Words from the Past Speaking to the Present

 The following is an exert from the book 

How to Serve God in a Marxist Land by Karl Barth. 

It is from a section entitled "Letter to a Pastor."

The letter addresses how one is to serve God in a land

where God has, for all intents and purposes, been removed 

either by the government or by the prevailing culture.

What is remarkable is that this advice from Barth is 

relevant to the Western Church of today.

But he, God, and his free grace, is really above all thoughts, concepts, and usual practices by which we Christians ourselves in East and West have been accustomed to live, seemingly serving both the glory of God and the salvation of man! What a multitude of things we have taken for granted: a church occupying a comfortable place in tlie social structure, her existence guaranteed, or at least respected, or at the very least tolerated by society in general and by the state in particular! Sunday as a recognized holiday and day of rest, and the chief church festivals which have somehow left their impact on the life of the people as a whole; infant baptism, confirmation, marriage, and burial, the Christian landmarks of the milieu and the existence of Mr. Everyman—means whereby the church has liked to reassure herself again and again of her obvious indispensability! The influence of the church in public education, instruction and upbringing of young people; with the maximimi claim that schools by right be Christian schools, or with the minimum claim that they be not openly opposed to "Christianity"! The prestige or at least the dignity of her official representatives among the leaders of other social and cultural organizations! The formal recognition of the church's freedom to participate in the discussion of general human concerns as a direct or indirect partner, welcome or unwelcome 1 Although these privileges of Christianity have never and nowhere gone unchallenged, certainly not in the last few centuries, it has seemed to us the most natural thing in the world that the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ should continue to run in some such channels as these, and that we should do the utmost for their preservation and defense, for the sake of God and the gospel! And we have done this zealously and repeatedly, both skillfully and unskillfully, successfully and unsuccessfully. Were we not motivated by the assumption that the Christian cause and confession can and must be formally understood and appreciated in the normal order of things by each and every citizen, at the very least in terms of the free practice of "religion"?  Is the world as such obligated to grant to Christianity the right to maintain that form of existence in its midst? What is happening to your situation in the East German republic, and possibly in other Marxist oriented lands, seems to cancel this whole bill of rights. The same thing will probably happen to us here in the West. With you it is no longer possible to overlook the fact that it is happening. In the socialist conception of the world and of man which powerfully asserts itself in your country, this brand of Christianity is gradually squeezed out. The time seems near or at least not far when the church in this form of existence will no longer have any place at all. The church will be foreign, despised and greatly suspect in the eyes of state and society. Membership in the church and confession of Christian faith will greatly jeopardize life's opportunities for individuals from school age onward. Your freedom of movement will be restricted to a minimum, and all that you are commissioned to do as a church will be done only in corners, in the shadow, with constant interference, harassment, and sabotage from without. The Folkskirche or National Church in the sense of the "Church of the people" will be only a dream.

It may be that the plight is not yet as bad as this in the East Zone, and that there are forces at work which are still counteracting this development. But the fact that this development is so obviously favored by your rulers is sufficient to beg questions in your minds as in ours: Can Christianity truly fulfill its task only in that form of existence which until now has been taken for granted? Only in the light of that public assistance, recognition, or at least tolerance? Only with the help of the whole apparatus of a national church and on the premise of freedom of action? Only as one strong pillar among others in the social structure? Only when it possesses a legal claim on each and every citizen? Just exactly where does one read of the first churches of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem, Rome, Corinth, or Asia Minor  as being permitted to enjoy this mode of existence? And where are they promised it for some later time? Where do we learn that its origin was in itself a good thing, or that the church stands and falls with it, or that the church is committed to it, come hell or high water? I am not saying anything new to you in reference to this question. It was indeed one of your most renowned and ablest men. General Superintendent Giinther Jacob in Cottbus, who not long ago announced the "end of the Constantinian era." Because I have a certain wariness about all theoretical formulations of a philosophy of history, I hesitate to make this expression my own. But it is certain that something resembling this approaching end begins to show itself dimly everywhere, but very sharply in your part of the world. 

