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.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)