The Missional Church Conversation has led many Church leaders to refocus on place-based ministry, which in most cases is expressed in the neighbourhood context. Historically of course, the church was rooted deeply in neighbourhoods. In the past, followers of Christ would participate in the various denominational church communities within their own neighbourhoods. Churches of this nature were fundamentally a part of their neighbourhoods because each member lived within that neighbourhood. Due to the fact that each member would dwell within the neighbourhood these churches were by nature what we today are referring to as “Incarnational”.
As a result of a variety of factors over the last century followers of Christ have tended to leave their neighbourhoods to participate in church communities centered in buildings, which in most cases were and are located in other parts of the city. These churches which have come to be called “commuter” churches tend to focus their mission efforts in initiatives beyond the specific location of their church building. In the cases where these commuter churches do engage the neighbourhoods in which they have their buildings, they rightly engage as “service providers” rather than “stakeholders”.
At Parish Collective we recognize the value of the “incarnational” ministry, and stand with the missional conversation, which moves the church back in into neighbourhoods as neighbours. While we recognize that God is at work among all his people leading them to greater manifestations of faithfulness, we have as our focus the enabling and resourcing of those ministries which are seeking this incarnational or neighbourhood approach.
Within this approach to ministry we have observed that a variety of expressions of the church have arisen. For purposes of clarity we will attempt to group them into three different models or classifications. As with any attempt to classify, classifying these models of neighbourhood churches underestimates the complexity of each and creates artificial boundaries between them which are often blurred in reality.
Three Models of neighbourhood Churches:
1. Historic Incarnational: Utilizes traditional Church structures but limits its membership to neighbours. In many cases, this form of neighbourhood church looks much like any small church embedded within the streets and avenues of the neighborhood. Often this church inhabits a historic building; employees ordained clergy and has a regular Sunday morning worship service. What is less visible about these churches, and makes them so significant, is that the members and those attending the church are limited to the specific neighborhood that the church building occupies. The center point of the church’s community life is its weekly worship service, but the strong tone of neighbourhood connectedness permeates all that they do, and overflows into dynamic and exciting engagement within their community. The presence of a community garden, hosted by the church and for the neighbourhood is often a hallmark of these churches.
Some of the natural implications of this dwelling within the neighborhood are: that the “fellowship” of the congregation is multifaceted and deep; that the community life of the church is visible to the surrounding neighbours; that the congregation is caught up in, and shares in the dynamics of the residents of the neighborhood, both their joys and their struggles.
Examples: Grandview Calvary(Vancouver), Zoe(Tacoma),Awaken( Calgary)
Strengths: more easily understood by current church culture; clear identity; multiple points of entry; natural hospitality between neighbours; care which is contextual; marginalizes clergy laity distinction.
Vulnerabilities: perceived as “organized religion” by the neighborhood; attractive to commuter Christians who are unwelcome; may easily maintain a “churchy culture”; may utilize a disproportionate amount of its resources for Sunday service.
2. Decentralized Commuter: Utilizes contemporary church structure but composes its small groups according to the neighbourhoods of its members. In many cases, this form of neighbourhood church looks much like a suburban “attractional” church. Often this church employs ordained clergy, inhabits a building or rented facility, and hosts contemporary worship on Sunday morning. What is less visible about these churches, and that which makes them so significant, is that “instead of doing community in the church, the members are encouraged to do church in the community. In essence, the mother church, which is represented by the buildings and the Sunday worship service, supports the planting of multiple sub congregations, led by laypeople in their own neighbourhoods. The center point of these churches moves steadily away from the member attending the worship service to the day to day connections of the members group in the neighbourhood. This movement often causes tension within the overall church as the emotional energy of the members shift from the centralized church toward the dispersed church gathered in neighborhoods. The significance of liberating the layperson into engagement with one’s own neighbor has a powerful effect on the overall church dynamics.
Examples: Yoido Full Gospel Church (Seoul) Connecting Church (Pantego), Cornerstone Community Church (Simi Valley),The River (Edmonton).
Strengths: easily understood by current church culture; empowers the laity in church planting; engages church members with their neighbours
Vulnerabilities: difficult to equip members for the successful neighborhood engagement; continually challenged by affinity small groups; continually challenged by “attraction” to Sunday worship model of ministry; causes identity confusion for members between Church as community and neighborhood as community.
3. Missional Lay Plant: Elders, Connecters or Capable Christians lead the formation of the people of God in their neighbourhoods. In many cases, this form of neighborhood church looks much like a community development initiative. It is often times small and moves slowly within the neighbourhood. The leaders of these churches are typically mature Christian leaders who have engaged their neighbourhood as an outcome of their spiritual formation. On occasion, these leaders have launched out from their larger worshiping community and are functioning unsupported. The center point of these churches (they often resist calling themselves churches) is the weekly pot luck gathering. Out of this common meal arises multiple other informal connections, and often times, plans for ministry within the neighborhood. These groups often take great pains to remain “organic” so as to maintain a humble and hospitable posture within the neighbourhood.
Examples: (due to the nature of these groups they and difficult to identify), Neighbourhood Life (Canada), Abundant Communities (United States), Underground Church (China).
Strengths: spontaneous multiplication; accessibility to unchurched Christians; availability for mission and ministry within the neighbourhood; time and financial efficiency; liberation of giftedness; richness of community life; natural environment for hospitality.
Vulnerabilities: easily misunderstood by current church culture; limited availability of curriculum; pedagogically challenging; identity issues around significance, because of its small and slow nature; lack of “apostolic” support.
Conclusion:
As was mentioned earlier any attempt at classification will created a distorted picture of reality. So in this case the presentation of three distinct models of neighborhood churches distorts the reality that there are in fact, many expressions of neighbourhood churches, and that often times, their characteristics are a blend of the classifications set out here.
It is our hope that these classifications initiate a conversation, which will help us understand what God is up to in neighbourhoods. We are excited to participate in this movement of God’s people back into neighborhoods and hope our contribution will be helpful in equipping and encouraging the body of Christ.
