As our attention turned toward church planting, Jim and Kari were able to recall a recent conversation with four T—n believers regarding a church they hope to plant later this year. Their conversation had turned toward a type of building, when Kari asked this question, “If money were no object, what kind of building would you want to house a church?” At this point, some background information will be helpful.
Russians by and large, and T—ns in particular, place great importance on how a “church building” looks and what the church is named. The great orthodox cathedrals bear silent testimony to this. The Russian Orthodox Church is currently building, in K—l, a small but beautiful building that will be capped with three domes each completely covered in gold. They believe that type of structure speaks to the “majesty and glory” of God and it means something to the Russian mind even if those meeting inside are the victims of cold, heartless religiosity. Because of this, “house churches” are generally viewed as sects and tend to be avoided. The T—ns believe that a structure is necessary, but what kind?
When the T—n believers answered Kari’s question, they were in agreement that a building reflecting T—n culture should be a yurt. And, that the main yurt could be surrounded by smaller yurts for childcare, bible classes, etc. (It took about five seconds for us to nickname the entire layout at the “Mother Yurt and the Squirt Yurts.”) This structural model would cost much less from start to finish than the blueprints alone for a Russian Orthodox style church, would be easily reproducible in other cities and towns, and, as far as anyone knew, would be the first culturally relevant church building ever in the republic. We were immediately sold on the concept and began to plan accordingly.
The meeting ended with prayer and a real sense that God had orchestrated virtually every second of our time together. Our team was repeatedly motivated by the obvious working of God. It really isn’t every day that one gets to see God working in such a clear, concise way. It was good to be a part of such life, since, due to a couple of racing taxi drivers, I felt certain that life was shortly coming to an end.
I don’t think that they had been drinking, but unbeknownst to us, our respective taxis were in a race to our drop off point. About five minutes into a swerving, bouncing, speeding flight toward K—l, I began singing Lord, I’m Coming Home, thinking that it might be a swiftly approaching reality. After both of our rides put us out and we determined that the ground was actually still, we went into the apartment and were quickly asleep.
The meeting generated so much excitement that I was only able to sleep 3 1/2 hours. After a fruitless attempt to return to unconsciousness, I rose to capture the thoughts that were careening around my head. This morning, Thursday [which was August 16], we are scheduled to meet with the town administrator of S—–k, where Jim and Kari live. The purpose is to explore how a church might partner to improve their community. [Unfortunately, he was out of town for the national holiday and was unable to meet.]
We did get to see two possible locations for the yurt church. One is near the Cultural Center and school. It is essentially an open field within sight of the same river that flows through K—l. The other is immediately adjacent to the city park.
One of the community service projects that Jim had already mentioned to us was revitalizing the city park, so my interest was piqued as to what the might entail. Boy. Oh. Boy. Built during Soviet days, the playground has all the aesthetic beauty of the lunar surface. The chain that once surrounded the entire area, roughly the size of a football field, is gone down to the last link as are most of the posts. There are approximately four actual rides for kids to use, each as plain and ugly as the one next to it. The teeter-totters could not be destroyed by a direct nuclear strike, but neither would it be worn out from use. The second possible site for the church was to the immediate right of the park, 25 yards away from the main town grocery store and a very busy bus stop.
My opinion was that both potential sites had advantages, neither had disadvantages so I asked Jim the potential cost. “About $5k for a half-acre, which is standard size,” he replied. “We might get it for a little cheaper if we commit to rebuild the park and maintain it.” I responded, “Why not offer to purchase this part to the right and ask them to give you the park based on your commitment to rebuild and maintain it? It never hurts to ask.” That is the end to which I will pray.
You’ll have to stay tuned to find out what happened…
This is an amazing story of God’s leadership. No wonder you couldn’t sleep.
Comment by Tom Bryant — August 27, 2007 @ 9:07 am
Ken Sorrell (IMB M) posted today The Future of Missions and Financial Resources (Part 2) which is a good balance to the conversation going on with our T-believers.
