How can we build disciple-making churches that rapidly and naturally reproduce themselves?
The Starting Place
In the New Testament we are not commanded to “go and plant churches.” The great commission is that we go and proclaim the good news (Mark 16:15), make disciples and to teach them the commands of Christ (Matthew 28:18) and be a Spirit-filled witness to the resurrection of Christ (Acts 1:8). Jesus did not have much to say about the church in the gospels. He did say “I will build my church…” (Matthew 16:18). We are clearly commissioned to announce and demonstrate his kingdom, and to go and make disciples of Jesus. Meanwhile, he will build HIS church.
Euripides said “A bad beginning makes a bad ending.” Whatever the DNA of a seed is will be revealed by the fruit. An apple seed will produce an apple tree, an orange seed will produce an orange seed. How we start a work or a church is the most powerful determinant of what the end result will be. If we make planting churches our starting point, we will end up with the wrong result. The starting point must be “preaching the gospel of the kingdom,” and “making disciples.” If we effectively proclaim the gospel of the kingdom to social networks and disciple them to Jesus, churches can naturally be formed.
If our starting point is planting a church, rather than kingdom proclamation and discipling, our focus will be on getting people to a meeting. Our priorities may become developing a good worship band, organizing a Sunday School program or effective advertising. However, if we focus on preaching the kingdom and making disciples, our first focus will be on getting people to follow Jesus and apply His principles in their lives and we leave Jesus free to build his church however he chooses.
Jesus never tried to plant a church. Instead he focused following the father’s initiative (John 5:30; 8:28), announcing and demonstrating the arrival of the kingdom by doing good, healing the sick and setting free the oppressed (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38) and perhaps most importantly, on training a group of between twelve and seventy followers; teaching them to love and serve one another and sending them two by two to share the good news of the kingdom and heal the sick.
Church planting strategy must be built around the great commission; "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20).
Likewise, St. Paul never went into a city just to plant a new church and get people going to a meeting. He preached the kingdom and discipled the new believers. He then either baptized them, or had some of the new leaders baptize them and taught them to begin gathering together to love and encourage one another as they shared the kingdom and discipled others. The primary focus was not on the meeting, but on sharing the news of Jesus’ kingdom and making disciples. As the number of disciples grew in a city, they met from house to house for fellowship, prayer, teaching and mutual encouragement. The primary spiritual energy of the Pauline churches continued, however, to move through their social networks in the marketplace, in the streets, in the schools and in their homes as they shared the news of Jesus’ kingdom and called people to become followers of Jesus.
The result was the advancement of the reign of God in the city and the gathering of committed disciples around Christ. Jesus built his church! The primary focus was never only on attending a weekly meeting but a daily lifestyle of love and obedience to Jesus!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jose--
ReplyDeleteI think you're setting up an unnecessary conflict between "planting churches" and "Kingdom preaching and disciple-making." I agree with your critique of the Western church's organizing itself around meeting, program, etc. (although I take a somewhat less dim view of all of this than I think you do). However, I don't find the idea persuasive that Paul did not travel to cities to plant churches but to declare the kingdom and make disciples, as it introduces and unnecessary separation between the former and the latter. If I understand you, you're after the "right kind" of churches, i.e., communities of Christ-followers that are conceived by the proclamation of the kingdom and built upon discipleship. Such communities are properly called churches and it is precisely those kinds of churches that Paul planted. Your paper makes this point raather well, I just think you cloud the force of it by saying that Jesus and Paul weren't committed to planting churches.
I hear you Brian, and I respect what you are saying. You may be right, but I am not yet persuaded. In this section, I am speaking from the point of view of a church planter who has planted several churches. I continue to believe that I am onto something significant here—looking back, I can now recognize that my vision and my goals were subtly skewed by the perceived need to get a meeting up and going quickly. The pressure came from my own need for validation (people want to see results), my need for financial support (I needed to generate an income), and the general expectation that apostolic work is supposed to result in church planting, and the only way you can measure a church planted was in the numbers at the meeting.
