I’m not exactly sure when we started making video trailers for books, but here is one from Darrin Patrick for his upcoming book: Church Planter: The Man, the Message, the Mission

Yesterday I posted Catalyst’s interview with Francis Chan in which he announced his resignation from Cornerstone Church in Simi Valley, CA. I’m certainly no prophet, but I can’t say I was terribly surprised. Back in 2009, Christianity Today published an interview with Chan which gave some insightful details:

Chan finds himself at a new juncture. He is stepping aside as day-to-day leader of Cornerstone for several months to begin a new ministry. He will train pastors in nearby Los Angeles County who will in turn gather groups to meet in house churches.

“The main reason to step over to L.A. County is the sheer number of people who live there,” says Chan. “Simi Valley is a city of 100,000 people, but about 15 minutes away are millions of people. We are trying something different—a lot of people in Simi Valley are not ready for the changes we have planned.”

The piece goes on to say:

Chan’s long-term plan involves building the church without having a building. Associate pastor Matt Moore says the experiment is a way to find out how the church can grow without the limits of a building. Each satellite church will have an elder overseeing the local body, and that congregation can choose whether or not to go to the main campus in Simi Valley.

In the Catalyst interview, Chan speaks of “doing church in a different way” and then clarifies that this would be: “not necessarily the formal Sunday services.” This makes perfect sense when looking back on the 2009 interview when Soma Communities and Crowded House are mentioned as being influential in Chan’s ministry-mind-shift.

I won’t go too much into my own personal ministry-mind-shift other than to say that Tim Chester, Steve Timmis, Jeff Vanderstelt, and Caesar Kalinowski have been quite instrumental. What I do want to comment on, though is that Chan doesn’t seem to be alone in his desire to move beyond institutionalized American Christianity. He seems to simply be speaking for others many others who long to move beyond just the Sunday-morning, transfer of information approach to Christianity.

I think that’s part of the reason Chan’s book Crazy Love has struck such a chord with so many. Chan has vocalized a call for authentic, Christ-centered community living on mission together. Many people are no longer content simply growing big churches that don’t really matter. Butts in the seats do not necessarily equate with disciples in life. Many seem to be realizing this, convicted of it and Chan just seems to be a mouthpiece here.

I pray that the resignation of a “high profile pastor” from a “high profile church” may cause many to question what it is that could cause Chan to make such a “drastic” move and what some of us need to drastically change in our lives to better follow Jesus. The sad truth, is that, for some of us, “church” is probably getting in the way of following Jesus. Hopefully, Chan’s public move will wake some of us from our slumber. If anything, he is living what he preaches:

I love the Olympics. I like the idea of the world’s top athletes coming together to compete (though I’m personally not much of a sports person). I even like the idea that I have absolutely no interest in many of the sports I find myself watching, that my horizons are broadened by the whim of the broadcasters. I love the fact that my boys scream out Apollo Anton Ohno and Shawn White’s names when they see them on television as opposed to some other sports stars.

I also like the fact that, if we’re paying attention, the Olympics offers us some valuable lessons for the rest of life. Hard work and dedication can pay off. Not only that, but it’s all the better if you can love what you do and foster a passion for your pursuit. But all of the lessons we might learn from the Olympics are not necessarily positive.

As we were watching the Olympics the other night, we got stuck with “Ice Dancing.” Yes, I said I like that the Olympics helps expand my horizons but I mean that I would never otherwise watch ski jumping, not people dancing. On ice. But that’s what happened. As we watched, we found ourselves being bombarded by one bad cultural impersonation after another. Foreigners in cutoffs dancing to Thank God I’m A Country Boy, followed by Americans dressed as Indians. Some other people impersonating Spaniards and, perhaps the most well-known by now, the Russian team who chose to “go” as Aboriginal people. Nearly everyone knew that most teams had no clue about the culture they were impersonating and nearly every team came across as a cliché rather than a tribute, much less as authentic.

Christians should pay attention to this farce because, lest we forget, this is exactly how we come across to much of the surrounding culture. The Gospel is always communicated in the context of culture. As God’s sent people, it is our mission to transform these cultures from within with the power of the Gospel (this is the power of salt and light, etc. Matthew 5:13-16, etc.). This is done most effectively when we are most authentically transformed by the Gospel.

