Thank you. While many attempt to extrapolate that church at Antioch to embrace or umbrella their own purpose and praxis, your article seems to make the thread of connection between Acts 11, Ephesians 4 and Romans 16 vibrate and glow with meaning!
This is helpful for understanding the role, nature, and relationship that hubs/networks have within a city for helping to nourish (and come alongside of) what the Spirit is doing through the formation of microchurches across a region.
I appreciated hearing that networks should "embrace diversity" and "leverage the full range of expressions in your network." It also got me wondering for my context. Could this mean that it's okay (and helpful to the movement) to have churches that are embracing "missional/gospel communities" but still follow a more centralized model of church life (including them in the early stages of building the network)? Is there a caution to having too many of these particular church models in your network (in contrast to more decentralized expressions)?
In my particular city, there are no official microchurch expressions (yet). We have many relationships across the city and with many churches (and sense that the Spirit is preparing the church here for a move towards a decentralized model). But currently, it feels like a person (or group of people desiring a hub/network) would have to work with the existing expressions of churches that appear to follow the prevailing centralized models (alongside of these more centralized church's attempts to lean into some aspects of missional/gospel community life).
I really appreciate your question and the depth of the reflections you're considering for your context. Here's what I'd say:
Absolutely, it’s possible for those within the predominant model church to engage in this work and mission. In fact, KCU started out from within that very model. We created a parallel pathway—developing disciple-makers, with a strong emphasis on incarnational mission, using cohorts that we reproduced over time. Over the course of a few years, microchurches began to emerge, even while we were still part of the predominant model church. But here’s where things get interesting: we were also given the freedom to “be the church” fully as microchurches —something many predominant model churches aren't comfortable doing.
It really comes down to one key question: do they see smaller expressions of the church as legitimate? Or do they view them as "junior varsity"? The truth is, there’s only one church in the city, and it’s already a body/network. If we get that right, the diversity of expressions in the network becomes a strength—not a liability.
In your city, I’d encourage you to keep leaning into those relationships, knowing that, as the Spirit leads, the shift toward decentralized expressions is often a journey. That said, balance is key. Too many centralized expressions early on could limit the movement possibilities—especially if they don’t fully grasp the power of smaller, more nimble expressions of church, and aren't fully on board with a more movemental ecclesiology, incarnational disciple-making, decentralized forms of leadership, etc.
Thanks for all the care and thought that you put into this response! This is great insight. My wife and I were just discussing it last night. Praying for patience to move at the speed of Jesus (whether that means slowing down and paying attention, speeding up to catch up where the Spirit is working, or just staying put - perhaps a combination of all three 😁).
There is no sense of microchurch movements where I live. It is discouraging at times. Literally every church embraces a spectator, inspirational , top down model. I am looking for a gathering that embraces the priesthood of all believers. It came to a point where I can't bear going to services because it's literally the same thing every week. Praise and worship, slownset then fast set, announcements, offering sermon on a random series and go home. I feel pastors (whom I love and appreciate) have a stranglehold because changing models threatens their livelihood. That's unfortunate but scary thing for them. So I don't know what to do. I try to attend, get involved, but quickly Im turned off because there is no sense of mission, empowerment or discipleship. I'm silent as the mere questioning or suggestion of a microchurch model even as an additional wouldn't be accepted.
Thank you. While many attempt to extrapolate that church at Antioch to embrace or umbrella their own purpose and praxis, your article seems to make the thread of connection between Acts 11, Ephesians 4 and Romans 16 vibrate and glow with meaning!
This is helpful for understanding the role, nature, and relationship that hubs/networks have within a city for helping to nourish (and come alongside of) what the Spirit is doing through the formation of microchurches across a region.
I appreciated hearing that networks should "embrace diversity" and "leverage the full range of expressions in your network." It also got me wondering for my context. Could this mean that it's okay (and helpful to the movement) to have churches that are embracing "missional/gospel communities" but still follow a more centralized model of church life (including them in the early stages of building the network)? Is there a caution to having too many of these particular church models in your network (in contrast to more decentralized expressions)?
In my particular city, there are no official microchurch expressions (yet). We have many relationships across the city and with many churches (and sense that the Spirit is preparing the church here for a move towards a decentralized model). But currently, it feels like a person (or group of people desiring a hub/network) would have to work with the existing expressions of churches that appear to follow the prevailing centralized models (alongside of these more centralized church's attempts to lean into some aspects of missional/gospel community life).
Appreciate any insight. Grace and peace.
I really appreciate your question and the depth of the reflections you're considering for your context. Here's what I'd say:
Absolutely, it’s possible for those within the predominant model church to engage in this work and mission. In fact, KCU started out from within that very model. We created a parallel pathway—developing disciple-makers, with a strong emphasis on incarnational mission, using cohorts that we reproduced over time. Over the course of a few years, microchurches began to emerge, even while we were still part of the predominant model church. But here’s where things get interesting: we were also given the freedom to “be the church” fully as microchurches —something many predominant model churches aren't comfortable doing.
It really comes down to one key question: do they see smaller expressions of the church as legitimate? Or do they view them as "junior varsity"? The truth is, there’s only one church in the city, and it’s already a body/network. If we get that right, the diversity of expressions in the network becomes a strength—not a liability.
In your city, I’d encourage you to keep leaning into those relationships, knowing that, as the Spirit leads, the shift toward decentralized expressions is often a journey. That said, balance is key. Too many centralized expressions early on could limit the movement possibilities—especially if they don’t fully grasp the power of smaller, more nimble expressions of church, and aren't fully on board with a more movemental ecclesiology, incarnational disciple-making, decentralized forms of leadership, etc.
Thanks for all the care and thought that you put into this response! This is great insight. My wife and I were just discussing it last night. Praying for patience to move at the speed of Jesus (whether that means slowing down and paying attention, speeding up to catch up where the Spirit is working, or just staying put - perhaps a combination of all three 😁).
There is no sense of microchurch movements where I live. It is discouraging at times. Literally every church embraces a spectator, inspirational , top down model. I am looking for a gathering that embraces the priesthood of all believers. It came to a point where I can't bear going to services because it's literally the same thing every week. Praise and worship, slownset then fast set, announcements, offering sermon on a random series and go home. I feel pastors (whom I love and appreciate) have a stranglehold because changing models threatens their livelihood. That's unfortunate but scary thing for them. So I don't know what to do. I try to attend, get involved, but quickly Im turned off because there is no sense of mission, empowerment or discipleship. I'm silent as the mere questioning or suggestion of a microchurch model even as an additional wouldn't be accepted.
Excellent!! Thank you!
Great article