the drum|rob fairbanks

Church Buildings - Pro or Con

Years ago, I was having a weekly breakfast with a group of pastors who led downtown churches in my city (that is what pastors do, right? Eat!). One of them I became exceptionally fond of. He was nearing retirement and I found his insights particularly insightful. On one occasion, I asked him if he had any wisdom he’d like to pass on to me (I was one of the young ones then). He said if he were to do it all over again he’d sell the church buildings. Firm, resolute...unflinching...sell em all! He felt like they stole focus from the “main thing” he was trying to accomplish.

That was years ago now and in my nearly 30 years of pastoring I have heard his words echo in the back of my mind at many crossroads. In those years, I have rarely pastored a community with a “church building.” We’ve rented a few, but to truly occupy, none…until now. God has graciously seen fit to loan us one. I say graciously because it was not what we were looking for. We simply were seeking to embed our community in a specific location. For us, it was the north central part of Spokane. We all sensed this was where we were to put down roots.

Some people in the missional conversation eschew the idea of having a building. It conjures up the "evil" word: Attractional. In some circles, it is viewed with the same derison as the name "Voldemort." However, for us having a building (or being loaned one) gives us a taproot into a particular geographical area. In a word, it contextualizes this for us. It gives us a parish. I was talking with a friend of mine who has a small building in a very cool “niche” community here in our city. He was commenting about how helpful it is for them to have a building because it moves them into a “participant relationship” in the commercial area where they are. They’re looked upon as a group that is stable and permanent rather then remote and transient. They are seen as vested members of the community, rather than outsiders or intruders.

A quick aside – a building doesn’t provide success or failure per say. The last church I pastored grew quite large, all while being in rented spaces. It really depends on what God is doing in your community.

We will guard against having our focus captured by having space (I know, you are thinking that is what everyone says), but for us at this time and place, a building gives an element of stability in a world of “rent the box” churches…and we are grateful.

r

Here is a Google Maps Screen shot of the building

 

The Church: A Banquet for Your Friends or a Refuge for the Poor?

Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” (Luke 14:12-14)

             The great eighteenth-century hymn writer and ex-slave trader John Newton marveled at the far-reaching impact of these words spoken by Jesus in Luke. “One would almost think this passage was not considered part of God’s word, nor has any part of Jesus’ teaching been more neglected by his own people. I do not think it is unlawful to entertain our friends” he says, “but if these words do not teach us that it is in some respects out duty to give preference to the poor, I am at a loss to understand them.” Looking at the current state of the American church, one can’t help but wonder if the “luncheon or dinner” Jesus was referring to could be what we call our church service today. We spend so much time catering our churches to our friends, brothers, sisters, relatives and neighbors, that we completely disregard those Jesus is calling to invite join us in our “banquet.”

            It’s not that Jesus commands us, his Church, to disregard those who we consider being friends, peers or of high economic status, for Jesus himself often ate with his peers and people of wealth. However, his mission was still for the poor. Jesus commanded that his disciples should share their homes and build relationships not with people of their class or higher, people they could profit from or that would pay them back, but with people who were poor and without influence. I believe he is calling his church to do the same; to be for the poor, with the poor, and in pursuit of the poor.

            Although I am unaware of any churches that actively turn the poor away, I am also unaware of many that actively seek out those in extreme poverty as being a part of their community. Most church facilities and services seem to be catered more to the middle-class who drive in from their different neighborhoods to come together with like-minded, similar looking people of their social class for once, maybe twice a week, fellowship and teaching. Although I’m sure many of these churches do really wonderful things to help the underserved and poor, it’s not as easy to make the case that they are designed “for the poor.” The Bible speaks of God as being “a refuge for the poor” (Isaiah 25:4; Psalm 14:6). Therefore the Church, as the body of Christ, is called to stand with the poor as a physical and spiritual place of refuge for them in this world. Is your church a banquet for your friends or a refuge for the poor?

Melissa

Coffee Shop Christianity

    “The coffee was bad, the chairs uncomfortable, and the music wasn’t really my taste. Plus it didn’t really have a cool vibe. I don’t think I’ll go back.” Initially, one would have thought that my friend was talking about the new coffee shop that had just opened down the street. Unfortunately she wasn’t though, this was her response to me when I asked if she liked the new church she had attended the previous Sunday. “I mean the message was good, it just wasn’t my thing.”