It is certain that we all have reason to ask ourselves each of these questions, and in every case quickly and clearly to give the answer: No, the church's existence does not always have to  possess the same form in the future that it has possessed in the past, as though this were the only possible pattern. No, the continuance and victory of the cause of God, which the Christian Church is to serve with her witness, is not unconditionally linked with the forms of existence which it has had until now. Yes, the hour may strike and has perhaps already struck when God, to our discomfiture, but to his glory and for the salvation of mankind, will put an end to this mode of existence because it lacks integrity and has lost its usefulness. Yes, it could be our duty to free ourselves inwardly from our dependency on that mode of existence even while it still lasts. Indeed, on the assumption that it may one day entirely disappear, we definitely should look about us for new ventures in new directions. 

Yes, as the Church of God we may depend on it that if only we are attentive, God will show us such new ways as we can hardly anticipate now. And as the people who are bound to God we may even now claim unconquerable security for ourselves through him. For his name is above all names, even above the name that we in human, all too human, fashion have hitherto borne in his service and in a kind of secular forgetfulness, confused with his own. Might it not be, dear brothers and sisters in the imperiled East Zone, that you there and we here are now to do justice to the old Soli Deo Gloria in an entirely new spirit of humility, openness, and readiness? Might it not be your special calling to be a living example for the rest of us of how a church lives that seeks for and perhaps has already entered upon a new way, of a church for, not of, the people—the church in "God's beloved (deeply beloved!) East Zone"?

How to Serve God in a Marxist Land by Karl Barth. 1959

Hospice Care for Churches?

Lately it seems that there is a rise in the discussion of church hospice care.  This is an unfortunate result of the growing number of churches in the US that are dying.  Now then, church hospice care occurs when a minister recognizes that the church they serve is dying and that there is no hope for recovery.  The minister at this point has one of two options: 1) leave as quickly as possible (in the hopes of finding greener pastures), or 2) stay with the church and provide hospice care to help the church die “with dignity.”  

Now it should be noted that a dying church is not a dead church.  It is in fact possible for a dying church to comeback (see the book Comeback Churches by Ed Stetzer) and to be a healthy church.  However this takes a great commitment from both the church leadership and the church membership.  It should also be noted that church hospice care could be undertaken by the pastor with or without the church memberships’ knowledge.  It will usually amount to a conscience decision by the pastor to not attempt to grow the church.  The decision is made to simply maintain everything as well as can be maintained until inevitability the church is not able to even maintain the most rudimentary elements of church life.  In other words, they can no longer pay the bills.  A pastor will usually come to this decision either because he simply doesn’t care if the church grows or because he has realized that there is little to no chance of a turn around.  If the decision to begin hospice care is because a comeback seems unlikely, then the pastor is also making the decision to continue to care for the congregation much as hospice cares for a patient.  He simply will be looking to make the dying and eventual death a peaceful and comfortable experience.

Now a lot can be said as to why a church is not healthy and dying.  A lot can also be said about turning a church around (if possible).  However, that is not the purpose here.  The purpose here is to ask the question:  Is it biblical for a pastor to engage in church hospice care? 

To say that church hospice care is biblical is to say that despite a church’s unhealthy status, there is in fact ministry still occurring.  There are still people there who care for and love one another.  There are people there who for example, will gather around a new widow to help her through the grief.  

The purpose for asking the question here though hinges on what the calling of a pastor entails.  Is the calling of a pastor primarily a calling to “equip the saints for the work of ministry (Eph. 4:12)?”  If that is the case then one could argue that a pastor is equipping when he assist in ministry work such as in the example of the widow above.  However, shouldn’t it be asked, what is the work of the ministry that the pastor is to equip the saints for?  More specifically, what is the primary work of the ministry?  It would seem that the primary work of the ministry is to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20).  Therefore, the primary work of the pastor would be to equip the saints to make more disciples who make more disciples.  One may object here and say that the reference in Ephesians 4 states that the equipping of the saints is for the “building up of the body in Christ” and that this is in reference to bringing the saints together in unity of doctrine and love.  But what is the point of saints building unified in doctrine and in love for one another?  Indeed, as we see elsewhere such as in Acts 6, it was a legitimate ministry to see that the people are being fed.  However, this was not the primary ministry.  The ministry of seeing that people were fed was to assist in the larger ministry goal of feeding the people with prayer and the Word which is what equips the saints for ministry.  And that ministry has as its goal the fulfillment of the Great Commission – go and make disciples (note the correlation of what occurs in Acts 6:7 with the decision of the Apostles in vs. 1-6).

