Introduction
In his book, Browning makes a deliberate attempt to cover the definition of churches by design and constitution.[1] He postulates that there are big churches and small churches all through the world.
He also talks about a ‘hybrid’ formed from these two opposites. According to Cole, having a global church is no longer a problem since most countries use English as their medium of communication and because the world is now connected by the internet.[2] This paper critically summarizes Browning’s ideas of micro and mega churches as well as his concepts of ‘intimacy and impact.’
Intimacy and Impact
There are various values as far as church ministry is concerned. In most cases, these values are depicted in a bipolar scenario where intimacy lies on one hand and impact on the other. Consequently, most churches are essentially pulled towards one of the extremes.
Churches that stress on values such as communal association, sense of belonging, and unity are in most cases drawn towards intimacy. On the contrary, those churches that lay emphasis on outreach programs and missionary work are pulled towards impact. A ministry or a church needs to first of all understand where it lies as far as these aspects are concerned before making an effort to stretch towards the other pole.
The Hybrid Church
Currently, hybrid is a term used in many scenarios. According to Baker, the hybrid forms represent the bringing together of two or more elements without changing the status quo.[3] The formation of such a hybrid is geared towards the goal of creating the best outcome possible. It is designed by bringing together two distinct components of different units to perform a specific role. Therefore, it is the fusion of two unique, but equally important elements to bring out a superior and efficient outcome.
The ‘hybrid church’ gives us a new terminology to use when discussing the merits and demerits of small and big church ministries. This is very important since it affords us the advantage of having blends in values from both extremes. The hybrid allows us to have the important value of unity associated with intimacy without losing out on growth and impact.
It provides a combination of that which is big and powerful, blended seamlessly with intimacy and detail. If permitted, most churches prefer to have intimacy and impact. Unfortunately, in most church scenarios they are only allowed to choose one or the other. This is where a delicate hybrid is needed.
Possibility of the Hybrid Church
Many people are not comfortable with the word ‘hybrid’ and see it as conveying an unholy combination of truth and falsehood. Despite this, a hybrid church is not an effort to merge one aspect of theological truth or fact with another less plausible philosophy in an attempt to form a fresh and more enhanced doctrine. Instead, it can be said to be a deliberate attempt to draw the true Christian church back into consistency with the view of the apostolic church as expressed in the Bible.
In the modern day American culture, two extremes can be found in almost every situation. According to Lunn, “the different contributions of two of the models will each develop the positive and negative aspects of the ambivalent, hybrid situation.”[4] In the present church setting, there is the mega-church on one hand and the micro-church on the other. The mega-church boasts of a well-known name, and a capacity to influence its community in immense ways.
Nonetheless, the micro-church is a relatively small collection of people who have a modest impact on their neighborhood. The micro-church also focuses on relationship ties and offers love and intimacy to its members. This is where the hybrid church is useful in a special effort to integrate these two very important biblical values of impact and intimacy. It provides a blend where the church not only has a chance to grow and make a name, but also a platform where relationship between members is personal.
The early church gives us a clear picture of how this kind of hybrid works. In line with the mega-church, the earliest Christians used to worship in temples (Acts 5:42). Paul also acquired the hall of Tyrrannus where he conducted daily lectures (Acts 19: 8-10). However, they still had the micro-type intimate relationships and small fellowship groups where they communed, broke bread and worshiped collectively in their homes (Acts 2: 46).
Every church today can learn some important lessons from this kind of fusion if it is to maintain intimacy while expanding and spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the church holds huge gatherings and undertakes ambitious campaigns to grow its flock and impact on the community, it must not take for granted the value of close relationships among its members.
Every member of the church brings with him different leadership qualities and values to the body. These members are part of the small units that eventually form the big church. If these small relationships are maintained and nurtured, they can make a stronger more unified ministry.
Just as Christ equates the church to a body with different parts performing different functions, the hybrid church today recognizes these parts and the role they play in building the whole body. It is a deliberate attempt to bring intimate qualities of a modern-day small-group church and the impact of a modern-day mega-church together. The hybrid does this with the intention of creating a seamless amalgamation of the two.
The hybrid church helps diminish any mixed intentions that are focused more on material gain rather than the spiritual growth of the church by reducing the need for massive expensive structures. Instead, it advocates for simplicity and modesty putting emphasis on small units that make the bigger church. Cutting the cost of these structures enables the ministry to invest more money into the community and global outreach.
As good as it seems the hybrid model also has several problems. According to Beckham, “the problem with the hybrid house church model is that the large group and small group expressions of the church are not encouraged to come together as one….”[5] These groups need to be integrated in a way that all the parts have a cohesive association with the body church. Just as parts of the body are useless individually, the different cells or units of the church cannot achieve much independent of each other.
Bibliography
Baker, Christopher. Hybrid Church in the City: Third Space Thinking. London, UK: SCM Press, 2009.
Beckham, Bill. Where Are We Now? Houston, TX: Glocal Publications, 2005.
Browning, Dave. Hybrid Church: The Fusion of Intimacy and Impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010.
Cole, Neil. Church 3.0: Upgrades for the Future of the Church. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-bass, 2010.
Lunn, Andrew J. “The Neighborhood Church in an Individualized World.” PhD diss., The University of Birmingham, 2011.
Footnotes
- Dave Browning, Hybrid Church: The Fusion of Intimacy and Impact, (San Francisco CA, Jossey-bass, 2010)
- Neil Cole, Church 3.0: Upgrades for the Future of the Church (San Francisco CA, Jossey-bass, 2010)
- Christopher Baker, Hybrid Church in the City: Third Space Thinking (London UK, SCM Press, 2009)
- Andrew J. Lunn, “The Neighborhood Church in an Individualized World” (Ph.D diss., The University of Birmingham, 2011)
- Bill Beckham, Where Are We Now? (Houston, TX: Glocal Publications, 2005), 156 – 169.