Rediscovering the Neighborhood Church, part 4
01/25/2006 06:42 Filed in: Faith & Reason
NOTE: Originally the text below was part of "Rediscovering the Neighborhood Church, part 3," but I felt the entry was too long for a blog and have split the third part of my essay into two separate blog entries.
Barger was fairly critical of the megachurch as an entity that does not foster community. I'm going to try to straddle a fence here and not be quite so harsh on the megachurch as some are who share my perspective. I do not desire to disparage other ministries. One of the most common criticisms of megachurches is that their services are geared more to entertainment. To be fair, it's hard to create interactive, communal worship in stadium seating. It's also said that megachurches are more of a boomer phenomenon. I guess we'll see if that's true as all the generations get older. My hunch is that the Willows and Saddlebacks of the world were not created by human intention. Such enormous ministries grew unexpectedly under the feet of their leaders. I have grown through the writings and teachings of Warren, Hybels, Ortberg, Strobel, and others. I have gained insights at attending Willow's Leadership Conference more than once.
However, having said all that, I believe I can safely say that I don't want to be a part of a megachurch. And like Barger, I'm skeptical that it's the best thing for our communities as they often attract people who drive considerable distances to attend. From my perspective, instead of 20,000 folks meeting at a megachurch, I'd much rather see 80 neighborhood churches of 250 or so members spread throughout a city, especially if these churches can work in association with one another. I have been on church staffs and at times like right now, have been simply an active member. As a member, I do not desire to be in a church where I can't go to lunch with my pastor or other staff members every now and then. And I certainly don't want to be a member of a church where the pastor and I do not know each other. When that happens, the pastor is no longer in a pastoral role at all. Community has to take place from the top down.
How large is too large? Well, to put a number on it is to promote legalism. I don't want to do that. But when a church gets so large that members consistently look unfamiliar to other members it may be approaching those wider limits. If my pastor can no longer pastor me, or if I as pastor can no longer act as shepherd to the congregation, the size has become too large. Perhaps churches should consider all their options when they outgrow a particular site. The worst thing a church can do is relocate a significant distance away from an original site because of what its absence will do to the neighborhood community it leaves. Some will never be able to relocate, and the relocated church simply creates a spiritual vacuum for the abandoned community.
When a church begins to outgrow its present site, the best option may often be to send some of the best talent and the best leadership to a new church plant on the fringes of where the current membership lives thus creating a new neighborhood church. That doesn't mean simply creating a satellite church across town where members are commuting great distances and are not plugged into the local neighborhood. At the very least, members should be encouraged to eventually move into the neighborhood surrounding the new church, thus creating an indigenous mission force. And it also doesn't mean building a church in the backyard of a sister church. Although the idea of the parish is not official with most Protestant denominations, we should be respectful of ministries that are already ongoing in a particular neighborhood.
I wrote at the beginning of part 3 that many of us have gone about choosing our churches in the wrong way. We've sought out the biggest church, or the church with the most dynamic preacher, or the church with the most programs, while often neglecting the church that might be right within our own neighborhood ministering to the very people we should also be ministering to. I'm not suggesting that anyone leave their current church. But I am suggesting that in the future, if you find yourself looking for a church home, you should start with the general principle of which church is closest to you geographically. This will enable you to have those "random unplanned, unstructured encounters" with each other that Barger talked about. You will be able to be more involved, even in midweek ministry, because commute time is not an issue. And more importantly, you will see the same people at church that you see next door, and if you don't see them at church, you can be confident that you have the same interest in their well-being that your church does.
While I don't recommend that you change church membership, I might recommend that if you plan to stay at a particular church for the indefinite future, that you make plans to move closer to your church. How close you should be? How far is too far? As a general rule (and there are exceptions), I would say that walking distance is ideal, but a commute that is more than five miles is too far.
