Wake up call

Peter Kariuki, leader of a "city" of 12,000 internally displaced
Kenyans, and part of the Africa Rising network.

I just returned from two weeks in Kenya and Tanzania where Gayle and I attended the annual meeting of Africa Rising, an organization we founded, and visited a number of the 14 organizations that are part of the AR network. The trip was very rewarding. We saw that the organizations have grown individually, and they have grown collectively as a network with a common voice. My commitment to grow the organization and spread its reputation as an agent of change in East Africa grew even stronger. But that commitment comes at a time when the finances of AR are in dire straits. With the flagging economy, philanthropic giving has been lessened. But AR also needs to do a better job of seeking donations and grants. We have begun doing that, but it takes a lot of time and effort. And part of that effort is writing about the AR success stories, including in a weekly blog. I'm afraid I have only one blog in me - at best. So I am going to close down this one and move my blogging energies to Africa Rising. If you'd like to follow that blog, you can look for it on the Africa Rising website. Or, if you can't find it, send me an email at jim.thomas(at)africarising.org, and I'll tell you where it is.

Thank you for following this blog and my thoughts on what could be for the church in the Triangle. I will continue that search for a new fusion of Christian mission and worship. If you think of it, please keep  this journey in your prayers.

Jim

Taking a stab

I began this blog three months ago. In that time I have been building friendships in my new church, Emmaus Way, reading about missional communities, talking with informed people, and visiting the Church of the Savior. In that time, I have indeed made some progress in my thinking, even though as some questions have been answered, others have rushed in to take their place.

Up until now, I have been peeling away unnecessary layers of church, seeking what is essential and vital. I now have a rough idea to build on. Please don't hold me to it - it's a  *rough idea* - but I do want to share it so I can receive critique, ideas or encouragement. 

Recall that what I seek is church centered on action which then gives people a reason to gather and share knowledge. This is the opposite of most churches, which are centered on knowledge in the hope that it will lead to action. A cluster of people in conversation with me, and who also want such a church, share an interest in food and gardening. Yes, we all like to eat. But that isn't the point. The point is that food is fundamental, and so is the soil it comes from and the labor that produces it. Food has also become the principal language of ethics among many people today - especially college students and young adults. It is often their basis for caring about fair trade, the environment, farmer's markets, vegetarian diets, and more. (A book on my reading list: Food and Faith: A Theology of Eating, by Norman Wirzba [thanks, Allegra, for the recommendation].)

Now, consider that former refugees from the Congo and Sudan are being resettled in the Triangle area. Anyone coming from a rural area of a developing country is going to miss having their hands in the soil, and miss eating certain foods. If we can get a plot of land that is close to where these people are being settled, they and we can join in gardening and raising the foods they miss (if they can grow here). Working side by side in this way is not a charity - it is a way of building relationships and living out the love of God. It will provide an opportunity for listening to each others' stories and responding to each others' needs.

Carrboro Community Garden

Carrboro has a community garden - for a purpose different than what we intend, and it looks full at the moment. That's OK. We can find a plot elsewhere, and we can learn from the Carrboro experience. They gather to tend the garden from 10 to 12 each Saturday. If we were to do the same, on Saturday or Sunday, we could then wash up at the end and go to someone's home for a shared meal, followed by a time of prayer and discussing the Bible. Whether Christian or not, everyone would be welcome to join us. For three weeks a month, that would be our church service. On the fourth week, we'd join Emmaus Way to stay connected to another group of believers and to encourage and influence one another.

No doubt the relationships formed by hoeing and weeding together would lead to care of other kinds, say practicing English, tutoring students, and helping people figure out American life. We would also want ways the immigrants could help the non-immigrants. We'll learn those in time. These non-gardening activities would become the main ways of interacting in the seasons when things are not growing.

That's about as far as I can go with this idea at the moment. Lots of questions follow. Where are immigrants concentrating in the Triangle? Can we find a mature Christian among them who could be a co-leader? Can we find a plot of ground? Can I put my time into this when I am having to put more time into my job and my other venture, Africa Rising? Who else might help? These are all matters for prayer.

Thanks for reading along. Let me know if you have any thoughts.

