Blog

Up and coming writers are often given a simple piece of advice: write about what you know best. I think the same could be said of starting new ministry opportunities!

March 22, 2017 1 0 comments
Blog

I was the only pastor there among people with graduate degrees in environmental science and ecology. When it was my turn to present, I unapologetically said that we are a church and are called to care for God's creation.

March 7, 2017 3 4 comments
Blog

Our stately, traditional church building and dated signage gave the impression that the people inside were old, boring, and stoic. Our new image is fresh, modern, welcoming, and rooted in our identity.

February 23, 2017 2 4 comments
RSS

I think the listening piece is key. Thank you so much for sharing this. 

Wow great work Trinity. Thank you for being such an inspirational example of what local creation care means. I hope your work has ripple effects in the hearts of all those who are involved and learn about this project. 

Thanks for putting your love for God and your "neighbors" into action, and then sharing that with us. As an upstream neighbor of this church, it is inspiring to me to know that there are others who put their faith in action by showing up and counting macros! I've seen kids suddenly come to life when they realize that things live in the creek.  These little insects have a lot to say if anyone is willing to slow down and listen. The type and quantities of insects reflect the health of the stream environment, and that alone is a life lesson worth experiencing.  Slow down, show up, take notice, and take action. Keep up the great work, Trinity CRC!

Love this! It's great to hear about Trinity's passion for creation care. Please keep us updated on this project and other future creation care projects you may take on. Keep up the good work!

Kris, this is spot on.  The six points you listed are key for sure. Why we think de-churched or people far from God should act like Christians when they come to church is beyond me.  It makes no sense.  Thanks again for posting.

Thanks for posting, Gerry, and even more, thanks for taking on this project.  I have done some stream invertebrate study myself, and found it fascinating and eye-opening, a window into the wonder of creation that is right in front of us, but usually goes unnoticed.   I completely agree with you that we have a "we have a strong calling to care for God’s creation".  I am so grateful that CRC congregations across North America are taking this responsibility seriously.  Thanks, Trinity,  for taking a leadership role in our denomination!   And good luck with securing your 2-year grant. 

Thanks Elaine and Herb for your helpful responses.  As I said, I've seen a lot of CRC churches go the same route.  Some have gotten rid of their "Christian Reformed" middle name altogether (many replacing it with a new middle name of "community").  Some have decreased the size and prominence of "Christian Reformed" but continue to add it as a tagline ("a Christian Reformed ministry"). Others exclude it from the name and signage but do nod to their CRC heritage in the "about us" or "what we believe" sections of their website.  

Your explanations about the reasons behind this make a lot of sense. Churches should want to be more inclusive and accessible. If our names are a hurdle that block people from walking through our doors, then we should humble ourselves and change them. 

The flip side, however, is that when more and more churches remove their denominational name, it becomes harder and harder for people to understand what we're all about.  Herb mentioned that people don't understand the term "Christian Reformed" and think that it might be related to prison ministry.  How can we help the term have meaning when we use it less and less?

I'd love for the term "Christian Reformed" to become synonymous in our broad culture with a people called by God to live a life dedicated to faith formation, servant leadership, gospel proclamation, worship, mercy, justice and mission. I wonder how we can better build up that understanding when we downplay the words. 

Then again, maybe we need to humble ourselves and not worry about how well our denominational name is known or understood, but just focus on how well Christ is known and understood. 

 

Thank you for your question Kristen. The brevity of the article doesn't adequately communicate the complexity of our decision. I'll attempt to fill in and clarify a few things. Although it's difficult to convey the tone of the healthy conversations that took place in Council and with the congregation through out this process.

First, it's worth mentioning that we didn't approach this decision with a desire to "get rid of our denominational identity", to be "more appealing", nor "to appear non-denominational".  The decision was part of a larger conversation to clearly communicate our commitment to and life in Jesus Christ. We chose to humble ourselves by removing our middle name to be inclusive and accessible to those who didn't grow up in our tradition. The motive for minimizing of our middle name was not an attempt to achieve something better. We lowered ourselves so others could experience the richness of reformed faith.

We are still Christian Reformed; we just don't lead with it. We lead with being followers of Jesus Christ.

Talbot Street Church changed their name from the First Christian Reformed Church in London 4 to 5 years ago.  I voted for the change for several reasons.  There is no "Second CRC" by that name in London.  Our public do not have any association with the words Christian Reformed.  Ones that I have asked focus on"reformed" and think we have an association with reforming prisons or people in jail.  Some stumble on the idea of a church being "Reformed".  They cannot relate to it in any way. Finally, Talbot Street Church tells a "story". This is where we are located and our mission is to serve the downtown area by Talbot Street Church.

