| The Community church Trend - Part I of II: |
 |
Reprinted from Christian Chronicle All Rights Reserved.
The Community church Trend
Part I of II: Opening Dialogue
To some it’s market-driven religion, to others — bold outreach to the unchurched; to some — a departure from the Restoration pattern, to others — a return to our nondenominational roots; but for all — only one of many crosswinds buffeting Churches of Christ
Certainly nothing concerns the builder generation, those who have dedicated their faith and their lives’ energies to building the church in the century recently past, than the fear that the church they worked diligently to create will fade away, or worse still, fall into apostasy — however that word be defined.
Certainly nothing concerns the younger generations, seeking to invest their best and brightest efforts in a life’s work, than the cries of their hearts for spiritual meaning — cries they feel go unheard in the practice of traditions they consider stultified and irrelevant.
And certainly nothing concerns all those, young and old, who have a burden for the lost and spiritually dying of the world than reaching those in desperate need of the good news of Jesus Christ.
Such multifaceted agendas — the desire to preserve the church, to find spiritual salve for the deepest pains of the heart, to reach those without spiritual hope — set the stage for the Chronicle’s consideration of what first appears to be a one-dimensional phenomenon in Churches of Christ — the trend to adopt the characteristics and practices of the burgeoning community church movement in America.
Yet what appears simple on the surface encompasses all we collectively hold dear and sacred — how to worship God, how to reach the lost, how to interpret the Bible, how to honor our heritage of American Restoration theology, how to keep ourselves unspotted from a searingly secular world, how to keep the Churches of Christ from extinction in the 21st Century.
Thus, in this first of a two-part examination of the Community Church Trend in our fellowship, the Chronicle begins a discussion that in the microcosm embodies the turmoil that is surrounding us as well as all of American Christendom.
We begin by offering the insights on this phenomenon by writers from a broad range of perspectives — ministers, theologians, church growth theorists, Christian leaders.
We do not present this analysis as the final answer, but as a dialogue which should engage leaders and members, churches small and large, and liberal and conservative Christians of good faith everywhere.
We covet your reactions to these essays and your thoughts, fears and hopes for the church. For certainly what binds us — a devotion to our God, to the riches of the Bible and to preserving the faith for all who follow us — is stronger than what divides us.
CHALLENGING VOICES:
Perspectives on the ‘community church’ trend
Flavil Yeakley, Searcy, Ark.
In our fellowship I see a trend for congregations that I know to do what those in many other religious groups are doing. These congregations do not generally think of themselves as being "community churches" in the usual meaning of that term. They are not congregations that welcome into full fellowship people who still retain the beliefs and practices of various denominations. That is what most true community churches do.
There is, however, a small but growing trend to plant new congregations that do not look exactly like the existing Churches of Christ in that community.
These new churches seem to have several characteristics in common.
• Many do not use the "Church of Christ" name — or, if they do, do not give it the same emphasis as other congregations. Here in Searcy, for example, I helped to plant a new congregation incorporated as "The Covenant Fellowship Church: a church of Christ." What bothered some people was that this new congregation did not use a geographic location as name.
If the congregation met on the corner of Covenant Street and Fellowship Avenue, we could probably have avoided this criticism. Churches of Christ have said for many years that "Churches of Christ" is just one of many Biblical designations that would be proper. But if "Church of Christ" or the little "c" "church of Christ" is the only accepted name of the church, it would be hard to deny that "we" are a denomination in the popular sense of that term, i.e., a group that can be identified by a name.
• The trend, as I see it, is not toward a "community church model," but a more serious effort to be nondenominational. Several years ago, Elmer L. Towns in Is the Day of the Denomination Dead? argued that denominational organizations are no longer needed. Big churches can help little churches without the need for an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Elmer and I are both former presidents of the American Society for Church Growth.
The year I was president, a survey among seminaries throughout the nation found that a majority of students did not want to preach in their own denomination. Instead, their number one dream was to plant an independent church.
In my work with the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, I found that the greatest church growth has been in two categories: independent charismatic churches and independent non-charismatic churches.
• Several writers have influenced this trend. Robert Dale in To Dream Again, argued that churches must clarify their purpose in order to be revived. Some of the Southern Baptist Churches that Dale helped renew did not wear the name "Baptist" and those that retained that name did not emphasize it. That did not make them community churches, but it may have helped them reach out to the unchurched.
Leith Anderson, in Dying for Change stressed the need to plant new churches that would not look exactly like the parent church to reach the unchurched.