ReplyDeleteAll of this coalesced to cause me to take a number of “short-cuts” that I can know look back and identify. It caused me to hasten the gathering process, hasten the discipleship process, and ultimately, to give up trying to grow a church through legitimate new conversions and to take the big short-cut of competing with other churches for a market share of the circulating church-hopping saints.
I know that my statement above is rather radical. But why didn’t Jesus tell us to start churches? And respectfully I must probe your statement that communities of Jesus-followers are “properly called churches”. Says who? Maybe, but what we call “local churches” did not really exist until after the Reformation. The ecclesia existing at the city/house level of the first two centuries mutated into the “parish” church of the patristic period and even through the middle ages. The pattern of the parish churches continued through the Reformation even under Protestant state churches, until the free church movement in the fragmentation of Protestantism into denominations.
In this article, I am not suggesting that we should shut down local churches, but I am suggesting that if we send out apostolic teams to open new works, that we should fundamentally re-think our approach in order to avoid continual replication of the same old problems—creating more churches that do a good job of organizing meetings and a poor job of making disciples.
I hope some of the apostolic/ church planting guys will respond as well. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Hey guys,
ReplyDeleteJoseph asked for my comments.
I find myself somewhere in the middle of you. No,that's wrong. I really find myself in both of your camps but seeing that we may be having this conversation from a limited human perspective that is keeping us from God's perspective.
I am noticing more and more that western conversations seem to tend toward debates about points as if one is bound to be right and one is bound to be wrong. Maybe that is the modernist tendency toward propositional truth. I see this as a blind spot sometimes when the truth ends up being so large and so in tension that both points actually fit rather than threaten each other.
I agree with Joseph in that I think the idea that we understand and can "produce" churches is arrogant and residue of Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli,Bucer, Calvin and the guys not being able to totally escape the Catholic Churches human tendency toward "owning" the truth vs being owned by the truth. We went from the Roman Church to the State Church to now the neighborhood church with an over familiarity and sense of corporate ownership rather than the "and they were all in awe."
Now I think that Brian's church is an amazing example of a neighborhood, traditional church model that has that sense of awe and which follows Jesus into demonstrating the power of the Kingdom through the relationships in the church, through the amazingness of the school and more.
To Brian's point, I don't think that God is tired of the church or of the concept of the church. I think our human hearts are burnt and discouraged due to having grabbed on to ideas and championed them only to be disillusioned by the fact that our ideas were "owned" by us rather than about simply following Him. Jesus seemed to culminate His ministry at one point with only one disciple still around and three Mary's. He gave His life to fail, seemingly to that point. Things changed radically in the following 72 hours but thank God He didn't get bitter and write books from the Cross about how that model He had followed was a failure.
I think the Kingdom is obviously our call. However, we call where the Kingdom touches humanity the Church. It will never be perfect. John Stanko used to say that God is alot more comfortable with our humanity than we are because He understands what He accomplished in dying for it and then rising again on the third day.
So I am pretty hopeful about the church as long as we see every day as an extension of the reformation.
I agree with Joseph that the Kingdom is our message and our context and that planting churches of yesterday is not our job. I agree that it is God's job to build the Church. I agree with Brian that all of that should leave us with a more optimistic view of the church rather than a less optimistic view of it.
Maybe I am wimping out here but I am committed to both of your perspectives and see the two as incomplete without the other.
I love the Kingdom and I love the churches role as the expression of His Kingdom here on earth as the community of the redeemed.
Love you guys. Thanks for listening to a guy who really has done nothing of any substance in regards to planting or maintaining churches in comparison to the two of you. You are both my teachers. I just like to talk! Thanks for your grace.
well said, Jamie. And I also agree with you and Brian's optimism regarding the church. I might need to do a little inventory first, to see if there are some things I need to repent of, or opinions I need to release.