In planting new churches in cross-cultural settings needs to be handled with much care, especially when we begin asking questions, â??If money were no object, what kind of building would you want to house a church?â?
Sometimes our good intentions can cause more harm in the long run if not handled very carefully. I am speaking from a lot of personal experience on this one as do many of my M colleagues. As David Garrison says, its not bad to build church buildings, but THEY must be the ones to do so. We must be very careful in coming in and offering to foot the bills. Maybe there is more to the story than has been shared in this post, and quite possibly I am reading more into your words than intended, but the whole dependency issue is probably one of the greatest obstacles confronting modern missions today. It takes a huge amount of wisdom to handle money matters properly.
I encourage you to read Ken’s blog, he has a lot of great posts addressing the way we use Stateside churches, financing missions, volunteers, etc.
Comment by Guy Muse — August 27, 2007 @ 9:27 am
Guy-
Thanks and you are right. The question certainly was not designed to advocate an endless supply of funds, on the contrary it was designed to see if the T—ns thought that Russian Orthodox style buildings were the best thing going. The choice of the yurt is actually the best and most easily replicated opportunity that will lead the most quickly to a people group supported movement. They recognized this.
Your counsel on the finance and dependency issue is critically important and well received.
Comment by Marty Duren — August 27, 2007 @ 10:03 am
Marty,
Guy pointed me to your blog and this post in particular. I am glad to find you again so that I can link to your site from my blog.
I guess it is no surprise that I would give a hearty “Amen” to Guy’s comments in response to your post and the description of your experience in Russia. I would like to be quick to say that if you truly believe that God has told you to do this, as opposed to being emotionally caught up in the moment, to not follow through in obedience to His leadership would be sin.
You describe two projects that represent quite a paradoxical view of missions in the 21st century. The repair of the playground is a perfect example of a one time infusion of funds to assist a community, to open doors to the sharing of the Gospel. We have used and continue to use this type of project as part of a larger church planting strategy. The main reason is that we are not concerned if anyone can reproduce playground renovation.
The church building project is quite another issues. Here are questions that I would ask as in terms of healthy or unhealthy assistance.
1. Are we doing something that local believers can and should be doing for themselves?
2. If we are going to bring financial support and labor to this project, at what level should local believers be expected to invest in this venture?
3. If we truly believe that this project is reproducible by local believers in other areas that need a church, then why is it that this congregation cannot provide a building for themselves without our help?
4. And lastly, and for me, this is the most critical question of all. If we move forward with this project, with the results be an acceleration of the Gospel or will it hinder the spread of the Gospel because local believers cannot replicate what has been done for them.
This is in no way to diminish the excitement that you and others felt. The fact that you are not attempting to provide new “cathedrals speaks volumes to your understanding of history and local culture. If you continue to post on your progress, I will read with interest how God will use you and your team to impact eternity. Blessings!
Comment by Ken Sorrell — August 28, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Ken-
Thanks for your interaction. As we work through all of these issues, and this probably wasn’t as clear in the narrative as all the answers haven’t been decided, some of the partnering will likely be between our church and the local government. Other partnering will be between our church and the local believers. Still other partnering will be between the T—n church and their local gov’t.
Suffice it to say that all your counsel is part of our consideration and that we do not want a single mis-step that would hinder or impede in any way the birthing and replication needs of the indigenous CPM.
Good to hear from you!
Comment by Marty Duren — August 29, 2007 @ 9:10 am
Marty,
It is impossible to express as clearly as we would like all of he information in our heads and in our hearts on a blog post. I have no doubt that your desire is to see Kingdom growth that can reproduce. My prayer is that God would grant you the desires of you heart. As a good friend of mine is quoted as saying . . .
It is a great joy to lead someone to Christ.
It is a greater joy to plant a new church.
It is the greatest joy to teach others how to lead someone to Christ and how to plant new churches.
Blessings on your continued efforts!
Comment by Ken Sorrell — August 29, 2007 @ 11:45 pm