Left Behind: The Apparent Absence of Fundamentalists in Resurgent Church Planting

While Fundamentalists often noisily do battle over issues important mostly to their sub-culture, there is a battlefield where Fundamentalists are conspicuous by their absence. There has been a resurgence in church planting in North America and few Fundamentalist churches have answered the call. The names of leaders in this resurgence are well-known and include Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, Bob Roberts, and Ed Stetzer, to name a few. Whatever Fundamentalists think of these men, let there be no doubt that they are engaged in the most noble of tasks—the Great Commission—on a scale rarely seen and in cities which, with some notable exceptions, have been long abandoned by solid, Bible-believing churches. These leaders are not without their foibles, and controversy often surrounds or follows some of them. That said, it must be asked if there are any church planting movements in Fundamentalism with the depth and breadth of what is taking place in conservative evangelical circles.

Recently I attended a conference on church planting where several thousand active or prospective church planters and their wives were in attendance. Admittedly the presenters and attendees were from diverse evangelical backgrounds, a blessing in many ways in witnessing the diversity and unity of the body of Christ. Many in attendance could not plant churches together, a fact they recognized, due to doctrinal differences that are at the heart of one’s understanding of the nature the local church. One speaker, a prominent Southern Baptist leader, expressed his friendship with and admiration for Tim Keller, yet confessed that they could not plant a church together. There would be an immediate conflict over needing a bowl or a bathtub to baptize the first convert. Yet in spite of obvious differences and the inability to partner in church planting there was a laudable spirit of cooperation to help others plant churches by providing training, mentoring, and access to resources.

Why not?

We cannot partner with anyone or everyone to plant churches. But planting churches is not an option. It is a matter of obedience. If fundamental churches are lagging in this area they need to ask themselves why. The neglect of church planting is flagrant and perhaps nothing will hasten the demise of Fundamentalism more quickly than the inability or unwillingness of Fundamentalists to be engaged in this work. Alas, church planting requires cooperation and networking, rare commodities among many Fundamentalists, among whom the spirit of independence and individualism persists, and few churches have the resources to go it alone. In addition, churches must recognize that the churches they plant may not be a mirror image of the sending and supporting churches, an unacceptable condition and consequence for many churches.

Some of the reasons for the lack of church planting movements in Fundamentalism were addressed in an earlier article and won’t be repeated here. In this article I would like to expand on those earlier thoughts and raise some questions.

I will offer this opinion up front. Most traditional churches cannot reproduce themselves. There are exceptions to this generalization. For example there are pockets or regions, often surrounding Fundamentalist institutions of higher learning, where graduates stay on after completing their studies and where a constituency exists to plant churches with other graduates, faculty members, and support personnel. There are also clumps of believers who gravitate to certain areas where they are sure to find like-minded believers. New churches have also been planted with former members of other churches who fled the cities to find refuge and comfort in suburbia. These predominantly monochromatic churches are often racially and relationally segregated where Christians live in a bubble without realizing it since most people they know are in the same bubble.

There is nothing pernicious about planting affinity-based traditional churches, yet it must be admitted that these churches are mostly attractive to Christians who already share conservative values and fit in a cultural-Christianity mold which has sometimes been mistaken for the only valid expression of biblical Christianity. An artificial setting exists where there is little contact with unbelievers and where church programs cater mostly to insiders. Churches perpetuate this virtual isolation through the establishment of ministries designed to avoid contact with the world in order to protect believers from contamination. Few of these churches successfully reproduce themselves except occasionally when there’s the opportunity to support someone planting a new church that is like the supporting church—same music, same attire, same standards, same Bible version, same approved colleges and universities, and same loyalty to national leaders. This kind of church planting is often little more than the shuffling and reshuffling of those already committed to a certain vision of the church. A clone-like church is planted here and there, mostly in white suburban areas, but there are no church planting movements to speak of and few churches which reflect the diverse population of North American urban centers.