Then the big one — Rick Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Church tells the story of the Saddleback Community Church, Orange County, Calif. Rick is a Baptist, and his church is a Baptist church, but he wanted to reach out to the unchurched and felt that the name "Baptist" might be a barrier.
This approach is a step in the direction of non-denominational Christianity, and I think that Stone, Campbell and other Restoration Movement pioneers would rejoice to see this development. It is not enough, but it is a step in the right direction.
• Whether in or out of our fellowship, this trend has another common characteristic — reaching the unchurched is given a higher priority than maintaining good relationships with more traditional congregations. If the classical/traditional kind of Christian music is a barrier to reaching the unchurched, then these churches are more willing to adopt contemporary musical styles. And it is not just music — the trend seems to involve a much more informal atmosphere in the assembly. Many congregations deliberately "dress down" to make visitors feel more at home.
• Traditional congregations often feel threatened by the establishment of an independent, nontraditional congregation. They feel judged and condemned — but that is not the intent of the nontraditional congregations.
• Every religious group in America today is in crisis regarding worship styles and leadership styles. The issues must be, at least in part, generational rather than theological. The new nontraditional congregations in Churches of Christ and elsewhere share a different view of leadership. Instead of the authoritarian style of a self-perpetuating board of decision-makers, they favor a leadership style with more open communication and participation by all the members — with the leaders placing more emphasis on shepherding and less on executive and administrative roles.
When nontraditional congregations have been started, some elders of the older congregations in the town have claimed that a new congregation cannot be started without their permission. I do not believe such a position can be defended on the basis of the New Testament.
Such leaders often fear those who plant new congregations will "steal their sheep." My response is that sheep who are well-led and well-fed are very hard to steal.
As far as I know, the Covenant Fellowship congregation is still within the "Church of Christ mainstream" as far as traditional indicators are concerned, and in terms of doctrine and everything that I would regard as an essential of the faith. They are not traditional in regard to methods, and I think that they are better off being nontraditional.
I tell anyone who will listen that we should not be one-generation churches. Our traditional churches have been one-generational for my generation, and we are declining as we have more funerals than baptisms.
But many nontraditional congregations are doing the same thing. They are building one-generation churches for the Baby Boomers or Generation X.
I once wrote a warning about what will happen to these churches around 2020. The young people will come to the Baby Boomer/Generation X elders and ask for changes in worship style, saying, "We just found some old hymn books in the attic called Great Songs of the Church. They have some great poetry and some really great music by Bach, Wagner and other classical composers. Anyhow, we would like to start using these books." And the Baby Boomer/Generation X elders will say, "Sit down and shut up and keep on singing the off-the-wall devo songs the way we always have."
And what goes around will have come around again.
Flavil Yeakley is a professor in the College of Bible and Religion at Harding University, Searcy, Ark. He directs the Harding Center for Church Growth Studies. He began preaching 50 years ago and has been involved in church growth research for 30 years. E-mail: fyeakley@harding.edu
CHALLENGING VOICES:
Community churches and upbeat religion
Michael Weed, Austin, Texas
Ten years or so ago a Dear Abby column ran letters from Catholics, Jews and Protestants all concerned that worship services in their respective churches were turning into entertainment. These letters came from across the nation. Obviously, anything as widespread as this phenomenon has roots beyond the circumstances of any given religious group, much less a particular congregation.
When Jews, Catholics, and Protestants across America are shifting to an entertainment/performance-oriented format for worship, it is fair to say that whatever the reasons given by individual congregations or religious groups, the broader sociological fact invites us to look for deeper cultural forces at work.
Clearly we are immersed in a consumer/entertainment culture that dominates every area of life. The entertainment industry (music, movies, TV) now shapes the attitudes and expectations of Americans far more than family, school or church. Game shows and rap music promote shallowness and sensuality. They also foster a narrow preoccupation with ourselves and our feelings, as well as an indifference to life’s deeper realities. Advertisers employ sophisticated marketing strategies to exploit the very attitudes promoted by the entertainment industry. Should anyone be surprised to find these same cultural forces at work within our faith communities?
The fact that we live in this kind of culture ensures that its influences will be pervasive in American churches. Beyond the inevitable influences of contemporary culture on religion, however, modern marketing techniques that successfully sell soap and cars have been intentionally adopted in attempts to promote religion. The implications of attempts to market Christianity as just another commodity are far-reaching.
