Acts Chapter 15 doesn't really apply to the questions I've been asking because Paul is not on a church planting journey in this chapter. It is really a chapter of conflict, and because of that I think there are some really valuable observations. Here is what I see in the chapter:
1. Those troubling the new believers were existing believers bound by tradition. It should not be this way, but often nothing kills the enthusiasm of a new believer faster than an 'old', supposedly mature believer listing off a bunch of commands.
2. When Jesus is reduced to a set of rules and traditions, we completely miss the point. I think this is why I love cross cultural missions. Our rules and traditions look silly in another culture, and it forces us to focus on the person of Jesus - a person who came to bring something that rules and traditions could not bring - LIFE.
3. Imagine a conversation like this ... "you know, (insert Indian, Chinese, Arabic name here), I'm glad you want to follow Christ, but I need to tell you something ... you know that extra skin down there - chop it off!" That would go over well. Maybe we could even provide a sharp rock like Moses had. Praise God we have baptism as a new symbol!!
4. The apostles, listened, then looked at scripture, then responded. We would do well to follow that pattern.
5. Paul and Barnabas had big conflict and separated for their future journeys. Conflilct happens and God uses it. It's ok to disagree on what's next, and still love Jesus! Why do we always think conflict is bad?
6. Finally, both Paul and Barnabas went back to the churches to strengthen them. So they did leave early on in the church planting process and trusted those churches to God, but that doesn't mean they never went back.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Looking in Acts - Chapter 14
As I looked at Chapter 14 a few things stand out to me. The miracles and persecution are constant. Paul and Barnabas face persecution boldly, but also run from it when it gets to a certain severity. As a practical matter, Paul returns to each of the places he has been and appoints elders. It is interesting that he did this on his return trips and not initially. Maybe this was to let things settle down, and see who sticks with the faith. He also prays, fasts, and trusts these churches to God. He realizes that God must be sufficient for the new churches. God does not require him to stick around.
What was Paul's plan for entry, gospel presentation, discipleship, church formation, and leadership multiplication?
Entry and Gospel Presentation:
In Iconium, Paul went to the synagogues again to share the Gospel. When persecution came, they decided to stay and speak boldly. When a death threat came, they fled.
In Lystra, Paul tries to talk people out of sacrificing to him. Everything was in upheaval so there doesn't appear to be any strategy here.
Discipleship and Church Formation:
Paul returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch encouraging the believers to overcome hardship. Paul appointed elders for each church. With prayer and fasting committed the churches to the Lord and left.
What happened that was uncontrollable?
In Iconium, both persecution and miracles were not controllable.
In Lystra, God healed a crippled man through Paul.
In Lystra, Paul was stoned and left for dead by people from Iconium.
What were the results?
Many believed, and many opposed. On return trips, churches were formed and elders were appointed.
What was Paul's plan for entry, gospel presentation, discipleship, church formation, and leadership multiplication?
Entry and Gospel Presentation:
In Iconium, Paul went to the synagogues again to share the Gospel. When persecution came, they decided to stay and speak boldly. When a death threat came, they fled.
In Lystra, Paul tries to talk people out of sacrificing to him. Everything was in upheaval so there doesn't appear to be any strategy here.
Discipleship and Church Formation:
Paul returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch encouraging the believers to overcome hardship. Paul appointed elders for each church. With prayer and fasting committed the churches to the Lord and left.
What happened that was uncontrollable?
In Iconium, both persecution and miracles were not controllable.
In Lystra, God healed a crippled man through Paul.
In Lystra, Paul was stoned and left for dead by people from Iconium.
What were the results?
Many believed, and many opposed. On return trips, churches were formed and elders were appointed.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Looking in Acts - Chapter 13
I was challenged a few months back to go through Paul's missionary journeys in the book of Acts (Acts Chapters 13-21) and ask the following questions:
- What was Paul's plan for: Entry to the area, Gospel presentation, Discipleship, Church formation, Leadership multiplication.
- What happened that was uncontrollable?
- What were the results?
I'm hoping that by concentrating on the spread of the early church in Acts, God will bring some key principles to life ... so here we go. It might get a little wordy, but I'm going to try to put the points that stand out to me in bold.
Acts Chapter 13
Paul's plan for entry:
In Cyprus, Paul travels around the entire island, and he goes to the Jewish synagogues. In Psidian Antioch Paul again goes to the synagogue and takes part in the services there. The other interesting thing here is that when the Jews incite persecution and trouble, Paul and Barnabas simply move on. They leave.
Paul's Gospel presentation:
Both in Cyprus and Psidian Antioch, Paul waits until asked to share the full Gospel. In Cyprus he is asked by a proconsul - and after the gospel presentation he curses a sorcerer who is then struck blind. In Psidian Antioch he is asked to come back and teach in the synagogue on the next sabbath.
