At the moment things seem to be happening quite quickly. I am leaving my current job in two weeks time and am starting at Parkerville church two days a week a few days after that. Parkerville is keen to be well connected with The Local so it is a good move.
What also seems to be happening is that people are coming out of the woodwork who are looking to do similar church plants – some in our area and some further flung. There is really the possibility of a network coming together quite soon – although, as with all of these things, it never seems to come together at all until right at the last minute.
On Wednesday night we went through Value 3 of TCH which states:
We want a reproducible model of church without any trappings that might impede freedom and flexibility. We are committed to homes as a context for all or most of church life with home shaping the ethos of church. When congregations use other buildings, those buildings will not be viewed as the main focus of mission.
For a group such as ours the one value I know they all love is this one, which is why it was so important to go over it with a fine tooth comb.
“Household congregations? Of course! That’s why we are here isn’t it?”
Yes it is, but the language of the Value doesn’t simply allow you to stop at household. As I observed we could all be committed to letting home shape the ethos of church for vastly different reasons. For example one person might love the cosiness of household groups, but have no missional inclination at all, while another may just find it convenient.
As I went through the value I highlighted certain things. Here’s a slice of that:
i. A reproducible model: This immediately raises the spectre of a time in the future when this group will split and become two groups.
Q: Why might reproducibility be seen as an important factor?
Q: What would reproducibility do to us as a group?
Q: What do you think the value means by “trappings” that impede freedom and flexibility?
ii. Home shaping the ethos of church: There is a link between the language of a household and the language of a church. Why?
Q: What are our expectations of our own families?
Q: How different, if at all, should our expectations be of the family of God?
Q: Where does our status as “family” have its origins.
Examine John 1:10-13. Note the “families” mentioned:
1. Human family
2. Ethnic Israel family
3. Spiritual family
iii. the main focus of mission: There is an assumption (based on Values#1&2) that mission is central to our identity.
Q: What might be the differences between mission done from a building compared with mission done from “home”?
Q: How might a Christian “household” have to operate in order for it to be missional?
All basic stuff really, and this is, as I said, just a slice, however without pushing to the “why” of home being the central plank of church then preconceptions will never surface. Getting buy-in at an early stage is crucial to this working.
Recent Comments