I’m not sure where this post is heading or where it will end up. In essence, I’m thinking out loud. Friday I boarded a plane for Atlanta en route to Montgomery, AL, and was, unfortunately, assigned to a middle seat. A woman that sat next to me noticed what I was reading – a training manual on church polity, of all things. She inquired and I soon learned that she was on staff with a dynamic church in the Richmond area that I had served with training and consulting.
Somewhere in the conversation the issue of assimilation came up. This church is growing at a crazy rate of speed and is pushing 2000 in Sunday attendance. Obviously, assimilation is important to this church. As we compared notes, I shared that the churches I had served as a staff member, from music director to senior pastor, had something in common. Our assimilation flow chart led newcomers to a one-on-one, or a couple-on-one, session with a pastor or other key leader.
By that time a newcomer would have attended on Sundays and would have completed a “Discovery” class or seminar that covered the basics such as our statement of faith, our denominational affiliation, our vision, our staff, and our ministries or programs. A simple presentation of the Gospel would be featured with an opportunity for response, and the nuts and bolts of church membership and how someone could become involved in our ministries was covered.
Then came, let’s call it, The Leader’s Conference. In this intimate setting, the leader would guide a discussion of that person’s or couple’s spiritual journey, the Gospel would be reinforced, and other personal matters would be covered.
My flight companion confided that their assimilation process did not include anything like the Leader’s Conference. I told her that, over my years in local church ministry, it was in these Leader’s Conferences, that most of the professions of faith were made during my tenure in these churches. It seems that in her church, the assimilation process did not intentionally set up conferences such as this, but simply provided information that a newcomer could follow up on as desired.
As I have processed this conversation, it has raised a question in my mind, “What is it, exactly, that the typical church that has an assimilation process assimilate people into?” I know that sentence has a lot to be desired in terms of grammar and syntax, but, as I said, I’m still mulling this over in my mind. Is our intent to assimilate people into the organizational programming of our churches, or is our intent to “assimilate” them into the Gospel, into Christ?
I’m reminded of a question I was asked a few years ago by a South American colleague. He asked me, “Do you know why it’s so expensive to plant an Anglo church and so inexpensive to plant a Hispanic church?” He continued, “Anglo church leaders think that you have to get people to church to get them to Jesus. Hispanics think that you have to get people to Jesus to get them to church.” He furthered observed that Anglos with this perspective, then, have to present churches that are so much of a draw that unbelievers want to come, i.e. very expensive to pull off. Hispanics bring people to Jesus and then guide them to church when they express a desire to worship and fellowship with other believers.
OK – I know we could pick this apart as a generalization or even a stereotype, but I see his point and, again, I wonder what it is that we are trying to accomplish with assimilation. It seems to me that the quicker we move people to the Gospel, the quicker they plug in and begin to give and serve and grow in their faith. I’ve got to pray and think this through further and I’ll get back to you.
