Fishing Nets or Safety Nets?
Remodelling church to connect with the unchurched
By David Male
Tutor in Pioneer Ministry Training at Ridley Hall and Westcott House, Cambridge
As I go round the country learning
what is happening in evangelism, mission and church planting, I sometimes wonder
whether we are fooling ourselves. There is much activity, but what is truly
happening out there? Are we simply creating more places where bored or
exhausted or cynical Christians can be kept safe or happy? Or are we really creating
new Christian communities that are connecting with people way out of the churches
normal orbit and enabling them to be come fully functioning disciples of
Christ?
I see lots of activity
presently in church planting, or what the Anglicans and Methodists call ‘fresh
expressions of church.’ There are many larger churches with strategies for
planting many new congregations throughout Britain. The development of
emerging churches sparks great excitement or concern in equal measure.
But are we creating a safety
net for Christians who are falling out of our ‘evangelical system’, or are they
truly fishing nets?
I write this out of my
experience over ten years of planting a church called The Net in Huddersfield, whose express aim was to reach the majority
of the town who had no contact with any church. Here in Cambridge, as well as teaching and consulting,
with a handful of friends, I am trying to plant a church that connects with
sports people. I know from my personal experience how both exciting and
challenging it is to create good fishing nets.
I was talking to some church
leaders from a local church recently who had created a new church congregation
on a Wednesday night to reach unchurched people. I asked them who was now
coming to this congregation. They told me it was nearly exclusively fringe
people from the Sunday church who found the normal services dull and sterile. I
do think there is a place for safety nets, but my main concern is that often we
think we are creating fishing nets, but soon discover they are unused nets and
our focus shifts as Christians start to join and change the vision and values
of this new group.
Does it matter?
Our world and its culture are
changing very quickly. We may debate how much our nation is post-modern (I
suspect not as much as we are often led to believe), but it is clear it is
rapidly becoming post-Christian. Callum Browne sums this up when he wrote,
“What is taking place is not merely the continued decline of organised
Christianity, but the death of a culture which formerly conferred Christian
identity upon the British people as a whole.”1 Thisis much more
thandeclining church attendances, but thewholesale change of
our culture.
This doesn’t mean we are any
less spiritual as a nation, as new research from the Christian Research
Association shows (visit http://www.christian-research.org.uk/).
In a recent poll, 73% of people asked considered themselves as searchers, by
which they meant someone who had reconsidered their core values or thought
about the big questions of life in the last year. If someone had a church
background, this often led to them looking to church, prayer, faith or the Bible,
but if they had no church background (i.e. unchurched), then none of these
‘church-type’ things were on their radar at all.
This huge change has created
new generations with very little contact with our churches. The research of
Leslie Francis and George Richter brought this home to many of us.2 They showed in 1991 that around 10% of
people were in church regularly, and 10% were on the fringe of the church. Of
the rest 40% were people with some church background who had stopped going to
church. This group, subsequently called the dechurchedby others, could
be evenly split. Twenty percent, termed the open dechurchedhad left
for no particular reason, maybe simply getting out of the habit of church going
or moving to a new area etc., but would be open to returning to church. The
other 20% clearly knew why they had left and had no intention of returning. It
may have been a falling out with church leaders or upset at changes made. They
have been called theclosed dechurchedor dischurched by one of my students.
The other 40% were people with
no church background whatsoever apart from occasional attendance at a wedding
or funeral. These figures revealed that 60%, a majority of the British population
were not looking to coming to church ever.
These findings were supported
by Tearfund’s research on church-going in 2007.3 Their figures were very
similar to Francis and Richter’s except in one vital area. The newer figures
suggest that the proportion of open dechurched people has declined from 20% to
5%. This should raise alarm bells for us, as historically, this is the group
that we are best and most effective at reaching. Much of the success of things
like guest services, Alpha or ‘Back to Church Sunday’ are dependent on this
group. Yet the research is telling us that now 66% of the adult population are
closed to attending church.
The Tearfund report comments that,
“this majority (the 66%) presents a major challenge to the churches. Most of
them are unreceptive and closed to attending church: church-going is simply not
on their agenda.” As leaders we need to understand that people are notsitting in their houses
thinking ‘if only our local church would make their services more contemporary/
relevant / with better preaching/child friendly we will go’. We are simply not on
their agendas at all.
These figures also hide one
other important piece of information from some separate research. 60% of 60
year olds have some church background, 40% of 40 year olds and 20% of 20 year
olds. So typically the older generations make up more of the dechurched people and
the younger generations dominate the unchurched, and they are likely to be the
growing group simply because of their age profile.