So then, how does the primary role of the pastor fit into the question of whether church hospice care is biblical?  If the primary role of the pastor is to equip disciples to make other disciples then can we say that it is biblical for the pastor to be in a church where this is not and where it will not be happening?  In other words is it biblical for a pastor to stay in a place where he cannot equip the saints to make other disciples?  Is it biblical for a church to even continue in its existence if that church has determined either explicitly or implicitly that it will not be a place that is determined to make disciples?  

I don’t pretend to have the answer to these questions.  In fact, I have many more questions and concerns on this matter which is why I am writing this.  I am hoping that this will further the discussion.  To be sure, this is not merely a discussion on the issue of church hospice care but it is a discussion on the nature and role of the pastor and the church.  This is a discussion that anyone in ministry should always be asking.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Deconstruction of the Mega-Church Growth Plan

The following is a paper that I had to write for a class. Some who knew I was writing it asked to read it so here it is. Enjoy?

THE DECONSTRUCTION OF THE MEGA-CHURCH GROWTH PLAN


INTRODUCTION

In the interest of integrity it should be noted that this paper is being written from the viewpoint of a disgruntled, depressed, and frustrated small church pastor. It is written from the viewpoint of one who constantly finds himself at yet another church growth conference or reading yet another church growth book and thinking, “This will not work at my church because I’m not at a mega-church or on the way to being one.” The purpose of this paper is demonstrate that current church growth models deal more with the growth of local individual churches then with the growth of the Kingdom of God and in turn propose a church growth plan that seeks to bring the Kingdom of God to all people.
The paper will examine current church growth models in order to show that they fall short of the Biblical ideal. The church growth models encourage competition, homogeneous structures of social class, and consumerist mentalities. This examination is necessary to understand the proposal that is made in which the church grows by seeking the people, reaching out to all, and building mature believers.

THE DECONSTRUCTION OF THE MEGA-CHURCH GROWTH PLAN
THE GOAL IS TO GROW

It does not really matter who you go to hear at a conference or whose book you choose to read, most any church growth plan that is talked about today is a variant of the now famous Saddleback Church model found in Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church. The model or models basically follow this pattern: define your church purpose, find a target group, attract the target group, move the crowd into connecting into small groups or cell groups, use these groups to grow mature and ministering people which will then be used to attract more of the target group.
This model has been successfully used to grow many churches and is perhaps responsible for the North American church having any growth at all as the majority of churches in North America are actually in stagnation or decline. So not everything said here is a rebuke against this movement that began with Warren. The rebuke that is here is more about the concept of church growth in general and specifically with the idea of growth being the goal. The rebuke is a reflection of a disgruntled pastor who feels that with every church growth conference and book that once again he has been told how to take a declining, neighborhood store and to turn it into a big box retailer. The bottom line is numbers and numbers just is not enough.
When you take out the justification that growing numbers is one of the few tangible ways to determine if the church is reaching people, you quickly find that in the end church growth stresses the numbers more than the people. It is just hard to remove the stress of numbers from the perhaps sincere desire of pastors and churches to reach people to be growing followers of Christ. Pastors want numbers. Church members insist on numbers. The pastor’s performance becomes based on numbers. The easiest way to see if a pastor is being successful is to look at his numbers. Rarely on a resume will a pastor list that he spent a year discipling 8 people who really grew in their walk with Christ. More often you will find that he took a church of 100 people and grew it to 200.
With this great emphasis on numbers the focus of the current church growth models becomes the part in which we strive to attract a crowd. Here is also where problems arise for the growth of the Kingdom. Say there are 3 churches in a mid-size town. They take the current growth models and they devise a purpose and a target audience. Because they want to reach the greatest number of people the three churches study the demographics and design their own version of the now famous “Saddleback Sam.” However, because the churches all use the same demographics they all have similar targets.
Now the competition begins. The competition is pretty fierce too because again, the pastors’ success in based on the numbers. They all work to have better nurseries, better playgrounds, better video and audio, better buildings, etc. Millions of dollars are spent doing their best to attract the crowd (the issue of, is attracting a crowd a negative or a positive thing, will be addressed later). At the end of the day, the one who is best able to have the better attraction is the one who “wins.” Competition is born and co-operation dies. A single church may grow, in large part to transfer growth, while other churches in the area continue to decline and die.