Dropping the baton

In my visit to The Potter's House (see last blog entry), my host mentioned that the mother institution, Church of the Savior, had closed down and sold its building as the founder, Gordon Cosby retired. In an exchange with philosophy professor and Christian author Dallas Willard, Cosby posed the question, "Why do churches and ministries so often lose the essence of their founding vision, to the point that the resulting institution, years later, is quite unlike the original dream? What happens along the way?" Willard responded there are exceptional people with a strong vision who start something new. Then,

Organization of their activities takes place, and other organizations spin off from them numbers of talented individuals are drawn to them and make their lives in their wake. But these other individuals - usually, but not always, very well-intending - do not carr the "fire" the "certain something," within them. The mission or missions that have been set a foot begin a subtle divergence from the vision that gripped the founder, and before too long the institution and its mission has become the vision.

Certainly this happens. But Dallas Willard is describing rather than explaining. What he is describing is one of the earliest milestones of every institution: passing the baton from the founder to the next leader. The passing is fumbled in many ways. In some cases, the founder holds onto the baton too long, resisting the release of control. In other cases, the founder simply gives no thought to who should lead next and how. In Africa Rising, this is one of the challenges we see in each of the African organizations - how to manage that first succession of leadership.

Examples of failures to manage the transition litter the roadside. Willard gives a few prominent examples. But our societies are built on examples of successful transition. These are the institutions that managed that first transition and reached heights unimaginable to the original founder. One example might be the Ford Motor Company. Another would be the university where I teach: The University of North Carolina.

I consider leadership transitions to be fundamental to leadership. To that, I would add leadership development. In the case of Gordon Cosby and the Church of the Savior, I wonder what emphasis he gave to raising up new leaders. Within the Church of the Savior, there is the Servant Leadership School.  But as you can see in their website banner, their mission is largely classroom teaching. Passing the baton from a founder to the next leader is a specific task that takes place outside of the classroom. It requires relationship development, mentoring, and the gradual transitioning of responsibilities.

Combine the closing of the Church of the Savior building with the lack of young people in the church's missional communities, and it looks to me like they failed in practical leadership development. It saddens me when I think of what they could have sustained, or how they could have multiplied, with attention to the raising the next generation of leaders.

A visit to Church of the Savior

On a business trip to Washington DC last week I had a free afternoon and visited The Potter's House, one of the Church of the Savior missional communities. It is a combination coffee house and book store in the Adams Morgan neighborhood, about 30 blocks due north of the White House. I had been hoping to meet with a person who is well connected with Gordon Cosby, the founder of the church, and who I'd been told would arrange a meeting with me. However, that task didn't make it her "to do" list and the meeting never happened. So, when I arrived at Potter's House, I spoke with the book store manager, Tom, who had held that job for 30+ years. He was more informed than he gave himself credit for.

Tom stepped away from the cash register and sat down at a table with a cup of coffee to talk with me. He periodically got up to take care of a customer. He demonstrated to me the graciousness of the Potter's House ministry, showing patience and hospitality in the face of my interruption in his day.

While talking with Tom, I also observed what was going on in the room. There were about a dozen people there at any one time. They varied in race (Caucasian, black, white, Asian) and income level. They sat at tables in twos and threes, talking. I also fliers for talks on various subjects. The ministry has been doing this since the 1960s. Imagine the number of people who have been blessed by it

I asked Tom a number of questions. I'll write about just a couple of them here.

Q: Do the ministries gather together once a month?
A: No, but they once may have. (This surprised me. I will have to check my recall of what I learned of the Church in the 1970s, when I lived in Washington and visited it. Tom also mentioned that the communities are re-evaluating how they interact, now that Gordon Cosby, their founder and visionary, has retired.).

Q: How many people attend the church gatherings of the ministries?
A: They range from 8 to 20.

Q: Do the communities attract young people?
A: No. This is another reason the communities are evaluating how they function. (What I surmised is that the church and its ministry communities were initiated by a group of "Jesus People" radicals of the 1960s, who have carried it into the present, but didn't find a way to adapt the model to generations after them.)

Q: Why did the Church of the Savior end? (Turns out the Church was considered one of the missional communities, with Gordon Cosby as its founder and head. Some of the people affiliated with the other missional communities didn't have a worship gathering of their own and would attend the Church of the Savior gathering. When Gordon Cosby retired, the Church community sold their building and distributed the proceeds among the remaining missional communities.)
A: I'm not sure.

