Is It Time to Break the Mold?
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Uncategorized
I had an interesting lunch some time ago with a gentleman who had recently started attending my church. He informed me that he had moved to our community from the Midwest a few months before, and that he and his wife had been actively seeking a church. He came from a non-denominational, evangelical background. In fact, he had just come to know Christ about five years ago. He further informed me that we were #7 in his visiting order. He had simply been visiting congregations at random from the listing provided on the “church page” of the local weekly newspaper.
He let me know that he loved our church. But the thing that shocked him the most was the fact that we were a Southern Baptist church. Indeed, he told me that we were unlike any Baptist church he had ever seen. He had visited several over the years, and the word he used to describe his experiences was an interesting one … “cookie cutter.” Those were his words, not mine. He expressed that his experience, for the most part, in Baptist churches had pretty much been the same. He saw it is “predictable.” After he visited in our worship, he felt compelled to call home and talk to his former pastor to get the “low down” on this “new generation” Baptist stuff. Was it legit? Could he trust it?
Thankfully, that pastor affirmed our denomination and our church’s ministry. This man and his wife have joined our church and have rapidly and joyfully integrated into church life.
But those words he used have stuck with me … “cookie cutter.”
Kima Jude, in the new Fall 2006 edition of On Mission magazine, wrote an interesting article entitled, “One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Planting Missional Churches.” It was a great article. I think that, if there were any way to make it happen (and, obviously, there is not), it should be required reading for every pastor of every Southern Baptist church. Perhaps, then, much of the fear and animosity directed at church plants (and church planters) by established, historical churches could be averted. Perhaps, then, we could combat the attitude and appearance of “uniformity” that exists among our churches … that unfortunate idea that we may be a bunch of “cookie cuter” congregations.
Following are a few quotes from the article:
“Missionaries still travel great distances to share Christ and plant churches, but others merely walk around the block to do it. Like their international counterparts, North American church planters and churches take a missional approach to church planting. They identify an unreached people group, learn their language, study their customs and notice how they dress. When they plant a church, they design it to be biblically sound and — to some degree — resemble the people they hope to reach.”
“… on mission Christians no longer have to travel far to encounter exotic cultures peopled by those who speak a different language and practice different customs.”
“A church plant seeking to reach people in North American culture cannot take a cookie-cutter approach.”
“Missional churches take the unchanging Gospel into the culture they find themselves in whether it is traditional, contemporary, emerging or something else.”
Great points all. But the problem in North American churches, and North American church planting, arises at the interface of church and culture (especially in the South). It has been my experience that many, if not most, of our Southern Baptist churches which exhibit a traditional mindset and methodology tend to view the culture of church as being “against” the culture of “the world.” Indeed, the biblical references to “the world” are often taken as proof positive that all things of the world are evil, therefore culture is evil, therefore the church must be insulated from it. So the church develops its own isolated culture, with its own practices, rules, and even its own language (which I affectionately call “Christianese”). One must abandon the culture of the world and become “assimilated” into the culture of the church in order to fit in … in order to be truly holy. You see the line of reasoning…
Then, when a church planter and a new church plant enter into a community, seeking to engage the culture and people “where they are,” that church planter and church plant are so often tragically painted as “worldly,” “liberal,” “charismatic,” and, most assuredly, “not Baptist.” I know that this is the case, because it has happened to me and the church that I have planted in my community. When word got out that we would not have the word “Baptist” in our name (see my previous post), were wearing jeans to church, used videos in worship, didn’t have a “Sunday School,” and didn’t hold monthly business meetings, we were alienated and ostracized by the local Southern Baptist community. Yet all that we have attempted to do is meet people “where they are” and do ministry within the culture in which we live.
Is my experience the exception? Or does it tend to be more of “the rule,” especially in the churched (albeit declining churched) southern United States?
I would love to hear about the experiences of other pastors and church planters. What can we do, as a denomination, to rediscover the truth of being missional (within the culture) in all of our churches, as well as our church plants? What can we do to translate into the North American church context the same cross-cultural mindset and missional efforts that we accept as the norm in international missions? What can be done to awaken a passion for church planting among all of our churches? How can we become known as “cookies” of all shapes, sizes, colors, and flavors?