In Psidian Antioch, we get a detailed version of Paul's Gospel presentation. He uses the past and culture of the people he is speaking to. He speaks very simply about the story of Jesus coming to earth. He proclaims that forgiveness of sins is possible through belief.
Paul's discipleship:
I only see one thing mentioned on this in Chapter 13. Paul moves on from the unresponsive Jews to the responsive Gentiles. He focuses on the people who are responsive.
Paul's church formation, leadership multiplication:
Nothing in here 'bout that.
What happened that was uncontrollable?
The Spirit said 'Go'. People invited him to speak. Persecution came from the sorcerer in Cyprus, and from the Jews in Psidian Antioch. Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit and performed a miracle in blinding the sorcerer. The disciples were filled with joy as they left Psidian Antioch.
What were the results?
In Cyprus, the proconsul believed. In Psidian Antioch, there was excitement in the city. The Gentiles honored the word of the Lord and all who were appointed believed. The word of the Lord spread through the whole region.
Personal Thoughts:
Two things stand out to me. First, it is shocking to me that Paul leaves when he does. What missionary in their right mind would just leave with all those new believers there. Why didn't he stay for a few months or a year to teach them? Second, it is interesting to me that in both cases Paul waits for a door to be opened before sharing the full Gospel. I pray that I would have the faith to trust God to leave when it's time to leave, and I pray that I would be entrusted with opportunities to share the forgiveness made possible through Jesus.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
CPM Essentials #8 - #10 - It's all about church
OK, I admit that I'm getting a little lazy in combining all of these points, but it really does make some sense to combine them - and it's a lot faster! The three points here are really all about one central idea - the centrality and sufficiency of the local church.
The three points 1)churches planting churches, 2)rapid multiplication, and 3)healthy churches all lead to the one idea that a small house church is self-sufficient, and therefore can multiply itself without outside help. The small group of believers meeting in a home have everything they need to multiply as they reach out, and they have a vision to do it.
This whole idea of churches being central to planting new churches is what allows both rapid multiplication, and church health.
Rapid multiplication is possible because they are not dependent on raising outside resources (including a formally trained pastor) to plant a church. They don't have to check with another organization or draft a new church constitution. It might be as simple as this - a rural church reaches out to another village, shares their testimony, and some people respond with belief. The church then teaches them to 'do church' in the same manner that they were taught. That new church finds their leaders from within as the existing church teaches and watches. Then walla, you have two churches where there use to be one. And it may have happened in as little as a month. This is rapid multiplication.
Regarding church health, there are a couple points to ponder. First, I believe that just as individual believers begin to find themselves as they focus outward rather than inward (losing one's life in order to find it), so does the church. A church that is focused on spreading the Gospel with a vision of seeing new churches started will likely be more healthy than a church focusing on expanding their own kingdom (size, influence, resources,etc.).
The second point that often comes up is the idea of heresy. Isn't it dangerous to have young churches starting young churches without educated pastors? My answer is yes, just as it was dangerous in the New Testament. Have you read about those messes lately! :) We must realize (as David Watson says) that all churches start out heretical! And this is OK. Think about it. Who starts out with all the answers? We've got churches that have been around a 100 years and can't agree on certain issues (meaning one of them is wrong!), what makes us think that a new church should be perfect?! Churches grow with the Spirit of God, and we must believe that the Spirit is sufficient. If it is not, then we are all in trouble!
If all of this intrigues you and you want to know more, check out David Watson at www.cpmtr.org. He is a man who has lived all of this and seen millions changed.
The three points 1)churches planting churches, 2)rapid multiplication, and 3)healthy churches all lead to the one idea that a small house church is self-sufficient, and therefore can multiply itself without outside help. The small group of believers meeting in a home have everything they need to multiply as they reach out, and they have a vision to do it.
This whole idea of churches being central to planting new churches is what allows both rapid multiplication, and church health.
Rapid multiplication is possible because they are not dependent on raising outside resources (including a formally trained pastor) to plant a church. They don't have to check with another organization or draft a new church constitution. It might be as simple as this - a rural church reaches out to another village, shares their testimony, and some people respond with belief. The church then teaches them to 'do church' in the same manner that they were taught. That new church finds their leaders from within as the existing church teaches and watches. Then walla, you have two churches where there use to be one. And it may have happened in as little as a month. This is rapid multiplication.
Regarding church health, there are a couple points to ponder. First, I believe that just as individual believers begin to find themselves as they focus outward rather than inward (losing one's life in order to find it), so does the church. A church that is focused on spreading the Gospel with a vision of seeing new churches started will likely be more healthy than a church focusing on expanding their own kingdom (size, influence, resources,etc.).
