Yeah, what Billy said:
Billy Belk: Unity of the Church
I argued this point in a meeting concerning "targeted church plants" recently and I was told that it was nice to bring up such theological points, but in our day we must think about what works, and after all homogenous units work. It is a great shame when doctrine plays second fiddle to pragmatism in our ecclesiastical methodology. I was told by the "experts," "It's OK if you don't agree with us, but go out and prove us wrong."
I said, "I can't prove you wrong because you are right." What I meant by that is that it is absolutely true that people want to be with others who are just like them. But rather than catering to this carnal desire, the church of Jesus Christ ought to be preaching against it, calling it sin, and calling for repentance from it, not satisfaction of it.
We won't prove them wrong. Our church will not grow as fast or as large as a "targeted" church. But I will answer to God for my faithfulness to proclaim God's word in its fullness and to lead the church I serve to be a church for all people. That is what we are at Immanuel. And may God grant us the commitment and the endurance to keep at it in the future as boldly as we have in the past in spite of all internal and external obstacles that would seek to divert us from this mission.
Thanks Billy for a great post, and for letting me preach from your soap box.
4 comments:
Russ,
I just found your blog today and will be an avid reader in the future.
I'm very interested in your perspective on this topic of church planting and use of the church facilities. You see, the church where I pastor is helping two new ethnic groups get started. One is a Hispanic ministry and one is a Filipino ministry. They asked us to partner with them in allowing them to use some of our building space. We have a very nice facility and have room for them to use.
I truly believed that this was of God and so I presented this request to our deacons at the first of the month and they unanimously voted in the affirmative. I was very encouraged by this and so last Sunday, I asked the two Pastors to speak during our two morning worship services so that the church would be aware of what I clearly saw as a movement of God in our midst.
Last Sunday evening, we had our monthly church business meeting and we discussed whether or not to allow these two new ministries to use our facilities. Much to my surprise I heard three or four of our folks expressing their opposition to it. Their argument was very much along the same lines as you and Billy Belk have posted. I must admit that my first thought was that these folks were prejudiced against the Hispanics and Filipinos and did not want them in the church. One remark about why don't they speak English seem to confirm this point of view but I am trying hard not to judge.
I'm happy to say that we voted overwhelmingly (87% to 13%) to allow these two new church plants to use our facilities. I would like to hear more from your perspective because I truly want to understand those who voted against it.
One additional comment I will make is I believe it is more difficult for those who may not understand English very well to assimilate into an existing Anglo church congregation. Would that not be a valid reason for helping the people group start their own bible study? It seems to me that the main issue here is to reach all nations (people groups) with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many of these people will not attend an Anglo dominated church because of cultural intimidation and language issues. But many of them will attend a bible study that is conducted in their native language. You may call this approach pragmatism, but I see it as doing everything we can to reach all nations for Christ.
Thanks for allowing me to comment. I look forward to reading your point of view.
Grace and peace to you.
Les
Les,
Thanks for your comment. I think I need to explain a little about our context of ministry. First of all, IBC is home to three international autonomous churches -- Ethiopian, Laotian, and Chinese, so I am definitely NOT saying that these people need to learn English and join our church. I would also, for this reason, want to distance myself FAR away from those who voted in opposition to your church's decision and I do not appreciate your hasty assumption that Billy and I can shed light on their position. I assure you my brother that there would be few found who are more burdened than myself for all nations to know Christ. I really do not think that my concerns are the same concerns that you encountered in your meeting. I would be surprised if they were.
However, I am saying that I think it says far more about the unity of the body of Christ when we lead our churches to begin intentionally cross-cultural ministries rather than "renting space" to independent and autonomous churches. In the case of the three congregations that share our building, there is an obvious language barrier. I am not opposed to targeted churches where language is the focus of the target group. However, you and I both are well aware that there is much racial and socioeconomic targeting going on in church planting today where language is not the primary concern. Skin color and income levels continue to divide God's people (and I can provide you with direct quotations from some leading SBC authorities on the subject to verify this). But even where language is the issue, why can't a "predominantly-Anglo" church say, "We want to start a Spanish-language ministry," rather than "we want to rent space (or give space) to a Hispanic church"?
In 1965, the pastor of the church I currently serve was black-balled by local pastors in Greensboro for insisting that the church open its doors to all people. Today, things haven't changed very much. I was in one meeting where a pastor of a nearby church said, "What do I do when I lead someone to Jesus who doesn't fit in in my church?" Fit in? What is this? I was told later that he is targeting a specific age group and doesn't want anyone not in that group to attend his church. How is this biblical?