Our relationship with Christ determines whether our worship experiences are “cookie-cutter” or not. My time with Christ on Sunday mornings should not be dictated by the agenda that is set up. Yes, I believe in order for worship. I also believe that God expects someone to plan worship. However, it goes beyond “cookie-cutter” when we open our heart and allow God to enter and expose us to that intimate encounter. Then, we leave transformed because of the encounter. I’m not sure a church can give that feeling. It’s all about the relationship. Did I only experience 4 songs, a prayer, a sermon, and an invitation OR did I experience something beyond what anyone else knew took place?? In the end, I am the one to answer that question.
Karen,
Good insights. Our personal worship is, indeed, our own responsibility. Yet the context of corporate worship and gathering is the church. It is the church’s responsibility to provide an engaging environment in which people can experience God and connect with other believers.
I believe my friend’s “cookie cutter” description was more aimed at the organization, style, mindset, and overall attitude of the churches he had encountered.
I cannot argue with him on this point. I have been a member or served in several SB churches in the past 20+ years. By and large my experiences have been very similar, if not the same, in each one … up until now.
My point is simple. We must strategically DO church differently and be creative in our ministry paradigms in order to reach very different, 21st-century people in North America. This is especially true in our church planting. Starting multitudes of traditional, formal Baptist churches is great … if you want to reach Baptists already in other churches.
Culture is not the enemy. It is a tool that we can use to reach people.
Thanks for jump-starting the discussion!
Geoff
Geoff,
Can’t this be boiled down to the question:
“Is your church a movement or an institution?”
Institutions are cookie-cutter (Programs, Programs, get your Programs here!).
Movements are not.
I’ve always hated when I’ve heard people use the word organic because I felt they were just trying to sound uppity. However, I’ve become more comfortable with the term, especially in it’s use describing church life.
Institutions use external methods to build body life.
Movements organically have life.
And yes, I’m an idealist.
Mike,
Excellent!
“Is your church a movement or an institution?”
Or, better yet -
“Is your church an organism or an organization?”
Organic is a GREAT word because it indicates life … not programmatic repetition.
You just keep on being an idealist.
Good morning Geoff: You said, “It has been my experience that many, if not most, of our Southern Baptist churches which exhibit a traditional mindset and methodology tend to view the culture of church as being “against” the culture of “the world.””
I’m wondering what culture do you think most SB churches are against in the world? I find most of the culture within our “world” as anti-Jesus, absent of God, idolatrous, self-serving, abominable, self-gratifying, and indulgent.
What my experience in SBC churches for the past 53 years of my life has been is nothing short of stable, consistent, persistent, and persevering in the face of all the “cultural” aspects I suggest above. What some may see as “cookie cutter”, others view as just sound.
I do not disagree with what you want for your church plant. But I do not see your church plant as the “cookie cutter” from which all sbc cookies should be cut.
Churches in the SBC have specific personalities within their individual churches. Some are more traditional and appeal to those folk whose personalities are blessed by that method of worship and ministerial outreach. Many of these churches are those who give most generously to Cooperative program and missions offerings. Then we have the more contemporary churches which use a mix of methods to reach the world. They often have a hands-on-approach to ministry and some even go so far as to use much of the world’s “techniques” i.e. marketing, strategizing, and methods for worship experiences.
Then there are the little observed churches whose personality is just to quietly minister to the community in a simply way by comforting, encouraging and touching lives in whatever manner the Lord so takes them in any given day. Some consider these churches boring because they do not incorporate cultural methodology but use what always worked for grama and grampa. This seems to work fine, because the Lord continues to bless them and add to His church with their ministries, too.
Today’s cookie cutter is tomorrow’s cookie. So whether you have settled on to the perfect model of how church should be done or not, isn’t really as important as simply using your gifts, ideas and energies to do what all churches everywhere are trying to do–reach the world for Christ, edify the saved, comfort the grieving, counsel the troubled, feed the hungry, and clothe the needy.
All that matters is Jesus. And He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Whatever way a person ministers is not as important as the love one shows for the Savior.
“I know your works, your labor, your patience…and that have persevered and have labored for MY name’s sake…nevertheless I have this against you that you have left your first love.”