    I think few of us would like to actually admit it, but it often feels that looking for a church frighteningly correlates with the way we would look for a new favorite coffee shop. I think this is especially true for the arising younger generation of today. The marks of a “true church” seem to resemble a coffee bar, worship pastor in skinny jeans and toms shoes, abstract art on the wall, cool typography in the bulletin, and a well-dressed congregation. Where is the power of the gospel in that? The importance of doctrine, community, ministries, and service can come second to that of the “vibe” of the church. This focus on being relevant, cool, and hip is not inherently bad or evil, I think, but unfortunately it can dangerously skew the priorities of a church, it’s members, and those seeking to find a place in it. It can turn the church into a chill environment where Christians go to hang out, meet cool people, and sit for a few hours. This selfish, consumerist institution has little resemblance to the Church Christ spoke of. The church he recounted was one of hope, kingdom priorities, selfless love, power, and incarnational living. “Church is God’s people intentionally committing to die together so that other’s can find the kingdom” (Halter, Smay). The church is not a Coffee Shop. 

Melissa

The Primary Role of the Church

    Karl Barth’s theological address, God In Action, speaks of the church, “…the constitution and preservation of the Church rests in this, that man hears God. This is what makes it truly great and truly little.” Is this news to you? Perhaps not at first, however it is bizarre when we really think about it. Essentially, Barth is saying that two random people on the other side of the globe could be the church! Two un-ordained people congregated with listening ears and obedient hearts living out God’s mission.

    As I grew up, countless times I failed to listen to my parents, just like everyone else. I found myself joining a selfish mission. This struggle may be the same for the Church today—sheep following voices other than their Good Shepherd’s. After all, there are many voices to hear. Where do we begin?

    "Gather together and hear, O sons of Jacob; And listen to Israel your father.”  (Gen. 49:2 NASB) Gather together and hear. That’s our command. The Bible is covered with God’s longing for his people to listen, and communication with him is what the we should ultimately want—the Church, the Ship of Salvation, avoiding shipwrecks because the captain is heard. Like a quiet course before a golfer swings, (both the Church and individually) we ought to focus in silence to truly hear our Father speak; the rest will follow.

    Gathering together to hear God is that crucial, sometimes, we as the Church, completely skip over it. Man listening to God is a wacky ordeal. Isn’t it? Truly hearing God can be scary for you just as it is for can for your church. Yet given its mystery and challenge, there is no mission as glorious as our Father’s—our God moving and working in us and in spite of us.

Phil

I Don't Want to Hate the Church

      I venture to say, based on observations as far as I am able to see, more people are calling themselves Christians while more Christians are denying the title for all its negative connotations. Have you heard anyone claim their faith as “believer” or “follower of Christ” or “Jesus lover”? That’s dandy, and true. But the term “Christian” has been taken away from us, much as the symbol of the rainbow has. As a young person learning that I am in the midst of much needed revelation and change for “the church,” I fear the negativity toward the church. I fear for non-believers because it will keep them away, and for believers because of unforgiveness and bitterness toward those who have been getting it wrong. I fear the anger I’ve seen. I fear more splitting, more division dangerously close at hand within the whole Christian body. I pray it doesn’t happen that leaders who are making right changes due to convictions about how the church has been failing begin to find new titles. I don’t want to see a new movement rise up again only to lose itself in its mission once more. I want to see the church be taken back; for the term Christian to be taken back.  To bring them back to mean the body of Christ and Christ-like. The only way to know those meanings is through Christ himself and we find him in the Word, our Bibles, and in prayer. I think this means we must look at the broken church with a heart of forgiveness. Jesus saw the broken and flawed and he forgave them, then said, “now sin no more.” Forgiveness and correction. Jesus was, is, for the church, his bride, so I want to be, too. Jesus’ heart probably breaks for her, I want mine to, too. Let us lift the church back up to what it should be, not break it down.

   “And all the believers met together in one place and shared everything they had… they worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord’s Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity- all while praising God and enjoying the goodwill of all the people. And each day the Lord added to their fellowship those who were being saved.” Acts 2.44, 46-47

-Ashley

Is the Church too strong?

