Paul said "I have planted and Apollos has watered.." I Cor 3:6.
What did Paul Plant? An Orange Tree? Of course not. I believe his reference to planting could be only one of two things: planting the Word of God (which is usually referred to as a seed) or a church. In both cases a man plants it and waters it, but only God can give the increase. As Jesus said, "I will build my church", simply, God gives the increase.
Our understanding of doing mission work needs to include the idea that church planting is a valid scriptural behavior. Those who promote church planting as a better terminology are not opposed to those who prefer to start missions. Praise God for His work being done, whether it is a mission or a church that is started.
However it appears that those who prefer starting missions have labeled church planting as unscriptural. I don't get it. What's wrong with church planting?
David
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Terminological Trauma
Terminology defined: The terms or system of terms used in a specific science, art, et.; Terminological defined: adjective use of Terminology.
Truama defined: 1. a bodily injury, wound, or shock 2. Psychiatry, a painful emotional experience, or shock, often producing a lasting psychic effect and, sometimes, a neurosis.
ref: Websters New World Dictionary.
It appears that too many of us are being traumatized by new terminology within our ABA work. The terminology that I refer to is "Church Planting". We never used to call it that. It used to be called and is still called by a majority "doing mission work".
There seems to be a large number of our brethren who do not believe in "church planting". They believe in starting missions. That's the way they were taught and that's what I was taught. It was taught to be the only way of biblically doing the Great Commission. You get a sponsoring church, which in turn sends out a missionary, who in turn starts a mission and organizes it only when it is financally, doctrinally and numerically strong enough to become a church. This has grown to mean the inclusion of its own land and building as well. But where did this idea come from? It was not taught from the Bible, but passed on to us from our Southern Baptist friends. This idea caught on because it provided protection of the investment made in land and buildings and a fear of a takeover by some hostile Independent.
Strangely enough, Southern Baptists have begun to abandon this method in favor of "planting churches" rather than sponsoring missions due largely to the fact that the "mission" method could not be supported by the Bible. In addition to this, they are recognizing the importance of going back to a "local church" position which in turn enhances and promotes "church planting". Wow! Have we missed something or what?
Many of my brethren are being traumatized by this new terminology (which is not new, and was the way our forefathers used to do it before there was the idea of starting missions; which by the way is a Roman Catholic idea and imperialistic in nature). What a sad state of affairs! Traumatized by terminology.
To my utter horror I am discovering that many of my dear brethren are being traumatized by the idea of "church planting" (apparently a new terminology for them). This term, in their minds, is associated with "universalism". I am shocked and dumbfounded at this ignorance that has been allowed to circulate and fester.
May we all pray for our dear brethren to get past this terminological trauma and realize that they are opposing themselves and God.
David
Truama defined: 1. a bodily injury, wound, or shock 2. Psychiatry, a painful emotional experience, or shock, often producing a lasting psychic effect and, sometimes, a neurosis.
ref: Websters New World Dictionary.
It appears that too many of us are being traumatized by new terminology within our ABA work. The terminology that I refer to is "Church Planting". We never used to call it that. It used to be called and is still called by a majority "doing mission work".
There seems to be a large number of our brethren who do not believe in "church planting". They believe in starting missions. That's the way they were taught and that's what I was taught. It was taught to be the only way of biblically doing the Great Commission. You get a sponsoring church, which in turn sends out a missionary, who in turn starts a mission and organizes it only when it is financally, doctrinally and numerically strong enough to become a church. This has grown to mean the inclusion of its own land and building as well. But where did this idea come from? It was not taught from the Bible, but passed on to us from our Southern Baptist friends. This idea caught on because it provided protection of the investment made in land and buildings and a fear of a takeover by some hostile Independent.
Strangely enough, Southern Baptists have begun to abandon this method in favor of "planting churches" rather than sponsoring missions due largely to the fact that the "mission" method could not be supported by the Bible. In addition to this, they are recognizing the importance of going back to a "local church" position which in turn enhances and promotes "church planting". Wow! Have we missed something or what?
Many of my brethren are being traumatized by this new terminology (which is not new, and was the way our forefathers used to do it before there was the idea of starting missions; which by the way is a Roman Catholic idea and imperialistic in nature). What a sad state of affairs! Traumatized by terminology.
To my utter horror I am discovering that many of my dear brethren are being traumatized by the idea of "church planting" (apparently a new terminology for them). This term, in their minds, is associated with "universalism". I am shocked and dumbfounded at this ignorance that has been allowed to circulate and fester.
May we all pray for our dear brethren to get past this terminological trauma and realize that they are opposing themselves and God.
David
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Counting Churches Globally
It is time to begin counting new churches/missions globally.
It has been six months that we have been counting new churches/missions in the USA. It has been an eyeopener. Presently, to my knowledge, only four new works have been started in the USA among all of our ABA missionaries/church planters either salaried or on designated funds.
It is most disappointing to see these numbers.
Perhaps the global picture will inspire us to catch the world-wide vision of believers and inspire us to get busy at home.
So, we are calling on all foreign missionaries/church planters to visit our website and register their new works (churches or missions) begun since the ABA in July 1, 2007.
David
It has been six months that we have been counting new churches/missions in the USA. It has been an eyeopener. Presently, to my knowledge, only four new works have been started in the USA among all of our ABA missionaries/church planters either salaried or on designated funds.
It is most disappointing to see these numbers.
Perhaps the global picture will inspire us to catch the world-wide vision of believers and inspire us to get busy at home.
So, we are calling on all foreign missionaries/church planters to visit our website and register their new works (churches or missions) begun since the ABA in July 1, 2007.