And no matter who is baking the cookies, if they are strait from the Oven–I’m sure I’ll find something that suit my palate. If I don’t like the nuts, then I’ll find some with chocolate chips. That’s what is great about being a Christian. God uses us all to do all things in order that some may be won. And I do recall Paul saying something about the fact that no matter what the speaker is like if he is preaching Jesus, he is okay in his book. selahV
Karen: such wisdom in your words regarding a worship experience: “did I experience something beyond what anyone else knew took place?”
Ultimately, the question is why am I going to church? For what purpose? To get or to give? The purpose of worship is to praise the Almighty God Who created us to honor Him above all things. As Christians God has already “blessed us every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” Eph.1:3
So the purpose of church is not what we receive it is to love the Lord with all our minds, heart, body and souls and to love each other so as to be a light in this darkened world. It is not about us–our entertainment, our comfort or our needs. It is about Him and Him alone. Thanks so much for pointing that out to us. selahV
Good morning, Hariette!
Somehow I thought we might not see eye to eye on this subject.
And that’s okay …
But your sentiments illustrate my point.
In a single paragraph you asked, “I’m wondering what culture do you think most SB churches are against in the world?” Then, in the very next sentence you seemed to answer your own question: “I find most of the culture within our “world” as anti-Jesus, absent of God, idolatrous, self-serving, abominable, self-gratifying, and indulgent.”
You seem to view culture as the “enemy.” You seem to frown upon the missiological practice of contextualization within our newer churches as “… some even go so far as to use much of the world’s ‘techniques’ i.e. marketing, strategizing, and methods for worship experiences.”
I maintain that culture, bu its definition is neutral. The Gospel must be adapted to teach people within a culture. The church must not demand accommodation to its own culture in order to be saved.
Missionaries once did that. They went into a foreign land, built compounds, taught everyone English and “how to dress properly,” … then once they were converted to Western culture, they were allowed to convert to Christ. Such methods have caused much difficulty, and our missions efforts are still trying to recover from a couple centuries of well-meaning, but misguided missiology.
My point is simply this: the culture in North America is different now. it is much more like a “foreign” mission field than the United States in the 1950′s. What you may see as stable, some see as “stuck in time,” and a bit unrealistic.
And I would never presume upon anyone that my church (I guess we’re not a plant anymore … out 6th “birthday” is just a few months away.) should be the model or the “cuter” for any other churches. Our paradigm is unique for our environment. As all churches should be.
My passion for the Gospel and the church is such that I want people to be “blown away” when they enter the doors of the church. I want them to see life, passion, excitement, innovation, and creativity. I desperately do not want people to feel as if they have taken a backward step through a time portal. I desperately do not want people to experience the same programmatic repetition in every city, village, and town (i.e. “cookie cutter”) simply because our churches are doing church “the same way they’ve always done it before.”
Why is it that the church is the one place within our culture that does seem “out of place” within its own time?
I agree that we need “cookies” of all sizes, flavors, and aromas … indeed, that is my point.
Geoff,
perhaps introducing the term traditional was unfortunate. That word seems to change the discussion of body life to one of style, i.e. contemporary (whatever that means) versus traditional churches.
My parent’s church, by almost ANY definition, would be described as a traditional church.
Yet, in the last 5 years, I’ve seen that church learn anew how to live life with one another, and still turn their focus outward. Their baptisms are WAY up, and it’s mostly adults coming to Christ! These new believers are getting people fired up for serving a mighty God. They are experiencing a movement of God.
Movements have some chaos. Institutions are finely oiled machines.
There are just as many contemporary churches that are institutional in posture as so-called traditional churches. In fact, can anyone claim the mantle contemporary? As SelahV pointed out, today’s contemporary is next year’s (not next decade or next generation) traditional church.
Mike,
You are, indeed, correct. it is/was an unfortunate choice of terms. Yet I cannot seem to think of another one to replace it that describes the mindset accurately.
I, for one, do not like the “contemporary” label. No one can claim it! Especially today, when things change (and become outdated) almost as quickly as they happen.
I think you failed to see my point, my dear brother.
