Monday, April 30, 2012
Third Pillar of a Biblical Base for Church Planting
The Church is an Organism -- A Body ( 1 Cor 12:12-31)
Organisms give birth to other organisms by reproduction as life generates life. The church is born to reproduce by giving life. When filled with and guided by the Spirit, the church not only reproduced by multiplying believers but it reproduced by multiplying new churches. We should be concerned to see churches born that recognize from the moment of their birth that they are to produce other churches. This will lead to the multiplication of churches.
Commenting on the power of the reproductive model as seen in the church of
Antioch, Bill Hull states, “We see the power of the model of reproduction: If you multiply a reproductive church, it creates other reproductive churches. This will remain true until modeling breaks down.” The powerful movement of life coming from the church as an organism led to the expansion of the church everywhere in the Roman Empire. Norman A. Niklas explains:
The first element in this equation represents the most important factor. Without the supernatural resources of our sovereign God, the planting and growing of churches would be impossible. By His power believers are born, disciples are made and churches reproduce.
A French missiological book, quoting a German pastoral theology (Grundriss der Praktischen Theologie), stresses the same truth:
The Church particularly insists on the fact that it is not in good health without this expansion beyond its present frontiers. These remarks signify that one should not count missions among the 'works' of the Church, to be mentioned after many others, but missions is an integral part of her organism.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Second Pillar of a Biblical Base for Church Planting
The Activity of the Holy Spirit in the Birth Process
The second reason for this multiplication of churches comes from the activity of the Holy Spirit in this birth process. He works to bring new believers into being but also to bring new churches into being. Boer points out that the impetus for the growing church came not from the commandments to evangelize but from the impetus of the Spirit to move out. He says “Two things stand out with great clarity in Acts: the irresistible missionary expansion of the Church, and the power of the Spirit in that expansion.”
The expansion in Acts 13 comes about as the Spirit moves Barnabas and Saul to give themselves to the work of planting new churches. Much missiological thought has been involved in the discussion about whether this was a modality (church structure) or a sodality (mission structure) planting new churches. From an exegetical point of view, it seems as though a modality type structure of an “apostolic team” is present here. However, the sending out of this team was within the context of the believers in the church at Antioch. Their being sent out from the church to plant new churches was not planting daughter churches (where a solid group forms the nucleus of the new church). This event does show us, nevertheless, that when the Spirit is at work, the church (or at least its leadership) recognizes the need to be willing to let others move out from within the church to plant new churches.
Emil Brunner clarifies this:
Mission work does not arise from any arrogance in the Christian Church; mission is its cause and life. The Church exists by mission, just as a fire exists by burning. Where there is no mission, there is no Church; and where there is neither Church nor mission, there is no faith.
So how could a church not envision reaching out to begin new churches in new areas if it is truly “on fire”? The Holy Spirit is given to make believers “holy” by working in them for he is the Holy Spirit. However, he is also the Holy Spirit. As such He has a ministry to make these holy believers “moving” witnesses who expand the church geographically by the power of their testimony (Acts 1:8). The result should be the creation of new bodies of believers wherever these witnesses go. It is striking to note the multiplication of daughter churches among Pentecostals in France. One reason seems to be their recognition of the fact that groups of believers in an area become the core of a new church. France has long been recognized as resistant to evangelism, yet in this resistant soil, the Pentecostals have seen many churches planted. According to Operation World, Revised 7th Edition, the Assemblies of God alone have created 920 congregations in France with a membership of 65,714 and an affiliation of 230,000. Has their theology of the Spirit and the congregating of believers encouraged this multiplication?
The second reason for this multiplication of churches comes from the activity of the Holy Spirit in this birth process. He works to bring new believers into being but also to bring new churches into being. Boer points out that the impetus for the growing church came not from the commandments to evangelize but from the impetus of the Spirit to move out. He says “Two things stand out with great clarity in Acts: the irresistible missionary expansion of the Church, and the power of the Spirit in that expansion.”
The expansion in Acts 13 comes about as the Spirit moves Barnabas and Saul to give themselves to the work of planting new churches. Much missiological thought has been involved in the discussion about whether this was a modality (church structure) or a sodality (mission structure) planting new churches. From an exegetical point of view, it seems as though a modality type structure of an “apostolic team” is present here. However, the sending out of this team was within the context of the believers in the church at Antioch. Their being sent out from the church to plant new churches was not planting daughter churches (where a solid group forms the nucleus of the new church). This event does show us, nevertheless, that when the Spirit is at work, the church (or at least its leadership) recognizes the need to be willing to let others move out from within the church to plant new churches.