And don't live in an area solely based on proximity to work. I would recommend that it's better to live closer to your church than to work. A workplace often changes, but church life should be more stable. If, however, you can have all three together as my wife does, you are even better off. In fact, if you move to a new area, you have the option of finding a healthy church and then moving into its surrounding neighborhood.
Are there exceptions? Certainly. I'm not suggesting that the five-mile rule applies as significantly in rural communities. I grew up in a town of 20,000 people where there were a handful of prominent churches spread over town. All the advantages of a local neighborhood church would have applied to any of those churches. Also, there are still some places in our country where there aren't as many churches. Obviously, denominational loyalties will be a factor to many as well. I certainly understand that. I don't think this necessarily applies to the student or someone in an extremely temporary situation. Are you part of a church plant? Make efforts to move into the neighborhood of the new church within a reasonable amount of time. And pastors should gently encourage members to live within close proximity and question those who drive an extreme distance.
But I don't believe we should shop for churches the way we shop for a new car. The fact that you don't like a particular pastor's preaching style, or that the message didn't speak to you, is a really poor excuse. An "unfriendly church" isn't really a good excuse either. Perhaps you are being called to go to that "unfriendly church" and be friendly to all the visitors who might otherwise be turned away and thus set a good example for the current membership.
Certainly some might suggest that the church is called to be witnesses "in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the remotest parts of the earth" (Acts 1:8). I agree with that. But a church's Jerusalem is the local neighborhood, it's parish, if you will. The people who live there--members, potential members, and those who will never be members--are a church's primary ministry obligation. Churches working with other churches in association in a community can be the Judea and Samaria. And denominations and mission organizations can reach the entire world through the people and resources the local churches provide.
My desire is not to be legalistic, but rather to foster community. I am suggesting general principles as a corrective to our modern dichotomized communities of neighborhood and church. I believe it's time to encourage people to bring these two together again as one community. I'm confident that one of the ways we can really reach people--one of the ways we can really reach the lost--is to offer them a stable, foundational environment through our churches. We can offer them a new family to help complete the turbulent and often dysfunctional families that exist behind the closed doors of our neighborhoods. We can offer them community in a way that no other affiliation can--one that is immediate, and powerful, and eternal.
Barger was fairly critical of the megachurch as an entity that does not foster community. I'm going to try to straddle a fence here and not be quite so harsh on the megachurch as some are who share my perspective. I do not desire to disparage other ministries. One of the most common criticisms of megachurches is that their services are geared more to entertainment. To be fair, it's hard to create interactive, communal worship in stadium seating. It's also said that megachurches are more of a boomer phenomenon. I guess we'll see if that's true as all the generations get older. My hunch is that the Willows and Saddlebacks of the world were not created by human intention. Such enormous ministries grew unexpectedly under the feet of their leaders. I have grown through the writings and teachings of Warren, Hybels, Ortberg, Strobel, and others. I have gained insights at attending Willow's Leadership Conference more than once.
However, having said all that, I believe I can safely say that I don't want to be a part of a megachurch. And like Barger, I'm skeptical that it's the best thing for our communities as they often attract people who drive considerable distances to attend. From my perspective, instead of 20,000 folks meeting at a megachurch, I'd much rather see 80 neighborhood churches of 250 or so members spread throughout a city, especially if these churches can work in association with one another. I have been on church staffs and at times like right now, have been simply an active member. As a member, I do not desire to be in a church where I can't go to lunch with my pastor or other staff members every now and then. And I certainly don't want to be a member of a church where the pastor and I do not know each other. When that happens, the pastor is no longer in a pastoral role at all. Community has to take place from the top down.
How large is too large? Well, to put a number on it is to promote legalism. I don't want to do that. But when a church gets so large that members consistently look unfamiliar to other members it may be approaching those wider limits. If my pastor can no longer pastor me, or if I as pastor can no longer act as shepherd to the congregation, the size has become too large. Perhaps churches should consider all their options when they outgrow a particular site. The worst thing a church can do is relocate a significant distance away from an original site because of what its absence will do to the neighborhood community it leaves. Some will never be able to relocate, and the relocated church simply creates a spiritual vacuum for the abandoned community.
