In part 4 of The Reverse Flow of Missions (Relevant, January/February 2010, pg. 60), Jaeson Ma writes:

When you go to Asia, there’s not even a question whether or not people will lay down and die for the Gospel. There is a radical commitment and perseverance……

If you spent any time as a student in a church youth group or Christian school you probably heard at least once the story about soldiers in a anti-Christian country invading a church and threatening anyone who professed to be Christian and allowing those who denied Christ to leave safely, all to reveal to the true Christians that they too were Christians and merely “wanted to worship with fellow believers who shared their zeal and lack of fear of death.”

I’m not trying to discount the persecution of Christians in nations that are not as friendly towards Christians as the U.S. is, but I’ve heard nearly a dozen incarnations of that story over the years and each time it had a different country of origin, so it was obviously a tool to try and coerce teens subjected to peer pressure to step out of their comfort zones and BE Christ to those around them. And while it is now cliched, it does prove a point: why are people in the West so quick to claim Christ, yet so slow to obey His teachings?

Perfect example – the Grammy Awards will be airing tonight. Not that anyone even watches the Grammys anymore, but if you do watch the show, just count how many times you hear someone say something along the lines of,

I’d like to thank God for……

I’d like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ……

I recently finished reading Church History: A Crash Course For the Curious by Christopher Catherwood and one of dominant themes of his book is how Christianity has not shrunk, but instead has traditionally exploded in times of persecution. From ancient Rome to the Protestant Reformation to China and most of Asia and most recently the former Soviet Union, historically, it is when the Christianity seems to be at it’s greatest risk of being squashed that the seeds of the Christian faith take root and reproduce the most.

Are we in the West too comfortable?

Are we in the United States spoiled by being a Christian nation?

According to the Barna Group, in Western Europe, once the seat of Christianity, while over 73% of the population claims to be Christian, less than one half of one percent of the population attend church regularly. America is not far behind – once the largest exporter of foreign missionaries, the United States is now the third largest mission field in the world. There are now more people coming into the U.S. from other countries to share the gospel than being sent out from the U.S.

Most of these places are not open to Westerners. Asian Christians aren’t going in as missionaries, they’re going in to plant businesses – to contribute to economies. They are going in as gentle as doves but as wise as serpents.

I’m still amazed when I read of missionaries from the U.S. that pack up and move to a foreign nation with little or no preparation. They don’t bother to learn the language or the culture or the mores and values of said culture. They just believe that Jesus will take care of everything.

And then you see a story on CNN about Christian missionaries being deported.

Or killed.

Which is why I love reading stories about successful missionaries. Because 100% of the time it’s people who prepared themselves by learning at least the basics of the native language, the culture, etc. Then they planted themselves in a community and established relationships with their neighbors and became viable, contributing members of society – all BEFORE doing ANYTHING religious.

Sure, that method may take longer, but the results are longer-lasting. Church planters in America have even begun adopting this method. Instead of moving to a city, leasing a building and announcing “Here’s a new church! Come check us out!”, they’re moving to cities, establishing relationships in their communities and becoming respected, contributing members of that community all before ever holding a church service. And it’s working – churches like Gateway Church in Austin, Texas and Four Points Church in Acworth, Georgia were started this way. Churches like North Point in Alpharetta, Georgia and Mars Hill in Seattle, Washington were started in similar fashion, but by lifelong residents of those communities.

It’s should come as no surprise then that churches started in that method usually end up having a reputation for giving back to their communities. They believe God has called them to serve their communities, not merely by providing a place of worship on the weekends, but by truly SERVING the people in their community through service projects and special events. Another church at the forefront of this movement is Healing Place Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, whose pastor (Dino Rizzo) coined the term Servolution, which is also the title of his book on the subject of serving your community.

The funny thing is, while one could argue those churches (and many others) are taking cues from churches in the East, the fact is none of this is new. Forgotten? Yes. But new? No. It’s all very reminiscent of the practices of the Christian church in it’s first few centuries. The early church believed not only in providing for the spiritual needs of people, but also the practical needs of people.

Thoughts?

For part three of The Reverse Flow of Missions (Relevant, January/February 2010, pg. 60) Jaeson Ma contrasts the Eastern church’s perspective on money with that of the West’s. Ma writes:

Most of the leadership in Asia is lay-driven. Elders/pastors/apostles/prophets are bi-vocational. Money is used to fund missions, plant churches and further the cause of mission. Very little goes into church buildings/salaries/church programs.