BUILDING HOMOGENEOUS CHURCHES BUILT ON SOCIAL CONTEXT NOT FAITH

A second troubling issue with the current growth models is that in the targeting of a certain type of people churches are building themselves to be homogeneous units of the same social type of people. Obviously, every church will say that they are open to everyone. Every church that takes this approach will say that they are merely being effective in their outreach efforts.
However, by taking a look at the three churches used in the previous example a clear problem arises. If all three churches, using the same demographic information to design their target, build a similar profile of their respective target audience, then there will certainly be a lot of people in this town who no one is trying to reach. Perhaps even worse are that few churches, particularly of the mega-church variety that work on the current church model, would intentionally try to reach those people who are both demographically and socially on the fringes of society.
Sadly, this seems to be an anti-Biblical approach. Again, the argument for churches following this approach is most likely that they are simply being most effective with their time and resources. However, as will be seen later, the church has been given a model of effectiveness that does not call for isolation of any group.

BEGINS WITH A CONSUMERIST MENTALITY

One more issue that is seen in this current model of church growth is that it begins with and therefore re-enforces the American model of consumerism. A church finds a target audience and then begins to market itself to reach that audience. Again the idea here is to reach or to attract the largest crowd possible. The easy way to attract a crowd is to give the crowd what they want. In America you would certainly never hear of a church that meets in a dark, cold basement.
Churches spend billions on recreation centers, nurseries, comfortable seating, and landscaping. Millions more are spent on fancy advertising. This in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. However, when one comes to church they should come to learn, to grow, and to change. They should come to glorify Christ not to simply be comfortable and to be with their social group. The church’s action, in its approach to reach its target audience, makes the first impression that the consumers and their desires are the priority of the church.
Naturally, the objection will be raised that the church is simply meeting the needs of the people. This would be true if the church was feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and those in prison. However, multi-million dollar audio visual equipment is not reaching the needs of anyone.
Another objection would be that without that multi-million dollar audio-visual system the church would not be able to reach anyone. The culture demands that we use such equipment. However, is it not the case that the church change culture and not necessarily condone the values and priorities of it? The church should be a place that expects more of people then simply being “good” people who “enjoy” a good show on Sunday morning.

MEMBERS BECOME CHURCH EVANGELIZERS NOT CHRIST DISCIPLERS

A final assessment of the current church growth models draws the conclusion that the members of a church built on this premise calls the members to be evangelizers of their local church and not Christ Disciplers. In the goal to gain more numbers people are constantly encourage to partner with the church in bringing people to the church to hear the message. At first sight, this looks like straight up good evangelism. But look at it again. The evangelism is “come to my church where there will be lots of stuff that you will like, where you will feel comfortable, where there are people just like you.”
An objection here would be that the church is recognizing that evangelism is difficult for most people therefore this approach is making it easier for people to invite their friends and family to church. But is this what we are called to do, make evangelism easy? Are we not called to simply go and teach? The current growth models state that the teaching is done in the preaching at the worship service and at the small groups that people become connected to but the crowd must be attracted first. This would all be good if the Reveal project from Willow Creek had not revealed that this was not taking place.
The Reveal project showed that people in this type of growth model were indeed being attracted, they were even making connections to small groups, they were involved at least in part to some sort of ministry but they were not growing spiritually. They were not growing as disciples.
It seems that with so much of the emphasis being on the attraction of people to the primary worship service that the discipleship and teaching aspect gets put on the back burner. Again, the goal is to get numbers. The members are encouraged to connect in these small groups to feel a greater connection to their church in order to be more encouraged to get more people (and by this it is meant more people like them) to attend. The people are evangelizing their church. It is all about their church. It is not about disciples discipling disciples.

