;)
Local Churches: Competition or Complimentary?
Posted by Les Puryear in Church & Missions
I’m reading a wonderful book by D. G. McCoury entitled, “Understanding the Single-Staff Church.” He makes an astute observation about the differences in local churches. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
A pastor attempting to serve an open-village or small-town church and then a crossroad church outside the village is likely to find that the style of preaching ministry satisfactory to one group will not be so to another group. Too often, we assume all congregations are about the same, especially those within the same denomination.
Kent Hunter wrote about one pastor who pointed out that five churches had been built on the same major street, all within five miles of one another on Detroit’s east side. This pastor called that area “church row” and was disgusted that such terrible planning had been allowed. Actually, the various churches were not in competition. Each congregation had different priorities. One operated a Christian school and emphasized Christian education. Another conducted a strong single adult ministry and stressed fellowship. Still another was characterized by liturgical worship services. A fourth concentrated on social ministries, organizing programs to meet the needs of the people in the community.
The point is that churches can exist right across the street from one another and not be a threat to the ministry and growth of the other churches. Even congregations of the same denomination often take on different postures. Does this mean the Christian church becomes whatever suits the whims of the people? No! In churches, unity and diversity can exist. Individual congregations, when following Bible principles, have the freedom to fulfill God’s plan in different ways. Church programs, strategies, worship styles, ministries, and buildings—all will be diverse. But each church, when it remains within the context of the Christian faith, can shape its individual ministry to meet the needs in its own setting.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Interesting quote. I’ll need to digest it a bit.
Growing up in the Bible Belt and now living on the mission field, I question the wisdom of investing our resources the way we do in the States. It just seems to me that some areas are “overchurched,” if there is such a thing.
But I could be wrong . . .
Les,
It seems to me the situation described here is relective of two different realities, one good, and one not so good.
First, a sincere desire by churches and believers to be “all things to all men so that by all possible means (they) might save some.” If different types of churches reach different types of people for Christ, it is good, in one sense, that we have as many different types of churches as possible.
Next, though, I believe this is reflective of American consumeristic values. I believe it is not a coincidence that you find this situation in the same country where you find 100′s of different kinds of breakfast cereals on the grocery store aisle. This is not a good thing, and is a result of our selfishness and carnality, especially when each of these different “brands” of church operate as if they were the only ones, and in practical isolation one from another.
The solution, or biblcal balance, to this dilemma, as I see it, is the following: a recognition (and living out) on the part of all that, at the core, we all form part of the same Body, or “city church,” if you will; while, at the same time, giving each one the freedom and the blessing to be “all things to all men so that by all possible means (they) might save some.”
I am spending quite a bit of time thinking about this for a few reserch projects that I am doing…
When I moved to Western KY I found it odd that in a county of about 30,000 there were right around 100 churches. Of course, if our county is like most of the U.S. on any given Sunday 15,000-22,000 of those people aren’t in any of those 100 or so churches. If each church suddenly had another 75 or 100 people show up (so half the unchurched started coming) most don’t have the facilities to handle it.
To me this is a question about motives…are we trying to out worship or out preach the church down the street? If we are, we have problems. If we’re trying to reach unchurched in our community who for whatever reason have passed on the existing churches, then I’m for starting more churches to grow the kingdom.
Let me add, I agree with David Rogers that we shouldn’t act as though we’re the only church. That being said, there are certain things that a newer church, or a plant, can do effectively and quickly that an older established church can’t. It takes a while for a large ship to turn. Let’s rejoice in the fact that other churches are reaching people we can’t, not pout that those folks aren’t coming to our church.
Kevin,
With so many lost people in the USA, I think new church plants are one way to reach more of them. Stats tell us that new church plants baptize more folks per capita as it were, than existing churches.
David R,
I’m not very familiar with the “city church” concept. However, I seem to recall that being mentioned in conjunction with house churches. Perhaps that is more practical as a time of coming together and celebration for the individual house churches. As you probably know I am a supporter of the house church concept, so I’m not trying to dismiss it. And you’re right about our consumer mentality.
David E,
I agree that churches should be supportive of one another; not be in competition with each other.
Les
The bottom line is that even the largest megachurch can only minister to a fraction of most modern cities.
Even *all* the churches in a city can’t reach the people of the whole area, except for some very small towns.
The more churches, the better.
Les,
The “city church” concept, in a nutshell (at least as I understand it) is each local congregation recognizing that they are only a part of God’s church in a given locality, making efforts to get to know each other, praying together whenever possible, blessing each others’ ministries, and cooperating in ministry projects, whenever practical, without demanding compromising on doctrinal distinctives.
I have also read of the “city church” specifically in relation to “house church” ecclesiology. Though I am generally supportive of “house churches” or “organic churches” as well, I am reluctant to relegate the “city church” to being just a “house church” thing, though. The Body of Christ in any locality is broader than just the “house church” movement. And when we refer to one segment of the church in language that implies they are the entire church, I believe that promotes division within the Body of Christ.
Thus, I would consider all true biblically Christian groups within a given locality as part of the “city church,” whether they themselves feel comfortable with that terminology or not.
Mike,
Well said. Right on.
David,
Thanks for the expansion of the “city church” concept. I think churches in the USA are much too clannish for that to be workable here. Pity. Is this concept in practice in Spain?
Les
Les,
There are some examples in the USA where some good progress is being made in this area (Houston, Spokane, WA, State College, PA, etc.) as well as some examples in Spain (Extremadura). Paul said in Eph. 4:3 that we would have do ENDEAVOUR to keep the unity of the faith, though. We are never given the idea in the Bible that it is supposed to be easy.