Toward solutions

So if most traditional churches cannot reproduce themselves what should we do? First of all, we should recognize the contribution that traditional churches make and have made to the work of God. They have a role in the outworking of God’s plans and should be appreciated. They have provided a legacy on which others build. It’s easy and mostly pointless to search for flaws in how they have done ministry and mistakes they have made. We should look on them with the same generosity and grace which we will want others to accord us in the future when they are looking back on what we have tried to accomplish. As one writer puts it, traditional believers and churches are like bricks on the understructure of a bridge. These bricks will not move to the other side of the bridge (i.e., they will not, need not leave their traditions) but they are necessary for the overall support of the structure, in this case God’s church (see The Tangible Kingdom by Hugh Halter and Matt Smay, pp. 33-36). They are not to be despised or belittled for holding to traditions which are an important part of their Christian identity as developed in their contexts.

Secondly, although most traditional churches cannot reproduce themselves, they can still reproduce, and here is the caveat: they must be willing to allow churches they plant to have their own identity in obedience to the Scriptures and develop their own traditions and style of ministry. Simply put, they should be narrow where the Word of God is narrow and grant freedom where the Word of God permits freedom. Of course traditional churches have every right to expect that the churches they help plant possess the same DNA, the same core theological commitments. But if churches demand that new churches in different contexts look the same, do church the same, be governed in exactly the same way, emphasize and engage the same issues, and follow the same leaders, then we should expect to see more men—young and old alike—leaving Fundamentalism to experience and enjoy God-given liberty to plant Christ-honoring churches without being held hostage to the extra-biblical sensitivities of others.

For those traditional churches which are ready to meet the church planting challenge, let me raise a few questions as suggestive of where liberty might be accorded to church planters. In saying this I’m imagining a church plant in an urban setting with a significant number of university students who are skeptical of, if not hostile to Christianity as they’ve known it. The community has pockets of immigrants who live alongside young professionals who are buying and renovating older homes and displacing long-term residents who can no longer afford skyrocketing rents. In planting a new inner-urban church, consider the following questions:

  • Do you have one pastor carrying the leadership and preaching burden alone or a leadership team where the lead pastor is “one among equals in decision-making; first among equals in vision and leadership?”
  • Do you organize traditional Sunday School, Sunday AM, PM and Wednesday prayer meeting services or develop gatherings according to patterns more appropriate to cultural patterns where the church is situated?
  • Do you create and multiply programs for different age or affinity groups to attract people to the church or does the church seek bridges of contact in the community for incarnational ministry?
  • Do you insist on the exclusive use of more formal, traditional hymns and outdated gospel choruses or do you seek a balance with music that is theologically sound, spiritually uplifting, and comprehensible and which includes contemporary forms?
  • Do you employ a church name that creates unnecessary barriers or choose a name which reflects an aspect of your ministry without denominational code words?
  • Do you utilize a website designed to attract Christians who move into your area while confusing unbelievers with Christian-speak language like “separatistic,” and “militant” and listing everything you believe about everything, or do you simplify your public presentation in order to catch and hold the attention of the unchurched as well?
  • Do you place the American flag and the Christian flag behind the podium and give the appearance of supporting a conservative political agenda (usually Republican) or do you urge your people to be good citizens regardless of their political views and affiliations and refuse to allow politics to highjack the cause of the gospel?
  • Do you give public invitations after each service singing “Just As I Am” or “I Surrender All” with a decisional emphasis or do you emphasize progressive and radical transformation through biblical discipleship and in relational community?

In asking these questions I realize that not all of the elements in the first part of the questions are found in all traditional churches and that such stark polarizations do not always exist. Neither am I saying that all of these elements are inappropriate in certain settings. I am saying that the first part elements will not be found in most urban settings, are not essential “as is” to being the church, and that we must allow for liberty in contextualizing ministry. In other words, there are functions and there are forms. The functions are those elements which are indispensable to be the church and they center on and around the Word. The forms can be adapted and modified and should not be considered normative.

