A few years after we began Bikers’ Church, I had a conversation with a new pastor-friend. This friend had been involved in a number of church plants, and was currently working with a national church planting organization. As he listened to me share with him the vision of Bikers’ Church, he asked me a rather interesting question. “What are you doing to make sure Bikers’ Church doesn’t become a closed group?” He went on to explain what he meant by a “closed group.”
To him, a church should be made up of people from every type of background and demographic. To only focus on bikers would limit who the church reached. As a result, the church could fall into the trap of turning away people who didn’t fit their “mould.” At the same time, since Bikers’ Church had such a unique identity, the danger was there that we would separate ourselves from other churches. Could a biker-focused church support unity among all churches.
At first, I was offended by the question, although I pretended to be really spiritual and acted like I was contemplating my answer. How dare he suggest that Bikers’ Church could become a closed group?!? When I did answer, I suggested that those same questions could be asked of any congregation. That bikers come from every background. Professionals, blue collar workers, wealthy, poor. I told him about our “church crashes” where we would all show up at another church on a Sunday morning simply to worship with the people of that congregation. In short, I made it clear that we were doing all the right things to make sure we never became a “closed” group.
That was five years ago. Today, another friend shared a link on his twitter page. The link was to an blog post that asked the question, “Is It A Church?” The article was quoting a newspaper doing a story on non-traditional churches. Finally, the question was asked,
“Can we call these communities “Churches” in the truest Biblical, historic, and traditional sense of the term?”
The author, Chaplain Mike, responds, “No.” He then explains why. I encourage you to read the entire post, as it is quite interesting. However, here are a few interesting quotes that stand out to me:
We have many communities of faith that would be better described as “missions” rather than “churches.”
Traditional Protestantism defined the church as a community where the Word of God was truly preached and the sacraments truly administered. Today, “church” is defined by many as a community that practices evangelism and discipleship.
When Paul gathered people from the various backgrounds he had reached into the church , he brought them together, and insisted that the ethos of the church was learning to accommodate to one another, accept one another, and become a cross-cultural community in Christ. Almost every epistle he wrote is designed in part to reinforce this ecclesiological perspective.
I think Chaplain Mike is right … to a degree. I also think that he jumps to a few conclusions that may not be entirely accurate.
I believe Bikers’ Church is really a church. It’s not a mission, although mission is part of it’s DNA. While the emphasis at BC is to reach a particular demographic, as I pointed out to my friend many years ago, that demographic is made up of people from every background.
At the same time, we must be extremely careful not to limit ourselves to only our demographic. The moment we exclude someone from our church simply because they are not a biker, we fail in the true mission of every church: To go into all nations …
I do think that a church can have a targeted demographic as long as they hold that targeted group loosely.
At the same time, I do not think that every group that gets together around motorcycles, skateboards, tattoo parlours, or even book stores can call themselves a church. In some cases, they really are simply a mission. In that sense, Chaplain Mike is absolutely correct in what he writes. There must be specific elements found within any group if it wishes to call itself a “church.”
After quoting a number of passages from Paul, Chaplain Mike writes,
There is a breadth to the church as well as a height, a horizontal element as well as the vertical dimension. It is not just about bringing people into relationship with God through Jesus and providing a place where they may feel “comfortable” because we have accommodated to their cultural expectations. It is about bringing people into a community that requires that we learn how to relate to all different kinds of people and teaches us to love one another.
I think that’s only the beginning. For a group to define itself as a church, I think the following characteristics must be evident:
- the Word must be preached in some fashion.
- worship should be evident as people gather together and declare God’s worth.
- fellowship (true “koinonia”) must be practiced.
I do not believe that in every church there must be found a diversity of cultures. However, I do believe that in every church there must be found an openness to welcome a diversity of cultures.
So, what are your thoughts? I may find myself updating this post as I contemplate it more. But these are my “off the cuff” impressions of an interesting article.