I didn’t answer my own question at all. I gave my understanding of culture as viewed by the world. (I have been meaning to get the book Culture Warrior by Bill O’Reilly and perhaps now would be the best time to go see if it has finally made it to the public library.) My question was to get you to define culture as you see it Geoff. In the future I shall simply ask the question and then wait for the answer before I respond, if that works better for you.
My understanding of how our culture works in America is not the enemy. The enemy is how the enemy uses our culture to woo folks to himself. I do not “frown” at all upon using the “techniques i.e. marketing, strategizing and methods for worship experiences”. Indeed, I’ve used them my entire ministry since 1976. I have 26 years in sales marketing and find it invaluable to draw upon to motivate, mobilize and mesmerize.
What concerns me with what you are saying, Geoff, and I may not be understanding you–is that folks who hold to the traditional worship style, old-world culture of dressing up for church, and enjoys Sunday School as the bedrock for ministry and outreach, are somehow estranging the world at large because the world’s culture demands it.
What I may see as “stable and sound” some see as “stuck in time”. That’s fine by me if you want to label my sight as “unrealistic”; it doesn’t make it so just because others view it as so. I don’t see folks who are seeking to use your missiology as “unrealistic”–I see them as innovative, energizing and the “living organism” for leading folks to Christ in the way they have been called.
What first attracted me to your blog, Geoff, was how you DO church. As a person who would more than likely join a church such as yours than the First Baptist dyed-in-the-wool traditional church, I am not disagreeing with your way of churching. I’m simply saying that just because your ways are effective in your ministry (and area) doesn’t make most churches within the SBC as living in yesterday’s culture.
Every church (unless it is totally filled with nothing but wheel-chaired white-haired octogenarians) has within it a group of young people who are living breathing organisms from this culture–2007. And they are changing the churches with their culture as I type.
Churches change as culture changes. The churches I attended as a child in the 50′s are not the same churches today. Culture has changed them and will continue to change them. The churches we pastored are not the same as they were (thank God) as they were when we pastored them. People change and so do churches.
Whether you remember or not, I have validated your “passion for the Gospel and your desires for your church” on many occasion at Along the Shore. What you seek for your people in your desperation for passion, excitement and creativity is wonderful. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. But I don’t see that folks who follow a different methodology i.e. Sunday Schools, Discipleship Training and “cookie cutter” standards as being particularly paralyzing to the spread of the Gospel message either.
You ask: “Why is it that the church is the one place within our culture that does seem “out of place” within its own time?”
Church will always be “out of place” within our culture. We are sanctified and separated and are considered foolish to the world. The world is dark. We are light. Darkness wants nothing to do with Light. We have an enemy that seeks to douse the flame within our churches and their effectiveness within its culture. That enemy uses every technique known and unknown to mankind to divert the world’s attention away from the Church of our Lord. That enemy even uses we Christians– our words and attitudes–to impair the effectiveness of our calling. All discouraging words used against Christ’s Body add soot to the chimney surrounding our oil lamps in hopes to darken the light we have. But Jesus will not be extinguished so easily.
And if your point is that most churches are churches seeking to illuminate the world for Christ–no matter what methodology or what shape the cutter, then you and I agree more than you know, Geoff. selahV
(p.s. did you miss the comments in which I shared I hate my given name?)
Mike and Geoff:
“contemporary (whatever that means)” Perhaps we should coin the phrase “Current Cultural” church. In my thinking that is what a contemporary church is–one that incorporates current culture into their missiology and methodology.
I really really like the living organism thing, Mike. selahV
If I am reading selahv correctly, she appears to be saying that both the traditional churches and the newer way of doing things is both correct, that God uses both to reach people for himself. I agree. BTW I personally go to church to give and to get.
I think sometimes we can get stuck in a mode either in traditional and contemporary and think one is wrong while the other is right or at least more right. If we respect both traditional and yet be open to God leading in a more contemporary way, that would be closer to the truth of things. I’ve seen people come to salvation and experience God in both settings. God isn’t stopped or hampered because of our methods.
Hariette (Luv the name
)
I think we are driving around, under, and by one another’s points … sort of having two conversations about basically the same subject.