At this point I have purposely not given answers to the above questions. The questions are only a small sample of what needs to be asked. I cannot provide normative answers since there is no one model for planting churches. What I would like to ask in closing is this: are there churches that are unable to reproduce themselves who are interested in reproducing gospel-centered, Christ-honoring, theologically-committed churches which can be effective in ways and in places where traditional churches may never be found or effective? Perhaps nothing will contribute more to the kind of future in store for Fundamentalism then how Fundamentalists respond to this question.


Dr. Stephen M. Davis is on the pastoral team at Grace Church, a new church plant in Philadelphia, and adjunct professor in missions at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA). He holds a B.A. from Bob Jones University, an M.A. in Theological Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, FL), an M.Div. from CBTS, and a D.Min. in Missiology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL). Steve has been a church planter in Philadelphia, France, and Romania.

Discussion

Steve—

Would you describe church planting as “starting a church with new converts” or “starting a new church with believers already living in a geographical area”? I’m sort of curious about this, because it seems like the second category fosters some of the attitudes you are trying to correct. Seems like a church built on new converts wouldn’t have as much of the baggage.

[KevinM] Steve—

Would you describe church planting as “starting a church with new converts” or “starting a new church with believers already living in a geographical area”? I’m sort of curious about this, because it seems like the second category fosters some of the attitudes you are trying to correct. Seems like a church built on new converts wouldn’t have as much of the baggage.
There’s not one model of church planting. Some churches are intentionally begun with a core group of believers with a sending church’s blessing. Other churches are planted where there are not many believers to start with and will usually take longer to get off the ground and reach a level of sustainability. It’s a catch-22 because it is a blessing to have mature believers partner with you to plant a church, to serve, to give, to love those who come. We have been blessed by some families and individuals who have sensed God’s calling to help plant an urban church. We are thrilled that some Christians have purposely moved into or near Philadelphia to help plant churches. You need to lay out the vision carefully so that what is really baggage is identified and made a non-issue. We all have baggage but it’s knowing how to deal with it.

[NathanL] Thanks for putting this together. Favorite quote:
cultural-Christianity mold which has sometimes been mistaken for the only valid expression of biblical Christianity
This article will ruffle some feathers, and that’s a good thing. (Off topic: BTW, I live in the western suburbs of Philly, and you might just see me pop in sometime. We recently had dinner in your area, on 40th between Chestnut & Ludlow. Distrito - I highly recommend it!)
I thought I’d post my response to your post since you liked the article, live near Philly, might visit us, and know good restaurants :-) .

Really, I do take both affirmations and criticism seriously but don’t know if I’ll have time to answer them all so I’m dumping this on your post. The article was directed to urban areas -“on a scale rarely seen and in cities which, with some notable exceptions, have been long abandoned by solid, Bible-believing churches.” Of course there are some cities, perhaps mostly in the South, where churches abound. And sure some fundamentalist churches and associations are planting churches and new churches are needed in rural and suburban communities as well. I’m talking about scale and major cities – centers of influence and creators of culture (mostly bad). I don’t know what’s happening in every city but this is an opportunity for me and others to learn.

I’m glad to hear of church planting that’s taking place and of various groups engaged in church planting. Still, in major urban areas I see nothing of the “scale” of what other groups are doing. Perhaps Philadelphia is an anomaly but although there may be some fundamentalist churches here - few, small, and far between, there are few efforts that I am aware of to plant new churches. Yet I personally know of SBC, PCA, AOG, CMA efforts of scale to plant multiple churches and put resources where their plans are. Something about being able to work together!

If nothing else I would hope that pastors and churches ask themselves some hard questions about their commitment to the gospel and reproducing. As one writer says: “most churches are primarily concerned about the people in the church and the people most like ‘us’ and that the “shift from mission to maintenance [has become] a core value in the local church.”

