Making babies is fun

Firstly, it is not hard to see that the reproductive capacities of the church are directly linked to the missional-incarnational impulse. It is not coincidental that this looks awfully similar to the way in which all organic systems reproduce and procreate themselves. (It looks like a genealogy doesn’t it?) We will explore this further when we look at the element of mDNA called organic systems, but it is important to note here that herein lies the impulse for the seeding and reproduction of God’s people into every culture and group of people. In this view each unit of church can be conceived as a pod filled with seeds: each church ‘pregnant’ with other churches. And it is in following this impulse that the apostolic church extends itself. To frustrate this impulse is to block the church’s innate reproductive capacity.

If you think about it, this is actually how all powerful movements start. It begins with a group of people impassioned with a cause that reproduces itself through multiplication systems. It is fully consistent with the theory of how new movements begin, but sadly not how they end. Something happens when we try and control things too much that serves to lock up the power of multiplication and the movement moves on to addition and then on to subtraction. This is exactly what happened in Wesley’s revolutionary movement for instance. Wesleyanism was at its most influential when it was a people movement that was reproducing like mad. It eventually centralized and as they sought to control what was happening lost much of its power to really change the world.

Neil Cole reports that only 4% of Southern Baptists churches America will plant a daughter church. Extrapolated across the denominations will mean that 96% of the conventional churches in America will never give birth. Cole goes on to say that “Many think this is fine. I have heard people say, “We have plenty of churches. There are churches all over the place that sit empty, why start new ones? We don’t need more churches but better ones.” Can you imagine making such a statement about people? “We have plenty of people. We don’t need more people, just better ones. Why have more babies?” This is short-range thinking…..no matter how inflated you think the world population is, we are only one generation away from extinction if we do not have babies…Imagine the headlines if suddenly it was discovered that 96% of the women in America were no longer fertile and could not have babies. We would instantly know two things: this is not natural so there is something wrong with their health. We would also know that our future is in serious jeopardy.” The missional-incarnational impulse is a fundamental indicator of ecclesial health.

February 26, 2008 | Filed Under incarnational mission, missional, missional ecclesiology, the forgotten ways |

Comments

20 Responses to “Making babies is fun”

Jonathan Brink on February 26th, 2008 1:04 pm

Sounds like Children of Men only for the church.
Peggy on February 26th, 2008 2:05 pm

Alan,

I think that people in too many churches have “lost that loving feeling” if you know what I mean … and I mean that from my current context of being half way through the 40 Days Living the Jesus Creed Challenge during Lent. It has been very interesting!

If folks are spending each day — morning, evening, and throughout the day as the thought occurs to you — confessing your love for God and for others, then they will begin to warm up to the concept of multiplication as reproduction … allowing the Holy Spirit to “seed” the church when and where fertility and willingness intersect.

But when it is no longer fun but a dreaded duty, or worse yet, as you mentioned, merely something most people just opt out of…wow.

Tell that brazenly to a couple desperate for a baby … how insensitive is that?

I’m certainly glad my parents didn’t opt out on me, and I can’t imagine not having our three precious boys.

Very timely and thought provoking, bro.
Matt Stone on February 26th, 2008 10:32 pm

Institutionalism as ecclesiological birth control. Puts a whole new spin on the “blue pill” metaphor!
grace on February 27th, 2008 2:32 am

The statement, we don’t need more churches, is based on a strictly organizational understanding of the church. They are right. We don’t need more isolated social clubs occupying space in multi-million dollar facilities.

But without a framework to see multiplication as organic rather than organizational, church growth and church planting are all about creating another organization. Multiplication won’t happen in that environment.
Erik on February 27th, 2008 4:59 am

I thought of that film ‘Children of Men’ too!

I can’t help but wonder if the illusion of church size has also had an impact on the imaginations of those who could, should, and have the potential for church reproduction. We have been flooded with the impression that success comes from numbers rather then relational connectivity. As a result, rather then fostering relevant and creative mediums for the communication of the gospel within our own individual contexts; we have drained our potential on the quantifications created by others. Perhaps… it is another image of coveting our neighbor’s wife!
Steve in Seattle on February 27th, 2008 2:59 pm

When I think of churches planting churches in general, I do think there’s a predisposition to plant what’s known [“Build a ‘Big-Box-fer-Christians’ with a smidge more room for a few new converts if that sort of thing ever happens to us”].