 

Hope that explains it from my perspective....Herb Bax

 

PS We were relatively new to London and had  no history to the church which perhaps made it easier.

Thanks for your excellent post, Elaine.  As Director of Communications and Marketing for the CRCNA, I'm curious about why discussions about a church's identity led to a decision to get rid of the denominational identification?  This question isn't a judgment.  I think a lot of churches have reached the same conclusion. They feel that getting rid of the "Christian Reformed" part of their name somehow makes them more appealing. I'm just curious what the term "Christian Reformed" seems to communicate to the public that makes us want to avoid it?  Why has it become so appealing to appear non-denominational? 

I really appreciate these suggestions. Might a corollary to "refusing to compete" be to "partner or cooperate with other churches when appropriate" (which probably wouldn't apply to the grocery store)?

Joe, Thanks for inviting conversation around this topic.  We are currently in a new church development process here in Detroit which is asking those questions and experimenting with answers.  We are building relationships among three different "house church" communities across the city.  Once a month, we borrow space in a building from another church in order to gather with the combined groups.  We don't have intentions on worshipping as a large group every week, because each neighborhood/house church already has their own rhythms of meeting weekly in their own community.  We do not desire to own a building of our own for both financial and mission-minded reasons.

The benefits of not having a building are multiple: not having the costs associated with it, not having people get in the mindset that the building is central to the ministry, interacting with our church and community in spaces that are not owned by us, having to be creative rather than getting into routines based on a consistent meeting space, we don't fall into a consumeristic mentality of providing goods and services to the church.

 The challenges are: The need for good communication is critical because of a lack of a consistent meeting space for people to depend upon.  It can also be challenging to be nomadic in setting up for a gathering (even once a month).  People with needs also seek us out in our homes rather than a building, which can be a challenge to have need coming to our doorstep rather than an "organization" like a church building provides.

If we were to settle on a consistent space for our monthly gathering (or if we decided a more frequent pattern of gathering with the larger group was better) we would try to find a space to utilize that was already a neighborhood asset in order to partner with other community-serving agencies.

Those are some initial thoughts to keep the conversation going.

posted in: Organic Church

 

Here are what I see to be the most disturbing trends:

1. redefinition of the Gospel to be more of a social Gospel along the line of classical liberalism as see in some writings of the leaders of the Emergent Church movement. 

2. removal of God's wrath from the atonement. Substitutionary atonement is divine child abuse. Jesus suffered our wrath to become an example of how to overcome human violence. 

3. universalism replacing the doctrine of limited atonement.

4. there seems to be not enough preaching that fits this description stated by John Piper: " a sermon is is an expository exultation over the glories of God revealed in his word.”

5. the loss of the authority of God's Word. The Bible has become a collection of stories about God which become authoritative as the Spirit applies it. Karl Barth's view seems to have gotten a hold in churches.

6. loss of Christian identity. It is said we are all "broken people now." What about "new creations?" With the loss of Christian identity comes the loss of concepts of mortification and vivification.

When pastors or churches adopt these disturbing trends they do so in the name of being relevant to our culture. However it is these very things that make Christianity irrelevant because its no longer Christianity. No wonder why people are leaving our denomination or others.

 

Iain Murray, in his book, "Revivals & Revivalism" documents how, from about 1740 until the early 1800s, revivals took place. They took place in churches where the pastor preached the word of God fearlessly, at times for many years, and the church had a deep concern for the "lost". The revivals were always instigated by God and not by man's pleading or emotional gatherings.

Do Calvinists have a deep concern for the lost or do we leave it all to God? If so, why did Jesus command his disciples to go into all the world .......?

If those trends are true then the church is on a slippery slope.

"And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:7-8)

 

I think the author is right about these trends and they all seem to focus on the convenience of the worshipers. Sometimes we lose sight of the first priority of worship which is to bring glory to God, our comfort and convenience should be way down the list.

The article is very superficial in its analysis. I agree that we need to move with our changing society, but it's not all about attracting converts or building attendance numbers.

My other gripe is his assertion that less preaching makes for better preaching. Those pastors who wrote 100-150 sermons and messages each year were excellent at exegesis and applying the Word of God. They had lots of practice, and an urgent need to rely on God's guidance every week. I would say they were the better preachers.

Thank you Ken.  You definitely offer a lot of "food" for thought.  My assumption would be not to meet in people's homes, but in a facility owned by someone in the community with whom we can build a ministry partnership.  

My biggest concern is that the building can be seen as a "safe" place for the congregation, but viewed as a "members only" club by folks in the community.  If we are to be seen as missional, and connected to the community, I think we offer some level of vulnerability by being willing to meet in another's "space".  