Mmmmm, have you checked out Hamilton Square Baptist Church? We are a “downtown” (one block from Van Ness Avenue at Geary and Franklin). We identify ourselves as a Fundamental Baptist Church. Our answers to the questions in the OP are probably contrary to the way the author (I presume ) thinks the should be answered. Because of demographic shifts, we have had to “re-plant” ourselves two or three times over the last 129 years.

As for the “numbers” game, a church plan and work for growth as the Lord allows them to grow. It should not be content with its current attendance. That being said, for a good period of time HSBC saw minimal growth for many years. For a few years, we barely had enough new members to replace those that went home to be with their Lord. Over the last five years we have seen the congregation grow. Some of the new membership is from Christians dissatisfied with their current home church. Most of the new people are new Christians who were saved through the witnessing of our people.

N.B. Metro Baptist Church of San Diego is being planted by Tim and Eileen Sneeden. Tim is a former assistant pastor at HSBC. We are their sending church.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Dr. Davis,

Was the article about urban church-planting or church-planting in general? It seems that you are saying it was about urban church-planting, but yet I read:
There has been a resurgence in church planting in North America and few Fundamentalist churches have answered the call.
And again,
We cannot partner with anyone or everyone to plant churches. But planting churches is not an option. It is a matter of obedience. If fundamental churches are lagging in this area they need to ask themselves why. The neglect of church planting is flagrant and perhaps nothing will hasten the demise of Fundamentalism more quickly than the inability or unwillingness of Fundamentalists to be engaged in this work. Alas, church planting requires cooperation and networking, rare commodities among many Fundamentalists, among whom the spirit of independence and individualism persists, and few churches have the resources to go it alone. In addition, churches must recognize that the churches they plant may not be a mirror image of the sending and supporting churches, an unacceptable condition and consequence for many churches.
And again,
Most traditional churches cannot reproduce themselves.
Granted much of the article deals with “Urban” church planting, but it seems like the article doesn’t shift in that direction until the final one-third. The first two thirds seem to support a sort-of “fundamentalists are inept at church-planting” thesis.

[Rob Fall] Our answers to the questions in the OP are probably contrary to the way the author (I presume ) thinks the should be answered. Because of demographic shifts, we have had to “re-plant” ourselves two or three times over the last 129 years.
No, I don’t presume and contrary answers are okay. As I said: “At this point I have purposely not given answers to the above questions. The questions are only a small sample of what needs to be asked. I cannot provide normative answers since there is no one model for planting churches.” Glad to hear of the church planting effort in San Diego.

My first paragraph also states: “on a scale rarely seen and in cities which, with some notable exceptions, have been long abandoned by solid, Bible-believing churches.” I don’t believe Fundamentalists are inept if you mean lacking aptitude or skill. I think it’s more a question of inability to cooperate or allow freedom in some areas. And many churches do not have the resources to plant churches on their own and/or can’t work with other churches to accomplish that – thankfully with some notable exceptions. I also stated that it’s a matter of scale but that may be due to the decreasing number of those calling themselves Fundamentalist.

Roland,

While I agree with you that SOMETIMES splits are good, I think thatis rare. Most of the time, they are due to much sinfulness and arrogance than defending the Faith, in my experience.

As to the thrust of the article, I am still digesting it. What I do agree with is that we in Fundamentalism are not doing enough in inter-city church planting. Still thinking through alot of the article.

Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church

Comments at ***
[Steve Davis] SNIP

For those traditional churches which are ready to meet the church planting challenge, let me raise a few questions as suggestive of where liberty might be accorded to church planters. In saying this I’m imagining a church plant in an urban setting with a significant number of university students who are skeptical of, if not hostile to Christianity as they’ve known it. The community has pockets of immigrants who live alongside young professionals who are buying and renovating older homes and displacing long-term residents who can no longer afford skyrocketing rents. In planting a new inner-urban church,

