-behind-the-times pace?
Well, we're nearly there anyway, eh?
I do not know how practical my ideas are, but here they are.
I think this would be a great opportunity to bridge the gap between "institution" and "organic" and just be the church together.
This requires a lot of letting go. The higher ups in regional and national sectors would have to let go some power to the church pastors and the church pastors would have to let go of people and resources.
IMHO, for this to work, pastors who opt into planting house churches would have to be given the power to ordain, train, and send out house church leaders.
The best training ground for a larger church is the small group. The small group could even be set up with the intention of becoming a house church. The sent leader or leaders of the house church could then multiply and send out new house churches. With both the church body with a building and the church body in homes sending out, there could be rapid multiplication.
The church with a building could serve as the "mothership" and like Fran does, host multiple group events like his baptism picnic. Along the way encourage this network of house churches to cross pollinate and meet and get to know each other.
Would this be potentially messy? Yeah. Could some of the house churches step outside of orthodoxy and so forth? Yeah. But with some form of accountability layer between the network of house churches and the mothership and regular visitation by people to these house churches, you could not only reduce that, but also find out how the Spirit is moving.
Keeping each one local also has a wonderful thing. Pretend my church is part of the CGGC and we plant 2 house churches in the same town we are in and one of those also plants 2 house churches. Now you have one building church and 4 house churches united under the banner of LifeBridge and under the larger banner of the CGGC and under the larger banner of the Church...the Kingdom. Now when Ed writes a letter to the church in Lockport, he is writing to a much larger body.
Is it THE future of the church? No, but it is a valid method that could be embraced and incorporated and an essential bridge between institution and organic can be built and we can all learn from one another.
That concludes my humble two cents in what is admittedly and knee jerk opinion without much pragmatic thought.
Pat,
IMHO, for this to work, pastors who opt into planting house churches would have to be given the power to ordain, train, and send out house church leaders.
Right on! Quintessentially organic!
This is exactly what the Roths instructed us to do at the Church Development Gathering by being "barbarians" in 2009.
At General Conference Ed Stetzer told us that we will have to step away from the trend toward 'clergification' that is inherent in every religious institution.
We, of course, had, mere moments before, increased the degree of our clergification by adopting new Standards for Credentials. In adopting those standards we spat in the Roths' faces.
Step One: Declergification.
Can it happen in the CGGC?
De-clergification.
I like that word. I guess I can see why so many would be opposed to the concept. It is a release of control that some could conceive as a watering down of standards.
I do not think this is unique to the CGGC. I think this can be said of A og G, Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, and on and on. Sometimes we get so caught up in defending the institution we have created and joined that we forget what the institution was built on. Furthering the Gospel, making disciples, embracing the Kingdom. It is more than foot washing, baptism, standards.
I recently read a book called "Almost Chrsitan: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church". One of the points it makes is that in today's America, youth pastors and youth leaders are better educated, better trained, and have access to more resources now than at any other time in our history and yet the numbers of teens becoming disciples is on a decline and the number of teens that maintain the faith after entering young adult hood is declining even more. Yet our answer is more resources, more training, and sometimes more pay.
Maybe if we let go of some of that we can invite the Spirit to do his thing with the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.
Could it happen in your CGGC, Bill? I think you may have a better shot than most. Despite the administrative hurdles you face, you at least have leadership who is discussing it and using cool words like de clergification.
I think that house churches have historically been out of necessity not preference. My guess is that if the political landscape changes in China, they will have megachurches bigger than we've ever seen.
What we are talking about now I think is faithfulness, ability to multiply and effectiveness in evangelism.
Like in Europe, an increasing number in the U.S. are uninterested in church and will not attend Sunday morning even when invited (many still will here).
The key is that the church going organic must be out of a sense of mission and not just discontent with the church as is.
Quoting Pat:
"Pretend my church is part of the CGGC and we plant 2 house churches in the same town we are in and one of those also plants 2 house churches. Now you have one building church and 4 house churches united under the banner of LifeBridge and under the larger banner of the CGGC and under the larger banner of the Church...the Kingdom. Now when Ed writes a letter to the church in Lockport, he is writing to a much larger body."