The second point that often comes up is the idea of heresy. Isn't it dangerous to have young churches starting young churches without educated pastors? My answer is yes, just as it was dangerous in the New Testament. Have you read about those messes lately! :) We must realize (as David Watson says) that all churches start out heretical! And this is OK. Think about it. Who starts out with all the answers? We've got churches that have been around a 100 years and can't agree on certain issues (meaning one of them is wrong!), what makes us think that a new church should be perfect?! Churches grow with the Spirit of God, and we must believe that the Spirit is sufficient. If it is not, then we are all in trouble!
If all of this intrigues you and you want to know more, check out David Watson at www.cpmtr.org. He is a man who has lived all of this and seen millions changed.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
CPM Essentials #5-#7 - Remove Resource Constraints
I've been away for a while. In the mean-time I had a great meeting with some of the staff at Westside and our India partners. It was a great day, and we made plans to train the key staff in India when I go in October. As it turns out, they our partners are already doing most of this. We pray God would use us to help them tweak a few things to multiply tens of thousands of believers into a million or more. Will you pray with me that God will make it happen?
The next essential elements of a CPM outlined in Garrison's book are local leadership, lay leadership, and cell churches. These logic behind these elements is easy to understand. They all remove resource constraints - constraints on money to pay leadership, constraints on money to build churches, and constraints outsiders to lead. If the goal is a multiplying movement of churches, we need to make sure that the churches can multiply themselves. Any kind of outside help, while potentially beneficial in the short-term, will destroy any potential for continual multiplication.
One speaker I was listening to, simply said "paid leadership and buildings kill CPM".
Another speaker once said, "I can get a worship band and build a building and get 1000 people to come together and listen to me speak, and every single one of them will leave thinking 'I could never do that!'".
I'm not going to list the many verses here mostly because I'm lazy and don't want to go find them, but these principles are demonstrated throughout the New Testament. House church is everywhere in there, and most leaders where unpaid - particularly the local leaders of a church.
As a side note, this also has interesting leadership development applications. In this model, paid leaders come out of lay-leadership. They reach a point of dedication and effectiveness that causes a group of people to decide to pay them and ask them to serve full-time. Imagine if our churches in the States followed this model. Instead of hiring a pastor search team to search out the seminary grads, we asked people within the church who have demonstrated leadership to step forward. The only church I know of that does it this way is Mosaic in LA. I've heard Erwin McManus (the leader there say) he tells people who are inquiring about jobs "OK, great - move here, find a job to support yourself, and then start volunteering at the church ... we'll see where it goes from there".
We must make things simple. Simple is good!
The next essential elements of a CPM outlined in Garrison's book are local leadership, lay leadership, and cell churches. These logic behind these elements is easy to understand. They all remove resource constraints - constraints on money to pay leadership, constraints on money to build churches, and constraints outsiders to lead. If the goal is a multiplying movement of churches, we need to make sure that the churches can multiply themselves. Any kind of outside help, while potentially beneficial in the short-term, will destroy any potential for continual multiplication.
One speaker I was listening to, simply said "paid leadership and buildings kill CPM".
Another speaker once said, "I can get a worship band and build a building and get 1000 people to come together and listen to me speak, and every single one of them will leave thinking 'I could never do that!'".
I'm not going to list the many verses here mostly because I'm lazy and don't want to go find them, but these principles are demonstrated throughout the New Testament. House church is everywhere in there, and most leaders where unpaid - particularly the local leaders of a church.
As a side note, this also has interesting leadership development applications. In this model, paid leaders come out of lay-leadership. They reach a point of dedication and effectiveness that causes a group of people to decide to pay them and ask them to serve full-time. Imagine if our churches in the States followed this model. Instead of hiring a pastor search team to search out the seminary grads, we asked people within the church who have demonstrated leadership to step forward. The only church I know of that does it this way is Mosaic in LA. I've heard Erwin McManus (the leader there say) he tells people who are inquiring about jobs "OK, great - move here, find a job to support yourself, and then start volunteering at the church ... we'll see where it goes from there".
We must make things simple. Simple is good!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
CPM Essential #4 - Scriptural Authority
Mark 7:6-9
And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! "
The fourth universal element found in CPMs according to David Garrison is Scriptural Authority. Church Planting Movements have a culture where the singular authority is the Word of God and nothing else. We must allow the Holy Spirit to work directly in the hearts of the local people to determine how the Bible is applied in their lives and in their culture.
Those of us who have been believers for a long time often have a first reaction of 'Oh no, what if they get it wrong!' And to this I would say ... what makes us think that we have it entirely right?! The big question here is 'Do we believe the Holy Spirit is sufficient to allow a person to interpret and follow scripture or do they need us too?' Yes, they likely will get some things wrong, but if the Bible is their authority they will grow and change with time ... just like we all have. If we are their authority, that brings a whole host of problems ... including what happens once we leave. If we have been the authority, then often they will look to another person as an authority after we leave and who knows what they will be teaching!!