Emil Brunner clarifies this:
Mission work does not arise from any arrogance in the Christian Church; mission is its cause and life. The Church exists by mission, just as a fire exists by burning. Where there is no mission, there is no Church; and where there is neither Church nor mission, there is no faith.
So how could a church not envision reaching out to begin new churches in new areas if it is truly “on fire”? The Holy Spirit is given to make believers “holy” by working in them for he is the Holy Spirit. However, he is also the Holy Spirit. As such He has a ministry to make these holy believers “moving” witnesses who expand the church geographically by the power of their testimony (Acts 1:8). The result should be the creation of new bodies of believers wherever these witnesses go. It is striking to note the multiplication of daughter churches among Pentecostals in France. One reason seems to be their recognition of the fact that groups of believers in an area become the core of a new church. France has long been recognized as resistant to evangelism, yet in this resistant soil, the Pentecostals have seen many churches planted. According to Operation World, Revised 7th Edition, the Assemblies of God alone have created 920 congregations in France with a membership of 65,714 and an affiliation of 230,000. Has their theology of the Spirit and the congregating of believers encouraged this multiplication?
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Biblical Base for Church Planting - First of Five Pillars
III. The Question of the Biblical Base for Church Planting in the 21st Century.
It is just as important to establish a biblical base for church planting as we advance into the 21st century as a theological base. Here are five pillars for church planting and multiplication in this new century.
It is the Will of God that His People Multiply
In an insightful look at Matthew 16:18 where Jesus declares, “I will build my church,” Donald Carson explains that the Greek verb “to build” (oikodomeô) used here is in direct line with the OT idea of “building” a people.” The Hebrew word banah is used in this sense in Ruth 4:11: “May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel.” To build up the house of Israel is to multiply the people of God. In Exodus 1 there is the same motif of multiplication. The same God who multiplies his people in the OT multiplies them in the NT as predicted in Matthew 16:18. He does this by building up his church. His church grows as his people multiply and churches then multiply because of this growth. The only way to accommodate the multiplication of believers is by the multiplication of churches. What could be more biblical than churches starting other churches by branching out and forming daughter churches?
Furthermore, Christ is Lord of his church and he is at work causing it to grow. It is not human know-how, techniques, demographics, and surveys. Iain Murray, in his book Revival and Revivalism, marks a clear distinction between these two often-confused subjects. For him, revival is the sovereign working of God where there are "times of quickened spiritual prosperity and growth in the church." Revivalism is men trying to fabricate this by techniques. Again Murray says:
True church growth and multiplication is the forgotten truth that the work of Christ
in salvation did not end with his ascension, thereafter to be carried on by the church and human energies. Rather, Christ remains the source of all authority, life and power. It is by him that his people are preserved and their numbers increased.
And it could be added that it is by Christ that the church multiplies into local churches giving birth to new churches and the marvelous process continues. When this promise in Matthew is fulfilled in Acts, the accomplishment of this “building” by multiplication is seen. A study of the structure of Acts that is informed by the key transition passages (Acts 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20 and 28:30) shows that each section of this book aims at "expansion." Acts shows the growth of local churches and their multiplication. The Antioch church is one of the best models of this as it extends out to begin new congregations. The Lord's command in Acts 1:8 is obeyed as the church occupies more territory and new churches are planted. If the Acts model is to be followed, churches should not only multiply believers but also churches. Acts 2:42-47 describes the church as meeting in the temple court and in homes. This two-pronged approach gives credence to the idea of the expansion of the church giving birth to new groups in new regions. Those committed to cell-groups point out that the church is just as much the church in the cell-groups as in the larger congregation. This does not prove that churches should start branch churches, but it does show that God wants his gathered people meeting in different geographic areas as a witness. Theoretically and practically this is best accomplished not only by cell-groups but also by some of these cells becoming functioning churches on their own and thus expanding the church into new areas. This will be dealt with later as the question of theory and practice are related.
It is just as important to establish a biblical base for church planting as we advance into the 21st century as a theological base. Here are five pillars for church planting and multiplication in this new century.
