The Counterintuitive Church (pt.7, Impractical Spaces)
Posted April 7th, 2009 by ErnestPreviously: Impractical Worship
Megachurches don’t just happen. And they’re certainly not the inevitable result of God’s blessing. They are the results of decisions throughout the lifetime of a church. Say a church plant starts out with three couples meeting in a living room. That’s six people meeting regularly to worship God and be a local expression of His body. Say that group, through evangelism, transfer, or gimmickry, grows to two dozen. Twenty-four people can fill a living room. Add kids or guests, and the space is full, right?
Most churches that find themselves in this situation do what makes sense; they find a bigger place to meet. They rent a theater, they meet in a public school, they lease a storefront. This move brings a new set of challenges- the bigger space makes it harder to hear, so the growing young church buys a sound system. As more people come, the church introduces a video projector (in case anyone doesn’t remember the words to “Lord I Lift Your Name On High,” and to show the scripture text for all those who forgot to bring their Bibles.) Staff members are hired to keep up with all of the people. Bylaws are written.
The church grows, filling the space, and is faced with another decision. Naturally, they embark on a building program to raise money to buy some land in the suburbs and build a multi-use facility. This, of course, requires an upgraded sound system, an increase in staff, facilities maintenance, the Disneyfication of the children’s ministry area, and a logo for each of the church’s ministry programs. Then come the satellite campuses, video venues, and nationwide franchise networks.
A series of decisions, each seeming quite sensible, that solve the “problems”that a church might face. But what if a church, at any point along this path, chooses otherwise? What if a church deliberately decides not to rent a bigger space? What if they refuse to go into debt? What if they wait to raise up leadership from within? What if they intentionally do the counterintuitive, impractical thing every step of the way?
The Impractical Church doesn’t build a building. Ever. Instead, it meets wherever its people live- in their homes, hangouts, restaurants, parks, pubs, libraries, break rooms, basements, parking garages, and empty church buildings of dying congregations. They don’t pay to rent these spaces- they hardly even have to ask to use them. These are the spaces they move in every day. By paying taxes, punching time cards, and spending time and money, they’ve earned the right to use them. They find favor with the people who manage and own the spaces.
They show up to the same neighborhood coffee shop every day for two years. They’ve taken spiritual responsibility for the others who use the space. They’re on a first name basis with the owners. They start to meet one-on-one in the corner. Next as a small group during a time when business is slow. Maybe a waiter gets involved. Soon, the manager is turning down the music so the group can hear one another. Next thing you know, the group is offered keys to the back door and invited to stay after hours so they can have some privacy.
Call it the Friendly Takeover.
The public nature of their meetings challenge the church to apply their faith to their everyday lives. They’re forced to be the Church in context of the local community. Their small size insures that they remain personal, relational, and free of the overhead that burdens other churches. This church is sustainable and truly local. It is indigenous to the neighborhood. They manage growth by planting more of these churches, each interconnected and accountable, but with its own leadership and the freedom to adjust the form and location.
It takes time to expand the Kingdom by filling the impractical spaces, but taking shortcuts has cost us.
NEXT: The Impractical Churches Among Us
Tags: Counterintuitive, friendly takeover, Impractical, indigenous
Unless writing a lot makes one a "writer," Ernest is a former missionary. After more than six years in Western Europe, he moved to Portland, where he drinks too much coffee and over-analyzes human behavior. For more about Ernest, visit the About page where you can read a long-time reader's interview with him. Or, if you don't mind waiting a very, very long time, send him an email.
17 Responses to “The Counterintuitive Church (pt.7, Impractical Spaces)”
April 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I’ll take 100 communities of 20 over 1 of 2000 any day. No building required.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I am having a little problem with this one. While I understand and agree that the churches of the first century didn’t have church buildings, Paul did teach/preach in synagogues and did also teach in the school of Tyrannus.
I am all about local churches and neighborhood congregations. I live in a city with 14-15 distinct neighborhoods and I think that there should be a church in each of them (which frightens the members of the church I Pastor). But I don’t think that there is anything significant about not meeting a facility that is designated for church. As a matter of fact I believe that the church building should be open and available 24/7.
I also think that smaller is better. The best way to impact a neighborhood is to be part of it!