In my humble opinion, "church" is not primarily about a worship gathering or a Bible study, but rather the people serving the community, being Christ's hands, feet, ears, heart, and at times His voice.   In order for that to happen we need to be intentional about engaging our community.

posted in: Organic Church

I like the idea of "House Church".  As a missionary with CRWM for 20 years in Mexico, this is where we often began: Sometimes in the back yard under a tree for shade: but there were certain disadvantages:  If you hold it consistently at the same place, what do you do when they need to leave for whatever reason for a few weeks or a month: sure, you tell everyone that normally attends where the next service will be: but not everyone has the space for a growing house church: sure, develop leaders and  hold multiple services in more homes as needed: that's the goal: eventually home groups will either want to join a larger group of worshippers where there are more options available for children's ministries, or for youth ministries or for the worship experience with larger groups, good music, liturgical experiences like baptisms and Christmas programs etc.  Home worship and small group experience is a great way to get started or to reach the unbelieving neighbor.  But sooner or later the group itself will be asking, "where can we meet where there is more space to accommodate our growing need for "Sunday School rooms", for a vacation Bible School program, for ceremonies like weddings, baptisms, and funerals?"  The host may eventually realize that their home is no longer their home: it becomes everyone else's space: people will assume that the bedroom can be used for a class, or that refreshments for the kids can be taken from the fridge: and you have no control over perceptions of how well a host welcomes or resents the intrusion of everyone taking over their space.  We have had people say to us, "we want to attend your worship service but we won't go into that home: her husband or her unbelieving family that lives with the host have said inappropriate things or behaved rudely towards me or my children."  Some just don't like the idea of continually entering in someone else's private space as if it was a public space: because there is always the possibility "that my turn will come soon and I don't know if I want people in my home." Some are too embarrassed to let everyone see how they live. 

When you have to "rent" for the moment, or share the worship space with another congregation in order to make more use of the same facilities, there is always tension over use or abuse of materials shared, space shared, sound equipment or musical instruments shared, etc.  or if you have to move in, set up, take down and clean up after every event, yes things break down or wear out quicker, including the people you count on to help do the work.  I've been there too. 

So there are benefits to pooling resources and owning property for the purpose of public worship and providing the options large congregations can provide when it comes to ministry.  I didn't even point out the limitations for handicapped or those in wheel chairs and those who need walkers in order to be mobile:  House churches are less likely to be "handicapped accessible" unless they have someone with those needs living there. What a blessing to have a church facility that is accessible to be able to host "friendship" or other events that are a delight for all to attend: for events like baptisms, funerals, weddings, Christmas and Easter programs, etc.

Pastor Ken Vanderploeg

posted in: Organic Church

Thank you for your comments, Larry and for sharing the anecdotal story.   

However, my question goes a little deeper than simply the logistics of hosting a weekly worship gathering.  I asked if there are those who have "intentionally" chosen not to have a building.  The intention is to focus ministry energy in the community in a more expeditionary manner.   The intention is to purposely find a kingdom partner in the community with whom the church can serve in exchange for meeting space when it is needed.   The service would be to incorporate the people from the community organization into the worship gathering.   For example, here in ABQ we have a number of special needs folks who worship with us each week.  I wonder if we chose to focus our ministry and even worship gatherings to serve that population's needs; meeting in their space.   Then also using their facility for space to develop disciples within the serving congregation as well as the population served.

The intention is to be wholly "organic"; a living body integrated fully into our community.   

I am not sure this model of ministry will work everywhere, and I am not even certain this is the model that everyone should follow.   I only wonder what it might look like for those who have been called to intentionally partner in this manner with their local community?  

Thanks again, and I invite any further comments you may have.

p.s. I am almost certain that this model will require the "pastor" to find bivocational employment. 

posted in: Organic Church

I have always been drawn to the "house church" of the NT.  The idea you present, a church without a building, is attractive and resembles that idea.

However, there are practical concerns that make it less attractive.  My brother belonged to such a church.  Over some years they met in various places, until they finally bought a place of their own.  Why?  Well, he was in charge of sound setup.  He and the other sound people, and the computer people, came to where "church" was meeting 1-1/2 hours before worship to set up and then test everything.  Every Sunday.  After worship they tore everything down and carted the equipment to store in a trailer.  Stuff broke.  Too much wear and tear.   After time, the people on the setup team "burnt out" and quit.

This is one anecdote of personal experience.  I guess if one has a large enough church to rotate people, burnout might not be a problem.  But a church that large has it's own problems.  Another possibility is to have simple worship without these additions.  But most churches (and guests?) seem to want technology. 

Is this a case of a great idea that doesn't work well in practice?

Rev. Larry Lobdell Jr

posted in: Organic Church