The Tale of Two Companies
Psalm 15; I Corinthians 1:18-31
In the early 1900s, two small companies in Detroit, Michigan – the Ace Buggy Whip Company and the Ford Transportation Company – were serving the nation's drivers of horse-drawn vehicles. Each company manufactured springs, luggage racks. whips and other products. It was an era when some people still traveled by foot, bicycle, or horseback, but more and more people rode in horse-drawn carts, buggies, and carriages.
Meanwhile, in Germany, a man by the name of Karl Benz had created the first gasoline powered “internal combustion” automobile. These first motor cars were so expensive few people could afford one, but interest in cars grew. Urban legend tells us that Ace Buggy Company saw the mounting interest in cars as a threat. They joined forces with other companies in the carriage industry and spread the word that cars were loud, foul-smelling, and dangerous contraptions. They went so far as to lobby the government to “save the nation's economy by outlawing automobiles”.
Henry Ford also noticed the shift in public interest; he didn't see it as a threat, though, but an opportunity to start making cars himself. For several years, he could produce only a couple of cars per day, and they were still expensive. Then Ford came up with the idea of an assembly line and learned how to manage a large workforce. He was able to make reasonably-priced cars by 1908; there was great excitement as the first Ford Model T rolled off assembly lines and were driven away by happy customers. The rest, as they say, is history: Ford still sells motorized vehicles, but the Ace Buggy Whip shop went bust a century ago.
In some ways the two companies, Ace and Ford, were once similar. They both manufactured buggy whips and related products. They differed, however, in one important way: how they defined their main business. The Ace people defined their main business as making “products” for customers, like buggy whips. The Ford people defined their main business as “facilitating personal transportation”. Can you see the important difference between the two? (“Go: The Church’s Main Purpose,” by George Hunter)
What is the main business of Jesus’ church? Is it clear and well-known by all Christians? The illustration I just shared is a reminder for churches that we can adapt and thrive or be married to our methods and eventually die. I want to turn our attention now to what was happening in the church 200 years ago. A frustrated preacher and leader in the Episcopal church, around 1800, said, “How many thousands of people have never seen, let alone read or heard, a chapter of the Bible? How many tens of thousands have never heard a sermon or been baptized? And how many hundreds of thousands have never heard the name of Christ, unless it was used as a curse?”
Contrast that with what was happening in the spring of 1802 in America: a spiritual awakening was sweeping across the land, thanks to the ministry of four Methodist ministers and 300 lay people. Fourteen years later there were over 2,000 ministers and 200,000 members. During the first 74 years (1776-1850), American Methodists grew from less than 3% of the nation’s churches to more than 34%; they became the largest religious body in the nation. One hundred years later Methodists had over a million members, almost double the size of any other Protestant body. (“Go”, p. 14)
Here are some of the ways the early Methodists were distinctive. They chose to be mobile, using travelling preachers. This strategy of itineracy was intentional – circuit riders often preached 25 times a week and covered an average of 100 miles. They earned the title, “Church of the Horse”. There was no pastor-in-residence in charge of caring for a flock. By necessity laity had to step into positions of local leadership. Wherever a body of believers gathered, that was “church”.
This pioneering spirit, taking God’s word to people where they lived and worked, was radical at the time. It was a new paradigm, a missional movement done in the shadow of the institutional church. John Wesley, who was an ordained priest in the Church of England, saw it as a renewal movement, never intending it to replace Sunday worship services.
John was very uncomfortable with the idea of ministry outside the church walls, but he had a friend who kept urging him to do field preaching. The first time he did it, he called it a “vile” experience. John Wesley was way outside his comfort zone, but he did it because he was clear about the main purpose of the church: to make disciples of Jesus Christ. He was willing, for the sake of the gospel, to change his method to accomplish the mission!
In 18th-century England the Industrial Revolution had shifted jobs into cities. Factory work meant long hours and low pay. There was crowded housing, poor sanitation, a high level of illiteracy and infant mortality. Some people were well off, but most were in inescapable poverty.
If you wanted to go to a church service, there were several barriers. You had to wear proper clothes, which most couldn’t afford. The service was formal, the liturgy long and hard to understand. Seating was arranged according to one’s social status. The church doors may have been open to all, but it didn’t feel accessible to most of the community. They were elsewhere on Sunday mornings.
John Wesley pushed through his discomfort; he disobeyed his senior leaders in his denomination and not only went to where people lived and worked, he showed up during the hours they had available. He read the Bible for them and explained its message in sermons. Large crowds gathered – here are just some of the places Wesley preached: in marketplaces, barns, schools, hospitals, theaters, workhouses, courtrooms, asylums, ballrooms, universities, shooting ranges, cemeteries, prisons, and mansions.