The Tearfund research concludes
that, “this research helps us to understand that, the further people are from
church (in terms of churchgoing), the less likely they are to attend in the
future. Mission opportunities are very
different when to step over the church threshold is an unknown experience.”
Whatever you make of these
figures, I hope you see that we cannot keep doing what we have been doing
because the situation has changed so much. Loren Mead commented prophetically
in the 1980s: “We understood mission one way and organised life to accomplish
it. We have awakened to find out the mission moved on us. To keep focusing on
mission, we have to turn the furniture around and face a different direction.
We may even have to move into another room.” 4 This change is not new,
but has been experienced by the church since the Acts of the Apostles and
throughout church history. There is no one model we can adopt that will provide
us with effortless solutions, but I think there may be important principles we
can apply and develop in our own contexts.
1. Public worship probably
isn’t the best starting point.
Our immediate reaction to all
this is often to create a new church service with better (or more relevant)
preaching or worship or liturgy depending on our theology. Maybe we could even
hold it in a coffee shop rather than a church building. But who are we likely
to attract? Surely it will be dechurched people who are basically looking for
an improved product from their past experiences. We even collude with this by
promising church like you have never experienced before. If we truly want to be
missionary and connect with the majority of our population, this will not work.
When we started the NetChurch in Huddersfield,
we did not have any worship service for the first nine months, and I am not sure
we left this long enough.
We are uncovering a pattern with
churches that are connecting with unchurched people. This seems to begin with Christians,
with a clear calling, listening to what God is saying to them about their
community. This, over time, then leads to some kind of loving service which
involves Christians connecting with people in their community or network
through some means. Out of this community is formed a group in which people get
to know each other and in which the Christians share their story. From this,
evangelism and disciple making begin as people start responding to what they
hear, and activities like prayer and Bible study begin. Finally, evolving
public worship is created which is not purely an invite to worship with us in
the mode we like, but a true organic attempt to create worship that reflects
this new Christian community. Hopefully this worship will be attractive (whatever
we mean by that), but what matters most is that it is transformative within
that culture.
This whole process may take up
to four years to develop. This doesn’t mean that the Christians are not
worshipping and praying along the way, but it demonstrates the commitment
required for today’s missionary endeavour. There will be many pressures along
the way to circumvent this process, often from Church Councils wanting to see
instant results. The danger is that the fringe can give you much quicker
results, but this simply masks the underlying missionary need. One of the best
examples of true missionary worship is from Somewhere Else .5 This is a Methodist church plant in Liverpool which is based around bread making.
2. Modification of the existing
is not enough.
I do not think in our present
circumstances that God is calling us to modify slightly what we are doing. If
we are truly going to reach the majority of our nation, we will need to be more
radical. I think that theologically Acts 1-15 gives us some important clues. In
these early days, the church has to grapple with how it needed to change to
connect with the Gentiles. We see the centre shift from Jerusalem, the story moves from a focus on
Peter to Paul, the church goes west and, most importantly, church is done
differently amongst the Gentiles. Acts does not show the apostles rolling out a
Jerusalem model church which is then recreated
in Antioch and
elsewhere. Despite the important principles Acts 2 gives us, it is not a
blueprint of how to do church in its details. We need to be investing in the
important work of how the principles work out in our local context. One of the
biggest dangers is that we do not plant churches, but clone them. We take
another so called successful model and try to make it work in our context. It
does not and will not. It is interesting to note that initial research done on
larger growing churches suggest that they reach 4% unchurched people. The majority they connect with come from
other churches or have church backgrounds.
Maybe we need a ‘Peter moment’ -
that life changing moment in Acts 10 when he sees a sheet being lowered down
full of unclean animals and God tells him to get up, kill and eat. It changed
his whole outlook on his life, calling and ministry. Maybe we need a similar
moment from God which helps us see that we cannot simply modify what we are
doing, but that we need a paradigm shift.
3. Mission shapes the church.
I spoke to two ministers
considering church planting recently with teams from their church. In our
conversations, I suggested some areas or networks that were crying out for the
gospel. The answer that I received back was clearly that this was not the kind
of place the team wanted to go to! They wanted to make sure that where they
went and what they did suited their needs.
This is one example of what
others have termed church shaped mission rather than mission shaped church. 6 The
danger is that we shape things depending on our own wishes, desires and
preferences. We would think it strange if missionaries we sent overseas
recreated their home church in Africa, Asia or Latin
America, and yet we don’t ask the same contextual questions within
our own country. Tim Dearborn famously commented that, “it is not the church of
God who has a mission, but the God of mission who has a church.” God is not
calling us to create mission-flavoured churches or fresh expressions of worship,
but he is calling people to do whatever is required to enable unchurched people
to find Christ and become his disciples. Are we really brave enough to let the
mission shape what we might become?
