Some interesting church planting stuff from our recent reformed church conference:
A mission flavoured church compared to a mission shaped church...
mission flavoured
...origin in reaction to the established church
...brings in other Christians
...started with public worship services
...attractional and event oriented
...invite existing friends
...meets needs of newcomers and work done by a few
...emphasize excellence
...remodel outsiders to local culture and bring Jesus to the community
...develops look and style based on own idea of what community needs
mission shaped
...had its origin in a call to mission
...brings in unchurched people
...public worship service is last priority (ultimately asked for by people)
...build relationships with local people
...go out and make friends
...operates on enthusiastic participation
...emphasizes participation and serving
...become insiders in local culture to bring Jesus to the local community
...allows those new to faith to influence look and feel of what the community needs
5 points
1. Clarify the call. The basis for mission-shaped church is a call to mission, rather than frustration that your own needs aren't met. As far as possible, deal with your own frustrations and other gripes before you set off to plant.
2. Begin with the end in mind. Right from the start, spend significant time with those you;re trying to reach. Your job is to be good news, not a purveyor of goods and services, religious or otherwise.
3. Keep public services in perspective. In a mission-shaped framework, a public worship service should be the overflow of mission and its fruits, rather than preceding it. It will therefore be shaped by those who've come to faith through mission. The form it takes may or may not follow the style and symbols of the receptor culture.
4. Make time for unchurched people. Public worship services are usually very resource hungry. Beware of committing too much of your people's time and energy to the service at the expense of relational time with the unchurched.
5. Let programs serve relationships. Programs as a concept are value-neutral. They succeed or fail as outreach tools largely on the basis of whather they provide a context for relationships to form and grow. Remember outreach and evangelism aren't the same thing.
a final thought...
Many large, attractive churches successfully reach unchurched people using a come to Jesus model. And some fo them began by launching a public worship service. This is valid and worthwile ministry. Missionshaped church is not a replacement for this model, but an alternative approach that will reach a different sector of society.
(All this from Tim Scheuer and others of the Church Army)
9 comments:
hmm interesting stuff! i think the contrasts actually bring out some very insightful differences in approach.
it is very hard to do in practice, though, to get a whole community into a mission-shaped orientation. i supposed mission-flavoured can spill out of tendencies we have as human beings.
If you start mission shaped, how do you stay mission shaped?
Don't they usually become mission-flavored?
I think I forgot to tick the follow-up box.
i think you need to keep re-creating, re-planting the church, as soon as it gets settled, it drifts into mission-flavoured.
Thanks guys
It's just interesting how we perceive the contrasts here, and we assign a preference to mission shaped over mission flavoured. Is that right? Is flavoured the default to which shaped slides? Or can it be justified as an approach in itself? I only say because of that final clause in the piece.
I think the dynamic to be harnessed in 'shaped' is that 'new-to-Christianity' enthusiasm. At an individual level it can produce a gospel snowballing effect... but i guess it needs to be a corporate mentality too and so 'planting again' provides the context for that. Perhaps one challenge is to keep releasing not just 'old-to-Christianity' people to plant again but those new guys too.
eh?
I'm a little with g.
Not sure what you mean, Graham. But I'm keen to understand. Want to rephrase?
sorry guys... i can't make sense of what i said either! Here's what i think i was meaning. 2 distinct points.
1. Tim Scheuer says at the end of the article that both mission flavoured and mission shaped are valid and worthwhile approaches. BUT as you reflect on the contrasts between the approaches you sort of can't help favouring 'shaped'. Is he just being diplomatic or should we always strive at being mission shaped? The less desirable model - mission flvoured - being where we tend to 'slide' to.
2. I was just thinking about how to maintain a mission shaped approach. I was just thinking about how you harness the peculiar dynamic that those who are 'new to Christianity' bring to any church planting endeavour. Obviously the problem is that they become 'old to Christianity' all too soon.
Hope that clarifies things a little.
eh?
Post a Comment