INTO THE HIGHWAYS AND THE HEDGES

Once again in needs to be stated that if it was not for the current church growth models it is almost a given that the church in North America would be at a far greater declining rate. However, as has been shown there are flaws to the model or at the very least, there are questions that need some answers. In this next section, a proposal will be made of a church growth model that is solely based on Scripture and seeks to answer some of the issues in the current model.

KINGDOM GROWTH VERSUS CHURCH GROWTH

To move beyond the problem of local church centric growth and Kingdom growth a review of the events at Pentecost will be helpful. Here in Acts 2 Scripture records that nearly three thousand were added to the Church that day. Many see this as another reason to emphasis numbers. However, this is not to be a reflection of three thousand people joining a local congregation in Jerusalem. This is three thousand in the Kingdom of God. A closer look at this Pentecost day reveals that those who joined the Kingdom that day were from all over. The celebration was that God’s Kingdom grew and that it would be spread throughout by all of these new believers.
This emphasis must change and it will have to change with the heart of the people. The leadership of the church through prayer and teaching will need to move their people into being more concerned with the growth of the Kingdom everywhere then they are simply about their local institution. The goal would be to find and make disciples wherever they may be found. The goal would be to see that the Word of God is spread throughout the world.

NOT ATTRACTION – GOING AND FINDING

This model of Kingdom growth would also call for a replacement of the value of attracting a crowd with the emphasis on going and finding a crowd. Luke 14:23 instructs us to go into the highways and into the hedges. The ministry of Jesus was walking into the streets. Paul would go out into the marketplaces. Somewhere in the history of the church that thought turned from going to where the crowds are to building something that the crowds might come to. A change has to take place.
This would mean that the church would spend its time and money focused on training and teaching its people to be out where the lost already are. Countless times it is said that the number one factor in another person coming to Christ and the Church is by way of a personal relationship. Currently we use these factors to get people to a church but when we look at Paul we see that he simply used his relationships to spread the Gospel. Getting people into an organized church is wonderful but the emphasis must be to get people into the Kingdom.
This type of relationship building, of going to the people to meet their needs there would greatly free up money and resources in the church that are now used in building attractions. It would also mean that people would have to release themselves from the feeling that they want something for their money. The Biblical idea of the collection in church is to supply for those in need. Imagine people meeting in a lowly rented room with bad sound and no video to worship the Lord. Imagine them not caring about this because they have grown to understand that the money they give to the church is there to assist those less fortunate. That it is not about them.
Going out would also be a greater incarnation of the Great Commission. It may be a bit trite but the Great Commission does say “go” not “attract.” This is the heart of evangelism. Evangelism was never meant to be a system of attracting people but of going and meeting the real needs of the people, where they are, in order to be able to gain their ear and their attention so that they may hear the Good News.

REACHING OUT TO THOSE NOT LIKE YOU

This emphasis on going to the people where they are also allows the church to not focus on a target. The reason a target audience is needed in the come and see approach because you are asking people to come to one church. However, the going to the people approach allows any number of people to go to as many as they can. Imagine a church of 50 and all 50 are encouraged to bring one person with them to this church. The church has a target audience of cowboys. When the 50 go out to find a cowboy to bring they first have to find a cowboy and then get the cowboy to come.
Now imagine another church with 50 people who simply go with no target in mind. They go to everyone and anyone and instead of just inviting them to a church they invite them to dinner. They build a relationship. They build a relationship with anyone for they have been trained and taught that they are to become all things to all people (I Corinthians 9:20-22).
Who would reach more people? The church only trying to attract the cowboys or the church that is going to everyone and anyone? The answer to that may be unclear. However, it seems clear that this is the mission of the church and is in line with a more Biblical approach. Scripture speaks often that there is neither Jew nor Gentile that there is neither rich nor poor. That the church is to be a place not of homogeneous social structure but of a homogenous faith.
Furthermore, Scripture is quite clear that the church is to be a father to the fatherless (Psalm 82:3 NAS), a protector of the widows and the orphans (James 1:27), to be there for the sick, to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry (Matthew 25). If the Church is building itself on the profile of demographics then these groups will most certainly always be missed. The reality is that these groups simply do not show up as large statistical features on demographic reports. Never the less, this is the churches mission. Reaching these people will necessitate that the church go to them. To go to them in the highways, the undergrounds, the orphanages, the prisons, the ghettos, the slums, the trailer parks, the hospitals, alleys, the crack houses, whore houses, migrant farm camps, and the homeless shelter. Interestingly enough these are not the people that churches try to attract but these are the people that Jesus went to, met with, and declared that they were blessed for the Kingdom of God is available to them (Matthew 4:24 – 5:3).
Some may object at this point claiming that this is why there are a variety of churches. The number of churches allows for greater diversity. First off, this diversity usually involves doctrinal issues and worship style differences. Secondly, this is a negative view of the church and not a Biblical view. Again, the church is to be a place where all that separates us no longer does and the faith that binds us is greater than any earthly social context. There is a great sin in the church that is enhanced by the idea of finding a target audience. The sin of separation, not from sin but from one another.
Let this sin be replaced by a heart for all people. Let the emphasis be on going directly to them, where they are, meeting their real needs and sharing the real Christ with them. Let it no longer be the case that the church says, “If we build it, they will come.”