By Jeff

I cannot help but wonder if our churches have become too muscular?  Have our churches become immobilized due to overwhelming attendance and the resulting church politics? Is it possible to grow die hard disciples out of a large church? Special Forces soldiers and Rangers are rarely stacked with muscle and yet they are the most effective soldiers in the field. Should we strive to build congregations so full of Christians that they are impressive on the exterior due to mass but rendered ineffective by the very same characteristic that we find impressive?

 

Special Forces soldiers and Rangers are not stacked with muscle for a reason. Too much muscle hinders agility and speed, thus making them a slower target. It seems that we as the Church have placed too much value on well attended services (just as athletes can become obsessed with numbers numerically representing their performance) that we have created congregations that cannot run the race of missions. Unfortunately, since the church has supported the numbers game, the congregants have followed suit. We now have vast amounts of congregants who have overloaded their lives with things that seem to be positive (like muscle) but leave them unable to walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death unless they make some serious sacrifices before they begin their march through the Valley.  We as a church have packed on so much ‘muscle’ that we cannot quickly adapt to the changing currents in the ocean in which we swim.

 

We must become more like Special Forces soldiers or Rangers, we need to cut the excessive muscle and re-gain our agility to navigate through this rapidly changing world.

Have We Really ‘Forgotten’ How to Do Church?

By Troy

As a Theology major at Whitworth, I’ve had the privilege of reading a wide variety of Christian literature. I’ve read through the Bible, numerous early Christian primary sources, biblical commentaries, etc.  One consequence of my extensive reading is the tendency to become a literary critic. For me, the older the book, the more weight and authority it carries (this is a generalization). After reading Ignatius, Clement or Irenaeus, it’s easy to see how these works have survived the centuries. But I tend to read contemporary authors more critically. In other words, they haven’t stood the test of time yet.

 

In class, we are reading Forgotten Ways (2006) by Alan Hirsch. After slogging through the book, I was left disappointed by the wordiness and ‘fluff’ of Hirsch’s writing (and the excessive use of charts!). Although Hirsch does offer some valuable insight for contemporary church leaders, I found the book characteristic of ‘emergent church’ literature. Forgotten Ways is full of emergent buzz words such as missional, organic, fluidity, ‘authentic Jesus movement’ that appear to be cutting-edge. At least to me, these words are nebulous and vague. After more than two hundred pages, it’s still not clear to me what mDNA and the Apostolic Genius are! I felt the book was just another attempt to formulate a ‘successful’ 21^st century church.

 

Hirsch confidently asserts: “the Apostolic Genius lies dormant in you, me, and every local church that seeks to follow Jesus faithfully in any time. We have quite simply forgotten how to access and trigger it” (22). This seems to suggest thatwe possess the keys to unlocking the Apostolic Genius; and when/if we find it, the Church will flourish. There is little mention of the working of the Holy Spirit or God as Lord of the Church. And have we really forgotten how to do church? I agree that the church-growth and attractional-church models aren’t healthy, but the church has managed to survive two thousand years. There is no magic model to success, as “unlocking the Apostolic Genius” suggests.

 

I agree that mission is a critical aspect to the Church, but I also affirm the importance of true worship and diligent study of Scripture. Mission is not superior, but rather goes hand-in-hand with worship, theology, liturgy, and sacrament.

 

Like other contemporary ‘emergent’ authors, Hirsch is simply offering a new model for “doing church.” New
styles of doing church come and go like many other fads and trends. Well we have not ‘forgotten’ how to do church, Hirsch does offer excellent insights, provoking critiques, and challenging applications. But in my opinion, Hirsch is neither a diligent biblical exegete nor a careful historian. Hirsch  is no Irenaeus, but we can add his opinion (with grace) to the Christian melting pot as we progress towards renewed expressions of the Church.

Missional living --> as we are going make disciples

 By Brendan

The concept of missional living has been brought to the forefront of my mind as I have entered into this New Year. My paradigm of missions has been forced into a place of reflection and rediscovery. My own concept of missions seems to be evolving as God is faithfully opening my eyes to His very nature and character.