I’ve not claimed that the more “traditional” churches are “paralyzing” the Gospel. I simply tried to take the statements of an interview with one person who stepped in from outside Baptist life and apply a general principle.
This is it, in a nutshell: We cannot all do the same thing, look the same way, and act exactly the same (as we always have in SBC life) if we are going to effectively reach the multitudes of colorful, different cultures in North America today.
That’s all I was trying to say.
In international missions we plant one type of church to reach indigenous South Americans, we plant another church to reach Roma people, and we plant yet another church to reach a fishing village in coastal Africe, etc…
We must take that same approach on our own continent, because our people are so unbelievably diverse.
Right now, I fear that the one group that we are truly excellent at reaching is “already-church Southern Baptists.” Maybe that explains why the vast majority of our church “growth” is nothing more than transfer “growth.” Sheep swapping.
It takes work, strategy, vision, and a willingness to walk on the methodological edge to reach the lost in North America today.
Our “culture” is not a single entity or environment. America is not made up of millions of little sub-cultures and groups, and each must be reached in unique ways.
The Gospel must translate to each one as we become “all things to all people.” We cannot expect “all people to become just like us…”
And I am quite sure that we agree upon infinitely more than we actually disagree. For sure.
Debbie: you understand me perfectly on this subject. And I would be entirely remiss if I didn’t say that I also go to “get” from my church. But not for the entertainment factor as much as the food for the soul, encouragement for the heart, edification of the mind and fellowship for my body. It’s when we prioritize the “getting” above the “giving” that we become self-serving and wind up increasing rather than decreasing within the church body. Just wanted to clarify that. selahV
Geoffrey…:)
“Paralysizing” is my interpretation of what you might think other churches “stuck in the 50′s” are. Personally, I think some of the things folks did in the 50′s are serving some great ends today. I’ve noticed our very very culturally sensitive youth minister sees a remarkable value in segregating genders when it comes to Sunday School and individual learning groups while many churches like to integrate the genders. In our first church to pastor, they told us it hadn’t been but a few years that they recalled genders being separated in the corporate worship–that was over 25 years ago.
Memorizing scripture was a big deal to the early 20th century church folk. We got away from that and now that is the integral part of WOW and AWANA’s. And well it should be. We need the scriptures within our minds so our hearts will pour forth the truth and not be taken in by the enemy. Our more contemporary songs today are filled with Scripture and messages from the Bible. And our contemporary (current) Christian artists are using more and more old hymns in their rendentions of praise.
I wonder if there is anything “new under the sun.” selahV
Geoff,
I was just thinking about your definitions of “movement” and “institution”, and the discussion of other terms here like “traditional,” “contemporary,” “current cultural,” etc. It just gives me the willies. I’m not entirely sure what the willies are, but I have them right now. It just seems like so much semantics.
It reminds me of my training in psychology, and perhaps that’s why I’m skeptical. I was trained to help people “reframe” their reality, and in reframing their reality they recovered from their crisis. Reframing was simply using other terms to define their reality.
I remember a case study when a parent came in and said she was powerless to parent her ten year old. The therapist told her she was not powerless, that she was simply frustrated. He told her she was the parent, and the child was the child, and she merely had to believe in her own abilities. She was then instructed to go home and “do something different,” relying on her inner resources as the parent.
The next week she came back jubilant, telling the therapist it worked. He asked what she did. She said, “I did something different.” He asked her what and she told him that when the child threw a fit, she sat on him (all 300 pounds of her). The therapist was shocked, asked if the boy was ok, and the mother said she didn’t think he was hurt. She was just happy he hadn’t thrown another fit.
Do we really have to do away with Biblical terminology to reach the lost, and if we do, then what do we do once we introduce them to Scripture? Is there so much difference between cultures in America, that we must use an entirely different vocabulary to make disciples? Is there any evidence that doing so makes that much difference? Is there truly a reviving movement sweeping our country, or is this just another anti-instutional movement that will one day be institutionalized itself?
I’m asking all this, not from any accusatory position. I really want to know, and no one has been able to show me more than anecdotal evidence that even in the same culture movements are more effective than instutitions.
