In my time in the contemporary church, I’ve experienced several different ecclesiological models and have come to notice that most churches follow (perhaps unknowingly, in some situations) a very simple model  to facilitate both mission and discipleship. I have found it helpful to diagram these models for the sake of better understanding them, and am still in the process of drawing conclusions, at least in some respects. While these diagrammed models and their explanations are largely based upon my personal experience, I want to be clear that I am not criticizing any particular church; if I am critical of a certain model, I do not want people to think I am slamming the Body of Christ. I am trying to figure this out as much as anybody. So, for your consideration, I submit my three diagrams along with the insights I’ve had, in the hope that by sharing my ideas, I may benefit from the critiques and comments of others. 

1. The Linear (“Seeker-Driven”) Model

This model is by far the most common in the contemporary church today, but it is also the model I disagree with the most. Under the “seeker-driven” model, people are drawn to a weekly event (that is, a church service) through attractional “ministries” such as gourmet coffee, high quality music, and various entertaining gimmicks. The idea behind this model is to get as many people to come to a Sunday church service as possible and then try to herd them into small groups, where discipleship takes place. Thus, the mission of the church consists, for the most part, in this attractional method of marketing and promotion. Sunday services are mostly about reaching out to visitors and less about discipling the congregation; therefore it is common to hear topical sermons which are often watered-down from Scripture. This is done intentionally to make visitors feel welcome, in the hope that they may join the church and eventually plug into small groups where they will (ideally speaking) experience spiritual growth.

While this model is effective in bringing in large numbers of people, it also has many flaws, in my view:

• Spiritual growth is viewed as an assembly line, except the machinery often breaks down late in the process; this often means many churchgoers but few who are discipled.
• There is an overall view of “church” as a weekly event, rather than a community of people.
• Visitors to a service are often treated as numbers making up an audience of consumers rather than real people.
• Mission and discipleship are viewed as two separate processes which generally take place through well-orchestrated programs.
• Because of these things, church easily becomes a mere additive to a person’s life, rather than being central to all things.
• As a result, it is more difficult to stir members to participate in evangelism and discipleship; various programs, which try to fix this problem, thus become the lifeblood of the church. 

2. The Cyclical (“Missional Community”) Model

The “missional community” model, however, is a radically different alternative to the “seeker-driven” model of a church. Church is rightly viewed as a community of people rather than a mere event; Sunday services receive much less emphasis and become more like celebrations of family than altar calls. Within the larger church community, however, there are smaller “missional communities” which in many respects are microcosms of the church as a whole, being more than just small groups while still submitting to authority and leaders of the larger church (therefore remaining a little less than house churches). Thus, instead of treating people like consumers, this model treats them like neighbors and seeks to bring them into the community by means of interpersonal relationships, not bells and whistles. This requires that the members of the church take ownership of their faith and responsibility to make disciples, which may prove to be difficult. However, the idea of people reaching people is attractive. Furthermore, discipleship and mission are essentially understood to be two sides to the same process; both are accomplished by preaching the Gospel, which is the necessary curriculum both for believers (members) and unbelievers (non-members). In this way, the “missional community” model of church is cyclical in nature; as people are brought in to the community of faith by means of relationships, they also bring others into the community in the same manner, and the Gospel is preached to all as the source of spiritual growth. 

I feel like this model is pretty solid; I hesitate to say that there are “weaknesses” to it, but I do think that this model makes some things more difficult:

• The success of this model relies heavily on the church members rather than programs or systems. This means that if the community is not active in pursuing relationships and preaching the Gospel, it will become inward focused and fail to grow.
• Also, it is important to remember that society still generally sees Sunday as “church day,” and therefore we should be considerate of first-time visitors in our weekly services. 

3. The Overlapping (“Funnel”) Model

One other model which is perhaps viable is what you might call the “funnel” model, in that both weekly events (services) and small groups are designed to “funnel” new people into the church community, where discipleship takes place. This model takes a two-pronged approach and is, in some ways, a combination of the two previous models; it utilizes both attractional ministry (i.e. marketing) and relationships, although perhaps to lesser degrees than the other models. Mission and discipleship may be somewhat distinct from one another, but they are not nearly as disconnected as they would be in the “seeker-driven” model. Both occur in weekly events, as well as in small groups. You will see that I used a Venn Diagram to illustrate this. Also, like in the “missional community” model, the Gospel remains central to the discipleship process and is preached both to believers and unbelievers as the A-Z of the Christian faith. 

In many cases, I find that this model is followed by people who initially pursue the “missional community” model but (perhaps due to a lack of church growth or pressure to perform) end up only partially adopting the cyclical, “missional community” approach (they may even call their small groups “missional communities,” but they do not fully function that way; true missional communities are not an extension or ministry of the church but the very composition of the church). My question is whether or not this model is legitimate; does it achieve the best of both worlds or compromise between good and evil?

As of now, my feeling is that this third model is, in fact, legitimate; as long as the Gospel is the center of both mission and discipleship, I think it is viable. While I am not a fan of marketing, I do not think its use automatically disqualifies this way of doing things, as long as one is careful to avoid “selling out” in respect to attractional ministry. Furthermore, it seems that with this model, the health and growth of the church is less dependent upon the members of its community doing their job to evangelize, but at the same time, it is not completely rooted in programs or systems, either. This perhaps puts more stress on the leadership to disciple people, but an ample numbers of diverse leaders should be able to do the job. Then again, should the health and growth of a community not rely primarily upon its members? Does this model run the risk of hindering communal life? And is it really just trying to escape failure by putting its hope in structures and systems, or are the added structures and systems valid organizational tactics which aid in the cause of the Gospel? 