Thanks for your willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. God’s kingdom needs more “rebels” like you!
April 7th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Dave,
I tried not to come across as saying that it was somehow unbiblical for a church to have a building. I don’t believe that. I do believe that, more often than not, churches default to spaces they can own because it’s more practical.
You mention that Paul taught and spoke in the synagogues and in the school of Tyrannus. That’s where I was coming from in this post- those spaces were central to the lives and to the culture of the people to whom he was ministering. I think that’s the “impractical” sort of thing we ought to be exploring.
Many times, churches are aware of the “third places” in their communities. But rather than move into them (the “Friendly Takeover” idea I mention in my post), they try to create something similar that they can own and control. I think early Christians didn’t automatically build buildings- they continued to meet in the temple.
I have seen churches use their buildings like you suggest. In some urban centers, we’ve seen churches open their facilities for anyone in the community- from AA meetings to dance classes to other churches. I love the idea. It it also a little bit counterintuitive, isn’t it?
April 8th, 2009 at 3:49 am
I think I missed your move to your own domain. Now that I’ve found you again, I see this wonderful post! I need to go back and read the previous six.
-Alan
April 8th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Absolutely! I have had people say to me, I never thought of using the church for “that.” It just seems to be a waste of space if we are only in our buildings on Sundays and Wednesdays.
I pastored in Utah for 18 years and never owned a building. However, there were those who would not come to our services because our meeting place was not permanent and didn’t look “like a church.”
Thanks for your explanation. It is refreshing to talk with you!
April 8th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Had another thought here. I don’t really think that it is the size of the congregation that is the problem in most cases (remember I think smaller is better). What any church must consider is how it impacts the neighborhood. It can be too small to have any real impact as well as too large.
God’s command was that we impact the world with the gospel message. We need to be whatever size that gives us the best opportunity to do that were we live!
April 9th, 2009 at 3:19 am
I would say there’s another consideration besides the impact on the neighborhood. If the congregation is so large that the people cannot mutually exhort one another / edify one another, then there are too many people meeting together. If there are so many people that they cannot know one another in order to consider one another to stir up love and good works, there the congregation is too large.
-Alan
April 9th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Dave, Alan,
Good thoughts. I agree that both are important, and it seems both are often sacrificed in the name of growth.
I know many megachurch leaders would argue that they have small groups to take care of the more personal aspects of ministry and discipleship. I think that’s great, but then I don’t see the need for the greater church structure. If the small groups are essentially functioning as churches, why stunt their development by requiring that they identify themselves as part of the megachurch?
Thanks.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:56 am
You’re recognizing our hypocrisy. We say that the “megachurch” is the church, even though it doesn’t carry out the functions of the church. The “small group” carries out the function of the church, but we won’t call that church. Why?
The answer comes down to the fact that we don’t really consider the people to be the church, even if we may SAY that the people are the church. Instead, we define the church by our structure, organization, and leadership.
-Alan
April 13th, 2009 at 5:07 am
I don’t think this has to be an “either/or” debate: small churches can be great (or terribly dysfunctional) and mega-churches can be equally great (or just as bad!) I’ve been part of both (I’m mega right now) and there are distinct strengths to both.
Why not both at the same time? How about a mega-church that spins off small congregations (or vice-versa?)
April 13th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Bob,
Like you, I usually don’t find either/or discussions helpful. The problem, as I see it, is that megachurch and microchurch are mentalities, not models. In other words, even if a megachurch planted small churches, those smaller churches would still tend to think like the megachurch. (practical, attractional, expansional, centralized, etc.)
When it comes to numbers, there are about a thousand megachurches in the U.S. But there are thousands that don’t meet the definition (2,000 or more in weekly attendence) but have a decidedly megachurch mentality. I believe that this perspective- and the ecclesiologies and missiologies that drive it, are necessarily contradictory to the “Impractical Church” mentality I outline here.
Megachurch is a pragmatic solution for the problems a church faces. Leadership, numbers, space, resources, identity. I’m not saying that these solutions are wrong, I’m questioning whether they are built on kingdom values or human ones.
Many would say “well, we need both.” You mention that both have their strengths. I think the strengths of the megachurch are things that pull us away from the sort of incarnation, indigenaity, creativity, and missionality that we need. As I write in the next installment of the series, I really don’t have anything against the megachurch, I just think we’ve seen what it can do.