***You are describing the last 30 years of San Francisco history and what we have at HSBC.
consider the following questions:
  • Do you have [a] one pastor carrying the leadership and preaching burden alone or a leadership team where the lead pastor is “one among equals in decision-making; first among equals in vision and leadership?”
***Kinda sorta [a] but then we’ve had to develop our leadership in house. (Nobody comes to San Francisco to join a Fundamental Baptist Church) So, we are only about a generation thick (Historically, nobody stayed in SF to be a member of a Fundamental Baptist church)
  • Do you organize traditional Sunday School, Sunday AM, PM and Wednesday prayer meeting services or develop gatherings according to patterns more appropriate to cultural patterns where the church is situated?
  • ***A again kinda sorta. But our single adult, married couples and senior groups are active. We also have a Monday evening Informal Bible Study. There are three (3) Sunday Morning Adult Bible Classes. I teach the International (I thought ESL was bad marketing) Bible Class.
  • Do you create and multiply programs for different age or affinity groups to attract people to the church or does the church seek bridges of contact in the community for international ministry?
  • ***Yes. When the International Class was made up primarily of Russian speakers, we translated various English language documents into Russian. If anyone wants a Russian pdf of Pastor Innes’ “How Do I Know What’s Right For Me?”, let me know and I’ll send it on.
  • Do you insist on the exclusive use of more formal, traditional hymns and outdated gospel choruses or do you seek a balance with music that is theologically sound, spiritually uplifting, and comprehensible and which includes contemporary forms?
  • ***Yes, for the hymnals in the pew rack. But, we also have attracted people who want the traditional hymns. We’re not big on Gospel choruses outside Junior Church.
  • Do you employ a church name that creates unnecessary barriers or choose a name which reflects an aspect of your ministry without denominational code words?
  • ***HSBC was started as Zion Baptist Church in 1881. About five years later, the name was changed to Hamilton Square Baptist Church. The church at the time and for the next ~70 years was located across from Hamilton Square a public park.
  • Do you utilize a website designed to attract Christians who move into your area while confusing unbelievers with Christian-speak language like “separatistic,” and “militant” and listing everything you believe about everything, or do you simplify your public presentation in order to catch and hold the attention of the unchurched as well?
  • ***Please see www.hamiltonsquare.net From the number of people who say they found us on the web, I think the site is doing its job.
  • Do you place the American flag and the Christian flag behind the podium and give the appearance of supporting a conservative political agenda (usually Republican) or do you urge your people to be good citizens regardless of their political views and affiliations and refuse to allow politics to highjack the cause of the gospel?
  • ***HSBC has the American and Christian flags in the front corners of the main auditorium. However, the flags have been there since Harry Truman’s second term. As for the second clause, how can we be a lighthouse of God’s Truth if we do not call the pagan agenda an agenda of “death”. Sorry for dancing around the issue, but I don’t want Google to trip over certain key words.
  • Do you give public invitations after each service singing “Just As I Am” or “I Surrender All” with a decisional emphasis or do you emphasize progressive and radical transformation through biblical discipleship and in relational community?
  • ***Both, if an invitation is given, the closing hymn only one or two verses might be played or sung through. We do not as (IIRC) Dr. Bauder put it rely on “crisis” decisions for Christian growth. However, if God has used a particular message to touch folk, then opportunity is given for them to respond. However, we also for the last ~15 years have had a comprehensive one on one discipleship program.

    In asking these questions I realize that not all of the elements in the first part of the questions are found in all traditional churches and that such stark polarizations do not always exist. Neither am I saying that all of these elements are inappropriate in certain settings. I am saying that the first part elements will not be found in most urban settings, are not essential “as is” to being the church, and that we must allow for liberty in contextualizing ministry. In other words, there are functions and there are forms. The functions are those elements which are indispensable to be the church and they center on and around the Word. The forms can be adapted and modified and should not be considered normative.

    At this point I have purposely not given answers to the above questions. The questions are only a small sample of what needs to be asked. I cannot provide normative answers since there is no one model for planting churches. What I would like to ask in closing is this: are there churches that are unable to reproduce themselves who are interested in reproducing gospel-centered, Christ-honoring, theologically-committed churches which can be effective in ways and in places where traditional churches may never be found or effective? Perhaps nothing will contribute more to the kind of future in store for Fundamentalism then how Fundamentalists respond to this question.