I have more to say on this last point, which I'll write in my next blog. Overall, though, I came away from my field trip with the realization that some of what I had remembered of the Church was inaccurate - at least it didn't represent the Church of today. Other parts, though, like the ministry of Potter's House, were as I remembered them and were impressive in how they embodied the ministry of Jesus. I am now considering what to hold onto or aim for in their model, and what to do differently. Let me know if you have any thoughts or insights.

Two-fer

If people who are not paid to be Christian teachers or leaders - but who have gifts in teaching or leading - are going to exercise their gifts, they will need to be independently wealthy or get their income elsewhere. To gain an income from a paying job and also do regular teaching or leading in a gathering of believers is to be bivocational. There is a long history of bivocational ministry in the church. The Apostle Paul was one of the first in the early New Testament church. His day job was making tents. Today, many pastors of small churches have another job to help support themselves and perhaps a family.

I have been bivocational for about ten years. It started when I was the chair of the elders for a year in my church. During that year there was a church crisis that required a significant amount of my time. Although it was a challenge, I learned how to attend to two major roles without being irresponsible in either. Fortunately that level of activity only lasted a year. When I rotated out of the position, I stayed involved in church leadership, but at a more manageable level. Even so, I carried the title of pastor (albeit volunteer and part-time) for several years. In that role, and over a five year period, I shaped how church related to other cultures, both internationally and locally. I also started a non-profit organization, Africa Rising, that supports the work of African social entrepreneurs. Today, that is the biggest part of my non-day-job work. (In case someone reading this doesn't know me, in my day job, I am a professor at the University of North Carolina.)

A few things I've learned about being bivocational: (1) It helps if both jobs are of real interest to you. It is much harder when one of them doesn't also give as much emotional energy as it takes. (2) If you are married, your spouse must believe in what you are doing. (3) I have been able to do what I do because I have physical and mental health, a good marriage, healthy and well adjusted children, and a good day job. (4) I don't watch TV, not even on the computer. I know that I am missing some really entertaining shows. But what I gain in having a significant impact on the lives of others is incomparable. (5) I strategically place meetings and other tasks in the margins of my days. For a while, I had lots of early breakfast meetings on weekdays, before I started my day job. Now, with a new job, I meet with people over lunch, or a glass of wine at the end of the day. Then I aim to accomplish just one thing each evening. It could be writing a blog entry or answering a number of emails. I say "just one thing" because thats all I have time for after spending time with my family, washing the dishes, helping with homework, or whatever.

Now on that note, I'm going to go for a walk in the woods with our dog on this pretty Sunday morning.

Literacy and leadership in the church

In God’s kingdom, people are organized by their gifts, be they gifts of compassion, hospitality, teaching, discernment, and more. But somewhere along the way, something that isn’t a gift got introduced into the mix, and it even dominates the organization of the church: education. We hand over the leadership of our churches to those who have been educated the most, or in a particular way. Usually, it is years of seminary. Acceptance to a seminary is based primarily on academic performance in college. So if there is a gift involved, it may be the ability to do well on exams. But there is little call for that in the life of a community of people following Jesus.

In a kingdom where the last are first and where the wisdom of God confounds the wise of this world, how did the educated jump the queue to direct everyone else? And this even when no matter of education can give a person the gift of teaching or leadership. It could be that the educated use their knowledge to get to the front of the line, or to establish systems that give authority only to others who are highly educated. These could be true, but I have another idea.

Knowledge *is* valuable when teaching others about the kingdom of God. It is helpful to know the stories of the Bible and the admonitions of Jesus, for example. Being able to read helps one gain this knowledge. So, although having knowledge doesn’t make one a good teacher, it helps.

At the time of the early church, very few people could read. According to one source, as few of 0% in the rural areas and 5-10% in the cities could read. Since societies then were mostly rural, the country average would fall between one and three percent. And because of gender biases of the day, all but a very few would have been male. This, I believe, laid the foundation for patterns of church leadership. The ones who could read were the ones who were looked to for teaching.