Also, to understand my perspective you need to understand something else about our ministry context at IBC. We are an urban church, and we have been doing multicultural ministry for 40 years. When the only people reaching out to all ethnic groups were liberals, the pastor at IBC stood boldly and declared the truth of the Word of God to tear down walls of racial division and open the doors to all people. However, when "white flight" removed many people from our urban community, and the mega-churches vacated the city and went to the suburbs to build their evangelical amusement parks, we were left with a skeleton crew of faithful, but mostly older saints with limited abilities to do much hands-on ministry. Don't get me wrong -- their heart is in the city. That is why they still come. And they want to see a multicolored congregation. But we need help. So we have asked the Association and the State Convention to come and help us reach our community. But they say, "We're going to help. We're going to plant an African-American church two blocks east of you and a hispanic church four blocks south of you." I say to them, "That is great, but what will become of us?" The answer I receive is, "Well, you will eventually die." I refuse to receive that! SO I am told, "Fine, go prove us wrong."
NAMB sends a team of hardcore city soul-winners to our church, and I said, "Great, praise God. Let's go out and hit the streets," but I am told, "No, we're going to this housing project down the road to cultivate prospects for the new African-American church." But what do the people in the project say to us when we go in? They say, "We don't want to attend a black-church. We want to go to a church for everybody." We say we are targeting to be sensitive to cultural preferences, but are we listening to what they are saying they want?
These are the frustrations I face in trying to lead our church to ACTUALLY be all things to all men that by all means we might save some, rather than just renting some space to some men, so that they may reach some of their own.
It is easy, and it works really well, to tell people to enthrone their cultural preferences -- don't sacrifice a single one of them -- and we'll build a little church for every little niche and sub-niche. (Google this: "Cowboy church," "North Carolina Baptists". God help us!) But it is really hard to stand and say, "There's nothing wrong with having preferences, but Christian maturity says that you need to nail them to the cross for the sake of your brother and your sister, so that you might be one in Christ, rather than erecting those preferences as idols.
Well, as you can tell, I am passionate about this, and I could go on and on. I already have, and this probably doesn't make any sense. It is 1 AM and I have been driving for two days!!! Probably better for us to talk on the phone some time. Call me anytime (after this Thursday) and we'll discuss it. Let me recommend "Sharing Your Church Building" by Curtin as you lead your church into this exciting new phase of ministry.
Russ,
I received your email and thank you much for it. Also, thank you for taking time to respond to my comment. Please forgive me if I misunderstood your position. I think we probably have a lot in common theologically and other ways as well.
I would very much like to meet you for lunch some day. Are you going to the state convention in November? Maybe we can hook up there.
Also, thanks for the book recommendation. I will order a copy. I hope you had a great time at Mark Dever's church. He is one of my favorites.
Grace and peace to you.
Les
Thank you brother. I apologize if my tone was unpleasant before. I find myself arguing this point about "one church for all people" on a daily basis. Yesterday I was encouraged greatly at Dever's church. He was saying that he had been invited to Gordon-Conwell to lecture about evangelism, conversion and church membership. He said, "I thought to myself, do I really have to do this AGAIN? And the answer is, 'Yes, I must do it again." I feel that the one church for all people issue is fundamental to the gospel. I arrived at this conviction through thorough study of Ephesians and Galatians, and a survey of the Old Testament with a view towards Israel's responsibility to be a light to the Gentiles (I would recommend my old professor Walt Kaiser's book -- "Mission in the Old Testament."). My interest in reaching the nations convicted me that the rural churches I served were too homogenous. I tried to change them -- they resisted. But I found Immanuel Baptist Church -- I sought them out because I desired to serve a church that was already doing this kind of ministry. What I have found is that the inability to put on flashy programs to entertain self-absorbed young adults has left us with two groups of people -- the advanced in age and the handful of multicultural folk they have reached. So, I have the task of preaching the gospel of self-denial and cross-taking to a generation of folks who can go to any other church and find their personal preferences enthroned as idols. And yes, I must do it again!
Let me recommend, if you have never had the chance before, that you attend Capitol Hill BC for a Sunday. The sanctuary is tiny, but beautiful. It is crowded. The building is a complicated maze of stairways and narrow hallways. The sound quality is bad. There are distractions everywhere -- people getting up and walking around during the service, etc. The music is a piano and four-part glee-club singing few songs written after 1800. All rather underwhelming to most. But the place is packed to the rafters with a multicultural congregation of young adults. I am so encouraged as I return to Greensboro that the experts are wrong and it really can be done.
Post a Comment