    SNIP

    Hoping to shed more light than heat..



    I applaud Hamilton Square for being a lighthouse in San Francisco. I had the pleasure of knowing one of Pastor Innes’ sons in college and learned much about his dad’s ministry. Alot of folks would be skeptical that an IFB church could thrive in that area. Great to see it happening.

    I’m curious as to urban ministries in blighted areas where crime and poverty are rampant. It’s hard for me to see a “traditional” IFB church succeed in such a place. I would love to be proven wrong because I see cults like JW, Islam, etc. making headways yet IFB churches seem to neglect this segment of the population.

    [Barry L.] I applaud Hamilton Square for being a lighthouse in San Francisco. I had the pleasure of knowing one of Pastor Innes’ sons in college and learned much about his dad’s ministry. Alot of folks would be skeptical that an IFB church could thrive in that area. Great to see it happening.

    I’m curious as to urban ministries in blighted areas where crime and poverty are rampant. It’s hard for me to see a “traditional” IFB church succeed in such a place. I would love to be proven wrong because I see cults like JW, Islam, etc. making headways yet IFB churches seem to neglect this segment of the population.
    I likewise applaud HSBC and appreciate that Rob took the time to answer the questions. I think it will help others. Since I’ve been asked how I/we answer some of these questions I will try to respond later today.

    As for traditional IFB churches in areas you mention my experience shows they will need to tweak the tradition. In our area of West Philly with its share of blight, crime and poverty, I don’t know of any IFB churches. Of course the area is largely Afro—American and I don’t know any Afro-American Fundamentalists (yes I know there are some, but few).

    [Steve Davis] I don’t know any Afro-American Fundamentalists (yes I know there are some, but few).
    Could you clarify this a bit? Do you mean that there don’t seem to be any ‘well-known’ Afro-American Fundies, or that Fundy churches don’t have black members, or that black churches don’t join IFB fellowships/associations…? Or something completely different?

    I would agree that the percentage of Afro-Americans in the IFB churches I’ve attended has been small, but they were and are there. I have visited a few SBC churches that would consider themselves Fundy that have a significant number of faithful Afro-Americans in their congregations. But if the question is about how many Afro-Americans are in staff positions, publishing books and getting their pics in The Fundamentalist, then you are right about the lack of Afro-American representation in the Fundy world. But even in my limited experience, I can’t say that I don’t know any Afro-American Fundies.

    Maybe this helps explain my POV and provide some food for thought.

    When it comes to how a church does things, it’s ways and customs, there are fewer things that are “neutral” than many seem to suppose. The reason is that once you have brought Scripture to bear on what you’re doing, and applied it as best you can, you are bound by conscience as a church.

    If a congregation believes it’s ways and traditions are right, it ought to aim to reproduce itself with most of those traditions intact. If it believes they are not right, it ought to replace them with ones it believes are right—either way, if it engages in church planting, it should aim to reproduce itself. It should be expected to want to reproduce itself.

    Now I’m not talking about the cluster of purely functional choices and routines (though these also relate back to principle eventually, the relationship is distant and often the only principle involved is “act wisely” / “be good stewards”). Examples: things like whether you have pews or chairs, light with incandescent or florescent or candles, pass a plate or use a box in the lobby, etc. But it’s actually hard to come up with items that even belong in this category. Churches that use hymnals often do so because they believe it matters. Churches that use an offering box rather than passing a plate often have some biblical principles they believe guide them to this conclusion. Churches that baptize in rivers rather than interior tanks often have what they consider principled reasons for that.

    And music… as controversial as it is, one thing ought to be obvious to all: just about everybody believes their position is a principled one.