ReplyDeleteToday, I have been meditating on what it means to "make disciples...teaching them ALL that I have commanded you". I am inclined to believe that if we preach the kingdom, heal the sick, and make disciples...AND THEN teach them ALL that he has commanded us...somewhere between "making disciples" and "teaching them all" is where Jesus builds his church. We will teach them to gather in his name, and will teach them to love one another...and he promises that he will be there in their midst. Voila! l'eglise de Dieu!
Joe - what you've done is "report" what the Scripture has revealed. Jesus' command was to love God and love our neighbors. His commision is to "go and make disciples." As I read your post - preaching the kingdom and making disciples produces a community of followers of Jesus. The Scripture calls that "church." I don't see this as an "either or" dichotomy. The preaching and making ought to produce the community.
ReplyDeleteMy experieince is that trying to make good church members rarely accomplishes that. Teaching people to be members of the kingdom usually makes good church members. It's a matter of focus. RC
thanks Ray...I think you are right. It is not "either/or" it is a matter of focus, priority and motivation. The more I think about the commands of Christ, the more I am convinced that the jump from "making disciples" in Matt. 28 to "teaching them all I have commanded you" would necesitate them gathering together around Jesus and begining to practice "being the church." That is not, however, the primary goal of the church planter/apostle...his/her goal is to bring the kingdom and make true disciples.
ReplyDeleteJoseph
ReplyDeleteI come neither as an "apostolic man", nor as a "church planter", but as one formerly involved in vocational pastoring for nearly 25 years. I presently am a junior high teacher who is not actively part of an institutional church. I am functioning more organically with a network of other believers, some who are very much part of traditional local churches and some who aren't. For the last three or four years my wife and I have been part of a group of 20 somethings (my wife and I are in our late 50's) who call themselves everything from the "Band of Believers", to "the Tuesday group", to "the study". I have raised the idea that we are a "church". None of them are willing or desirous of calling ourselves by that designation because of the baggage and expectations that that term implies.
At first this irked me, because I felt, as you mentioned in one of your comments, the pressure to "plant a 'church'" albeit a simple, organic, house church, to use all the buzz words. But the Lord spoke to me a year or so ago to let it alone. "Let it be what it is", He seemed to say to me, "Don't try to make it into something you think it should be". So, we are followers of Jesus who eat together weekly, pray together, share a degree of community together, study together, share what is happening in our lives and pray for each other. We encourage one another to live out our faith 24-7 and share our struggles with doing so. Can "church" be that simple? I think so. Do we have to denominate it as "church"? I don't think so.
Perhaps the term "church" is one of those terms that need to be recycled or re-translated for the under 30 generation.
I essentially agree with what you're saying. I agree that the institutional church should not be dismantled or resisted. God is using many "local" churches powerfully, and for many it is the best and only option. But I also believe that the Body of Christ is much broader then a local church, and I agree that in order to extend the Kingdom outside our "Christian bubble" as Dan Kimble calls it in his book, "They Like Jesus, but not the Church", we have to get out of the current box and allow the Holy Spirit to create viable alternatives to what we now call church.
What you said about local churches competing for "market share" among existing Christians is interesting. I have to admit that for all my, now over thirty-five years in "ministry", that has been my experience with only a few glaring exceptions. That would include the present group I described above. All of them were already believers and had some sort of church background when we began to gather. Something is wrong with that picture. Somehow, I/we have to get out of our little comfort zones, Christian boxes and local church bubbles and see some new disciples made for God's Kingdom.
One last comment. I believe that the way we are currently structured with many "local" churches in a given locality actually hinders God's Kingdom work in a region or city. That is because each local church becomes its own entity, consuming the time and the lives of it's members to the degree that they have no time to build relationships with non-believers. It takes so much time, energy, money and human resources to keep all the ministries and programs and meetings going in the average local church that there is very little left even for family and personal time, much less extending the Kingdom to the those who aren't actively following Jesus.