I have at one time or another thought of missions as supporting—whether financially, or through prayer—someone else. I have also at one point or another treated missions as something that one does through short-term trips (somewhere else) of relief or encouragement. And finally I have thought of missions as something that is lived out through love for those I am in community with, essentially attractional community—John 13:35, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." But all of these conceptions of missions seem to fall short of the incarnation. Christ’s ultimate example.

The nature of God is characterized by His sending of His own son, Jesus. In doing so Jesus left the comforts of heaven and stepped down from his position of authority into our world and experienced all things as we do. Another aspect of the nature of God is apparent in Jesus’ life as He lived relationally. Jesus reached out to the “unlovable” those who were on the fringes of society, lepers, widows, prostitutes, “sinners”, the poor, and the unreligious. He set the ultimate example of love as he interacted with sinners, healed the sick, and called fisherman, and tax collectors to join Him on His mission.

Missional Living, as exemplified by Jesus seems to be the example of both go, and as you are going. What I mean by that is Jesus came to our world, and as he was going (living) He made disciples. So He was both sent and was obedient to live in a way that cultivated The Kingdom right where He was.

Jesus example has caused me to reflect on my understanding of missions and how it is practically acted out in my own life. Am I loving those who culturally are “unlovable”, those on the fringes of society, or those who I rub shoulders with daily? Am I following Christ example? Am I ultimately following Christ’s call for my life?

 

Segregated Sundays

By Laura

According to the Pew Center research, only 7 percent of American churches are racially integrated. This fact to me is shocking. Most Christians I talk to agree that racial reconciliation is important, but then why is there still such segregation taking place within the body of Christ? Various attempts have been made in the Church to work towards this racial reconciliation by encouraging individuals to build interracial relationships. But this strategy has obviously not been successful, at least not so far. The main issue with this approach is its disregard for structural segregation which will not be resolved through individual efforts at reconciliation. It will take the Church as a whole, working together, to begin shifting the composition of American churches to reflect the diversity that is evident among God’s people.

Much of the segregation that takes place in churches is a result of residential separation  that has been so institutionalized in our society. The fact that people of different races do not live in the same neighborhoods, ultimately means they will most likely not be attending the same schools, offices, or churches. In his book, American Apartheid, Douglas Massey explains that “deleterious neighborhood conditions are built into the structure of the black community. They occur because segregation concentrates poverty to build a set of mutually reinforcing and self-feeding spirals of decline into black neighborhoods.” The fact that Black Americans have higher poverty rates than White Americans should motivate the Church to see that something has to change.

I believe that the Church can be an instrument of racial reconciliation both on the individual and structural level by finding a way to bring integration, cooperation, and equality within the church itself. How can the Church expect to live into its missional identity when Sundays are considered by some to be the most segregated day of the week? A racially integrated church would break down many negative effects of racial segregation and allow resources to be shared and needs to be met that would not otherwise take place, demonstrating God’s missional heart. So what do you think? Is the church segregated because different races just prefer their own style of worship and preaching? Or is there a deeper issue that will take a Church following the example of Christ to address?

Give my faith back to me...

    I recently had a conversation with a friend about the difficulties that arise from having a particularly charismatic pastor. We've talked about this in class, we've read about it in books, but nonetheless it's rather alarming to think about what happens if, well, something happens to this charismatic pastor. In my friend's situation, the church fractured after the pastor left because, in his words, the pastor was "guarding their faith." Once he was gone, many the church members felt as though the burden of their faith pressing upon them much more heavily. In Forgotten Ways, Alan Hirsch mentions that true apostolic leadership creates the environment for other ministries to develop. When there is a highly charismatic and people-pleasing pastor, other ministries may exist but it is likely that their impact will be quite secondary to the main event: the pastor's sermon. In apostolic leadership, there is still defined leadership, but the individual and the smaller group are given much more weight. The environment created discourages consumeristic faith rather than encourages it. 
    If we only encourage one type of leader to be a pastor, we are likely to perpetuate the situation that many churches find themselves in: a body of Christians dependent on the faith of another to live fully as followers of Christ. By encouraging and recognizing other forms of leadership, we are much more likely to create an environment where real discipleship and formation can occur.

   Noah P.