I don’t think that I would personally choose this third model over the “missional community” model, but I would much rather see churches follow this model fall victim to the seeker-driven craze. In many respects, I am still pondering all of this, and I continually find myself having more questions than answers. For this reason, I would appreciate any feedback. Feel free to alter my models, offer additional alternatives, or shoot down everything I’ve said. And in the end, may God—not any particular model for “doing church”—receive glory.

Let’s begin with a generalization: most church planters are young, independent, critical thinkers who are disappointed with existing churches and—out of passion for the gospel, whether misguided or not—seek to establish new churches. This generalization helps us to direct our attention to the particular misfortune of many young church planters who, despite their utmost sincerity, have no idea what the hell they’re doing (I’d throw myself into this category as well).

As of late, I’ve been pondering a certain quote (thanks Michael) by one of the most influential English authors of the 20th century, G.K. Chesterton. It appears in an essay entitled “The Revolutions of the Young” in his Collected Works¹:

“The reformer… is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right.”

Chesterton, who converted to Catholicism toward the end of his life, was a brilliant man with an uncanny ability to be quite humorous and quite subversive at the same time. While his mention of “reformers” is not necessarily a reference to reformers of the Church—much less the Reformers, men like Luther and Calvin, with whom we in the Protestant tradition are so familiar— it most certainly does apply. Those who have a mind for reform can easily point out flaws in a given system; they know what is wrong, as Chesterton says, but they often lack the wisdom to demonstrate what is right. Great men like Luther and Calvin wrestled over such things for most of their lives. But certain reformers in today’s church—that is, church planters—often seem to expect things to change overnight, go exactly according to plan, and behave like clockwork. This is why Chesterton’s quote provides a very appropriate caution. We must be careful not to foolishly put our faith in our the assumption that because we, as church planters, know what is wrong with churches these days, we necessarily know what’s right as well.

Most often, church planters are good at recognizing problems in existing churches. However, being that most of us are young and immature, we often jump to conclusions and insist the only way to fix the problem is by starting a new church—one that does things right. There is a problem with this reasoning;  just because a man has the ability to recognize and diagnose a problem does not automatically qualify him as a leader or  justify planting another church. When your car breaks down, buying parts and building a completely new car is not usually the best solution, especially when you aren’t a skilled mechanic.

I am not saying that there are not situations in which church planting is justifiable. I think there is a need—a very great one—for communities that embody the gospel, preaching in both word and deed, and viewing all of life through the lens of the cross. Furthermore, I am not saying that church planters have bad intentions, nor that they are stupid. It takes an insightful and passionate man to point out some of the most detrimental problems in the contemporary church. However, most of us, being young and zealous,  must be very careful in what we do. So, I’ve come up with a few guiding principles which should help us avoid the most common mistakes and maybe, just maybe, get things right.

I am not saying that these ten tips provide a sure-fire way of succeeding, nor am I suggesting I have things “figured out.” These are only some of the conclusions I have reached; if there’s anything I left out, please, let me know. I would love to learn from you all, especially those of you who are more experienced than I. Ultimately, however, we must all recognize that we alone can’t get anything right, despite our most complex formulas and guidelines, and that’s why we find such hope in the gospel. Though we be helpless and blind, incapable of leading anything (much less the people of God) by our own ability, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, remains victorious. 

¹G.K. Chesterton, Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton (New York: Ignatius P, 1989) 475.

I’m using this highly alliterative title as a demonstration.

We, as humans, are oft-driven by an attraction to witty catchphrases. You probably noticed a superfluous repetition of the letter “S” in the title of this entry and immediately became relatively curious as to what I’m writing about.

In a way, you could say I’m marketing my blog to you by trying to “sell” it with a catchy title. In fact, we’re all bombarded by a fusillade of similar marketing pitches daily. Whether it be a product, a service, or an idea, someone’s always trying to sell you something. This marketing relies on the consumer-driven mindset of humans, which, in my opinion, is part natural and part cultural.

Human beings are naturally created, in a sense, to be consumer-minded. We’re created with reason and will and must inevitably make choices that will benefit us. This is part of the story of human survival; through a basic consumer’s attitude, we know not to eat poisonous mistletoe berries (which can be fatal), but instead enjoy blueberries and raspberries. This type of discrimination has remained with us to the present day, where it is brought out in very new situations.

Since the beginning, marketing has occurred to appeal to man’s consumer instinct. In the Garden of Eden, Satan craftily used marketing—in the form of temptation—to coax Adam and Eve into “buying in” to sin. Referring to the fruit of the forbidden tree, the serpent said, “in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Likewise, marketing today “tempts” people into buying into things by making lofty claims and promises or by appealing to a person’s insecurity and fear.

However, although marketing has persisted throughout the millennia as means of manipulating consumer-driven people, today’s culture is filled with an unprecedented level of propaganda and marketing. While humans have always been consumers, is is only in the present age that the “ism” morpheme has been attached to the word “consumer,” as our society becomes increasingly materialistic. Today, advertising has reached unbelievable heights as new media allows consumers to be reached and make purchases within the comfort of their own homes. There is an entire industry wholly dedicated to marketing; companies know how to sell things effectively.

But companies aren’t the only ones trying to sell something.

With a charge to be evangelistic, Christians are certainly trying to “sell” the gospel, to some extent. This is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, we bear witness and give testimony in order that others might come to know Christ. If we want people to know Jesus, we’re undoubtedly going to try to get people to “buy in” to the gospel. What makes this dangerous, however, is our method of doing so.

(continue reading…)