This is exactly what I want to see happen. Love it!
This could functionally happen tomorrow without any change whatsoever in denominational structure, except that the house church pastors would not be officially credentialed (but they could be 'officially' elders of the original church. And the house churches would not be viewed by the conference as churches, but as part of the original church. These are obviously problems, but what I'm saying is that I don't feel there is anything stopping us from doing just that.
Now, if one or more organic churches wanted to start apart from an existing church, that would be harder currently.
In the long run, there are two major hurdles:
1. The definition of what a church is. I believe we currently have standards including minimum of 30 people? that preclude organic churches. Our definition needs to be more theological / biblical than just external features.
2. Affirmation of leaders God has called. This probably should but doesn't need to be as radically different to begin. If vocations wants the load, they could interview every potential organic church leader (or leadership team and give them some type of credential affirming God's call and giftedness). Otherwise they could train and empower other existing leaders to affirm and train new leaders while still requiring whatever standards are mutually agreed upon.
Let’s say we are looking for a biblical model for the church. We are talking about implementing the APEST model of serving in the church. Noticed I used the word serving and not leading. These gifts are for serving.
Let’s pretend we have someone with an apostolic gift and they are sent to plant a church in a city. Let’s say we have someone named Dan. Dan is sent by a Council to a city let’s call it Ft. Wayne. Let’s say he lives missionally there for a while and people start coming to faith in Christ and he invites them into his home to disciple them around a meal and prayer (Acts 2:42). The Spirit starts moving and some people share a song and some a word and the church is edified (I Cor. 14:26-33). Soon the gifts of the people become evident some are teachers, some are evangelist and maybe some prophets and elders are recognized who could pastor or care for the church (Acts 14:23). As the church in the house grows some are sent by Dan to begin a new church in their house to reach their circle of friends and neighbors and soon there are many churches spread out over this city. The Church of God in Fort Wayne continues to grow and Dan starts a school (Acts 19:9) to train others to serve in their spiritual gifts and to make disciples.
Let’s say there is a problem that develops in one of the house churches. It is one that can not be solved locally so it is taken to the council of the Mid West Region (Acts 1, Gal. 2). The problem is solved by the delegates sent by the council. The Church of God in Ft. Wayne is now 17 communities that meet in homes and new church communities are developing yearly it is over seen by Dan who is himself accountable to the MW Council.
This I believe is a biblical model for church planting where the organic and the institution work together.
Why small house churches and not one big church? Smaller churches allows for everyone to be involve and their gifts to be in function. It is easier to share life together and form strong relationships. It allows people to be seen and accepted. Smaller churches multiply faster which means more disciples.
I am NOT saying this is the only way to do church! But this is A way that is biblical and can work in our culture!
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry for the deleted post. It was the same post three times. I had problems getting this post up.
Doug - yup, that is well thought out, practical and yet still simple and obviously a very biblical pattern. I like it.
Furthermore, what I'm feeling is that probably many existing churches should break into that type of pattern and mush the focus of ministry out to those home church groups rather than to the 'church building'
Within your proposed model, I would still try to have all the churches in Ft. Wayne gather together - maybe monthly, maybe quarterly, because I think there is a type of celebration and sharing that can happen on that larger level and seeing all of what God is doing in your city.
Where I am at, georphaphically and culturally, I feel it would be foolish to give up Sunday morning worship in the church facility because there is enough interest in Christianity for that to be effective in reaching people. That probably is not the case in Sweden.
Wow, Doug, that has such a nice ring to it. :) Is it by any chance a word of prophecy? I love it!
Simply Jesus, then simply His church. It's what I have been craving for over 25 years. Will I see it come to fruition in my lifetime, where I live and work? God only knows. But as for me and my house...we know what we need to be. We are simply on the road to discover where God will lead next. For this freedom we praise God and are in deep gratitude for His leadership and care. Thanks for the affirming video.
Just so everyone knows, we have a guy working on this in San Antonio, TX. His name is Philip Rodriguez. Been a House Church planter since January.
So I guess the CGGC does accept this. They even gave a little funding to create a network (ie multiply) So the question is not if, it is who wants to?