April 13th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Many microchurch ideas are quite intuitive and practical (invest in relationships, not land) . . . and many megachurch mentalities seem quite counterintuitive and impractical. (A church of 40,000 meeting in a sports arena!)
You say that megachurch and microchurch are actually mentalities (not models.) I’m wondering if it might even more accurate to say that megachurch and microchurch are actually personalities (not mentalities.)
April 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Bob,
I really love the idea of church personalities. I think I’ll explore that further in a future post.
“Practical” and “intuitive” really are relative ideas, aren’t they? What “makes sense” to someone whose default perspective is “bigger is better” would be different for someone who prefers small. In my post, I was trying to show the value of doing church in a way that is counter to the prevalent thinking I find in churches today.
The influential players in the discussion are the subcultural celebrity pastors of megachurches. These guys tend to rmake decisions from a pragmatic line of thinking that seems to value “what works” over, well, everything else.
So when I refer to “counter intuitiveness” or “impracticality,” I mean in comparison to the current trends. If megachurches are what’s considered “practical” these days, I’d like us to consider something less so.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I think that the issue really gets back to the beginning of this series: Are we being led by the Holy Spirit in the establishing of our congregations or are we being led by the pragmatic philosophy of “if it works, it must be of God.”
The counter-intuitive nature of God’s word would indicate that what we think works should be viewed with suspicion and what seems to be a bit out of phase with “what works” might in fact be the leadership and direction of the Holy Spirit. (That is certainly not always the case, but might be a good place to start.) If God is really in the planting of churches, they will always mirror the life and ministry of Christ.
Numbers are a man-made indication of success and/or failure. I don’t think God is limited to what we think is big enough or small enough. His will for each church is unique and this whole thought about counter-intuitive churches is best answered from this consideration.
If I have 500 members in my church and we are working in a wide variety of ways to impact the particular neighborhoods where we live in unique and missional ways, we are just as counter-intuitive as those groups of a couple dozen meeting in a coffee shop.
It is about the philosophy of ministry not the numbers that really makes a church counter-intuitive. That being said, the mega-churches seem to find it more difficult to develop and maintain such a Spirit led philosophy of ministry. (At least in my opinion.)
Neither small or large make a Spirit led philosophy of ministry. What makes that work is the nature of those who make up the church (leaders and followers alike.)
April 13th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I’m not entirely convinced of the underlying assumption that revelation is entirely impractical and counterintuitive. I think that it’s possible to hold an entirely reasonable (and orthodox) theology that makes allowance for some aspect of natural revelation (intuition) and practical (realistic?) spirit-led decision making.
(Here’s where I should make some sort of half-hearted effort to defend this position from a Biblical basis, but I’m still recovering from Easter weekend.)
When I pastored a small church, these things seemed much more black and white to me. It was pretty straightforward:
Small = good. Big = not good.
Now things seem more like:
God at work = good. Ego at work = not so good.
Interesting discussion though, that’s for sure!!
April 14th, 2009 at 3:38 am
I agree that revelation is not entirely impractical and counterintuitive. However God’s leadership is always Holy Spirit directed. What I find is that the discussion of church planting and missions is often directed by pragmatic ideas, such as a cities demographics, projected growth patterns, and the like rather than a simple call of the Spirit to “come over and help us.”
Big is not in and of itself bad and small is not in and of itself good. Spirit lead is always good, not Spirit led is always bad. The assumption that because things are “working” is not the standard that should guide us. The direction of the Holy Spirit should be our only standard.
If the Spirit leads big then big is good, if the Spirit leads small then small is good. My problem is that the “big” that I have studied all seem to have more problems with being big than those seen among the “small.” So, my leanings are toward smaller, neighborhood oriented churches that can impact the day to day lives of individuals in their neighborhood.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Hi,
Well i believe that the church is never big enough as long as there’s still 1 unsaved out there in the streets. I do feel strongly about what you’ve written, but not all mega churches have the sort of mentality you talked about…give the church below a check, 25,000 regular church goers congregate in this church every weekend, while being part of a 10-20 member home-cell, where they could help one another out anytime. A church can be truly be mega and personal at the same time!
http://www.chc.org.sg
Leave a Reply