Yet, the problem for many Christians is that we have bought into false ideas of holiness. So much so that we are quite uncomfortable really being ourselves. Then, when we try to reach out to others, because we don’t truly know who we are in Christ, we don’t know how to reach out to others, we don’t even know our relationship to culture, so we end up coming across as fake, we end up coming across as clichéd, we end up looking like Aboriginal ice dancers. Not to mention the fact that ice dancing is to ice skating what tee-ball is to baseball. No jumps! It’s just not as exciting.

Not only is the problem that we don’t really know ourselves, we have come to believe that everyone outside of our own walls is so evil (which we all are outside of Christ), that we don’t ever really take interest in the people we’re trying to reach. Part of the reason so many Aboriginal people (if I may venture a guess) found the Russian ice dancers so offensive is because the Russian team had no real interest in the Aboriginal culture, it was simply a means to an end for them. This is exactly the way many Christians treat our surrounding cultures. We have no real interest in the people around us other than as projects and numbers and they know it, they sense it, they can spot it a mile away. The ice dancing teams that were most effective were those who didn’t have to reach as far for their personas (at least in my opinion).

We need to learn to adopt the posture of good missionaries in our own neighborhoods, at our jobs, at our grocery stores, where we already exist, where we’re most authentic. Why is it that we can spot fakes anywhere and everywhere except when it comes to Christian culture?

I sometimes wonder if the idea and practice of “church membership” as we currently know and practice it exists because our churches simply are not radical enough.

The way most churches practice membership, the process centers around some sort of class, varying in length anywhere from a half-hour to twelve weeks. The content of this class is often a bare-bones basis of doctrine and the specific personality quirks of the local church in question; the way that church does things. In healthier churches, there is also often a component on church discipline, accompanied by the signing of a legal waiver. When you go to a new church, you can transfer your membership. It’s a very cold, cut and dried process. It’s very institutionalized. It’s just not in Scripture. At least the way we understand and practice church membership.

The Bible leaves us lots of room for the way we “do church.” It does not specify how our seats should be set up, what kind of music we should use, etc. So the fact that we do not find church membership as we currently understand and practice it is not an immediate problem.

If people did not attend a membership class in Scripture, how did they identify with the church? Quite simply, they left one way of life for another. They pursued new affections, they proclaimed new allegiances, they declared that they were part of a new family, a new kingdom. They did so facing the reality of losing everything, they stood humbly but boldly in the face of ridicule and persecution. They rejoiced that they were considered worthy to be beaten and eaten by lions. They both figuratively and literally laid down their lives and picked up the cross of Jesus. There was a cost to be counted. Identifying with Jesus and His people was not a decision to be taken lightly.

But what happens when, largely speaking, there is little difference between the culture and the church? How do you identify with one group over the other? If your life doesn’t set you apart, what does? Is the answer a class; signing a form?

What if a local church expected its people to live differently than the rest of the world? And what if we actually believed that Jesus made us new creatures and we put off the old, what if we lived in love, what if we bore one another’s burdens, what if we believed the essential truths of Scripture and they made a difference in our lives? Would all of this serve as “church membership?”

Before you go commenting that I don’t believe in church membership, please understand that, sometimes, it’s OK to think out loud and seek interaction. Yes, I understand that understanding a local church’s doctrine and practice are vitally important, especially when there are so many churches out there, both good and bad. I’m just wondering out loud about the way we do things, often without ever thinking about them or questioning them. Is the way we currently understand and practice church membership actually the most biblical way?

What do you think?

There’s been an interesting discussion going on over on my Facebook page. My friend Kyle recently attended the Acts 29 Boot Camp in Louisville, KY and was kind enough to write out some of his impressions for us here.

It is interesting, that, in spite of the heavy emphasis on Gospel and doctrine in Acts 29, one of the first things many people notice is that there is somewhat of an “image” often associated with Acts 29. This doesn’t just apply to Acts 29, but that is what prompted the discussion. For example, one of the comments on my Facebook page was that someone said that “the store Buckle could be an official sponsor” of Boot Camp. I’ll be honest, I’ve never been inside the Buckle, but I know what the comment implies: there is a certain fashion at many Acts 29 events, funky pattern button-up shirts, tattered jeans, big watch, chunky glasses and iPhone with a messenger bag. OK, maybe I just described myself but I think you know what I mean. In fact, that might be an image of the broader “emerging” concept more than just Acts 29 or maybe we’ll call it the “missional uniform”?

This prompted the question: what is the relationship between doctrine and fashion? How/why is it that groups that often think alike also dress alike? This is true for any number of groups. The boomers had a certain “style,” as do many Southern Baptists. Sometimes, this is well-thought out and is in fact a missional decision but more often than not, I wonder if it isn’t some sociological principle at work? I don’t know, I’m just blogging out loud here, looking for your feedback.

