Ensenada, Mexico
Just returned from my impromptu mission trip to Mexico.
I KNOW! I was as surprised as you are. A friend of mine from a church in the Western Suburbs called me and asked if I was free and would be interested in an all-expense paid mission trip to Ensenada, Mexico to work with orphans and the poorest of the poor for a week.
How could I refuse??
God pulled some amazing strings to get us there – and I’m so thankful for the gentleman who raised the funds so I could go (he was planning on going himself, but at the last minute got a new job! Win/win in my opinion.
Ensenada is my first “developing world” mission trip. Previously, I have done work in Argentina, Japan, and Australia. All places that are in desperate need of Jesus Christ, and yet the Baja Pennisula where I spent only 6 days broke my heart in ways the previous places never did.
As I sat in rooms with mud floors on the precipice of a mountainside just waiting for a downpour to wash away their lives…looking at babies with life-threatening diseases, at elderly with treatable wounds with no medical care, and at a literal city of children with parents who had long since abandoned them…I began hearing God’s cries for the poor to be liberated.
Simultaneously, I am reading Exodus – where God uses Moses to liberate an oppressed people and call them out as his own. I don’t claim to be an expert on Liberation Theology, but I know to my core that God’s pursuit is for the forgotten, the abused, the ragamuffins. God craves the reconciliation of all creation, but I believe it will be accomplished through those who can’t afford the coffee I’m drinking right now, and can’t imagine doing mission work half a world away. They are the down-and-outs, and that’s exactly what God became in Jesus to find them.
“I came for the sick, not the healthy…”
chad are discussing.
chad 10:18 am on March 12, 2010 Permalink
Hi Mark,
Enjoy following your blog. we need to touch base sometime.
I was just thinking about this topic the other day. Came up with 5 differences between a small group (at least small group tendencies, some groups may be able to avoid the small group traps) and house church.
1. Like parent like child, small groups tend to inherit some of the same institutional shortcomings as the churches from which they come. They’re started at the decision of a minister and just begin with a group that is commonly even asigned to a group. House churches will tend to develop and operate a little more organically.
2. In my experience, small groups still fall somewhat into the attractional model of institutional churches. House churches will hopefully adopt a more incarnational and fluid rhythm.
3. Like this guys point about geography/demography, small groups tend to be more about maintenance, or relationships at best (but they’re relationships with people already part of the church). House churches have more of a missional focus.
4. Small groups tend to be either about a topical study or some may just be for the purpose of fellowship. House churches will include study, but it tends to be more flexible, taking as topics of reflection what arises in the lives of participants. House churches will also integrate fellowship with the study, as well as service, sacraments, and other aspects of our spiritual journeys. Thus they tend to be a more personal/life-based than topical.
5. Small groups tend to be characterized more by observation. Like the guy said, members come to focus on what the “leader” has to offer. House churches tend to be more participatory. Everyone knows it is important that they be an active part, and they’re eager to participate.
I hate to seem like I’m picking on the negative aspects of one (knowing there are exceptions), while highlighting the ideals of the other, but I really do think the two tend more toward those practices.
Anyway, just noticed the post and the topic was sort of fresh on my mind. hope to talk to you soon.
Chad
Mark 9:12 am on March 13, 2010 Permalink
Chad,
Thoughtful stuff, man! I appreciate your candor, and your willingness to admit the limitations of the “dichotomy” in the two models. I think its worth saying again – small groups and house churches are both made up of people – which are themselves contradictions. It doesn’t matter what you call the group, it can be vibrant and reproducing Jesus, or it can be stiff and dry. That said, I think your observations are spot on. There are simply a different set of “expectations” when one enters a small group versus an organic church, and expectations are a very hard thing to change once they are set. I am meeting pastors all over the region here that are asking how they can move their traditional church (or small groups program) toward more of the organic/ house church profile. I tell them that from my experience, they will probably hemorrhage a good bit of their members, simply because “that’s not what they signed up for.” In other words, they joined your church for specific expectations, and they will not hang around until you’ve convinced them fully that there are better expectations out there…
Great stuff man! Looking forward to more dialogue!