Masshardt,
In Houses that Change the World Wolfgang Simpson (from the video) argues that there are three types of Christian gatherings:
1. The cell--AKA simple, organic house gather of 20 or few people
2. The congregation--a gathering of 21-500 people.
3. The celebration--a large gathering of more than 500 people consisting of many cell gatherings coming together.
He argues that the cell and the celebration are biblical, existed in Acts 2-6 and always should where the church is free of persecution.
The congregation, he argues, is the invention of Christendom, and has no roots in biblical teaching.
So, you are thinking in the same way as perhaps the greatest mind in the organic church movement.
The celebration has to be more than 500?
M,
The celebration has to be more than 500?
I think that's his number but his real point is that once you have more than 20 people it's hard to do New Testament worship. He has a section on what happens when the 21st person shows up.
So you would need 25 orgainic groups of 20 or less before you could have a celebration? That could take a long time, depending on the area.
I guess I need to read the book. I see there is a somewhat condensed version that barna is in on.
CGGCers,
Three questions:
How many churches do we hope to plant in the next decade?
How much does launching one of those high octane, attractional churches cost?
How can we financially afford our goal unless we adopt the simple model in a serious way--and soonest?!
1. I don't know about denominationally but at least 20 churches by 2020 in the Eastern Region.
2. I don't know but we can find out. Not all of the plants are as you describe. Only one in our area this year is in my opinion 'high-octane. None of them own a building.
3. With 3 new churches this year, I think we can meet the 2020 goal without any simple churches, honestly.
There are other questions though...how many will survive...how much money is well spent...will they be more effective at making disciples...
I, for one, would not be in favor of shifting to simple church only models. I do think that every 'attractional' church plant ought to have organic / missional groups that comprise it and where most of the discipleship / mission happens.
However, if we begin aggressively planting organic churches as well, that 20 could easily become 200 or 2000. So yes, you are right, we do need to do it now. You first. :-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Okay, before it's too late, I'm going to try to delete my previous comment. It is entered in its entirety below.
I realized how the comment about the ERC being attracted to only one model of planting will look to ERCers.
What I meant is that all of our current church plants are Christendom model congregations. They all have a 'planting pastor.' There is another model.
To anyone who was, or would have been offended, I apologize.
-----
Dan,
However, if we begin aggressively planting organic churches as well, that 20 could easily become 200 or 2000. So yes, you are right, we do need to do it now. You first. :-)
One thing I think I may be called for is to transition old-school Christendom model ministries into ministries that can function organically. While Faith is a new congregation, it was planted on a very traditional model. We used to have acolytes light candles for crying out loud! We are a hybrid now and still on the move.
The great majority of our existing congregations won't exist in a generation or so if they continue to operate from the current attractional, internally-focused model. That model has been the mother of their demise. And, I seem to be gifted in leading a change in paradigm. I wish I would be given that opportunity.
But, that would require macrorepentance.
I can only tell you that, since the beginning of the year, I've attempted to lead a conversation with the ERC about planting a network of simple churches in the region. To this point, the conversation is ongoing.
I'd be deeply blessed if you'd pray for that endeavor. To this point, the Conference seems to be attached to only one model of church planting. I could be wrong about that, but that is what I see.
I'll reply to your private message as I have time. It's good stuff.
I don't have a lot of time, so I am going to lump this together.
Bill- You know I am a huge proponent of simple/organic church. If you want people to be proponents of SMOC you will have to show the practical side of it. ie conversions and multiplication. We don't hear those stories from Faith.
I don't know about conversions, but I do no it has not yet multiplied. If you show the ERC multiplication and a large number of conversions they will follow.
You quoted Anne Roth calling us to be barbarians. Well be a barbarian and multiply your church. They first showed their barbarian way worked before their denomination changed.
Very few see the error of what we are doing, because we don't have an example before us (in our tribe) of what is right. We truly have only one SMOC in the U.S. You are a hybrid. You have a building, your congregation is near 50. The Dales, Barna, and Neil Cole would not consider you a SMOC.
