Spent the weekend writing about how God uses different churches to serve different purposes within a community. Whether we like it or not, we tend to "colonize" around leaders who share our same spiritual giftedness. So, for example, a strong teaching church will attract other teachers and the congregation takes on a very academic approach to faith. Outreach churches not only attract lost people, but those with the gift of evangelism. Mercy churches attract people who either need or love to bestow grace. And so on.
Church planters run into difficulty when they try to occupy a niche already mastered by another established church. I believe God calls church planters to contribute something different than the town's other churches, to reach people they're not already reaching.
Before you flame me, think about it...
What do other churches in your town do better than yours?
Now, how is your church different? What is your unique identity?




Great post. I used to think the answer to the first question had to be "Nothing" and to the second "Everything". God is running point on this thing - and He's great a distributing the ball.
Posted by: Chris Chowdhury | November 17, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I've noticed this too- when God tells us that we're each an organ of the body of Christ- it seems funny that the kidneys all gather together, and the fingers are all in another group, and there is almost always some hidden level of misunderstanding or distrust of the other.
Should each church strive to have each of the parts? Segmentation and niche make a ton of sense from a drawing standpoint, though I also see a ton of wisdom in having bold teachers and compassionate givers and spirit lead worshippers figure out how to worship God together.
Posted by: Mike | November 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Is there any theology behind these assertions? I can't help feeling that this is a post loosed of its moorings. What "is" does not define what "ought".
Posted by: STephen | November 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM
"God calls church planters to contribute something different than the town's other churches..."
I'm going to push back in this one too, Ben. I'd love any biblical defense for the statement above. It fits well with business development philosophy, but I'm not sure I can find it in the New Testament.
Posted by: Bill Streger | November 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Steven and Bill, I'm trying to be careful not to make an assertion here, but rather an observation.
For example, studies show that attrition starts happening when churches fill over 80% of their seating capacities. It's a social phenomenon, not a theological one.
So the question you have to ask yourself is this: will you hold only to what is prescribed in scripture... or will you embrace sociological factors that could enhance your ministry? hmmmm.
Posted by: Ben Arment | November 17, 2008 at 01:03 PM
I don't know. I'm not saying you can't be right, but I'm of the opinion that God would want church's to be balanced. I lean more to the "Natural Church Development" theory on church health/church growth.
Posted by: Kenny Johnson | November 17, 2008 at 01:03 PM
Okay, let's talk. What's your top spiritual gift?
Posted by: Ben Arment | November 17, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Is eating a spiritual gift?
Posted by: Kenny Johnson | November 17, 2008 at 01:24 PM
Great thoughts Ben -- what you're articulating for church planters here is the same message I and others on the Auxano team have been taking to leaders of established churches.
If you haven't checked it out already, I think you'd find Mancini's book to be right up your alley (www.ChurchUnique.com)
Re: biblical justification, here's some food for thought (copied this from a post I wrote awhile back -- link is here: http://blog.visionnavigator.com/2008/08/right-way-to-do-church.html):
What if local congregations were seen as the various parts of Christ's body, and not just individuals? Could it be that God expects each local gathering of believers to do church in a stunningly unique way -- a way that makes the best redemptive connection within their context, using their unique backgrounds, collective potential, sense of calling, leadership leanings, desires, failures, triumphs, etc.?
Blessings
Posted by: Steve Bradley | November 17, 2008 at 01:32 PM
Ben,
It would seem from Scripture that Paul had the same attitude about not duplicating ministry or building upon another man's ministry foundation, if possible (1 Cor. 3:5-11; Romans 15:20-21)
I agree that churches take on the core values of the leader. I have seen very few leaders that excel in every area of ministry, so other ministries are needed to meet those needs.
IMO
Posted by: Steve | November 17, 2008 at 04:29 PM
Ben,
Isn't this a result of the leadership principle (I think it's a Maxwell and Driscoll has a version) that leaders replicate themselves over and over again in their followers?
Good post!
Phil
Posted by: Philip Canarsky | November 17, 2008 at 04:34 PM
We can never allow our theology to inhibit our responsibility to work, think, and act. Nor should it preclude our actions, or pursuit to fulfill our individual callings. (I am speaking from a reformed perspective).
Just because the Bible doesn't mention current cultural sociological trends (rock 'n roll, Starbucks, dramatic-sermonette-videos), doesn't mean we shouldn't embrace them as tools and methods to couch our individual approaches (callings) to ministry - We are reaching people groups after all, each having different sociological and cultural norms which need to be addressed in light of The Gospel.
I think Ben nailed this one on the head...
I would like to add, that I would be EXTREMELY disappointed if I walked into Baskin Robbins and found only chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry flavors populating all 31 spots.
It is not innovative to plant a new church, doing the same "thing" the church plant 2 miles down the road is doing.
-Josh
Posted by: Joshua Cryer | November 18, 2008 at 11:18 PM