bits from bob....

We are Planting Traditional Churches: Is There A Better Path to the Future?

by Robert J. Young
©, 2006, Robert J. Young
[permission is given to reprint with credit noted]

We are planting traditional churches, even when we use untraditional means to get started. We are using biblical methods, e.g. small groups, house churches, simple churches, neighborhood networks, etc., but as soon as we have a viable base, we are establishing traditional churches. In using the term, "traditional church," I refer to a church with certain characteristics: (1) a building or identified location; (2) institutional organization (CEO, administration, etc.) as opposed to family or informal structures; (3) a corporate top-down leadership model (whether in a single pastor or in a pastoral board of elders) as opposed to a flattened model of responsibility, authority, and action; (4) a dispenser of religious goods both for the members and for non-members who happen by (but primarily for the members); (5) church function primarily focused inward, hoping to draw other in when they see the benefit of being in; (6) isolationism, with little genuine relationship or ministry in the world outside the church; and (7) with ministry focused primarily "at the top" and a limited view of the responsibility of the membership for involvement church function.

This kind of church has little hope of doing very much away from the building and actually answering the missional call to be "sent ones" into its community. The traditional church is controlled and controlling. The institutional leadership, using a top-down organization and having a tendency against delegation of any real responsibility with attendant authority, expectation, and confidence, keeps the church from functioning as an organism, living in integrated, continuing relationships, capable of functioning according to God's purpose. (What we usually refer to as accountability is really a culturally-informed way of saying, "I will remain in control and to make sure that it happens, so you will clear everything with me, take your orders from me, make sure I am in agreement before you do anything, report to me, ask for any resources from me, etc. etc. etc.")

We have little concept of the New Testament model that would allow church planting and then leave the church to function as God intended the church to function, as demonstration and representation of the presence of God's kingdom in the world through the functioning of kingdom people. The plan is for the church to provide its own needs. Leaders were appointed from within the church. Leaders arose from within the church.

Paul left Titus on Crete (temporarily) to deal with a problem. It is not at all clear that Timothy was in Ephesus for a long-term ministry with the church, serving as minister or in a pastoral function. He obviously was teaching and training (2 Tim. 2:2). In fact, his work may be understood, although such is a guess, as a continuation of the work Paul was doing in Ephesus from the school of Tyrannus.

We have "pastor-ized" the church to death. We have developed a view of church among the members that expects everything to be done for them. We can deny that the preacher is a pastor, but in function, he is exactly that, in large part due to the expectation of the members. He is to provide support in a host of situations, and often least in view is equipping the saints for ministry.

We have ignored the Ephesians 4 model of ministry. We have not asked the obvious questions. We do not know what to do with the equipping roles of Eph. 4:11-12 and have not talked about what the Ephesian church (or the first century church in general if we consider the possibility of a circular letter) would have understood about the apostolic or prophetic function. Is Paul providing a comprehensive list of roles? Why does he mention apostles and prophets if they were not present in the church in Ephesus? Have we placed an artificial limitation on the reference to apostles and prophets (ignoring New Testament passages that refer to persons other than the Twelve as apostles and maintaining too miraculous a view of the prophetic task)?

Nee and others have noticed in the book of Acts four basic models for establishing or planting new churches. The "Jerusalem model" demonstrates how Christians went out from an established church, taking the gospel with them and planting new churches. This model does not depend upon church planters, but rather upon "workers". The "Antioch model" is probably the best known in most contemporary churches. This model describes the process by which a church, Antioch in this case, sends out a team who travel and work from city to city establishing new churches. A third model Nee designates as the "Ephesus model". In this model, churches are planted because a teaching center is established and the gospel echoes forth into the surrounding area through the influence of those taught or trained. This is the most probable explanation for the establishment of the seven churches of Revelation 2-3. Certainly, churches were established as a result of Paul's work in Ephesus. Finally, Nee mentions the "Rome model". This model describes a process in which Christians move into a city with a church established as a result. Viola suggests intentionality on the part of Paul in his ministry is helping various Christians and co-laborers move to Rome for the purpose of establishing a church. In making this case, he is heavily dependent on Romans 16. Whether or not it can successfully be demonstrated that Rome was a "target city" for an exodus movement, one should note the similarity between the Jerusalem model and the Rome model. In both cases, Christians who became Christians in other locations were instrumental in establishing a new church through moving to a new city or town and working to plant a new church.

We can show the basic models in parallel.