Most church members are so myopic that they cannot see beyond their local fellowship. If they do, they see a very narrow slice of the Body that only includes the next layer of "their movement", "their missionaries", and/or "their denomination". There is no middle, no breadth, only the "local" and then an immediate jump to the denominational or extra-local movement-group. What does not get consumed in the local gets consumed by the other focus -- especially for the local leadership. So, again there is no time, energy or vision for teaming with the larger Body in a locality for mission to the poor or spiritually needy next door or across town, or in another nation or region. Personally, I have come to believe that what we call the "local" church has become a bottle neck or perhaps a cork in the whole bottle that blocks what God would like to do outside and beyond it's borders. I think God is about filling the void between the little kingdoms that most local churches have become and their hierarchy of relationships that takes their focus away from their local area. I think God would like to fill our neighborhoods, cities and regions with little bands of committed followers of Jesus who can supplement and compliment what he is doing in the more traditional gatherings. Hopefully, many traditional local church will catch a vision for extending their influence beyond their borders by encouraging some of their adventurous members to launch out and create new forms and expressions of Christ gatherings, and allow them to be self-contained entities that are just as much "church" as the gatherings and activities of the traditional church. The leaders can seek counsel, encouragement and prayer without feeling inferior, or feeling strings of expectations or control attached. I know this is theory, but I have confidence in the Holy Spirit's ability to orchestrate these simple little groups into a larger entity that will actually represent and be the "church" in a locality. OK I've gone on too long. This stuff really pushes my buttons, so, it's hard not to go on and on.
You said "But I also believe that the Body of Christ is much broader then a local church". Intriguing statement. There seems to be lots of different facets to “church,” other than just the local, denominational congregation.
ReplyDeleteI like what Joseph has presented.I think it generally takes a radical or intense approach to effect major or fundamental change in church life. Tradition and status quo make an institution like a train going downhill on greasy tracks. Very hard to turn it or change directions. Usual attempts at reform tend to end up being new decorations on the old stuff, new glitter or beefing up the energy on the old. Revivals sometimes can be like shaking up the glass ball that contains the house and landscape and all those little white flaky things that look like snow. You shake it up and the "snow" is moving all around in the water. Then after a while it settles back down to what it was before you shook it.
ReplyDeleteJohn M said in his comments above, "Hopefully, many traditional local church will catch a vision for extending their influence beyond their borders by encouraging some of their adventurous members to launch out and create new forms and expressions of Christ gatherings, and allow them to be self-contained entities that are just as much 'church' as the gatherings and activities of the traditional church." My experienc has been that churches and their leaders are generally too insecure and fearful to do what you suggest. Leaders have trouble supporting and "releasing" members to things that do not carry the name of their church, and things over which they have no control.
Institutions bring with themselves the unspoken rule that the institution itself must be protected. The system itself becomes the ruler. "Open arms" is a vital part of most churches, but "open hands" is another story.
The issues that Joseph has brought up force us to deal with other issues. It will be interesting to see what the Lord is going to do.
Billy - I agree with you about many/most institutional leaders and pastors being too insecure or possessive to allow what I suggested to happen, but I didn't want to throw cold water on the idea as I was presenting it. I still think it's a great idea, and I'm hopeful that there will be some situations where that will happen, but I think across the board you are right.
ReplyDeleteHaving sat on "the other side of the desk" so to speak, I remember having the same attitudes of protection, possessiveness, desire to control etc.
To be completely candid, I think many times the issue behind the whole thing is job security and dollars. I wish that weren't true, but having been there, I think that that elephant is always in the room whether or not we want to admit it, or whether we even recognize it.
Billy was "sent out" by the church he fathered...so he speaks from experience.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand John, I think Brian and probably Kevin are the kind of pastors who would be willing to send people out for the sake of the kingdom. Also Dennis.
no more comments? time to move on to the next point perhaps.
ReplyDelete