“Too often we are too quick to dash off to an evangelistic field which is exciting, fruitful, distant. How many churches think seriously of their duty to fulfill the Great Commission in their neighborhood? And even when we think ‘locally,’ it is too easy to think about establishing a ‘ministry’ in a town with a sufficient population to provide the new church with its “market share.” Thus we are selective in our local ministry. In order for this system to work we cater to our market niche. The church functions on exactly the same principles as a new department store. This also mitigates against true community. Community will never arise from groups with ‘special interests,’ whether those interests include ham radio, square dancing, or the five points of Calvinism.”

Someone say, “Amen.” Go ahead. Testify.

He suggests that we think in terms of “God has a mission for the church in the world” (which we read as church planting, evangelism, going to far away lands, etc), which we are bound to systematize and structure as we do things like businesses and communities and clubs. He says it is better to think in terms of “God has a church for His mission in the world.” Writes Wright, “Mission was not made for the church; the church was made for mission – God’s mission.”

It shifts our focus, it seems, from what we do (task) to who we are (identity). We, the church, are collectively on mission – the mission of God.

When, in the contemporary conception of the missionary enterprise, we standardize church, we end up imposing things, thus eliminating the necessary diversity that is characteristic of God’s creation. In the McChurch model, uniformity and conformity become the high virtues, and the Home Office serves as a Nebuchadnezzar, who can, in the end, make any demand it desires because the local church franchise depends upon the denomination/convention for its identity and survival.

I agree with Aaron: “Simple, relational, Biblical, churches—who are not relying on anyone but the Lord and are led by elders who are not depending on the church for support—are the means by which the great commission is going to be accomplished.”

I’ve also just started reading “The Next Christendom” by Philip Jenkins. It seems that the church is in transition from the north and west to the south and east anyway. In another hundred years, the converstion we’re having is moot.

I believe that the simple church approach is the most effective and inexpensive way to plant a church. Church planting has become expensive because of the corporate, business mentality in most churches. This model is fed by a professional ministry, whose income depends upon it.

Simple, relational, Biblical, churches—who are not relying on anyone but the Lord and are led by elders who are not depending on the church for support—are the means by which the great commission is going to be accomplished.