    So we should not expect churches that participate in church-planting to feel that these things simply do not matter. Again, the attitude I often see assumes that churches that are particular about alot of what they do are just being arbitrary and persnickety. Certainly there are many cases where that’s true, but there only has to be one exception to defeat the generalization that churches ought to joyfully plant other churches that flout their own ways of doing things.

    I agree that there is sometimes (perhaps quite often—I wouldn’t know) a problem here because churches do not understand how the application of principles in their setting needs to be adjusted when the same principles are being applied to a different setting. Some principles will apply the same way and some not. So there are two errors to avoid here: the one that says “a church plant in a truly different cultural setting should be a carbon copy of our church” vs. the one that says “all these traditions are just clutter in the way of effectiveness, and ‘mother churches’ need to quit being so fussy.”

    Neither of these is a good option. Maybe nobody is really saying the latter, but I get that impression.

    Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

    Of course the area is largely Afro—American and I don’t know any Afro-American Fundamentalists (yes I know there are some, but few).
    The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association is a small group of African-American churches that are fundamental in their doctrine. They have developed a partnership with the GARBC over the past two decades. http://www.fbfa.us/
    I’m curious as to urban ministries in blighted areas where crime and poverty are rampant.
    Its not just the fundamental churches that are not church planting in these areas (correct me if I am wrong Kevin M., but Continental, BCP, ABWE, Baptist-Mid-Missions, and etc…. only have a few churches from each organization in these impoverished urban communities that are being planted), but all of the Conservative Evangelical organizations that Steve mentioned as well. For example, the vast majority of churches that Mark Driscoll plants in urban centers are among the uppity, artsy, creative class of people, not among the urban poor. The one evangelical organization that is focusing all of their church plants among the urban poor is world impact. http://www.worldimpact.org/

    One of the interesting population trends across the country is that the urban poor are being priced out of cities because the yuppies have moved in their neighborhoods and they can no longer live in that neighborhood because they can’t afford it (gentrification). Therefore, they are moving into older suburban communities. In fact, one neighborhood in Wyoming (Godwin Heights), which is a suburb of Grand Rapids has some 50 or so languages spoken (70 or so ethnic groups) in that community making it the most diverse community in all Michigan. Some of it due to gentrification and some due to immigration. I have a friend who is planting churches in this older suburb with the Baptist General Conference.

    Urban Church Planting is quite diverse and takes on many different forms. Anyway, thanks Steve for stimulating our thinking.

    [Aaron Blumer] When it comes to how a church does things, it’s ways and customs, there are fewer things that are “neutral” than many seem to suppose. The reason is that once you have brought Scripture to bear on what you’re doing, and applied it as best you can, you are bound by conscience as a church.

    If a congregation believes it’s ways and traditions are right, it ought to aim to reproduce itself with most of those traditions intact. If it believes they are not right, it ought to replace them with ones it believes are right—either way, if it engages in church planting, it should aim to reproduce itself. It should be expected to want to reproduce itself.
    but i think these issues are more a matter of conscience, not spelled out stuff in scripture, right? and conscience varies among people, and even changes in the same person, you know?

    i was thinking of this thread as I was reading a missionary prayer letter in a foreign country where people dress quite differently. and there was a team from a conservative american college and they looked just like they would look in their school year books. Jumpers, keds, button-downs with ties.

    i’ve struggled with this myself b/c of Hudson Taylor’s policy of dressing like the national people. when i came to ukraine with a BJ trip, we were instructed to not wear hose, wear comfy tennis shoes and clothes, etc. We were absolutely bizarre-looking. all ladies here dress up, they wear hose, dress shoes, fitted clothing. We went and sang in the chernobyl region, and the ladies asked the pasor if we were wearing “disposable” clothing because we were afraid of the radiation — and there we were in the eveyday BJ clothes we always wore.

    anyway, i think fundamentalists, because we are so consumed wtih the Word of God, which is a good thing, can apply it definitively to cultural areas that really are just cultural and could be done one way or another. and it’s hard for us to see where that begins and ends.