Christians often divide the world into two groups: Christians and non-Christians. But have you ever heard of a noun-Christian? It is the type of Christian who would rather talk about doctrine, theology, and the meanings of various biblical words and passages without ever actually doing anything. It is the type of Christian I used to be, and the type of Christian I hung out with most.

As an example, we have all sat through a missions conference where the emphasis of a sermon was on the meaning of the word “Go” in Matthew 28:19, but the only call to action at the end of the message was to give more money when the plate was passed. I know I have preached semons like this before. If faith without works is useless (James 2), discussion without action is worse.

I recently came across the idea in Erwin McManus’ book An Unstoppable Force where he talks about this concept. He writes:

Biblical interpretation must be missiological, not theological. A theological construct for interpretation finds success in the attainment of knowledge. The more you know, the more mature a Christian you are thought to be. And yet knowledge of the Bible does not guarantee application of the Bible. To know is not necessarily to do. When the construct applied to the Bible is missiological, you engage the Bible to discover the response required of your life. It is significant that the history of the first-century church is called the book of Acts, not the books of Truths (p. 72).

Obedience to Scripture unlocks their mystery. …If the Bible doesn’t bring change, it is not being engaged (p. 85).

For too long we have focused on making sure people believe the right things and have left their concerns alone. I know it may sound like heresy, but it is more important to change what people care about than to change what they believe! You can believe without caring, but you can’t care without believing. We cannot afford to fill our churches with members who have biblical beliefs and worldly concerns (p. 111).

What does your church mean when it uses the word missions? It has always astonished me that so many churches and individuals who are ‘missions minded’ rarely engage in the mission of Christ that requires them to come face to face with an unbeliever and love that person into God’s kingdom (p. 125).

So what did you learn in church this past Sunday, or in your Bible reading today? Let me challenge you: if you were shown something you were supposed to do, and you haven’t yet done it, don’t read another chapter in your Bible or attend another church service until you have obeyed. God desires obedience, not faithful Bible reading and regular attendance at church (cf. 1 Sam 15:22).

If I ever pastor a church again, I would like to put the “service” back into “church service.” We would only gather at the church building every other week for the typical Sunday events. On the “off” weeks, we would go out as a group and put into practice what we learned the previous week. I am not sure exactly how this would work, but it might be interesting to try. Who knows? Maybe we would find that service helped us develop more as followers of Christ than singing and sermons ever did.

Sorry for the lack of posts recently. I worked 75 hours last week. Whew! Thankfully, I got off early today, so I have time to write a blog post, and (more importantly) spend time with my wife and three girls!

In a previous post, Randy Siever made the following comment:

St. Patrick seemed to accomplish this by allowing outsiders to be part of his community life. This was not the usual way the church did evangelism, but he allowed people to belong before they believed. He just went into an area and considered everybody “in”. You had to opt out to not be part of his community (this is where the “parish’ idea got developed into it’s modern understanding, and historically why some areas of the US still refer to geographic areas of their cities as “parishes”…if you live there, you’re part of the parish.)

What would a church look like if that were the strategy? What would evangelism look like if people could actually belong before they believed? I don’t really have many answers here, just questions. But I think we have much to learn from our fathers before us when it comes to this kind of issue.

This is exactly right and where I see myself headed as a pastor church planter carpet cleaner…or whatever.

Belong Before Believe
At a recent Glocalnet church planting conference, Bob Roberts talked about how churches are generally made up of three things: Believing, Belonging, and Blessing. In other words, they focus on doctrine, fellowship, and service. The typical church requires that a person believes the same way they do before they will allow that person to feel accepted in their fellowship or to get involved with service in and through the church. They require belief as a prerequisite to belonging and blessing.

Bob Roberts suggested that the biblical model, and true discipleship, allows people to enter into “church life” through any of the three areas (Note that “church life” is NOT to be equated with “eternal life.”) So in this way, if a person longs to be part of the close-knit fellowship of the church, or join the church in building homes in the community, they can do so without signing a doctrinal statement. Discipleship churches allow people to belong or be a blessing without first believing.

Bounded Sets and Centered Sets
I ran into the same idea in The Shaping of Things to Come by Frost and Hirsch in which they talked about Bounded Sets and Centered Sets. Most churches are Bounded Sets, where there is a set of guidelines and rules (doctrinal, behavioral, political, etc) and everybody who agrees with those guidelines are allowed “in” and those who do not, are kept outside until they conform. A Bounded Set is like a fence which separates tame horses from the wild ones. The fence keeps the tame ones together, controlled, and countable.

Frost and Hirsch go on to recommend moving to a Centered Set. In a Centered Set, there are no boundaries, but only those who are closer to the center than others. Those who are closest to the center are involved and active. The center in “church life” of course, must be Jesus and following Him. Anybody can be part of a Centered Set as long as they want to live like Jesus, love like Jesus, and learn from Jesus. (Again, remember that “church life” is not to be confused with “eternal life.”) They don’t have to believe just like you do, or behave just like you do to belong to your fellowship or join with you in blessing the community. Following the agricultural imagery, think of a Centered Set as a watering hole in an arid wilderness. Ranchers in such areas know that they don’t need fences and barns. All they need is a well or a spring, and the livestock will not wander more than a one day walk from the water.  Some live and remain right on the edge of the water, while others may only visit once a day. In such a set, there is much less control, oversight, and expense.

I really think this paradigm shift could really help many churches become more missional in what they do and how they interact with others who don’t agree with them doctrinally. For more on this topic, here are some links:

Next Reformation 
John W. Morehead

I attended a House Church Conference this past weekend. It didn’t take me long to realize that “house churches” are not the answer to the current problems with Christianity in Western culture. But before my house church friends jump on me, let me say that mega churches are not the answer either. Nor are emerging churches, traditional churches, contemporary churches, family churches, bible churches, denominational churches, independent churches, or any other kind of label you might want to put in front of “churches.”

Though Barna reports that the house church movement in Western Christianity is multiplying rapidly (somewhere between 5-20 million people in the United States attend a house church), the statistics also show that the vast majority of these house church members transferred from an “institutional” church to a house church. For the most part, they are not new believers.

I do not call that success. I do not call that growth.

Certainly, some of these transplanted Christians may find deeper intimacy and fellowship with God and with other believers in their new circle of friends, but unless they are also finding ways to love, serve, and become friends with people who are not Christians, all they have done is substituted one form of Christian consumerism for another.

The bottom line is this: I don’t care what kind of church you attend, when you meet, how often you meet, what kind of songs you sing, how long your prayers are, what the building looks like, what kind of teaching there is, who teaches, or (to a certain extent) what your theological framework is. If you and your church are not loving, serving, spending time, and developing friendships with people who do not attend your church (and who may never come!), you are not acting as the Body of Christ.