But why does the church stick to this pattern today? In many countries, the literacy rates have flipped, with only a small minority of adults left who cannot read. And the number of books available today – just one copy of each - would probably cover all of Jerusalem several feet high. Not to mention other resources, such as the internet. A studious high school student of today knows vastly more than a learned scholar of Jesus’s day. With widespread literacy and a superabundance of information available to all, there is little reason for the church to make education its primary criterion for selecting teachers and leaders. We can now revert to the kingdom way of gifts.

In the church I envision, that would be the rule – those with knowledge of the kingdom and gifts of teaching would teach, and those with that knowledge and gifts of leadership would lead. That knowledge need not come from a seminary. There is an embarrassment of books available and others in the community to sharpen one another’s knowledge and teaching. This is not to say that seminary education isn’t useful. It is to say, however, that teaching in and about God’s kingdom should not be limited by the number people our seminaries can graduate. Nor should we assume that those graduates are gifted at teaching or leadership. Instead, may God’s Spirit empower those of his people who don’t have a seminary education, but who he has gifted, to teach and to lead powerfully in his kingdom.

Missional Communities

I've recently tapped into a pipeline of information that seems directly relevant to the type of church I've been thinking about. Thanks go to Randy Russell for sending me the links. I've begun reading a 23-entry blog series by Mike Breen, but I haven't finished it yet. So I don't want to comment on it or raise questions because the answers may be in the entries I haven't read.

One of  the blog entries has a short video interview that references vergenetwork.org. I found there much more to explore. Rather than wait until I can write down processed thoughts, I'll connect you to these resources and we can read along at the same time. I'll share some of my thoughts later.

Church physics

Building on the idea of a decentralized community, there are a couple of analogies from physics that apply. One is centrifugal and centripedal forces. Centrifugal movement is outward from the center (think of a centrifuge or the game whiplash). Centripedal movement is from the outside toward the center (think of gravitational pull). A centralized church is centrifugal, spinning off smaller groups where people can experience intimacy and accountability. A decentralized church is centripedal, with groups coming together to form a larger identity, to interact with each other, and to engage in collective action. Neither force is better than the other; they just build spirituality in different ways.


The other analogy from physics is the ratio of volume to surface area. Imagine two balls, one small (say, a ping pong ball) and one larger (a basketball). The amount of air in a ping pong ball is much less than that in a basketball. Let's say it takes the air in 50 ping pong balls to equal the air in one basketball. (Stay with me here.) But now the amount of surface area of the 50 ping pong balls - the amount of contact with the outside environment - is much greater with the combined surfaces of the 50 smaller balls than with the one large ball. The point being that in the community of smaller communities that I imagine, there is a greater interaction with the "outside world" than with a larger, centralized church. More of the resources of a large centralized church go towards the functioning of the large institution: salaries, building, programs, and internal communications that keep the large center coordinated - the air inside the ball, if you will. 


Here again, we can't really argue that one is better than the other. However, people will have preferences for one over the other. With my passion for an active spirituality that makes God's kingdom more visible to all of creation, I prefer the collection of ping pong balls.  

Centralized and Decentralized

I mentioned earlier how I find many churches alike, having a 3-1-1-2 Sunday morning template: 3 songs, 1 set of announcements, 1 sermon, and 2 closing songs. Another factor that makes churches alike is a central organization structure. By this I mean, the Sunday morning gathering of a large group of people, say 200 or more. This structure determines how the church spiritually forms the members and sets up a financial model.

The spiritual formation of a large group is programmatic. Teaching occurs through sermons and classes on Sunday and Bible studies in smaller clusters mid-week. Systems are created to cover certain material on some schedule. And the vast majority of teaching is done without knowing what the individuals in the congregation are wrestling with. In fact, it would  be virtually impossible to take all of those needs and struggles into account - there are too many to attend to individually. On a communication continuum from one-on-one conversation to a book or recorded message, programmed teaching is closer to a recorded message. In fact, in some church services, that is exactly what it is - the broadcast of a sermon taking place somewhere else.

I question the degree to which deep spiritual formation can occur in a programmed way. One can learn the basic story lines and values of the Bible. But in my experience, the deep learning occurs when I am really struggling and I get advice from a wise friend, or I listen to the thoughts and watch the decisions of someone else struggling. This is an important reason why the larger churches encourage people to also take part in a smaller gathering midweek.