Is it that Acts 29 attracts a certain type of individual (as do all groups), or that Acts 29 has created a certain kind of culture? Can those two questions even be separated? Most people (of course there are always exceptions) involved with, say, 9 Marks Ministries, are going to dress differently (and think differently on many issues) than many of the people involved in Acts 29. What is it that draws different people to these different groups?

Is it enough just to say that like attracts like? Is this wrong? How much should we then strive for diversity (I think we should)? What does the Gospel have to say about this?

My good friend Kyle recently attended the Acts 29 Boot Camp in Louisville, KY. I asked him if he would be willing to share some of this thoughts, especially since he is not a member of Acts 29. Enjoy:

Guest Author: Kyle Hopper

This past week was the Acts 29 boot camp in Louisville, KY. To be honest this was my first real exposure to Acts 29 besides knowing its association to Mark Driscoll and the issues the Network had faced due to a perceived pro alcohol stance.

The way I attended this conference was actually kind of interesting. I am a Minister of Students in Jackson,TN. I have an annual conference budget and had some money left for 2009 that I had to use or lose. So I asked my friend, Brent Thomas, if he knew of any good conferences to go to. He suggested The Boot Camp. I had always been curious about church planting and the Acts 29 Network that Brent always speaks so highly of. So I decided to give it a try.

To say that I was blown away would really be an understatement. First of all the worship was great. The conference was held at Sojourn Church and the worship was lead by their worship band, very talented musicians We sang old hymns put to new arrangements . It is always such an encouraging feeling to be surrounded by folks that are worshipping in spirit and truth.

There was an eclectic blend of speakers ranging from theological to practical. It was interesting to hear from guys who have planted successful churches. Though the more time you spend talking to these church planters you get a different idea of what they consider successful. To them, numbers really never were brought up. There were no lectures on “how to get a crowd to come to your events” or even “How to properly engage culture and be relevant.”

The theme seems to be disciple making. Through mainly the preached Word of God and one on one shepherding disciples are made. These men make an effort to pour their lives into each other. It reminded me very much of a Pauline type of structure. Discipling others, while you yourself are being discipled.

The other thing that really impressed me is that these church planters seem to want to fill their churches with converts not transplants. Basically growth needs to happen from people coming to know the gospel and not just moving membership around. Therefore there is an effort not to be ”culturally relevant” but to do the hard work of getting to know your city and your neighbors. It is not about coming up with the next new thing to get people into the doors. In fact there was a lot of emphasis on getting outside the doors.

I could go into more detail about how the speakers really challenged me to put into practice the beliefs I hold so dear, but I will just say that I was really convicted about quite a number of things. The conference made a huge impact on me and I am continuing to process what I learned daily.

It was refreshing to be around so many people committed to both theology AND evangelism, Expository preaching AND impacting individual lives, Love for the individual WHILE building community. I can tell you that I left there knowing for sure that if the Lord ever calls me to plant a church then I am for sure going to be seeking to be a part of the Acts 29 Network.

Plus being a long time beard grower myself, I have never been in a community so welcoming of facial hair out side of the Amish!

Yesterday here at Soma School, we were talking, of all things, about the church. Jeff Vanderstelt was laying out for us how, in most churches, everything, whether it be time, energy, resources, money, people, gifts, all goes “into” the church which is most often personified as a building. All of these resources are then “managed” from the top down by the leadership (whatever leadership model your tradition embraces).

It is in this “inward” model that we most often hear the “80/20″ idea offered up as a complaint. If you haven’t heard of this, it simply means that in many churches, 20% of the people do 80% of the work. Therefore, the call to “get more involved in church” often means donating your time, energy, resources, money and gifts “to the church.” But Jeff challenged us that, “80/20″ might not be a bad thing, provided that other 80% of people is out on mission, serving and reaching their community. The reality is that, even with the “80/20″ principle at work in many churches, many people simply believe that “ministry” is up to the pastors. After all, they’re being paid, right?!

The question that really faces churches, particularly church planting pastors, is how they will define success. Will we develop a mindset that views success as something that might not immediately put “butts in the seats” on a Sunday morning? If so, do we really want all of our time, energy, resources, money, people and gifts going in to a church structure, whatever that might be? What might it look like if we became more outward focused? What if we had churches that didn’t believe that all ministry was simply up to the pastors?

There is, of course, much to work through here but I wanted to share a bit of what I’ve already been wrestling with. What do you think?