But if those of us that either know - or have been reminded recently – what a church is really supposed do be, and are ready willing and able to truly follow Jesus, then I strongly believe that we can be successful in reaching new people with the message of the Gospel – as Jesus requested!

Although I am a banker by day, I spend my weekends and several evenings challenging [real] Christians to fully follow Jesus. “It’s not enough to get fed” I tell them, “it’s time to start praying for and meeting with people that don’t know Jesus.” I finally counted this weekend; I’m nagging people from six different churches!

I’m hoping we can become a critical mass – some form of inertia – among the Christians in my area such that there will be new conversions en masse [hey, I’m naïve and actually believe that Jesus Still Saves, OK?!]. I believe that this can begin to put a crack in the prevailing knowledge that most of the institutions in my area live by: “Don’t plant churches…they’ll become your competition”. (Ok, not all of them would say this [one has] but their actions don’t indicate anything different either and there have been very few new converts in the area for years.) If there aren’t new converts, there’s not a lot of reason for anyone to assume that there’s a need for a new church, is there?

[About a half hour drive from the island where I live there is one church that’s so missionally wired that it’s bursting at its seams. Four full services at a rented campus have ceased to be enough. They already planted one additional church about 20 mins further out …but they now see it’s still no longer enough. They’re not growing exclusively through new converts - which isn’t all bad since they’re focused on discipleship and mission. I’ve been attending this church for about 7 months and it’s through some others also interested in church planting that I met Alan.]

Back to the subject:

I believe that some of the institutional churches have a huge role to play and - if we’re strategic about it - can be hugely effective, but not for the reasons some may think. Exploiting what they already have is the key:
• Churches have lots of people in them that are [at a minimum] sympathetic to Jesus. Most do anyway. Yet their leadership need to get serious and effective with discipleship. Period. If done right and for the right reasons the results will be New Christians – not just relocated attendees. Most of their people will see this as the most meaningful way for the real church to grow, but some will think it’s kinda messy. We need to ensure those that are discipled understand there will be people that are interested in Jesus – but not in the institutional church. This needs to be OK with our newly discipled people and they should be convinced that converting people’s thoughts about the institutional church should never be an objective. Enough people that are saved will indeed become part of their institutional church because they’ll be of the same people group as these new disciples.
• Churches house people that currently give money and/or tithe. If new Christians are being added to the congregation, the excitement of this will certainly drive increased giving. Especially if the church leadership sees that even more new Christians can result if they “partner” with the not so conventional (aka: incarnational) missional activities. Initially, I think the Institutional Church is where the money will come from to fund our missional activities even if 100% of the people we are reaching don’t quite look like those in the church. The precedent of giving to overseas missions should help here.
• The only way this can happen is for us to become effective in reaching people with the Gospel and seeing new Christians added to our numbers daily! Eventually, this will change the economic landscape in which the churches need to thrive. Some of the constraints in giving will ease and the counter productive protectionist attitudes of much of our church leadership will cease.

These points might seem simple and obvious, or perhaps idealistic and naïve, but seeing souls saved is what’s happening at a church I started attending 7 months ago. It’s exploding because the entire vision is focused exclusively on “following Jesus”. Almost everyone at this church is “arrows out” and all sorts of creative and unconventional forms of outreach and community service are getting a lot of attention from people outside the church – and people are getting saved! What is making this happen? I’ve gotta blame it on leadership! They’ve done a great job minimizing the influence of institutional church with a relentless focus of “being on the mission with Jesus”.

There will be a lot of people that give money to the cause fully expecting to see more BigBoxes. But I’m seeing even the greyest haired millionaires begin to get excited about the work happening OUTSIDE the scope of the church walls and its programs. There’s a lot of inertia in the institutional church model, but I believe the tide will turn for more and more of them as they begin to see the real results of alternative approaches to church. I’m what you can only describe as a “middle class white guy”, and I’ve determined that probably the best thing I can do is to infiltrate the sterile congregations on my island looking for opportunities to awaken the dormant mDNA in people. They are in fact saved and do love Jesus, but really need to get up and actually Follow.