Cyle,
I’m not calling for any different “vocabulary” for making disciples. I’m just suggesting that, because of the diverse cultures in North America today, we need to use the SAME vocabulary and mindset that we employ on the international mission field. The people that we are trying to reach are not already Christians … they are “not like us” … and we need never forget that.
I live in the Midwest (which is not the South by the way…;)), specifically in the St. Louis metro area. Common knowledge is that St. Louis is predominantly Roman Catholic.
Now drilldown a bit more…
I live in an outlying county from the metro area (Jefferson County). While the rest of the metro are thinks we are all a bunch of rednecks, this county is highly suburbanized in the north and east portions of the county. The majority of people living in these areas tend to work in St. Louis City or County. This area is becoming gentrified with subdivisions of big homes taking over land once used by mobile homes.
drill down a bit more…
I live just outside this ring of suburbs in the large chunk of the county that remains unincorporated (no towns). Nobody here wants local government. I think of it as the Wild West (ahem, since we’re in the western portion of the county…)
Bottom line: my portion of the county has a distinct culture than that of the pretty suburbs north and east. Sure, they have their issues too, but they are not the same life issues. In many ways, church going is not something that these people think about and reject; it’s something they never think of.
My wife and I both grew up in this area, moved away (to the pretty suburbs), then moved back. My wife once made the comment that she just felt like our area was in deep spiritual oppression with alcoholism and drug addiction. Those two curses spawn a whole new group of pathologies that just add to the oppression. We can’t “do church” like a predominantly middle class church in the next community.
That said, we’re no better, just different.
Mike,
You just hit on something that I was taught by Dr. David Sills at SBTS in our “Cross-Cultural Communication” class.
As we began our classes he would often make us recite this “mantra” about any given culture: “It’s not wrong, it’s not stupid, it’s just different.”
If we could just learn to apply that knowledge on our own continent!
Hey Mike! thanks for that information. Could you tell me how you do “do church”? selahV
Geoff,
I am still thinking about this whole thing, and I came across a quote I put on my blog a few weeks ago.
“If a church celebrates its methods, it becomes calcified and difficult to change. Celebrate mission over methods if you hope to build a culture of creativity that remains open to change.” (H. Dale Burke, “Even Healthy Churches Need To Change,” Leadership, Fall 2005, p.45)
That helps me think about this whole deal. Thinking about mission vs. method is easier for me to handle than thinking about traditional vs. contemporary, or christian vs. post-christian, or etc., etc.
Mrs. Harriett, (I still retain some of my Kentucky manners!)
Our church would be considered contemporary by many, traditional by some.
We’re a 4 year old Purpose Driven Church…without much of the baggage associated with that term. Our lead pastor preaches straight through sections of Scripture (recent series James, Philippians, now the life of Elijah). He does not preach felt needs (How to be financially free, a good dad, and improve your golf score). He offers an invitation to respond every week, but we do not have “altar” calls every week. Most times the “altar” is used during praise and worship time.
To be honest, in practice, our church sounds a lot like Geoff’s. As I explained, we’re in a semi-rural area just outside of the suburban ring around St. Louis. We have a good mix of long time churched, previously un-churched, and previously de-churched believers in our congregation. Our economic demographic would probably be blue-clollar lower and middle class.
The only way I can differentiate the way we do church from other models is by the use of the word intentional.
We have to intentionally approach much of our ministry that other churches just assume is being done. I’ve been in small, large, and mega SBC churches throughout my life, so I’ve seen the different approaches to enabling ministry.
Discipleship and Fellowship (2 of the 5 purposes) have to be hit constantly. Our unchuched and dechurched have no “spiritual memory” (think muscle memory in golfers) to help them in these areas. We have to use individual mentors instead of classes, which, in reality is a good thing. Ironically, most of my struggle is with the long time churched who don’t view daily time with God as a priority. Unfortunately, I’ve seen that in every church model!
As I alluded before when I said I am an idealist, the reality is that we aren’t doing everything we want to do. But at least we know what we want to do!
Yikes, my apologies Mrs. Hariette!
Mike,
I like the way you explain your intentionality. So much of my Baptist life has included “doing” church programs and stuff out of “habit.”
Our churches do seem very similar.
[...] SBC Impact! Geoff Baggett thinks it may be time to think outside the cookie [...]