It is the Will of God that His People Multiply
In an insightful look at Matthew 16:18 where Jesus declares, “I will build my church,” Donald Carson explains that the Greek verb “to build” (oikodomeô) used here is in direct line with the OT idea of “building” a people.” The Hebrew word banah is used in this sense in Ruth 4:11: “May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel.” To build up the house of Israel is to multiply the people of God. In Exodus 1 there is the same motif of multiplication. The same God who multiplies his people in the OT multiplies them in the NT as predicted in Matthew 16:18. He does this by building up his church. His church grows as his people multiply and churches then multiply because of this growth. The only way to accommodate the multiplication of believers is by the multiplication of churches. What could be more biblical than churches starting other churches by branching out and forming daughter churches?
Furthermore, Christ is Lord of his church and he is at work causing it to grow. It is not human know-how, techniques, demographics, and surveys. Iain Murray, in his book Revival and Revivalism, marks a clear distinction between these two often-confused subjects. For him, revival is the sovereign working of God where there are "times of quickened spiritual prosperity and growth in the church." Revivalism is men trying to fabricate this by techniques. Again Murray says:
True church growth and multiplication is the forgotten truth that the work of Christ
in salvation did not end with his ascension, thereafter to be carried on by the church and human energies. Rather, Christ remains the source of all authority, life and power. It is by him that his people are preserved and their numbers increased.
And it could be added that it is by Christ that the church multiplies into local churches giving birth to new churches and the marvelous process continues. When this promise in Matthew is fulfilled in Acts, the accomplishment of this “building” by multiplication is seen. A study of the structure of Acts that is informed by the key transition passages (Acts 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20 and 28:30) shows that each section of this book aims at "expansion." Acts shows the growth of local churches and their multiplication. The Antioch church is one of the best models of this as it extends out to begin new congregations. The Lord's command in Acts 1:8 is obeyed as the church occupies more territory and new churches are planted. If the Acts model is to be followed, churches should not only multiply believers but also churches. Acts 2:42-47 describes the church as meeting in the temple court and in homes. This two-pronged approach gives credence to the idea of the expansion of the church giving birth to new groups in new regions. Those committed to cell-groups point out that the church is just as much the church in the cell-groups as in the larger congregation. This does not prove that churches should start branch churches, but it does show that God wants his gathered people meeting in different geographic areas as a witness. Theoretically and practically this is best accomplished not only by cell-groups but also by some of these cells becoming functioning churches on their own and thus expanding the church into new areas. This will be dealt with later as the question of theory and practice are related.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Two Additional Theological Perspectives
Two Additional Theological Perspectives on Church Planting
As we continue to advance in church planting in the 21st century, this writer considers two other major theological perspectives to be very relevant in church planting: the gospel and its content and the glory of God.
The Gospel as the Content for the Church that is Planted
If church planting is not solidly built upon the gospel in this 21st century, we will be planting churches that are not truly biblically or theologically solid. In planting the church at Corinth, Paul states:
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 1 Cor. 15:1-5 (ESV)
Anthony Thiselton in his prodigious commentary on I Corinthians explains that the word gospel here “denotes the message of salvation; in vv. 3-4 Paul endorses the shared pre-Pauline tradition which both proclaims the death and resurrection of Christ and interprets it in terms of the saving and transforming power of God as this receives explanation and intelligibility within the frame of reference provided by the Old Testament] scriptures.”
It is necessary to insist upon the gospel as being the foundation of a church plant as Paul states in the great church planting passage in 1 Corinthians 3 which states in verse 11 “For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Church planters in this new century must know how to communicate the gospel in its integrity if they are to plant churches that make a difference.
In addition, they must insist upon the gospel as not just the beginning of the Christian life and the church life but that they must continue to live out the gospel day after day. Paul’s rebuke of Peter and others with him in Antioch was because “their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel…” (Gal. 2:16 ESV). This answers the question of how church planting fits the mission of God in this world—God saves people who then are to be “in step with the truth” they have received. The words “in step with” can be translated “consistent with.” Effective discipleship in church planting leads to people who live lives consistent with the message of the gospel.
When Paul states that he delivered this message “as of first importance” the idea is of “logical rather than temporal force.” Church planting in the 21st century, if it is to be effective, needs to capture afresh this Pauline emphasis as seen in the missionary journeys in Acts.