For several decades the church growth movement has urged Christians to learn from "the laws of collective behavior" and "mob psychology." Thus religion must be adapted to the entertainment-saturated and self-preoccupied consumer of religion. Worship, especially church music, must be "fun and attractive," "exciting" – even entertaining.
But the music is not only "upbeat" and "lively"; it also reflects the culture’s preoccupation with self. It has been pointed out repeatedly that "one cannot sing praise songs without noticing how first person pronouns tend to eclipse every other subject" (Michael Hamilton, Christianity Today). But not only do praise songs center on the self, they also focus on one’s feelings. The lyrics of "gospel rock" have pretty much the same orientation as the rock generation – concern with me and what I am feeling. In a culture that elevates feelings above conviction, this shift is inevitable.
It should also be clear that these strategies are more easily adopted by some religious traditions than others. Those traditions that emphasize personal experience and stress emotions and "heart religion" more easily adapt to the contemporary culture. The community church movement, for example, is a joining of older revivalist traditions with contemporary trends. Nineteenth-century revivalism was largely a para-church development, stressing personal experience above doctrine and church membership. In the community church movement, this tradition is combining with modern and so-called baby boomer mentalities that resist commitments and loyalties beyond the self. The quasi-charismatic exuberant worship of the community churches, with names like Praise Tabernacle and Victory Center, appeals to products of the dominant consumer/entertainment culture.
For others, however, accommodating to a shallow and entertainment-saturated culture places enormous pressure on important aspects of faith and practice. For example, it is difficult to make the true meaning of the cross upbeat, much less fun and entertaining. For churches who practice weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, the pressure to make worship lively and entertaining inevitably jars and clashes with the deeper meaning of the cross. Imagine, for example, a chorus attempting a fast-paced, cheery performance of "O Sacred Head." No wonder many churches are observing the Supper on a weekday in order not to disturb the upbeat tone of the Sunday "celebration."
Churches of Christ today are fully reflective of these culturally-driven forces. Not only do churches inevitably reflect the influences of the surrounding entertainment culture. Many are intentionally adopting strategies to market the Christian faith to the tastes of modern entertainment-oriented consumers. This has brought with it inevitable clashes over baptism, music and hymns, and changing views of the centrality and importance of the Lord’s Supper.
Michael Weed holds the Billie Gunn Hocott Chair at the Institute for Christian Studies where he is professor of theology and ethics. He is author of the Living Word Commentary series volume on Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians, co-author of The Worldly Church (1988), and has written numerous articles.
CHALLENGING VOICES:
Comments on the rise of community churches
Ken Johnson, Rochester Hills, Mich.
During the past three decades, a significant change has reshaped the American religious scene. Many old-line protestant churches are shrinking while conservative "independent" churches are growing.
However, in an even more dramatic change, there has arisen a whole new community church movement. Springing up all over North America, these churches have spawned a renewal of the term nondenominational.
These community churches are characterized by a spirit of firmness on certain core issues, but given the diverse roots of their membership they practice theological accommodation reminiscent of that reported in the early stages of the American Restoration Movement.
Typically, these community churches reflect conservative characteristics: they revere the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God; they seek deeply felt personal experience with God; they encourage traditional moral values; they regard as Christian anyone who has trusted Jesus to be his/her personal savior; they allow a variety of religious thought and conviction within each congregation; many are immersionist, either as a required mode or as an optional mode for believers’ baptism; and they have no denominational superstructure, but in some cases they do have loose associational ties.
While the new wave of nondenominational churches is similar in many respects to the pioneer years of nondenominationalism in the American Restoration Movement, significant differences do exist between today’s typical nondenominational community church and today’s typical Church of Christ.
Growing out of the remarkable national interest in the community church movement, we are now seeing a phenomenon among Churches of Christ across the USA in which some congregations are asking whether our "name" carries so much "baggage" that our nondenominational commitment is clouded. This is creating a set of relatively new experiences among Churches of Christ.
For example, some are adding the word Community to their standard-form name, some are choosing an entirely different name with a modifying clause, and some are choosing an entirely different name with no modifying clause.
One can no longer assume that all a cappella restorationist congregations will have a standardized name form, and driving this change is our historical commitment to nondenominational Christianity. — excerpted from the monograph "Rochester College, Churches of Christ, and Nondenominational Christianity," 1998.
Ken Johnson is president of Rochester College, Rochester Hills, Mich.
