In relation to the question of defining mission in relation to church planting, Donald McGavran has stated that there are really only three categories of philosophies of mission:
1) “The Pauline philosophy” –“This holds that the central continuing purpose of the world mission is winning men and women, tribes and nations to Jesus Christ and multiplying churches.”
2) “The parallel philosophy” –“world mission is as broad as the physical, mental, social, and spiritual needs of man and includes his economic, industrial and political life.”
3) “The Temporal-Eternal Philosophy.” –“This holds that while the acceptance of the Evangel by the whole world is, indeed, the long range chief goal, in the shifting scene which faces us, other ends must sometimes share the stage as equals with church multiplication.”
Then McGavran continues to explain the practical results of each of these philosophies in terms of decisions made, action taken, and research done. And here is where church planting can take a second place in the light of the great needs facing societies everywhere.
The result of stretching the lens by which we view mission to include a wider view is that the biblical focus is lost. As missions historian Stephen Neill has stated, “When everything is mission, nothing is mission.” A too extensive definition of missions leads to a less intensive ministry in missions. Our definition of missions is solidly based on the lost condition of man and his need for supernatural life from God.
This focused definition does not mean that “missions” should not have as a resultant dynamic change in societies through multiplying true disciples and biblically functioning local churches. This definition is concerned about keeping first things first in order to accomplish our Lord’s concern when he stated, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). So my definition of missions is:
The crossing over of some kind of barrier that hinders the expansion of the church to make and multiply disciples who are integrated into dynamic biblical reproducing churches in which they lives out all that the gospel implies in their context for the glory of God.
The question of the theology of mission is going to make a difference in what happens in church planting around the world in the 21st century. What is the true relationship between the mission of God and church planting is a question that must be answered. In this writer’s opinion, the mission of God towards the world flows out of planting churches that become powerful agents for change in culture today.
If by missio Dei or mission of God, scholars mean the great intentionality of God for mankind and this earth all well and good. However, if this concept does not do justice to the Great Commission’s focused vision, then it will inevitably lead to a lessening of the making of true disciples and the planting of churches for the glory of God.
The Incarnation and Church Planting
Then in terms of the theological perspective of incarnation, Murray states that this influences church planting in two ways: “First, Jesus rather than the early church is the source of inspiration for church planters…” and “A second implication of incarnation is that God speaks to people through making his word flesh.”
However, there are many who, although accepting the working of Christ in building his church through his servants, would say that Paul is God’s “inspiration” (or perhaps we should say model) for church planters. Bill Hull alerts us to the difference between what he calls “the Christocentric model” which was the way disciple-making was done when Christ was upon the earth and the “churchocentric model” where disciple-making is accomplished within the body of the church and not done apart from church planting.
So without a doubt, church planting does need to be related to Christ’s life and teaching as reflected in making disciples who reflect the Great Commission as recorded by Matthew:
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age Matt. 28:18-20 (ESV)."
So churches that are planted and are faithful to the Word of God will have Christ’s discipleship vision strongly rooted in them and will be teaching incarnational truth in their midst. If discipleship is separated from church planting it can only lead to the planting of superficial churches that will not make the salt and light impact that they should.
Incarnational discipleship is the great emphasis of the four Gospels where Christ is the great disciple maker. It is also the great emphasis of the book of Acts where the result of evangelism is always the making of disciples. To fail to make disciples is to end up with loose disciples floating around not relating to one another in the body called the church. Also it is not true to the true biblical flow as seen in the Acts and Epistles.
The beauty of putting the two together leads to a vibrant life-changing church where a church grows by following rather than attracting by programs. The failure of not linking church planting to discipleship leads to weak churches with pew-sitting instead of powerful change.
However, there is still a question raised in relation to the incarnation that must be answered. Are disciples today to do exactly what Jesus did or was there a special uniqueness related to his incarnation that they do not share? The Lord stated “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you” (John 20:21 ESV).
Andreas Köstenberger has done an in-depth study of this in his book The Missions of Jesus & the Disciples according to the Fourth Gospel. He states:
What is at stake here is more than fine points of exegesis. The question arises whether
certain views of 20:21 diminish the uniqueness accorded to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel.
Entire missiological paradigms have been built around various interpretations of 20:21.
The “incarnational model,” for example, sees Christ as present in the church so that the church can fashion its ministry after the model provided by Jesus during his earthly ministry. According to this view, the church is not just representing Jesus—it is Jesus working through his church today. The implication of this model appears to be a focus on the continuity between Jesus’ mission and the church’s mission.
Another view, the “representational model,” accentuates more keenly the discontinuity between the respective missions of Jesus and of his disciples.
The incarnational approach is built upon believers accomplishing the mission of Christ as exemplified in Luke 4:18-19: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.” (ESV)
However, this does not do justice to the uniqueness of Christ’s incarnation as Köstenberger has shown us.
If the representational model is our model for mission, then the great vision will be that of the Great Commission in the light of the great Pauline mission as seen in Acts. As Köstenberger explains in another book:
The mission of the exalted Jesus is accomplished through the witness of the apostles in the power of the Holy Spirit. The one who is himself sent by God sends his representatives to bear testimony to his salvation, to announce the forgiveness of sins and to make disciples of all nations. In other words, his witnesses continue the mission of Jesus by declaring to men and women everywhere the glorious gospel of the grace of God. As the Father has sent him, so Jesus sends them. Moreover, this testimony to Jesus and his saving work involves a wide-ranging series of activities that result in believers being built up in Christ and formed into Christian congregations. It is not limited simply to primary evangelism and its immediate results. Conversion to Christ necessarily involved incorporation into a Christian community.
Again, what Murray calls a “theological perspective” (in this case that of incarnation) will have a great influence on church planting in the 21st century. However, that perspective will need to be adequately informed theologically.
May many new churches be planted in this 21st century because Christ’s incarnational uniqueness is understood and Paul’s representational model is followed.
No comments:
Post a Comment