Of course, I realize that God uses us to teach other people. What I am describing is that our teaching as much as possible should refer directly to scripture and point people directly to scripture. If we don't do it that way, we are bound to bring some of our own traditions into the mix that have potential to stifle a local church planting movement.
It is so tempting for a missionary to say 'This is the way we do it back home'. However, when we do this we often unintentionally set aside the commands of God to observe our own traditions. If we want to keep from passing on our own traditions, the best way to do this is to point people directly to the Word of God.
If they have a question about church leadership, point them to the Bible and let them figure it out. If they have a question about structuring a church meeting, point them to the Bible. If they have a question about their marriage or family relationships, point them to the Bible. If they have questions about money, point them to the Bible. If they have theological questions, point them to the Bible. I think you get the point. :)
And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! "
The fourth universal element found in CPMs according to David Garrison is Scriptural Authority. Church Planting Movements have a culture where the singular authority is the Word of God and nothing else. We must allow the Holy Spirit to work directly in the hearts of the local people to determine how the Bible is applied in their lives and in their culture.
Those of us who have been believers for a long time often have a first reaction of 'Oh no, what if they get it wrong!' And to this I would say ... what makes us think that we have it entirely right?! The big question here is 'Do we believe the Holy Spirit is sufficient to allow a person to interpret and follow scripture or do they need us too?' Yes, they likely will get some things wrong, but if the Bible is their authority they will grow and change with time ... just like we all have. If we are their authority, that brings a whole host of problems ... including what happens once we leave. If we have been the authority, then often they will look to another person as an authority after we leave and who knows what they will be teaching!!
Of course, I realize that God uses us to teach other people. What I am describing is that our teaching as much as possible should refer directly to scripture and point people directly to scripture. If we don't do it that way, we are bound to bring some of our own traditions into the mix that have potential to stifle a local church planting movement.
It is so tempting for a missionary to say 'This is the way we do it back home'. However, when we do this we often unintentionally set aside the commands of God to observe our own traditions. If we want to keep from passing on our own traditions, the best way to do this is to point people directly to the Word of God.
If they have a question about church leadership, point them to the Bible and let them figure it out. If they have a question about structuring a church meeting, point them to the Bible. If they have a question about their marriage or family relationships, point them to the Bible. If they have questions about money, point them to the Bible. If they have theological questions, point them to the Bible. I think you get the point. :)
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Summary thought for the day
I thought I'd break out of the monotony of the CPM universal elements to make a short post about CPM as a whole. I read this concept in Alan Hirsch in his book "The Forgotten Ways", and I think it is right on the money.
When you look at broad CPMs like the first century church or the Chinese church of the last several decades, two truths emerge from these movements. First, following Jesus was very hard even to the point of requiring your life. Second, 'doing' church was very simple.
I think the Bible backs this up. Jesus never made following him easy. In fact, he asks very hard things such as requesting that the rich young ruler sell all he owns. The Bible does not make church difficult. In fact, it spends very little time at all describing the organizational specifics of the church. When the church structure is brought up, it is normally reactionary - reacting to something happening within a local church at that time. The Bible spends very little time telling us how to organize a church from scratch.
Here is where things get troubling to me. What do we generally do today? We do the opposite. We make following Jesus very easy, often reducing it to simply praying a prayer. And we make church very complicated. We have denominations, and leadership structures, and positions of authority, and big budgets, and programs, and committees. You almost need an MBA just to start a church these days.
So ... why do you think the number of people actively involved in church has not grown (as a percentage of population) in the US over the last several decades? Maybe this is a part of it.
When you look at broad CPMs like the first century church or the Chinese church of the last several decades, two truths emerge from these movements. First, following Jesus was very hard even to the point of requiring your life. Second, 'doing' church was very simple.
I think the Bible backs this up. Jesus never made following him easy. In fact, he asks very hard things such as requesting that the rich young ruler sell all he owns. The Bible does not make church difficult. In fact, it spends very little time at all describing the organizational specifics of the church. When the church structure is brought up, it is normally reactionary - reacting to something happening within a local church at that time. The Bible spends very little time telling us how to organize a church from scratch.
Here is where things get troubling to me. What do we generally do today? We do the opposite. We make following Jesus very easy, often reducing it to simply praying a prayer. And we make church very complicated. We have denominations, and leadership structures, and positions of authority, and big budgets, and programs, and committees. You almost need an MBA just to start a church these days.
So ... why do you think the number of people actively involved in church has not grown (as a percentage of population) in the US over the last several decades? Maybe this is a part of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