I appreciate what you have done at Faith. I can't wait to come and share with your family (I will be in Harrisburg starting Sept 26 and there for 2 months). What most people (not all by any means) see from the outside looking in is a shrinking congregation, that has chaos, and is not accomplishing the goal of multiplying disciples and churches. Whether or not they are right, that is what they see.
Until we (me, you, and a few others) can prove the fruitfulness of our vision by doing it, it will not be embraced on a large scale.
I was able to spend some time talking to Felicity Dale recently and she contends it would be a horrible idea for traditional Pastor/Shepherds to move to House church, because the baggage they bring to the table will kill really any chance of movement or multiplication.
If we want a house church planting movement to be successful in the CGGC we need to raise up/disciple and recruit new leaders. Asking current pastors to change their ways would be detrimental to those they lead and the house church movement. Few can convert over, those who can will find there way and they will if we show them it can work.
Two thoughts on this conversation at this point...
First, I am all for simple churches, but I would caution us all not to lock onto that as the only legitimate expression of the church. A model can be our own preference, out of our own deep convictions, without us having to say it is the only legit thing (I'm not saying you all have said this, but some comments come close).
Second, while I think continuing to open up the denomination to appreciation/endorsement of the simple church concept is a good thing, I don't see that there is really much stopping anyone from planting a simple church or a network of simple churches.
Justin,
I don't have a lot of time either. Yours is a good and insightful post and, for the sake of both of us and everyone else, I'd love to respond point by point. But there a lot of real life going on in our home right now...
Re: Bill- You know I am a huge proponent of simple/organic church. If you want people to be proponents of SMOC you will have to show the practical side of it. ie conversions and multiplication. We don't hear those stories from Faith.
I know that what you say is true of the ERC--and, I'd guess, the whole CGGC.
And, I also believe that you are illustrating what is probably the CGGC's greatest sin again the Great Commission.
The truth is that I am--WE ARE--showing the practical side of organic Christianity. At Faith we are doing exactly what the Great Commission calls us to do. We are MAKING DISCIPLES.
Sanctification is taking place at a pace and to a level that I never dreamed I'd see as a part of a ministry that involved me. And, in the CGGC because everything is nickels and noses, conversions and cash, the amazing blessings we are achieving as the Spirit pours Himself in us and on us, as you say, isn't even considered 'practical.'
The New Testament plan does not involve gaining converts. The gaining of converts is never commanded by Jesus nor anyone else in the Word. I know of only one place that it is mentioned, and then it is only in passing.
You are correct in saying, "If you show the ERC multiplication and a large number of conversions they will follow."
We can talk about the biblical definition of multiplication. I believe that that is a conversation that needs to take place and it needs to take place yesterday. I can't believe that we've not had it yet.
But, speaking prophetically, I will say that:
Until the ERC and the CGGC stops looking for conversions, we will never sniff obedience to the Great Commission.
There are many ways in which macrorepentance needs to take place among us but this may be the most foundational of them all.
It won't matter how successfully we achieve the task that is the wrong task and seeking converts is not the task we have been commanded to achieve.
I believe that if we were on task and if we were defining practical results biblically, the ERC wouldn't be waiting for Faith to produce. It would be busing people to us every week to see what it is that is happening that is resulting in the rapid growth of discipleship in our ministry.
I love you. I admire you. I thank God for you and you know how often I pray for you.
I hope what I've written doesn't make you angry.
I know that Faith has many miles to go. I said that in the GOING ORGANIC thread. But, the "practical side" of ministry is exactly what we are demonstrating.
I hope that I made myself clear that I am not saying that this is the only way to do church. Those of you who are pastors in legacy churches should stay and continue to do what you do. We have a lot of good legacy churches in the CGGC that meet the needs in the culture they are in and are making disciples. What I hope to bring to the table is looking at differant ways to plant churches that can multiply and be effective and is biblical. We should not be afraid to try something new.
I am on a train now as I write returning home from a meeting in Stockholm about church planting in the Baptist denomination here in Sweden. We have the same questions in Sweden that we are discussing on this blog. I like what someone said here... that an effective church is not one that is defined by numbers or how big it is but by reproduction.
I think it would be great if some of our legacy churches would plant simple churches.