CHALLENGING VOICES:
Community churches: examining the Purpose Driven model
John Ellas, Houston
Bill Hybels and the Willow Creek Community Church are frequently credited with starting a renewal movement in worship in U.S. congregations. Likewise, I believe Rick Warren and the Saddleback Community Church will receive credit for beginning another type of renewal — returning churches to discovering and working toward fulfilling their God-given purposes.
Rick Warren in The Purpose Driven Church has shown that leaders can design a ministry strategy that is driven not by traditions but by God’s multifaceted purpose of the church revealed in Scripture.
However, more and more church leaders are expressing frustrations with attempts to implement the Purpose Driven model. A growing number of congregations are trying to implement the model with its "five circles of commitment" (illustrated by five concentric circles) and its "life development process"(illustrated by a baseball diamond). The model appears simple and reproducible. So why are many established churches having difficulty implementing it?
While the Purpose Driven model appears simple, in reality it is complex. Four different times in his book Warren strongly advises leaders against trying to duplicate the Saddleback model in an established and/or traditional church. Rather he suggests that we learn and apply transferable principles. It’s essential for leaders to understand Warren’s core values, and how he instilled them in the church’s membership.
Five of the 12 core values are outlined below to define two strategies for churches — using a complete Purpose Driven model or implementing only principles that are transferable for a given church.
Purpose Driven Church Core Values
• Ministry design is driven by a clear biblical purpose. Warren is correct when he observes that every church is driven by something. It might be traditions, finances, programs or facilities. In most cases, congregations are not aware of their own core values, their purpose, what drives them. Can a congregation’s leaders and members articulate the purpose of the church? How urgent is the congregation about fulfilling its purpose?
• Evangelistic outreach to the unchurched is a dominant core value. From the very start every decision made in developing the Purpose Driven model places a priority on mission (reaching the lost) rather than maintenance (serving the members). A few examples: the church’s location discourages transfers, the church did not begin with a core of Christians, worship is designed with the seeker in mind. Do these characteristics typify the congregation? If not, how many are they willing to adopt?
• A disciple-making process is designed to turn new converts into committed disciples. The disciple-making process is made tangible by the "five circles of commitment" and the "life development process." For new members to become a part of the leadership core, they must attend specific training classes and sign ministry agreements. What level of accountability are the congregation’s members willing to accept?
• Proactive leadership is exercised through every dimension of church life. Whatever is regularly communicated in the pulpit by ministers and elders will set the foundation for congregational core values and its direction. Are the congregation’s leaders exercising proactive leadership? Are members willing to follow?
• Ministry is measured and evaluated and adjustments are made. Warren insists that purpose and vision statements be put in measurable terms. Every ministry is evaluated based on the church’s purposes, including the evaluation of the assemblies by visitor feedback. This is possible only if churches meticulously keep accurate records and track statistics. Is the congregation willing to abandon nonproductive ministries? Does the congregation track data well? Are members willing to accept changes?
This analysis is not intended to discourage churches from using the Purpose Driven model. It does relate to Warren’s own advice: "Saddleback’s story of growth is a sovereign act of God that cannot be replicated. However we should extract the lessons and principles that are transferable." — excerpted and edited from Church Growth Magazine, Winter 2000.
John Ellas is director of the Center for Church Growth, Houston. An adjunct instructor for Harding Graduate School of Religion and Abilene Christian University, he is author of Clear Choices for Churches and Measuring Church Growth and is editor of Church Growth Magazine.
CHALLENGING VOICES:
Questions about community churches that call for answers
Howard Norton, Searcy, Ark.
Contrary to a few of my friends, I watch with alarm as some churches of Christ seem to be distancing themselves from sister congregations with whom they have had fellowship for decades. I am further alarmed by elders, deacons and members in these congregations who stand by and allow this carefully orchestrated alienation to take place. Before the trickle turns into a tidal wave, it seems to me that we all need to ask some fundamental questions about this trend.
First, does this trend add to the unity for which Jesus Christ prayed? This is a serious theological question and it deserves a thoughtful answer. My observation is that the decision to change a classical congregation into a community church model almost always creates wrenching division within the local congregation, strains spiritual relationships between brothers and sisters in Christ and foments a loosening of ties with others churches of Christ.
Second, does the trend to downplay or do away with the name "church of Christ" honor the name of the Savior or detract from it? We are all aware that the New Testament allows the use of different terms to refer to the disciples, but there is surely no better way to refer to the corporate body of Jesus’ disciples than simply to call it by the name of its Founder and Head.