Not much to say here – I helped start a church and at one point my dream job was to be on staff at a church, so I don’t disagree with the idea of pastors and staff receiving a salary or some type of compensation (even if it isn’t financial), because everyone wants to be rewarded for their work. When was the last time you complained about how much doctors make? Or educators? But God forbid a pastor or other church staff member makes X amount of dollars!!! That said, I do find it disheartening when I hear about a church that is having a rough time financially, yet the pastor is driving around in an exotic sports or luxury car. Or even worse, when a church is right in the middle of an impoverished community and isn’t doing anything to help, yet the pastor is wearing expensive clothing, driving an expensive car and will only venture into that community because his/her church is in it. As one friend said to me, “I believe 100% in tithing, but when compared to New Testament churches it appears to go to those in need… now I feel like it just pays some bills for the building in which we sit.” Don’t get me wrong – I’d like to be riding around on a custom chopper and live in a mansion, but there is a line between having your needs met and having more than you need and when you’ve gone so far you don’t remember where that line is, there’s a problem.

I also don’t see anything inherently wrong with investing money into buildings, technology and infrastructure. The problem I have is not so much the WHAT but the WHY. For example, one story making the rounds on many blogs is that of the building project that First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas is undertaking. Do they need a new sanctuary – from the looks of things, yes. Is that cheap – of course not. But when I went to their website and read one of their primary reasons for this project, it definitely touched a nerve in me:

As I look around downtown Dallas, I see spectacular temples of commerce, of culture and of government – many new, some restored to former glory, and all intended to stand for generations. The Kingdom of God needs a home to equal them – a spiritual oasis in the middle of downtown.

Really?

Jesus needs a temple in Dallas equal to those of commerce, culture and government?

I don’t even know where to start on that statement, so I’m going to leave that alone for fear of sinning in anger. Like I said, they probably need a new building as they are a growing church and are in an aging, outdated building. But if that statement is truly their primary purpose for the building project (and it appears that way since it’s the first thing you see on their building project website), then that is scary.

Tim Stevens wrote a two part post on his blog earlier this month contrasting local church trends in the year 2000 and currently in 2010 (Part 1 & Part 2). Just a sample of what he had to say – you should read it for yourself.

2000: Church buildings were mostly viewed as status symbols.
2010: You only build if absolutely necessary. The need to have everyone at one location has been eliminated by technology. Money spent on extravagant buildings is seen as wasteful, and the definition of what is “extravagant” is lower than it was ten years ago.

2000: “You want to meet Jesus and grow spiritually? Come to church this Sunday.” We expected people to come to us.
2010: Churches are becoming more intentional about helping people integrate their faith into their daily lives…not just for a few hours on Sunday. We are less concerned about attendance and more concerned about outcomes.

2000: We hired professionals. Pastors and directors were being hired left and right to lead or do ministry. A senior pastor was being transformed from a shepherd and teacher to a manager and CEO.
2010: The realities of a tough economy hit and more and more churches are reducing staff–not hiring. Volunteers are being called on for high capacity roles like campus pastor and children’s ministry director. Church leaders are learning new skills–like leading people who aren’t motivated by a paycheck and who are significantly more qualified in a role than the pastor is.

2000: “Come to a service. Volunteer for a ministry. Help grow the church.” None of that was bad, but it was very inward focused. The mindset was to make the church stronger and more feature-filled so that when our friends visit, it will be a great place for them to meet Christ.
2010: Added to that, here is a deep-felt sense that if we don’t make a difference in the local community, then our Christianity is in question. More churches are becoming intentional about improving the statistics in their city on crime, education, poverty, hunger and violence.

Like I said in part two of this series, while it seems the majority of American churches are clinging to the same model of decades past, there are some that are beginning to question the effectiveness of their traditions and practices and realizing that if they don’t change, they may lose their effectiveness and their influence, and eventually die.

Coming tomorrow: The Reverse Flow of Missions – Sacrifice

Yesterday I began a series of posts in response to Jaeson Ma’s article The Reverse Flow of Missions, which you can read in the current issue of Relevant Magazine (pg. 60). In his article, Ma keeps it pretty short by simply stating there isn’t much of a denominational presence amongst the churches in East Asia, which of course is a direct contrast to Western churches. He states,

Most churches are no more than 15-30 people, but you might see a house church network with a million members who see themselves as truly one.

Carlos Whittaker wrote a blog post last year titled You’re Growing? Well, She’s Dying in which he used a very powerful quote from Perry Noble:

Perry Noble said something at Unleash in reference to denominations shrinking. Something akin to if it were their money that was shrinking, there would be a strategy in place to fix it yesterday.
That is some truth spittin’ double slap right there.

I couldn’t have said it better. Are there churches in America that are experiencing unprecedented growth? Sure – I’ve referenced many on this blog in the past. And, coincidentally (or maybe not), those churches are non-denominational. But the fact is, megachurches are the exception – not the norm. According to The Barna Group the average church congregation in the United States is 75 people. My intention here is not to argue what the perfect church size is, because that is subjective. Smaller churches can do things larger ones can’t and vice/versa. But a question I’ve had for awhile is, has the purpose of denominations ended?