When a church begins to outgrow its present site, the best option may often be to send some of the best talent and the best leadership to a new church plant on the fringes of where the current membership lives thus creating a new neighborhood church. That doesn't mean simply creating a satellite church across town where members are commuting great distances and are not plugged into the local neighborhood. At the very least, members should be encouraged to eventually move into the neighborhood surrounding the new church, thus creating an indigenous mission force. And it also doesn't mean building a church in the backyard of a sister church. Although the idea of the parish is not official with most Protestant denominations, we should be respectful of ministries that are already ongoing in a particular neighborhood.
I wrote at the beginning of part 3 that many of us have gone about choosing our churches in the wrong way. We've sought out the biggest church, or the church with the most dynamic preacher, or the church with the most programs, while often neglecting the church that might be right within our own neighborhood ministering to the very people we should also be ministering to. I'm not suggesting that anyone leave their current church. But I am suggesting that in the future, if you find yourself looking for a church home, you should start with the general principle of which church is closest to you geographically. This will enable you to have those "random unplanned, unstructured encounters" with each other that Barger talked about. You will be able to be more involved, even in midweek ministry, because commute time is not an issue. And more importantly, you will see the same people at church that you see next door, and if you don't see them at church, you can be confident that you have the same interest in their well-being that your church does.
While I don't recommend that you change church membership, I might recommend that if you plan to stay at a particular church for the indefinite future, that you make plans to move closer to your church. How close you should be? How far is too far? As a general rule (and there are exceptions), I would say that walking distance is ideal, but a commute that is more than five miles is too far.
And don't live in an area solely based on proximity to work. I would recommend that it's better to live closer to your church than to work. A workplace often changes, but church life should be more stable. If, however, you can have all three together as my wife does, you are even better off. In fact, if you move to a new area, you have the option of finding a healthy church and then moving into its surrounding neighborhood.
Are there exceptions? Certainly. I'm not suggesting that the five-mile rule applies as significantly in rural communities. I grew up in a town of 20,000 people where there were a handful of prominent churches spread over town. All the advantages of a local neighborhood church would have applied to any of those churches. Also, there are still some places in our country where there aren't as many churches. Obviously, denominational loyalties will be a factor to many as well. I certainly understand that. I don't think this necessarily applies to the student or someone in an extremely temporary situation. Are you part of a church plant? Make efforts to move into the neighborhood of the new church within a reasonable amount of time. And pastors should gently encourage members to live within close proximity and question those who drive an extreme distance.
But I don't believe we should shop for churches the way we shop for a new car. The fact that you don't like a particular pastor's preaching style, or that the message didn't speak to you, is a really poor excuse. An "unfriendly church" isn't really a good excuse either. Perhaps you are being called to go to that "unfriendly church" and be friendly to all the visitors who might otherwise be turned away and thus set a good example for the current membership.
Certainly some might suggest that the church is called to be witnesses "in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the remotest parts of the earth" (Acts 1:8). I agree with that. But a church's Jerusalem is the local neighborhood, it's parish, if you will. The people who live there--members, potential members, and those who will never be members--are a church's primary ministry obligation. Churches working with other churches in association in a community can be the Judea and Samaria. And denominations and mission organizations can reach the entire world through the people and resources the local churches provide.
My desire is not to be legalistic, but rather to foster community. I am suggesting general principles as a corrective to our modern dichotomized communities of neighborhood and church. I believe it's time to encourage people to bring these two together again as one community. I'm confident that one of the ways we can really reach people--one of the ways we can really reach the lost--is to offer them a stable, foundational environment through our churches. We can offer them a new family to help complete the turbulent and often dysfunctional families that exist behind the closed doors of our neighborhoods. We can offer them community in a way that no other affiliation can--one that is immediate, and powerful, and eternal.