• 1. Jerusalem
  • *Target A: Jerusalem residents, converted in Jerusalem, become Christians
  • **After becoming Christians, they are forced out of Jerusalem into other cities
  • ***These Christians are instrumental in establishing new churches. A factor worthy of note is that the process may have depended upon the transfer of a large number of those already Christians in a relatively short period of time. In one sense, this may be parallel to more contemporary "exodus" movements that have been used to plant churches in new locations.

  • *Target B: Non-residents of Jerusalem, converted in Jerusalem, become Christians
  • **After becoming Christians, these return to their homes
  • ***These Christians are instrumental in establishing new churches in their hometowns
  Two processes are involved. One in which those already Christians transfer to a new location and establish the church. A second in which people are converted to Christianity while traveling and return to their home town to establish new churches.

• 2. Antioch
  • *Target: residents of many different cities, converted in their home towns through the efforts of a "sent" team, become Christians
  • **Becoming Christians, they assemble as the Christian community or church in their town
  • ***After the initial stay and plant, the planting team provides support through periodic visits and letters
  In this process, one church takes an interest in church planting in other locations and sends out a team to work as transients in planting churches. The church planting team does become stationary, but rather moves from place to place while providing support for the churches already planted. This appears to be the process for establishing churches in Galatia, Lystra, Derbe, Iconium, Pamphyllia, and Antioch of Pisidia. Other churches established as a result of a similar process include Philippi, Thessalonica, (Berea), (Athens), Corinth, and possibly Ephesus.
• 3. Ephesus [1]
  The church at Ephesus was apparently planted as a result of the efforts of Prisca and Aquilla (Acts 18). Paul left them in Ephesus as he traveled to Jerusalem, and we have a record of their conversations with Apollos. At any rate, when Paul returned to Ephesus in Acts 19, there was perhaps a church there. We could assume so since Aquilla and his wife were in the habit of assembling the church in their home. The church in Ephesus grew.
  
  • *Target: residents of Ephesus and of surrounding cities, converted through the teaching of Paul and possibly the ministry of those Paul is training. The processes employed and influence of Paul's ministry in Ephesus are not entirely clear. Perhaps some residents of Ephesus heard Paul in his daily lectures and were converted as a result. Perhaps some of those who heard Paul and became Christians were visitors to Ephesus and returned to their own cities. Perhaps a portion of Paul's teaching was to train others, in which case a ministry extended forth from Ephesus into various surrounding areas.
  • **Upon becoming Christians, those in Ephesus would be incorporated into the existing Christian community
  • **Upon becoming Christians, non-residents of Ephesus would return home to establish churches or to be incorporated into already established churches.
  • ***The possibility of a ministry of church planting and strengthening among those Paul was training has also been suggested.
• 4. Rome
  The church was apparently established at Rome as a result of various Christians moving there. We have no record of a designated worker or planter who was sent to Rome for the purpose of establishing the church. While the Rome model varies from the Jerusalem model in some significant details, the model suggests that when a large number of Christians move to a city over a relatively short period of time, whether as a result of forced displacement, as in the Jerusalem experience, or simply because of the magnetic nature of large cities, a church was established, because the individual Christians were active in sharing their faith and in facilitating the assembly of the Christian community.

Conclusion

• The danger of institutionalism. The contemporary church usually functions as an institution. Our efforts at growth, missions, evangelism, and church planting tend to establish more institutions. We have institutionalized religion. We even establish institutions alongside the church.
• The lack of success in rural areas. We must see afresh the value of the city as a place for planting churches and realistically consider the difficulty and challenge of planting in rural areas.
• The possibilities in the city. Why would not there be churches in the cities of our nation and of our world. When a Christian moves to a new city, would not that Christian seek out other Christians? Would not that Christian attempt to assemble with the Christian community? Would a genuine Christian ever simply cease worship and adoration, fellowship and encouragement, spiritual growth, and service in the name of Jesus?

________________________________

[1] Note: One explanation for the fact that the Ephesian letter does not have a designated recipient in some of the manuscripts builds on the nature of Paul's teaching ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19). As Paul taught in the school of Tyrannus and trained other Christians in ministry, churches were established across Asia Minor (cf. Col. 1:5, 23). Writing back to the church in Ephesus, given its history as a center from which the gospel went forth, would allow a convenient way of communicating also with the churches of the region. Thus, whether the original autograph included the wording "in Ephesus" or not, one can see why copies of the letter without the phrase might circulate among the area churches. Even if Paul originally intended the letter for Ephesus, it was also of value for churches in the larger area.