Because the teaching is centralized, larger churches want a trained and talented teacher. That usually means someone who has attended seminary and has a certain amount of charisma in front of crowd. People with that training and those skills typically make their living at what they do. To have such a person leading the teaching means paying them . That, in turn, determines that the church must be of a certain size in order to support the salary of the teacher. But the salaries seldom stop there. With a fully salaried pastor, a church has bought into a model that is logically extended to other paid staff - associate pastors, ministers, facility managers, and more. And now that I've mentioned the facility manager, I should also mention the facility and the expenses it takes to pay the mortgage and maintain the structure.

With this model of centralized teaching in a centralized facility owned by the church, much of the unstated mission of the church becomes feeding the demands of the centralized system: the salaries of the staff and the mortgage of the building. A cynical view of church growth is that a centralized church must have it to sustain its budget. And a centralized church is going to be more cautious in its teaching because to offend is to potentially lose income. This takes us back to the deep spiritual teaching that following Jesus requires. That teaching is often radically contrary to popular ways of thinking and acting, and can be offensive to some, if not many.

An alternative model is the community of communities that I imagine. Where the principal gathering is small, say 10-20, the learning is driven in part by working together to be a blessing to others (not just listening to a prepared message), the leaders are gifted but not professional, and they meet in homes or other places not requiring money. Still, they gather as a larger group once a month so they remain connected to the broader body of Christians. This decentralized model, too, has its limitations. But I believe it is one that needs to be tried and refined over time, offering an alternative to the centralized church model.

So long, and thanks for all the fish

Yesterday, the Bible Church gave me a send-off in the church service. I was honored by the recall of my roles in the church over the 22 years we attended there, and the prayer for my next endeavor based out of Emmaus Way. Not all churches would let go so graciously. This is a real strength of the Bible Church that they have used to bless a number of people quite significantly.

At the end of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it is revealed that dolphins were extraterrestrial beings. As they depart earth to return home, they say "So long, and thanks for all the fish." Although not as clever as that image and phrase, I want to say to the Bible Church, so long and thanks for all the friendships, trust, opportunities, and blessings.

Deep Church

Let me just start by saying that I recognize that the readers of this blog are few. I want to thank the few of you who are following along. You are an important means of accountability as I wrestle with new ideas. I suppose I'm wrestling with the old ones too. This blog may not go on forever. For now, it is a means of letting people look over my shoulder, to challenge me, and to encourage me during a period of discernment.

And now, in that vein, I'll share with you another blog that was brought to my attention by Angie Ward of the Chapel Hilll Bible Church and The Leadership Lab. It is by Roger Olson, and you can read it here. In the entry I'm pointing you to, he talks about models for "deep church" in the anabaptist tradition. And he specifically mentions Church of the Savior, which has been a large part of the inspiration for my yearnings and dreaming. There is also a book by this title. I may write about that later.

Thanks for traveling with me.

Jim

What do we over-require?

Paul and Barnabas returned to Jerusalem with a message from the Gentile churches they had visited (Acts 15). The Gentiles (males, no doubt) were dedicated followers of Jesus, but they were not keen on the idea of circumcision. God had commanded the Jews to be circumcised; must the Gentiles do the same if they are to follow Jesus, who was a Jew? The big dogs in Jerusalem (James, Peter, etc.) gathered to consider the question. Had I been one of them (I am sooo far from that), I would have said, "Absolutely, it's required." Consider, for example, the story of Moses and his wife and son in Genesis 4:24-26. God was fixin' to kill Moses, but his wife circumcised their son and God was appeased. That makes circumcision seem pretty essential.


But the church fathers in Jerusalem said, "No, they don't have to be circumcised." What a shocking change! How did they have the insight and courage to step off a path that had been set for centuries? They had every reason to believe that the rite of circumcision was central to the faith. And they weren't throwing out all the traditions in the name of grace. They told the Gentiles they still couldn't eat meat sacrificed to idols, for example. But let's stick with what they threw out. Let's consider what it meant to not require circumcision. The question for us today, then, is whether there is anything that we consider central to the faith that isn't. Or, since this blog about Christian community, what is there about Christian gatherings that we consider to be essential but isn't? I'll list a few things to consider. But I'll start with a few assumptions. I'll assume that Christians gather regularly to encourage one another and to praise God together; they pray to God; and they share a meal together, called communion or the Eucharist. But now let's raise some questions. Don't be too quick to answer them. I encourage you to wrestle with whether the Bible *prescribes* these things or merely *describes* them.