The Glory of God as Our Goal
In terms of this theological perspective, John Piper has made it clear that “Worship, therefore, is the fuel and goal of missions. It’s the goal of missions because in missions we simply aim to bring the nations into the white-hot enjoyment of God’s glory.”
As we see evangelism and church planting as bringing many into a personal relationship with God then those involved in this ministry are seeking what God is seeking as our Lord explains, “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him” (John 4:24 ESV). If this is not the “mission of God” then what is? As church planters see new bodies of believers come into being by God’s working as we saw in the beginning of this article, there is the great sense of being representatives of that great mission for which he came and died. Although those who start new churches “plant” or “water,” “God gives the growth,” and he does so for his greater glory. God’s servants planting new churches in the 21st century with this motivation will be truly “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9).
As we continue to advance in church planting in the 21st century, this writer considers two other major theological perspectives to be very relevant in church planting: the gospel and its content and the glory of God.
The Gospel as the Content for the Church that is Planted
If church planting is not solidly built upon the gospel in this 21st century, we will be planting churches that are not truly biblically or theologically solid. In planting the church at Corinth, Paul states:
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 1 Cor. 15:1-5 (ESV)
Anthony Thiselton in his prodigious commentary on I Corinthians explains that the word gospel here “denotes the message of salvation; in vv. 3-4 Paul endorses the shared pre-Pauline tradition which both proclaims the death and resurrection of Christ and interprets it in terms of the saving and transforming power of God as this receives explanation and intelligibility within the frame of reference provided by the Old Testament] scriptures.”
It is necessary to insist upon the gospel as being the foundation of a church plant as Paul states in the great church planting passage in 1 Corinthians 3 which states in verse 11 “For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Church planters in this new century must know how to communicate the gospel in its integrity if they are to plant churches that make a difference.
In addition, they must insist upon the gospel as not just the beginning of the Christian life and the church life but that they must continue to live out the gospel day after day. Paul’s rebuke of Peter and others with him in Antioch was because “their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel…” (Gal. 2:16 ESV). This answers the question of how church planting fits the mission of God in this world—God saves people who then are to be “in step with the truth” they have received. The words “in step with” can be translated “consistent with.” Effective discipleship in church planting leads to people who live lives consistent with the message of the gospel.
When Paul states that he delivered this message “as of first importance” the idea is of “logical rather than temporal force.” Church planting in the 21st century, if it is to be effective, needs to capture afresh this Pauline emphasis as seen in the missionary journeys in Acts.
The Glory of God as Our Goal
In terms of this theological perspective, John Piper has made it clear that “Worship, therefore, is the fuel and goal of missions. It’s the goal of missions because in missions we simply aim to bring the nations into the white-hot enjoyment of God’s glory.”
As we see evangelism and church planting as bringing many into a personal relationship with God then those involved in this ministry are seeking what God is seeking as our Lord explains, “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him” (John 4:24 ESV). If this is not the “mission of God” then what is? As church planters see new bodies of believers come into being by God’s working as we saw in the beginning of this article, there is the great sense of being representatives of that great mission for which he came and died. Although those who start new churches “plant” or “water,” “God gives the growth,” and he does so for his greater glory. God’s servants planting new churches in the 21st century with this motivation will be truly “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9).
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Church Planting and the Kingdom of God
There is one more theological perspective to consider in relation to church planting in the 21st century and that is:
The Kingdom of God and Church Planting
To consider this third theological perspective it will be necessary to clarify the relationship between the kingdom of God and the church. Murray states this correctly by stating: “A third theological perspective that might helpfully undergird church planting is the kingdom of God” but then he warns that “identification of church and kingdom is not justified biblically or contextually.”
The question of the relationship between the kingdom of God and the church is a vast one and it will not be possible to develop this question in this article. However, it may be profitable for 21st century church planters to think through Murray’s three perspectives to which will be added George Eldon Ladd’s insights on the relationship between the church and the kingdom of God.
Murray states that “First, the church is a community; whereas the kingdom is an activity: God extending his rule throughout creation.” If this theological insight is kept in perspective, Murray believes, churches will be planted that are not characterized by static but rather dynamic movement as “agents of this kingdom . . . on the move.” George Eldon Ladd agrees stating that “the Kingdom creates the church. The dynamic rule of God, present in the mission of Jesus, challenged men to response, bringing them into a new fellowship.”