Some say the traditional name is denominational. In a world that thinks in denominational terms, it will be but a short time until any new name we place in the "Yellow Pages" will take on denominational connotations. In the meantime, giving up the biblical term "churches of Christ’ contributes to confusion both within and without our fellowship. Not being a denomination depends more on a decision of the mind, an act of the will, than on the changing of a name.
Third, what biblical evidence exists to support the idea that our worship services should primarily serve those outside the church? A recurring theme of those who support the community church movement is that traditional worship services are unattractive to outsiders and should therefore be changed to make them "visitor friendly." To my knowledge, the only reference in the New Testament to outsiders and the worship is in 1 Corinthians 14. The passage is about tongue-speaking and says that languages used in public worship should be understandable to those present — including outsiders. Never is there a suggestion that the public worship should be designed primarily to please or reach the unsaved.
Fourth, what will be the role of the preacher in these new community churches? As a general rule, the traditional community churches (e.g., Saddleback and Willow Creek) that make headlines and influence our brotherhood seem to have powerful authoritarian pastors who run the show. They are in charge. They are the CEOs of the entire operation. Is this the future role our preachers of community churches affiliated with churches of Christ will play? If so, what will be the role of elders? Or, is the change in name and approach representative of other changes still to be revealed?
Ronald Reagan said, "Don’t be afraid to see what you see." That’s good advice. Let’s keep our eyes open.
Howard Norton is a professor of Bible at Harding University and the executive director of the Institute for Church and Family. He has served as editor of the Chronicle, and dean of the College of Bible at Oklahoma Christian University. He was a member of the original Sao Paulo, Brazil, mission team
CHALLENGING VOICES:
Why Amarillo South chose a nontraditional model
Brad Small, Amarillo, Texas
I am often asked why Amarillo South chose to use a different model for church life. There are two primary reasons for God’s calling us out of a classic church model to a more overtly evangelistic ministry prototype.
First, everything we do is based on our vision. Matthew 9 drives home the vision God has given us for lost people. Jesus was eating with sinners. The religious people were upset that He would spend His time with the outcasts of society. Jesus’ response gives us a glimpse of His mission and our vision for the world. Our vision is to go out into the world, find the spiritually sick and offer them eternal life.
In the parable of the lost sheep Jesus says, "And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about the one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off."
If there is a 100-member church of saved people, and they baptize a lost person, God is happier about that one person receiving eternal life than he is about the 100 Christians that are already saved.
If our attitude is to be the same, then what lengths should we go to for the sake of lost people? At Amarillo South our vision is to save lost people. We want to do whatever it takes, however long it takes, with whatever biblical method it takes to reach the people God loves.
This vision naturally leads us to the second reason we have adopted our present church structure — barriers. It’s a sensitive subject for most churches to discuss, but organized religion in America has erected so many barriers to reaching lost people that the church cannot get these people into a position to hear the gospel.
Casual dress, contemporary music styles, unconditional love and acceptance, warm atmosphere and small groups are all a part of a church culture that intentionally breaks barriers down to put a lost person in the best possible position to receive Jesus Christ.
At Amarillo South, we are simply trying to apply Paul’s eternal principle from I Corinthians 9 to our specific culture and time. We have talked to the unchurched in our city, ascertained the legitimate barriers we can break down to bring them to Jesus, and tried to love them like they have never been loved before.
I pray that churches all over the world will exegete their own unique cultures, break down barriers to the lost and create church models that enable them to reach the lost in their cities.
Brad Small, minister, the Body of Christ at Amarillo South, a Church of Christ, has served Churches of Christ as a campus minister in Abilene, Texas, and as a minister in Amarillo and in Lakeland, Fla., before coming to Amarillo South.
For additional information on the books, churches and organizations referenced in the essays above see these sites online:
• Books: retailers such as www.amazon.com
• American Society for Church Growth: www.ascg.org
• Center for Church Growth, Houston: www.4churchgrowth.com
• Willow Creek Community Church: www.willowcreek.org
• Saddleback Community Church: www.saddleback.com
Introductory Text and Graphic Design: Lindy S. Adams, assistant managing editor
Photos: Ted Parks, associate professor, Pepperdine University
E-mail: TParks5560@aol.com
Editor: Challenges & Realities and Restoration Retrospective: Lindy S. Adams.
E-mail: lindy.adams@oc.edu
|
|