* must meetings be weekly? Could they be monthly, for example? Or every other week?
* must they be led by people with 20+ years of education (college + 4 years of seminary)?
* must the leader be paid so he/she can lead full-time?
* must the gatherings include music and singing?
* must the teaching be a monologue? Could it be more conversational?
* must people sit passively through the gathering? Could they, for example, worship by eating and talking together? Or working and singing? 
* could communion be a full meal, not just tiny samples?
* how few people can gather and still call it "church"? 

I invite you to raise more questions. I say this not in disrespect of today's churches, but to explore whether we are maintaining unnecessary hurdles to some forms of gathering, and thus preventing some people from becoming part of Christian community.

More options, please

Walking down Franklin Street I spotted a flier for a new church. In big letters it said "Church? Me? Well, maybe.." The target audience was people who couldn't imagine themselves attending a church. The quote was what the church imagined or hoped a flier reader was thinking. But a person who has a negative image of church probably has in mind a church experience very much like the one he/she would find in the church that posted this flier. That is, it wouldn't be much different from what they don't like.

In the more than 20 years I've lived in Chapel Hill, I've seen several new churches start up. Each claiming it is different, each saying *we* are going to reach the younger, college demographic. Yet the ways they differ from the existing churches is often superficial. The new ones will boast about being casual and approachable. That may mean they wear their shirt tails out and turn their amplifiers up to 11.  But they still stick to what has become a standard white Protestant service template: 3 songs, announcements, a special element (e.g., skit or song), sermon, and 2 songs. Black churches and non-Protestant churches do it differently, but they too seldom stray much from their own well trodden path.

Is this all there is? Is this array the limit of the ways that followers of Jesus can come together to honor him? I can't believe that it is. I can't believe we have exhausted the creative possibilities; and that if people don't like to stand up and sing, then sit down and listen to a sermon, their only alternatives are to grin and bear it or sleep in on Sundays. The value of traditions notwithstanding, I believe the church has gotten stuck in a rut and has failed to exercise its creativity. Let's dare to try something new. Or, if it isn't entirely new (many people have tried many things over the ages) let's at least brush off something that has gathered dust but shows promise for this new era. We don't need to throw out the standard models - they still appeal to many. We just need to create more options for people who want to follow Jesus but who can't imagine themselves in the stereotypical church service. In the photo, below, we don't need another blue door in the same building. We need another building and perhaps new ways to enter it.

Jumping off the train

I imagine myself on a moving train but knowing I need to get off before the next stop. I fear jumping because I know it will hurt. But I fear even more staying on the train because the place we are passing is where I am supposed to be. Because I know I need to get off, and because I know I may be too afraid to jump, I make jumping a must by throwing my suitcase off. As I see it bounce and tumble into the bushes next to the track, I grab the edges of the door and ready myself to follow. 

That is where I am at this moment. I believe I need to get off the train - whatever it is: comfort, predictability, or even a certain status earned over decades of leadership in my church. I need to tumble in the dirt and weeds and start anew. Or start something new. I *am* afraid. The unknown is just so.....unknown. There are too few answers and too many questions needing them. Still, I sense that this is where I am to be, this is where I am to jump. 

I have thrown my suitcase off the train by publicly announcing that I am about to jump. By talking this last Sunday with the young adults group at the church, describing what I am about to do. And on Sunday, May 1, my plans will be made known to the whole congregation. If for no other reason than to save face, I must then jump. But it is more than saving face. It is seeking God's face and following his call. Here come the bumps and bruises. I pray I also find a path among the bushes and weeds. 

And so it begins

On March 22, 2011, I sent the following letter to the Bible Church elders. This letter will serve as the first entry in this blog and as the introduction to what it is about. I received the blessing I requested in this letter. It is to be given publicly during the church service on Sunday, May 1.