Then Murray states that, “Second, the kingdom is broader than the church.” For him this means that the church gets a greater vision for action from “the implications of the kingdom.” While this is no doubt true, it would appear that the vision for action came from the working of the Holy Spirit rather than a vision for the broader implications of the kingdom. The kingdom and the Spirit work together but the emphasis in Acts is upon the ever and increasing outreach as the Holy Spirit led church planters into new horizons. The emphasis in the book of Acts is upon the Spirit of God constantly moving God’s servants to new horizons. This is powerful seen in Acts 13:2: “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them’” – a work of evangelism leading to church planting.
Finally, Murray states that, “Third, the kingdom rather than the church defines the scope of God’s mission.” Ladd states in relation to this that “it is the church’s mission to witness to the Kingdom. The church cannot build the Kingdom or become the Kingdom, but the church witnesses to the Kingdom—to God’s redeeming acts in Christ Jesus both past and future.” Here, depending on how one interprets Ladd, it would seem that the redeeming acts in Christ Jesus are the scope of God’s mission. Again this would depend upon how one interprets God’s mission and refers us back to the relationship between church planting and the mission of God.
This author is convinced that if the mission of God (missio Dei) is interpreted to mean all that God is intending to do in the work today then that extensive definition of mission could slow down the intensive Great Commission which is the making of disciples integrating them into local churches. It is as the 21st century church planter majors on that vision that more and more dynamic churches will be planted and make a difference in our world today. It does mean, however, that the implications of the gospel will be worked out in the local church as people not only accept the gospel but live out the gospel as will be seen in this next section.
The Kingdom of God and Church Planting
To consider this third theological perspective it will be necessary to clarify the relationship between the kingdom of God and the church. Murray states this correctly by stating: “A third theological perspective that might helpfully undergird church planting is the kingdom of God” but then he warns that “identification of church and kingdom is not justified biblically or contextually.”
The question of the relationship between the kingdom of God and the church is a vast one and it will not be possible to develop this question in this article. However, it may be profitable for 21st century church planters to think through Murray’s three perspectives to which will be added George Eldon Ladd’s insights on the relationship between the church and the kingdom of God.
Murray states that “First, the church is a community; whereas the kingdom is an activity: God extending his rule throughout creation.” If this theological insight is kept in perspective, Murray believes, churches will be planted that are not characterized by static but rather dynamic movement as “agents of this kingdom . . . on the move.” George Eldon Ladd agrees stating that “the Kingdom creates the church. The dynamic rule of God, present in the mission of Jesus, challenged men to response, bringing them into a new fellowship.”
Then Murray states that, “Second, the kingdom is broader than the church.” For him this means that the church gets a greater vision for action from “the implications of the kingdom.” While this is no doubt true, it would appear that the vision for action came from the working of the Holy Spirit rather than a vision for the broader implications of the kingdom. The kingdom and the Spirit work together but the emphasis in Acts is upon the ever and increasing outreach as the Holy Spirit led church planters into new horizons. The emphasis in the book of Acts is upon the Spirit of God constantly moving God’s servants to new horizons. This is powerful seen in Acts 13:2: “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them’” – a work of evangelism leading to church planting.
Finally, Murray states that, “Third, the kingdom rather than the church defines the scope of God’s mission.” Ladd states in relation to this that “it is the church’s mission to witness to the Kingdom. The church cannot build the Kingdom or become the Kingdom, but the church witnesses to the Kingdom—to God’s redeeming acts in Christ Jesus both past and future.” Here, depending on how one interprets Ladd, it would seem that the redeeming acts in Christ Jesus are the scope of God’s mission. Again this would depend upon how one interprets God’s mission and refers us back to the relationship between church planting and the mission of God.
This author is convinced that if the mission of God (missio Dei) is interpreted to mean all that God is intending to do in the work today then that extensive definition of mission could slow down the intensive Great Commission which is the making of disciples integrating them into local churches. It is as the 21st century church planter majors on that vision that more and more dynamic churches will be planted and make a difference in our world today. It does mean, however, that the implications of the gospel will be worked out in the local church as people not only accept the gospel but live out the gospel as will be seen in this next section.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Theology of Church Planting (continued)
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.
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.
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)