Following Jesus…as requested,

Steve in Seattle
Art Van Houten on February 28th, 2008 12:48 am

Church growth must be seen in the light of spiritual and physical reproduction. How did the church grow from 25k christians in 100AD to 20M in 310 AD? is similar to how did 70 people going in to Egypt become 2M 400 yrs later? I don’t think Jacob and his kin were converting lots of Egyptians to YAWEH. Judaism didn’t exist yet. They did it the old-fashioned way. God declares physical blessings to his children for obediance to his word. See Deut 11 . I believe those blessings are still avilable to his people today. Plus - there’s the spiritual side to obediance as well. If in obeying God I’m blessed with children, food, clothes, house, possessions as a physical testimony to those around me that God exists and does the “God” thing - then why wouldn’t it be the same on the spiritual side? Why wouldn’t we see spiritual babies (new converts), spiritual money (treasure in heaven - i.e. good works here by God’s people), spiritual houses (name your flavor of church expression depending on the culture of the people reached), etc?

Still, I think there’s TONS to be said for raising the numbers in the kingdom the old fashioned way. If God’s people would let Him decide how large or small their families were to be (i.e. stop sinning with unnatural forms of birth control) then what would happen. America is tending towards zero population growth. What if God’s people turned that around? The easiest belivers to get are the ones you raise in your house. If each husband and wife had 4 kids, and they all were saved, and each of them had 4 kids who were all saved, then after only so many generations the place is exploding with believers. But, what kind of christian fellowship/community do they get into in order to declare to the fallen world around that Jesus Lives and Jesus Saves? Something without the inertia of institutional systems, something easily tailored to the local conditions and populace, something that is a natural outgrowth of the way people live.

I’d like to be a part of that. Can anyone show me one in south western Ohio within a reasonable distance from my home near Gratis? We want to join.

Art
Penney Winiarski on February 28th, 2008 2:36 am

Erik I just loved your 2 posts! Not being able to birth children in the natural way has always tested my faith. I looked around me, instead of above. That comparison will always make you feel like you are lacking.

I’ve found my gifts to be very strong in sheperding. With a deep desire to serve others I find that Jesus has been utilizing those gifts to plant seed and mature many people in my life. As they do for me. The difficult part, as it must be for any mother, is the waiting and the trust.

I have a horrible desire to always need to be able to see and know for sure. Part of allowing others to grow, is to let go. One of my teachers is an ex-gang banger. I love him so much I just want to know that His faith is solid. Unintentionally this turns into control and a desire for proof. While I was looking for proof he showed me my error. Yet, Jesus used my failure to teach our brother grace. Because even when I totally messed up, he said that he would still take a bullet for me. That meant that he was not only more loyal but also more faithful, his love grew to be unconditional, where mine was not.

While our paths will continue to cross we come from completely different cultures. I will never fit in or be trusted in his
community. His mother told me I was now part of their family, that’s wonderful, but I’m more like a distant relative who visits on special occassions.

The other part is being content in your calling. Even on this site, sometimes I wish I was as creative and innovative, as others. The depth of knowledge amazes me. It makes me want more, but more is not always mean bigger, sometimes we just have to dig deeper.
Makeesha on February 28th, 2008 2:41 am

church growth through birthing babies? really art?
grace on February 28th, 2008 6:46 am

Biting my tongue.
Matt Stone on February 28th, 2008 10:29 am

Art, while not disputing that being fruitful and multiplying grows churches, how do you reconcile that with the great commission? This is where we get the important distinction between church growth and kingdom growth … or, to continue with the birthing metaphors, between asexual and sexual reproduction. In the natural world, clones are generally less resistant to disease…
Art Van Houten on February 29th, 2008 5:29 am

Still, 70 people went into Egypt and 2 million came out 400 yrs later. Hard to argur eith the facts. The early church was good about 2 basic things for the community -

burying those who’d died in the night on the streets (ref Mother Theresa), and

taking in the babies who’d been abandonded in the streets during the night.