What happened in the 18th century is that this missional movement outside the walls of the church reached a massive audience in England and in America. It’s an example of a stationary bricks-and-mortar church, and a mobile movement in fields and neighborhoods, that co-existed. Each reached a different audience and had different types of leaders. Their methods differed but their mission was the same.
Today we’re the ones called to be “good stewards of the faith first entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3). If ever there was a time when people needed God in their life, it’s now. But the reality is that the majority of the people in our communities will never come through the open doors of an established church. Many think they have to wear proper clothes, the service will be formal, and the liturgy hard to understand. They believe they won’t find a place to belong. It feels uncomfortable.
We know our mission, we have some idea of who we might reach out to… but where, when, and how? “Professional” clergy spend almost all their time caring for the Christians who are already inside the walls of a church, so the circle must widen. We will need engaged lay people, a great number of them, just as there were in the early years of Methodism in America. It began with new believers meeting weekly in one another’s homes. It was familiar ground, and you didn’t have to get dressed up. No lay leader spoke in a formal or hard-to-understand form of speech, and there was no separate seating based on income or any other criteria. It was neighbors and family coming together to grow in their fledgling Christian faith, to listen, learn, pray for, and love one another. Their commitment to meet weekly formed strong relational bonds. If you were absent someone would come visit and check in on you. If you were struggling, you had a supportive accountability group. They also pooled their money and used it to help others. Just as this early missional movement thrived, finding methods that worked in their context, it’s now time for today’s established church to do the same.
Last week I promised to share some of the places Christian lay people go, and the ways they spend time with, listen and support others who are not yet on a journey with Jesus. Some churches have tried the following, while being intentional about being outgoing and following up with the people they attract:
Meanwhile, in Germany, a man by the name of Karl Benz had created the first gasoline powered “internal combustion” automobile. These first motor cars were so expensive few people could afford one, but interest in cars grew. Urban legend tells us that Ace Buggy Company saw the mounting interest in cars as a threat. They joined forces with other companies in the carriage industry and spread the word that cars were loud, foul-smelling, and dangerous contraptions. They went so far as to lobby the government to “save the nation's economy by outlawing automobiles”.
Henry Ford also noticed the shift in public interest; he didn't see it as a threat, though, but an opportunity to start making cars himself. For several years, he could produce only a couple of cars per day, and they were still expensive. Then Ford came up with the idea of an assembly line and learned how to manage a large workforce. He was able to make reasonably-priced cars by 1908; there was great excitement as the first Ford Model T rolled off assembly lines and were driven away by happy customers. The rest, as they say, is history: Ford still sells motorized vehicles, but the Ace Buggy Whip shop went bust a century ago.
In some ways the two companies, Ace and Ford, were once similar. They both manufactured buggy whips and related products. They differed, however, in one important way: how they defined their main business. The Ace people defined their main business as making “products” for customers, like buggy whips. The Ford people defined their main business as “facilitating personal transportation”. Can you see the important difference between the two? (“Go: The Church’s Main Purpose,” by George Hunter)
What is the main business of Jesus’ church? Is it clear and well-known by all Christians? The illustration I just shared is a reminder for churches that we can adapt and thrive or be married to our methods and eventually die. I want to turn our attention now to what was happening in the church 200 years ago. A frustrated preacher and leader in the Episcopal church, around 1800, said, “How many thousands of people have never seen, let alone read or heard, a chapter of the Bible? How many tens of thousands have never heard a sermon or been baptized? And how many hundreds of thousands have never heard the name of Christ, unless it was used as a curse?”
Contrast that with what was happening in the spring of 1802 in America: a spiritual awakening was sweeping across the land, thanks to the ministry of four Methodist ministers and 300 lay people. Fourteen years later there were over 2,000 ministers and 200,000 members. During the first 74 years (1776-1850), American Methodists grew from less than 3% of the nation’s churches to more than 34%; they became the largest religious body in the nation. One hundred years later Methodists had over a million members, almost double the size of any other Protestant body. (“Go”, p. 14)
Here are some of the ways the early Methodists were distinctive. They chose to be mobile, using travelling preachers. This strategy of itineracy was intentional – circuit riders often preached 25 times a week and covered an average of 100 miles. They earned the title, “Church of the Horse”. There was no pastor-in-residence in charge of caring for a flock. By necessity laity had to step into positions of local leadership. Wherever a body of believers gathered, that was “church”.