I GET the purpose of denominations – connection. If you’re a pastor and want to talk with another pastor who has similar beliefs, you go to the nearest pastor of the same denomination. If you’ve just moved to a new area, instead of visiting church after church, just find the nearest denominational church you’ve been associated with. But what makes denominations unique in the twenty-first century? Churches are no longer relying on denominational publishers to provide them with music. Leaders aren’t coming exclusively from denominationally based colleges and seminaries. It’s not unusual to hear a “Pentecostal” song in a Baptist worship service. It’s not uncommon to see someone who graduated from a Methodist seminary serving in a Assembly of God church. On top of that, what happens when the denomination you’ve clung to your whole life begins doing things you have been taught for years are against scripture? The Episcopalian church is one example; by ordaining gay and lesbian bishops, regardless of what your beliefs are concerning homosexuality, you have to admit that decision by the denomination put many life-long followers out in the cold by forcing them to either accept something they had, up until recently, been taught differently on, or find a new church. So the name on the sign is no longer indicative of the style, or even the teachings, of a particular church.

I believe Mark Driscoll sums it up best in the video below.

As far as networks go, Mars Hill started the Acts 29 Network, which exists to start churches that will plant other churches. No denominational lines, no particular methodology to adhere to – as long as your theology is Biblical and you desire to be a church that starts other churches then you’re welcome to apply for your church to be part of the Acts 29 Network. North Point has a program called Strategic Partnership where they send people out to start churches all across the world and provide those churches with resources and curriculums. There’s also the Association of Related Churches (ARC) which is similar to Acts 29 in that they are cross-denominational and exist to start churches that will start other churches. And you don’t have to be in Acts 29 or ARC or have a Strategic Partnership with North Point to benefit from them. All three organizations offer their resources, hold conferences and more – some even for free.

So, while the majority of American churches are still clinging to the same model that’s been used for the past few hundred years, there are highly influential churches out there that are evolving and trying to push others along as well.

I was reading an article in the January/February 2010 issue of Relevant Magazine titled Bringing 2020 Into Focus. The article looks back on the past decade and several contributors write about what could happen in the next decade. In a portion titled The Reverse Flow of Missions (pg. 60), Jaeson Ma dissects the differences between the church in Eastern Asia with the Western church, primarily in America. He focuses on four areas of difference:

Doing Church

Denominationalism

Perspective On Money

Sacrifice

Jaeson’s article doesn’t appear to be critical at first glance, but when you take into account the fact that the American church is in decline, while the church in Asia is experiencing unprecedented growth, it makes one think. It makes one ask some tough questions.

What is the church in Asia doing that the Western church is not?

What is the church in Asia NOT doing that us Westerners are?

Are these cultural issues, or are they universal?

So, I figured why not address each area that Ma listed? Today I begin with Doing Church. Keep in mind, I won’t be republishing the entire article here so you should really check out the article yourself in the current issue of Relevant (the link is in the first paragraph, but you have to scroll to pg. 60).

Anyways, Jaeson points out the key difference in how “church” is done in the East and West. The West is based on a system of individualistic leadership while in the East churches are elder driven. Meaning that Western churches, even those with elders and/or deacons, are primarily pastor-driven.

While the traditional Western Church is focused on individualistic leadership, there are churches that are breaking from that. One example is Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington. While Mark Driscoll founded the church, he is now only listed as a teaching pastor and elder. Not that he has sacrificed any influence, but if the other elders of Mars Hill overrule Driscoll on something, that’s it. He’s vetoed, overruled, whatever you want to call it. Another similar situation is North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Georgia. While Andy Stanley has a title that is familiar to most American Christians (Senior Pastor), he has made it known that when it comes to major decisions that affect the entire church he must go to the elders for approval. He has even come out and said in sermons that the elders have the power to fire him, should they deem him unfit as a pastor. And in my time at Four Points Church one of our pastor’s goals was to install elders as soon as suitable men were chosen and could be trained to take on the role of elder – not just for teaching and leadership roles, but also for accountability. Pastoral accountability was high on Brent’s (lead pastor at Four Points) list of priorities.

Now, I didn’t write all that to convince you that pluralistic leadership is better than individualistic. Like the cliche says, “Too many cooks spoils the broth.” If you take pluralistic leadership too far, you end up with the local church being pulled in so many directions it eventually wears thin. I simply wanted to give a few examples of American churches that have found a healthy balance between individualistic and pluralistic leadership models.

Coming tomorrow: The Reverse Flow of Missions – Denominationalism