Now, in whose house did those kids get raised? And into what faith? Do they count for growth or not? Making disciples is for the sons/daughters and the aliens. We still have a mandate from the father to “train up our children” and for “one generation to praise his works to another, and declare his mighty deeds…” How much more knowledgeable will kids be after growing up in missional/organic churches at 20/25 than those who don’t? Perhaps the great missional interest in the young today is a direct result of their parents?
Peggy on February 29th, 2008 6:02 am

…another “both/and” opportunity, eh? But I will say that I have a very focused missional interest in my three young boys right now.
Matt Stone on February 29th, 2008 8:58 am

Well this raises another issue entirely. How much of what we call kids and youth ministry adequately prepares kids for living in a pluralistic society? And how adequately are Christian parents in our churches instructed in Christian parenting in the context of Christian community so that, again, they have the resources to adequately prepare their kids for living in a pluralistic society? Remember there are many parents who have no Christian parenting role models to run with. High birth rates won’t result in church growth if the kids just fall away the moment they leave the Christian bubble to enter school or uni. Yet that is what we often see these days. Again it comes down to the missional-incarnational impulse of the church.
Isaiah on February 29th, 2008 9:08 am

In regards to the last post, the problem with getting kids and youth ready for a pluralist society is difficult when you have to teach your own faith first, let alone many other faiths. And the challenges of pluralism is a deep philosophical one, and not all youth are philosophically minded.

At least that’s what I see.
Matt Stone on February 29th, 2008 3:13 pm

As I see it, we haven’t got a choise.

Christianity is fast becoming a minority religion in Australia, and, if the latest Pew research is accurate, Americans will have to content with similar circumstances soon enough, whether they are philosophically inclined or not.

In my particular corner of the world, when my son starts school next year, he will in all likelihood find himself in a school environment where Hindus outnumber protestants Christians even with nominals included. Quite simply, we couldn’t avoid it even if we wanted to. Many of his neighbourhood friends are non-Christian. At four he has already started asking us why the little girl next door goes to a Sikh temple and not our church facilities (well, actually she does come sometimes but that’s another story) and his questions are becoming more sophisticated by the month.

But in my experience, while there is indeed a philosophical dimention, you don’t need to be a philosopher to see some of what is required. A lot of it just comes down to respect for the stranger. My son is learning a lot already and I don’t expect him to be enroling in Philosophy 101 for quite a few years yet. Let’s not over intellectualize it.
Eleanor Burne-Jones on February 29th, 2008 8:19 pm

My ‘dead end’ blog entry responds.
Matt Stone on March 1st, 2008 10:15 pm

Left a comment
Penney Winiarski on March 2nd, 2008 1:03 am

Alan, love the website! Very psychedelic, dude!

Eleanor, in reference to your blog, “Were you rummaging through my family pictures?”
Good post!
Erik on March 2nd, 2008 9:33 am

Within the shifting of dialogue I must confess my own ignorance when it comes to the raising and educating of youth/children particularly in the personal sense as Bonnie and I have not been blessed in this way. On the other side of it I am intrigued by this debate on philosophical and faith (more like religious) edification. It seems to me that within the calling of Jesus’ discipleship he does not give mandate to the pursuit of either but rather to that of the truth!

I can remember several years ago speaking in my church about the speech on Mars Hill in Acts 17 and giving it the illustration of the effects of light passing through a prism. From the purity of white light comes all the colors of the rainbow; each containing its own essence of truth and righteousness. Likewise, the purity, righteousness, goodness, and truth behind creation have passed through the effects of a spiritual prism which has fragmented it into uncountable pieces. Jesus brings us into a new way of thinking, one which takes us back through the prism and allows us to see all things within the equity of pure white light and righteous creation.

Educating our youth, children, adults, spouses, neighbors, friends, and family is not about teaching them all the intricacies of this religion and that, this belief and that. It is far more, yet far simpler then that I believe. It’s about teaching them to seek, recognize, and build upon the truth within any form, context, or relationship which it is found in!