This pioneering spirit, taking God’s word to people where they lived and worked, was radical at the time. It was a new paradigm, a missional movement done in the shadow of the institutional church. John Wesley, who was an ordained priest in the Church of England, saw it as a renewal movement, never intending it to replace Sunday worship services.
John was very uncomfortable with the idea of ministry outside the church walls, but he had a friend who kept urging him to do field preaching. The first time he did it, he called it a “vile” experience. John Wesley was way outside his comfort zone, but he did it because he was clear about the main purpose of the church: to make disciples of Jesus Christ. He was willing, for the sake of the gospel, to change his method to accomplish the mission!
In 18th-century England the Industrial Revolution had shifted jobs into cities. Factory work meant long hours and low pay. There was crowded housing, poor sanitation, a high level of illiteracy and infant mortality. Some people were well off, but most were in inescapable poverty.
If you wanted to go to a church service, there were several barriers. You had to wear proper clothes, which most couldn’t afford. The service was formal, the liturgy long and hard to understand. Seating was arranged according to one’s social status. The church doors may have been open to all, but it didn’t feel accessible to most of the community. They were elsewhere on Sunday mornings.
John Wesley pushed through his discomfort; he disobeyed his senior leaders in his denomination and not only went to where people lived and worked, he showed up during the hours they had available. He read the Bible for them and explained its message in sermons. Large crowds gathered – here are just some of the places Wesley preached: in marketplaces, barns, schools, hospitals, theaters, workhouses, courtrooms, asylums, ballrooms, universities, shooting ranges, cemeteries, prisons, and mansions.
What happened in the 18th century is that this missional movement outside the walls of the church reached a massive audience in England and in America. It’s an example of a stationary bricks-and-mortar church, and a mobile movement in fields and neighborhoods, that co-existed. Each reached a different audience and had different types of leaders. Their methods differed but their mission was the same.
Today we’re the ones called to be “good stewards of the faith first entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3). If ever there was a time when people needed God in their life, it’s now. But the reality is that the majority of the people in our communities will never come through the open doors of an established church. Many think they have to wear proper clothes, the service will be formal, and the liturgy hard to understand. They believe they won’t find a place to belong. It feels uncomfortable.
We know our mission, we have some idea of who we might reach out to… but where, when, and how? “Professional” clergy spend almost all their time caring for the Christians who are already inside the walls of a church, so the circle must widen. We will need engaged lay people, a great number of them, just as there were in the early years of Methodism in America. It began with new believers meeting weekly in one another’s homes. It was familiar ground, and you didn’t have to get dressed up. No lay leader spoke in a formal or hard-to-understand form of speech, and there was no separate seating based on income or any other criteria. It was neighbors and family coming together to grow in their fledgling Christian faith, to listen, learn, pray for, and love one another. Their commitment to meet weekly formed strong relational bonds. If you were absent someone would come visit and check in on you. If you were struggling, you had a supportive accountability group. They also pooled their money and used it to help others. Just as this early missional movement thrived, finding methods that worked in their context, it’s now time for today’s established church to do the same.
Last week I promised to share some of the places Christian lay people go, and the ways they spend time with, listen and support others who are not yet on a journey with Jesus. Some churches have tried the following, while being intentional about being outgoing and following up with the people they attract:
- If they have some land, create an outdoor space such as a park or walking trails
- Giving away some donated Christmas trees
- Using a well-equipped church kitchen to offer cooking classes
- Self-defense or exercise classes
- Car care “clinics”
- Offering a “cool zone” in the summer for folks with no AC
We believe that the church must devote itself to the Word of God, community, the sacraments, and prayer; and we believe digital church can successfully achieve all the core functions that mark any effective, healthy church. Using digital tools, we can effectively build relationships, disciple, and care for people who live thousands of miles away. Admittedly, this is a disruption in the way the Church has operated for 1,700+ years. But we believe that, by making an intentional departure from the current, Sunday- centric model of the physical church, we can evangelize and disciple an unreached demographic in a way that is equally faithful to the Great Commission.
Amen! You can learn more about Lux Digital Church at https://www.luxdigitalchurch.com/.
While we probably won’t create a digital gamer ministry, we can keep the same focus on creatively ministering to the people we can reach. Stay tuned… next week we’ll be talking about “Leave It to Beaver”!
While we probably won’t create a digital gamer ministry, we can keep the same focus on creatively ministering to the people we can reach. Stay tuned… next week we’ll be talking about “Leave It to Beaver”!