Today I was reading Charles Kraft and some words lept off the page at me! Here is what he said:
When large extended families are a major part of the local society, as in many parts of Latin America and elsewhere, any given church may appropriately be made up largely of a single family. In rural United States, we often have churches comprised of associations of families. In urban areas, where our associations tend to be more of individuals or nuclear families, our churches reflect this. This is right and good, for there is not a single pattern for churches in all parts of the world. God uses whatever the culturally appropriate practices of groupness may be to provide the social basis for His local churches. This is the point of the so-called homogeneous unit principle that has been a part of church growth theory from the startWhat do you think? I KNOW I should have seen this AGES ago, but I guess when you live in the forest, you don't pay much attention to trees. I grew up in a church that is basically an association of families. We always denied it because we thought it was bad. But maybe it is OK?
The bigger issue is that the population growth in this traditionally rural, farming area tends to be people from a more urban perspective, running from the ills of the urban society they came from, for the "peace and safety" of rural life. Is it possible for this rural church to have an influence in the development of another church more appropriate to the urbanites who are moving into the area? Or does it have to be a whole new organism...grown from scratch?
4 comments:
What should church look like. I think it should definitely look like a family, since we are the family of God. I think there can be healthy churches based upon family and unhealthy churches.
Take for example a healthy family. When someone is without a job, they assign them oddjobs and pay them a small wage. When someone is without a family, they invite them over for Christmas. Their door is always open. Their family does not have borders as such.
An unhealthy family, is selfish and only allows people in through references- a bit like in the movie "Meet the Parents."
Churches can be the same way. If they are based upon an extended family or an association of families, this is good so long as they invite in people who do not have a family.
So I can imagine that a church based upon families, that kept people out who were not part of the club, would try to deny their position. Now I'm not saying that your church in VA did that, but I do know that there are churches who do.
What should a church look like?
Families often hang out in homes. (Quite a natural thing to do really.) So it should feel like a home. Now there is no rule here, but what does a home look like? Homes often reside within houses, but they don't have to I guess. They can also be inside larger buildings. But if those larger buildings are too stuffy and too organised, then there is not much of a homelike atmosphere.
In Tuva (much like Mongolia) some people are planning to start a church inside a yurt. Many of the Tuvans now live in houses, but this is not really their traditional culture. When the idea of having church in a yurt came up, they got really excited, because a yurt is "home" for them.
A church should look like both family and the home, full of love, warmth and hospitality. This could vary a lot from culture to culture, but those aspects must be present. This is my opinion anyway.
What should the church look like?
Jonathan Edwards once said, "Every Christian family ought to be, as if it were, a little church." Spiritually healthy families, help make spiritually healthy churches.
I think "small churches" are the best example of how God can use "associations of families" to plant churches in their communities. At the same time, it's very important that they don't get into the, "us four and no more" mentality.
The Scriptures teach us the the Ekklesia, which I believe would be better translated as "community" and not "church", is the Body of Christ. The Ekklesia shouldn't close it's doors to those who are different, or don't "fit in". Instead, they should reach out to those new families in their community, and encourage them to become part of their "spiritual family".
Reading what Pasha wrote about creating the "homelike atmosphere" I believe is very important, especially when reaching the unchurched. The phrase "having church in a yurt" made me think about the IMB Church Planting Movements.
The SBC is having some great success using the Church Planting Movements around the world. They are planting churches in these remote "communities" and not requiring these new members of the Body of Christ to "build church buildings" and other things that would not help them create a "homelike atmosphere". I believe this model can work not only around the world, but in every community here in the states. There are many people who may not "fit in" to the traditional church setting, but they can still be a vital part of the Body of Christ in a new church plant where they currently are.
Maybe these small rural churches can try to reach out to the new families in their community and invite to join in the fellowship at their church, and if that doesn't work, then they can ask the Lord to open the door for them to reach out to these new families and help them start a new church plant where they are, with no strings attached. As they learn to be the true Ekklesia that God is calling them to be, they will find that they can enjoy the family and fellowship with these new believers throughout the week, regardless of where they choose to worship on Sunday morning.
Thinking more about your question, "What should the church look like?", I thought about a post I made on my blog back in November of 2004 about "Becoming Part of a Living Fellowship".
What is Christian Fellowship?
I like what Jim Davis has written about Christian fellowship:
Church attendance is often substituted for fellowship. To some fellowship is like a jar full of marbles. The marbles are in the same jar but there is little togetherness. The marbles have little effect on each other as they roll around in a jar. They just bump into one another. But real fellowship is more like a jar of grapes that bleed on one another. Fellowship should allow our faith to rub off on one another. The first believers had real spiritual needs that led them into fellowship with others. As they came into this fellowship of other believers with the same needs, they naturally bled on one another.
Too often church attendance turns us into iceberg Christians where we just float around and bump into one another. One fellow visited a church and gave his description of those in attendance. He said, "I don't want to say that it was a cold church, but the ushers had on ice skates." The first fellowship meeting had little to do with church attendance and everything to do with togetherness.
I like to expand on what Jim Davis said, and say that as we as believers learn to become transparent with one another in true fellowship, we are like the grapes bleeding on one another as we become tranformed into the "new wine" together.
Luke's simple description of worship. "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone, as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people." (Acts 2:44-47)
I would simply add -- recognizing all the while that it is not news to this discussion -- that not EVERYTHING in the Book of Acts is "normative". Some things take place in an early, formative setting that isn't necessarily normative for all times. Note that the passage that you quote talks about selling everything you own and going into a communal arrangment. In times of distress like they had in those days, it is more incumbent on them to make such decisions. VERY few would say that such a decision is normative today. There are passages that are descriptive and passages that are prescriptive. A lot of the literature these days is rather sloppy and blurs the lines on those issues a lot, I think.
(e.g. Some will make a big deal that they met from house to house and that "proves" that we shouldn't have any hierarchy....but they don't spend much time talking about Paul's instruction to appoint leaders. There was some sort of hierarchy beginning to form there, and that was normative. Paul instructed that is to happen.
Post a Comment