The Theology of Church Planting - Part One

II. Theology and Church Planting.

There is a danger of being dominated by pragmatism when we approach the question of church planting and this is understandable since we want to know how to plant churches in order to have a more effective ministry. However, pragmatism can lead us astray. This concern was reflected in my own thinking previously.

What is pragmatism? Philosophically, the question could be complicated, but in this study pragmatism is understood to be the concept that “if it works, it must be right.” What is its danger? That the implication be given that church planting and the multiplication of daughter churches is simply a question of “know-how” or “techniques.” The assumption could so easily be made that all one has to do is to follow a workable guide plan and then “voilà—a daughter church.” That is a deadly base to build upon.

Although much of the literature on church planting has touched on the theological basis for church planting the greatest critique of not thinking theologically has been the British author Stuart Murray in his book Planting Churches: Laying Foundations. Murray states that an adequate theological base or, to use his terminology, “a theological framework for church planting” will take into account three great categories: (1) missio Dei, (2) Incarnation, and (3) the kingdom of God.

Church Planting and the Missio Dei (Mission of God)

By missio Dei or mission of God, Murray understands God’s mission in the world directed toward the world. The concern in not relating church planting to this great mission of God is that the church may turn in upon itself and not be concerned with social justice. However, if the newly-planted churches major on social justice above all, will they not lose their cutting edge in evangelism and the building up of believers? Surely, newly-planted churches need to be filled with believers who are both salt and light as Jesus taught. However, to emphasize the church as God’s instrument for social justice may lead to a political agenda rather than God’s redemptive agenda. David Hesselgrave expresses this by concern stating:

But one important reason was that Paul considered the preaching of the gospel and the establishment of churches as his primary task. The biblical record leaves no room for thinking that either Paul or the members of his team where basically engaged in raising living standards, ameliorating social conditions, imparting secular knowledge, or dispensing aid from previously established churches. There can be no doubt that allegiance to Christ on the part of converts in the churches entailed these effects as by-products of faith even to the sending of needed aid back to the Jerusalem church (a kind of reverse flow). That the missionaries were concerned about social relationships, and about minds and bodies as well as souls, is patently true. But Paul’s primary mission was established when the gospel was preached, people were converted, and churches were established.

All of this depends on our definition of the two words mission and missions. Since neither word comes from the Bible, we must see what meaning is given to each. For some evangelicals the word mission is preferred and is related to all that God is seeking to do in the world – the mission of God (or missio Dei). This is sometimes called “holistic mission” with the concept of holistic broadening the concept of mission to include providing for social needs as well as encouraging social action that will transform society. This concept implies that the focus on making disciples and multiplying churches is not a fully biblical view of mission (or missions).

A recent in-depth study of the question of mission and the Bible by Christopher J. H. Wright is entitled The Mission of God. In this book Wright seeks to see the Bible in the light of holistic mission. He calls his approach “a missiological hermeneutic of the Bible” What is positive about his view of the Bible is his broad view of seeing the whole of Scripture. This gives a breadth to his work often lacking in seeking to understand mission.

Second, Wright sees God as the initiator of mission and states in the epilogue that, “The only concept of mission into which God fits is the one of which he is the beginning, the center and the end . . . And the only access we have to that mission of God is given to us in the Bible” And along with this is the emphasis Wright places on mission as God’s work and not ours.

In line with Wright’s thinking is what was stated at the beginning of this article and that is the role of God as the insider —he is the one doing the work. We are only his instruments. So does this not lead to a false dichotomy that says it is either God or us? Or does a more careful exegesis of what evangelism and church planting mean lead to a more clear analysis of the wedding of the mission of God and church planting that is so needed as we continue into the 21st century?

My other concern is that this may be leading us to too broad a definition of mission so that evangelistic church planting is placed on the same plane as anything done for God. In one sense this is true; however, if priorities are misplaced then what will happen to the biblical mandate to get the gospel out to the whole world?

One recent review of Wright’s book by Jim Reapsome shows his concern:

"Wright never disparages evangelism—in fact, he exalts it as an absolute necessity—but his advocacy for engaging social, economic, and political issues will arouse controversy. It’s worth asking: Just because something should be the concern of the church and all Christians should it be thrust under the rubric of mission? Wright’s huge all-embracing umbrella of God’s mission could renew fears that evangelism and church planting will be lost. If he seems to indicate that everything is mission, the risk is that nothing is mission in the end."

So the concern of some missiologists is that this wide view of mission will play down the Great Commission’s vision for evangelism leading to multiplying disciples and then, as seen in Acts, the multiplication of gatherings of these disciples in church planting. Hesselgrave explains his concern with this paradigm:

"The missionary endeavour was marginalized in part because the ecumenical vision of mission was gradually broadened by the W.C.C. [World Council of Churches] to include everything the church does in the world—and even what God does outside the church. The effort to carry out missio Dei came to be divorced from obedience to God’s Great Commission."

More in our next blog