4. This might change us.
We tend to think how this might
impact the unchurched, but we also need to understand this will change us as
leaders and our congregations. My own experience of the last ten years is that
this has changed me dramatically. It has challenged many of my presuppositions and
forced me to rethink some of my practices. It has certainly made me a lot more
humble about what I know! Often it seems to be less about doing change and more
about being changed.
As I talk to church leaders I
have found John 12.24 to be a very challenging and yet important verse: “I tell
you the truth, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains
only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.” This gospel
principle of dying to live often leads to discussions about what cherished
activities or ways may need to die to enable new things to begin to take place.
Often ministers say to me they would love to start something new to connect
with unchurched people, but do not have the spare time, capacity or resources.
This leads then to difficult conversations about what they may need to let go
of to enable something new to live. It may be a cherished service, an
established group, a successful ministry, but maybe the call is for it to die
to allow something new to live. That is
hard for us to hear and even harder sometimes to manage as those involved
tenaciously hold on to what they have.
I love the famous words of the
Catholic missionary Vincent Donovan when he was asked about how to reach the
youth of America.
7 He replied, “Do not try to
call them back to where they were, and do not try to call them to where you
are, beautiful as that place may seem to you. You must have the courage to go
with them to a place that neither you nor they have been before.”
That will change us, as with
those we are reaching, we find ourselves in new places, facing new situations,
trusting together that God will show us the way.
5. Welcome the three eccentrics
Who are the Philips in our
churches? They are the dangerous deacons who may take us into places that we
have never been before. We need to ensure we allow space for these kinds of
people who are often seen as the mavericks or the ones on the edge. They are
not necessarily in church every week, or seen as the ‘right’ types. How do we
encompass them into what we are doing while still keeping them dangerous?
How can we discover the
Corneliuses? These are the people outside the church who may have something
important to say to us from God.
Finally who are the Pauls who
want to do it differently? How are we identifying, training and sending out our
local missionaries. Can you identify these three eccentrics in your situation?
6. The challenge of
discipleship.
In the Great Commission in
Matthew 28, the command in the Greek is not to go (it is more in terms of ‘in
your going’), but to make disciples. I think working with the unchurched that this
is a massive challenge. As they have no church background, living Jesus’ way is
a big deal in all areas of life. We need to be discovering creative ways to
help them become whole life disciples of Jesus. It will not be enough to leave
them and hope they pick it up as they go along. George Barna suggests that
discipleship will need to be simple in its nature, relational in its emphasis
and transformational in its outcomes.
So where do we start with all this.
I find Alan Roxburgh really helpful in his book which is aimed at helping local
leaders and their churches find solutions to the issues we have been looking
at.8 He suggests there are five steps which may take a couple of years
to go through.
Awareness of what is happening in culture and
society and its impact on the church.
An understanding of why this is
happening.
An evaluation of what we are already doing in
church and how it matches up to what needs to be done.
Experimentation at the edges. Don’t change
everything overnight, but maybe pick one area you can change now.
Commitment. Out of this successful experiment,
the church can move forward into a new future.
None of these are easy or
comfortable, but maybe God is calling us into a new missionary period. Back in
1927, Roland Allen wrote these words calling the church to a new paradigm in
its mission overseas, and maybe we now need to apply it in our own country: “What
is necessary is faith. What is needed is the kind of faith which, uniting a
person to Christ, sets them on fire. Such a person can believe that others
finding Christ will be set on fire also. Such a person can see that all that is
required to consolidate and establish that expansion is the application of the
simple organisation of the church.”9
David Male is Tutor in Pioneer
Ministry Training at Ridley Hall and Westcott House, Cambridge and Fresh Expressions Advisor for
Ely Diocese. He is an Associate Missioner for Fresh Expressions.
He has written Church Unplugged
(Authentic) about how to create new churches and has a blog on which he writes
about these issues at http://davemale.typepad.com/churchunplugged/
1. Brown, C.G., The Death of
Christian Britain. (Routledge)
2. Francis, L and Richter, P., Gone
but not Forgotten. (DLT)
3. Churchgoing in the UK- A
research report from Tearfund on church attendance in the UK.
4.
Mead, L., The Once and FutureChurch.
(Alban Institute)
5.
Glasson, B., I am
somewhere else. (DLT)
6. Mission Shaped Church Report 2004. (CHP)
7. Donovan,
V., Christianity Rediscovered. (SCM)
8.
Roxburgh, A., The
Missional Leader. (Jossey-Bass)
9.
Allen, R., The Spontaneous
Expansion of the Church (Lutterworth
Press)