Dear Bible Church elders:

I am captivated by a vision of what could be. It is a vision about Christians and how they gather to worship and grow. I have been thinking about this for many years, but in my current chapter of life, with a new job and both boys soon to be away at college, I now feel free to give it a try.

The idea is inspired in part by the Church of the Savior, in Washington, DC. Started in the 1970s, The Church of the Savior is formed around small missional communities of 5-15. Each community is formed, in turn, around an activity that is an act of worship and expression of God’s love. When I visited them some years ago, one of the communities would purchase an inexpensive and run down house. They would renovate the house themselves, sell it to someone with a low income, then take the payment and buy another house to renovate. In this way, they demonstrated God’s love for the poor. Other missional communities engaged in other activities. Each would gather for worship three weeks out of the month. On the fourth week, all of them would gather together as a large group.

Most churches are centered in a large gathering every Sunday. From there they encourage people to also join a smaller group for greater intimacy and accountability. Some churches, in turn, encourage the small groups to engage in a shared purpose, often an activity in the community. The Church of the Savior model turns this upside down. Its foundation is small groups that are formed around a shared activity as an act of worship. The small, missional groups then gather monthly as a community of communities.

I would like to replicate this decentralized, missional church model in the Triangle. It might not be exactly the same as the Church of the Savior. A few changes may be needed to adapt the model to this area. And several questions need to be addressed up front. For example, what would the missional communities do on the fourth Sunday, and what standards would they have for community leaders? But I believe I got a glimpse of what could be in the early days of Africa Rising. Before we had an executive director, volunteers gathered monthly to share a meal, talk about what had transpired in the previous month, make plans for the next month’s activities, and pray. Apart from meeting weekly, I would add to this teaching and discussion of God’s Word.

Participation in one of these communities would require a higher level of commitment than for a traditional church. In the Church of the Savior model, members sign a one-year covenant, committing to dedicate a certain amount of time each week to work on the shared activity and to gather weekly. I also see a need for training of community leaders, and rising community leaders.

I do not see this model as a rejection of the traditional church. Rather, it is another means of corporately worshiping God. Underscoring this posture, I believe the missional communities need to stay in relationship with the traditional model, perhaps joining a traditional church for worship on the fourth Sunday. In this light, perhaps a number of churches could form missional communities that they are in relationship with. If so, then what I am describing is not a church plant, but a church movement.

There are many details that need to be worked out. After Easter Sunday I plan to enter into a 6-12 month period of discernment in which I will take retreats, pray, have conversations, and do research. I will be doing this based out of Emmaus Way, one of the Bible Church’s daughter churches, because they are several steps ahead of the Bible Church in developing and sustaining missional communities. Their experiences will be invaluable in giving me guidance. But that does not mean I will disappear from the Bible Church. Following the Nairobi Chapel model in which the pastors from their family of churches are a resource to all of their churches, I would like to be a resource to the Bible Church and its spin-offs. For example, I plan to teach occasionally in the young adults group, and to help maintain relations with our partner churches.

I have shared this vision with a number of people I often refer to for advice: Gayle, Ian, Jordan, Keith Newell, Jim Dobbins, Christopher Kigongo, Dave and Angie Ward, Tim Conder, and Randy Russell. I also shared it with Jessica Dykstra, one of the leaders of the young adults group, to ask her advice about how I should talk with the young adults about my move. (I have been one of their main teachers for the last couple of years.) Each of these advisers has been supportive, even excited about my vision.

I am hoping now that the elders, as a group, would be able to bless me as I launch into this venture. I say this because I have been a part of the Bible Church leadership for more than two decades, in several different roles, and I have many significant relationships in this church. Those people will need some help understanding my move. And they will look to the elders, wondering whether I am leaving on good terms. An elders’ blessing would make that clear.

Another reason I seek a blessing is because what I am doing is consistent with one of God’s fingerprints on the Bible Church – creating kingdom ventures. To bless what I am doing would be to claim this as a Bible Church venture, though as with all ventures, we are not assured of the outcome.

I do not seek any financial support, but I would hope for a public declaration of some kind. That could range from an announcement in the bulletin or an article in the Fold, to a prayer on the stage one Sunday morning.

Thank you for prayerfully considering my request. And please pray for what I hope to begin.

Your brother in Christ,

Jim Thomas