Why did you choose to make your church your church?
And are you ready to repent of your reasons?
Here are some of the reasons that Christians have given me for making Barneys their home church. They love the music. They love the preaching. They love the informal style. They love having a family-friendly congregation with a kids’ ministry at 5pm. These are all good things – they’re just terrible reasons for a Christian to choose a church. Because they are all about what suits you. And that’s a terrible reason to choose a church.
That’s because the style, music and timing of a church service ought to be matters of indifference to the Christian, with one exception. They are a matter of indifference because, as the apostle Paul wrote, ‘to the pure, all things are pure’ (Tit 1.15). So long as I am praising Jesus, exhorting and being encouraged by fellow believers (Heb 10.24-25) and hearing God’s word taught faithfully, what do I care about the packaging – so long as the packaging makes church as effective as possible in reaching the lost.
Paul’s predominant concern about the ordering of church meetings was that they must be edifying and they must not be a barrier to unbelievers. However, when we choose a church because of time or style, or require that our church maintain that time or style because it suits us, we have forgotten entirely the missional character of church. Choose your church because it is committed to mission. That means that, at the very least, it will change its preaching style and music and time slot and whatever else necessary to be as accessible as possible to the outsider. It will be completely firm on doctrine; and completely relaxed on method.
For those of my readers who church at Barneys: what would this look like for us? What kind of church will you need to be part of to reach your friends with families? What about workers without children? Will you need to stop clinging to the evening and embrace a morning service?
What will Barneys need to change to be more effective? What will you need to do?
8 comments:
hi mike, clearly having three small children agrees with you! did you really post that at 4:44am?? once this little passenger disembarks, will i be blogging at dreadful hours as well?
i didn't choose Barneys, Arundel House chose me and i ended up there by default and never left. is that a terrible reason? But i don't want to leave and perhaps it is because of the commitment that Barneys has to mission but also perhaps it is because I see real and effective community at barneys and it is that real and effective community that I think makes effective mission a possibility. so i think i agree, but backwards.
I mostly agree. Steve Timmis and Tim Chester make a pretty compelling argument that churches are to be missional communities and communities in mission. I know of many churches which do the community bit OK but have entirely lost sight of mission. This tends to manifest itself in doing things 'the way we like them'. As a result, additional barriers to entry are established - arcane liturgy, anachronistic music and so on - which Jesus never mandated.
For a great many of us, we can end up at a church 'by default'. That's neutral. However, I'd suggest that in your case, God used it well - a church close to home, work (uni) and play seems to fit some basic criteria for reaching friends, don't you think?
Dear Michael
I think your central proposition is a bit dogmatic and simplistic.
To start with, it does not take into account the different stages of the development of Christians.
I do not think the "terrible reasons" are terrible reasons for a non-believer to start coming to Barneys. I don't really care what gets them in the door (although it is always good to know what works). It could be because we meet in a building that used to be the best pub in Newtown, or because they find you good looking. I don't mind. They are there and that is what matters. If they are there, stay there and grow to know and love Jesus, that is terrific.
There are also people who are vulnerable and for whom the walk of faith is very difficult. If our music, style and fellowship attract and help them, that is wonderful. If in time they are able to contribute more fully to our mission, all the better. But it may take time, and for some it may never happen. That's Ok.
We have also traditionally been something of a haven for very gifted but totally over-committed Christians, like Moore College lecturers, and chaplains and principals of Christian schools. They would be worked to death in many other parishes, and while many of them do contribute wonderfully to our church, we do not and should not ask them to sign up for everything that we do. I am happy for them to come along, worship God and, for once, be fed more than they feed.
I suspect that you did not have these people in mind when you set forth your central proposition, and you may like to reframe it to apply to mature, committed (but not over-committed) Christians.
But even then, I think there are aspects you have not explored. You urge us to choose a church because it is committed to mission. But how many churches are not committed to mission? I mean that. While I have never been to a liberal church (except for a couple of baptisms), I have been to a number of evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal and independent churches around Australia and overseas, and all have expressed a commitment to mission. One or two have not appeared to be obviously competent, but I don't doubt the commitment.
If there are churches that are not committed to mission, or are weak on mission, isn't that an extremely good reason for mature, committed (but not over-committed) Christians to choose them? Better for them to go there and boost those churches' commitment to mission, rather than coming to Barneys where we already have some pretty useful people.
I think choosing a church really comes down to where you can do the best good. For some, the "best good" is simply to be fed well. For others it is use all the gifts, attributes and energies they have to feed the local and worldwide church.
I am sure there will be other opportunities to engage with you on "relaxed method", and I will leave that for another day.
I wish you and your blog well.
Fight bravely
Mark W.
Thanks for your input, Mark. Perhaps I could add a couple of observations and clarifications.
Firstly, you'll notice that I wrote carefully about why Christians choose a church. I have no such reservations about those who follow Jesus.
Secondly, my critique was focussed on the choice of church because of what we like in its style or timeslot. So long as a church seeks to build a community around Jesus and his word, and is genuinely missional, the Christian should be satisfied. And, yes, you're right, a great many churches fit these criteria (though I suspect we might disagree as to which are genuinely and biblically missional in their doctrinal inflexibility and cultural flexibility).
Faced which such a range of churches, what should a Christian choose? Not the church which they like best. But the church in which the Christian will most contribute to mission and the mission of the Church will contribute to the evangelism of the Christian.
For example, I don't want Christians with kids crossing Sydney to come to the Barneys 5pm congregation because we're the only evening family church around. Why? Because the natural mission-field for families is other families, and non-Christian families do not come to this timeslot. Their kids have not been trained from the start to function at that time.
I want Christian families choosing a time and style which is missionally suitable for them. That may mean choosing an morning church and abandoning hymns, both of which the Christians may like, for example.
Are the sacraments packaging?
Not at all. The sacraments are a core expression of what it means to be a community of Jesus Christ.
Packaging is non-core.
(Our comment today is brought to us by Paul Roos and the New Look NSW Labor cabinet. Or New New Look, sans a very naughty Police Minister.)
Where does geography fit? I notice you don't say anything about attending your parish church.
Hi Mike
glag you are sharing your vast intellect in the blogosphere.
great question - what kind of church do you need to be part of to reach...
it'd be great to hear what you think on other criteria for choosing a church in addition to whether it is gospel centred and missional.
for example what kind of leadership should you expect and look for.
what is their position on eldership and roles in ministry?
are there structures that are more biblical than others.
how much do I need to agree theologically - what is in the open hand and what is in the closed hand.
and if there are differnt models of mission, neighbourhood, networks or ethniticies (nations) -should one be prioritised over the other?
thanks for getting me thinking about where I may need to repent
Post a Comment