Doug,
I hope that I made myself clear that I am not saying that this is the only way to do church.
I know you are not saying that and I'm sure I haven't because I don't believe it.
It is interesting, though, that the comment continues to be made. I'm not sure what others are hearing.
To everyone:
I do not believe that simple/organic is the only way to express Christ's Body in the world.
Bill,
No one I can remember did imply anything. I think it is possible that some inferred.
Interesting side note. Generally when people speak of planting and multiplication (not just here, but generally in the evangelical community) everyone grabs flags and rally cries, but doe some reason when you speak specifically of simple/house/itty bitty/organic church you often see disclaimers placed.
I have often wondered if that is because of the ardent house church or bust crowd or those who feel a model such as this represents some threat. End of the day, I think the constant disclaimers show the need for a bridge...so we can just be the body and get on with making disciples of Christ.
Bill,
I found your comments on discipleship vs. "gaining converts" interesting, because I have wrestled with this a great deal in recent years. In general, I have argued exactly what you stated, that the Commission is to make disciples, not gain converts. I think the deep truth underlying this is that only those who become more substantially like Jesus (more whole) can apprentice others in this Way.
And yet... (there's always an "and yet", isn't there?)... there is a process and point of people initially crossing the line into belief and faith. So it seems to me that it is not that we don't need "evangelism", but perhaps that we need to always see discipleship as the journey we are inviting people onto. The mistake the evangelical church has often made with this seems evident to me in how "conversion" has often been treated as an arrival rather than a beginning.
At LifeSpring we don't really do anything at all oriented toward conversion, and rarely can pinpoint when those who have been hanging out on our porch cross the line into faith. It just happens, and we kind of go, "Well, will you look at that?" And discpleship then begins (which we aren't terribly good at, but are working on:-)
The simple organic church model has an advantage with discpleship both because it exists in small communities, and also because it more immediately invited people into meaningful participation.
The great commission is undeniably to make disciples not merely converts. I'm not sure that Jesus (or Paul) actually recognized any such distinction. To believe is to follow and obey.
But the New Testament churches were clearly built upon the public, vocal proclamation of the gospel calling for people to respond. I don't know how you can have a New Testament plan without evangelism in the sense of proclaiming the gospel and calling for discipleship in response.
To think that we can just get fully into God's work without grasping sin, repentance and salvation seems to me to be liberalism. I don't think we are guity of this.
I think the focus on one time decision, sinners prayer, etc. can be a problem. We need to be honest about what being a disciple means.
Like Fran, most of the people that we have seen come to faith was not 'walking the aisle' so to speak but immersion into the community of faith and exposure to the Gospel / Bible over a period of time.
Some people come to faith over periods of time and can't pinpoint a time of decision, others know the moment. How we get there matters less then are we there. I'm not ready to give up the doctrine of regeneration. I don't think others are either.
I think if we are going to count something, we should consider what David Fitch suggests and count baptisms rather than conversions. It's certainly not perfect, but I think generally a more accurate picture of how many are on a discipleship journey.
Fran,
And yet... (there's always an "and yet", isn't there?)... there is a process and point of people initially crossing the line into belief and faith. So it seems to me that it is not that we don't need "evangelism", but perhaps that we need to always see discipleship as the journey we are inviting people onto. The mistake the evangelical church has often made with this seems evident to me in how "conversion" has often been treated as an arrival rather than a beginning.
I agree.
What concerns me is that I don't see the CGGC making that nuanced biblical distinction. Or, at least, I don't see the ERC making it. From what I can tell, our gang in here is pretty unabashed in it's nickels and noses approach.
To use Hirsch language. We are into M1 missions because that's how we can most easily produce quantifiable nickel/nose results.
I agree with Justin's assessment. That intense spiritual progress is being made here won't register on the ERC scale. I wish I could tell Justin that I think he's wrong. But, he's living in his calling. He has insight and he's connected.
Our elders had this conversation this morning. We have a few in the church that want us to get salvations. One long time attender asked, "Has anyone at our church ever got saved?" The truth is I could name many, many names. An easy example would be all of my children. But they do not get saved in ways that are spectacles for all to see.
Post a Comment
<< Home