DISCIPLINE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND MATURE DISCIPLES

Finally, this growth plan does rely on the small group system. It is necessary to have groups where the disciples intimately know one another. The intimacy is necessary for the disciples to grow. In this system the disciples will come together to not only study the Scriptures but will use the group to hold one another accountable to the commands of Christ. Accountability will also include discipline as described in Scripture (Matthew 18:15).
Church discipline is most likely not a subject that one would expect to hear in a church growth strategy. Never the less, it seems quite clear that church discipline is a Biblical expectation. Discipline is not for the purpose of removing people from the church. It is for the purpose of restoring people into greater fellowship and for making them stronger in their faith (Galatians 6:1).
Going back to the Reveal report from Willow Creek it was learned that people even in small groups are not growing spiritually. Could it be that people have the expectation of joining a small group to be connected in good fellowship? That they also join to perhaps learn some Scripture? That they may even do some ministry within the group? But to what extent do the members of this group intentionally plan to grow spiritually, to deal with the sins they struggle with, and to hold one another accountable with love and humility in order that they may grow in their walk with the Lord.
The growth potential for the church is in the strengthening of the current membership of the church. They would be growing spiritually and would be filled with the courage to embrace the Biblical mandate to go to all peoples. Churches would not simply be asking their members to invite people to an attraction. Churches would be expecting their members to be growing, not into local church evangelizers, but makers of disciples of the Kingdom of God. The active discipline would let members know that the church truly has high, but wonderful, expectations for their disciples of Christ.

CONCLUSION

In looking at the proposed strategy for church growth a few things should become abundantly clear. This proposal is asking for churches to set aside the idea that they are building structures to attract people to come and join. Churches are being asked to set aside the idea that churches are best when the people in them are similar in social context. Churches are being asked to not target for members that will most likely “fit” in.
The strategy proposed here is really quite simple. Go! Go to everyone and anyone. Go to the forgotten, the abused, the down trodden, the diseased, the depressed, the pushed around, the broken, the poor, the rich, the wise, the foolish, the outcast, and the in-crowd. Use the resources to meet the needs of the people. The resources, specifically the money, are not going to be used to build a place that is attractive but to practically meet the needs of the people.
Another important part of this strategy is getting people to know that their efforts are to build God’s Kingdom and not a particular local church. It is important to understand that this strategy is less about a particular program for a church as it is a matter of the transformation of the people of the Church into a co-operative, universal fellowship that works to builds God’s Kingdom.
Finally this strategy calls for the accountability and discipline of the members. Again this is done with love and with the purpose of personal growth.
The current growth models have succeeded in growing large churches with many people attending. However, it has been shown that this does not always translate into the most Biblical picture of a church and it certainly does not translate into people who are growing spiritually. It is the hope that by following these few simple Biblical guidelines a dramatic and wonderful change can take place in the life of the North American church and for the Church around the world. Let us reach all – not just those like us because they like what we have to offer them.
To God be the glory.