David
Pulpit Rotation vs Pulpit Reproduction
During my first years of ministry I heard a pastor once say to a group of seminarians; "Don't wait around to take over my church, go start your own church". That really impacted me. I am finding that for a long, long time our preacher boys have been trained to pastor existing churches. I have noticed that our seminaries have focused on training men to take over pulpits instead of creating their own. Hence pulpit rotation (pastors moving or dying which opens up a pulpit) has become standard procedure and pulpit reproduction (church planting) has been cast to the side as a non-essential.
The only problem with this mentality is that the starting of new churches has been grossly neglected. Therefore there is a steady decline of new preachers since existing churches either already have a pastor or have declined to the point where they cannot take care of a pastor.
Young men are not regularly being challenged to pioneer new churches and launch out into the unknown by faith. The kind of men needed for church planting respond to a challenge that is bigger than they are. This kind of man is probably going to be trained in some seminary where church planting is an absolute priority of vision and purpose, which is usually outside of our work.
Pulpit reproduction insures that there will be churches who will have pulpit rotation. However, pulpit rotation eventually slows down to the point where there are not enough preachers and eventually not enough churches.
Go start your own church! Go reproduce!
David
The only problem with this mentality is that the starting of new churches has been grossly neglected. Therefore there is a steady decline of new preachers since existing churches either already have a pastor or have declined to the point where they cannot take care of a pastor.
Young men are not regularly being challenged to pioneer new churches and launch out into the unknown by faith. The kind of men needed for church planting respond to a challenge that is bigger than they are. This kind of man is probably going to be trained in some seminary where church planting is an absolute priority of vision and purpose, which is usually outside of our work.
Pulpit reproduction insures that there will be churches who will have pulpit rotation. However, pulpit rotation eventually slows down to the point where there are not enough preachers and eventually not enough churches.
Go start your own church! Go reproduce!
David
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Only Three New Works in the ABA in Six Months?
It is becoming of some concern to me that so far only three new churches/missions have actually begun in the ABA (USA) since June of this year. Now, it is entirely possible that we haven't gotten all of the information about new works being started yet, but it doesn't look very good at the present. I know of a couple more works that may begin soon. If you know of a new work starting somewhere please let me know and we will get them registered on our website.
I was told by some that 100 was a realistic goal for our 1200 plus churches to achieve. But I'm not sure that this is realistic at all at the present pace. One of the reasons for this is that, to my knowledge, there has never been any tracking of new works nationally or globally; therefore how can we establish goals or challenge churches properly.
If everyone in the ABA knew how dismal our church planting record was perhaps there would be a change. Perhaps it's time to count more than just the number of souls that get saved everywhere and realize that it is the planting of new churches that creates the most evangelism.
Let's plant more churches!
David
I was told by some that 100 was a realistic goal for our 1200 plus churches to achieve. But I'm not sure that this is realistic at all at the present pace. One of the reasons for this is that, to my knowledge, there has never been any tracking of new works nationally or globally; therefore how can we establish goals or challenge churches properly.
If everyone in the ABA knew how dismal our church planting record was perhaps there would be a change. Perhaps it's time to count more than just the number of souls that get saved everywhere and realize that it is the planting of new churches that creates the most evangelism.
Let's plant more churches!
David
Can Churches Comeback?
Yes, churches can comeback from the decline that many are experiencing.
Many have told me, I wish we could see our church growing again. Pastors tell me, I wish I knew what to do that would change the direction our church is headed for. Excuses are often used to justify the current decline like: "it's the last times", "the love of many is getting cold", "there is a great falling away taking place". However, it seems strange to me that if those excuses held any water they would be true everywhere. But it is not true everywhere. In fact, if it is true at all, it is true only to those whose environment suggests that it is true. The truth is that wherever churches are actively engaged in outreach and evangelism they are experiencing growth and development!
Becoming a comeback church requires a new commitment to evangelism. If churches are declining and dying it is because they have ceased in "reproduction". Therefore, begin reproducing churches, believers, and disciples. It is the solution to becoming a comeback church.
Those churches that are coming back are going back to evangelism and discipleship.
You can learn more about being a comeback church from "Comeback Churches" by Ed Stetzer.
David
Many have told me, I wish we could see our church growing again. Pastors tell me, I wish I knew what to do that would change the direction our church is headed for. Excuses are often used to justify the current decline like: "it's the last times", "the love of many is getting cold", "there is a great falling away taking place". However, it seems strange to me that if those excuses held any water they would be true everywhere. But it is not true everywhere. In fact, if it is true at all, it is true only to those whose environment suggests that it is true. The truth is that wherever churches are actively engaged in outreach and evangelism they are experiencing growth and development!
Becoming a comeback church requires a new commitment to evangelism. If churches are declining and dying it is because they have ceased in "reproduction". Therefore, begin reproducing churches, believers, and disciples. It is the solution to becoming a comeback church.
Those churches that are coming back are going back to evangelism and discipleship.
You can learn more about being a comeback church from "Comeback Churches" by Ed Stetzer.
David
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
A Call for Visionary Leadership
Visionary leadership is missing in our associated work. We often have vocal upheavals by 'would be' leaders but very little vision being cast. This is a call for visionary leadership.
I am still waiting to hear our visible assocational leaders challenge our churches to set goals and standards by which we might be able to plant more churches. It seems there is a real disconnect here. Why are our visible leaders reluctant to put out the challenges and set goals? Are they afraid to step over some invisible barrier that may or may not exist? Or do they feel that this is not in their 'job description'?
How simple (to my way of thinking) it would be to establish an exploratory committee on church planting and how to advance church planting in our associated work. Now why would this be so hard to do? Would it accomplish anything in the way of church planting? I don't know. But I would like to believe it would move church planting to the forefront of why we even exist.
Where is the visionary leadership to do this? Where are the visionaries?
David
I am still waiting to hear our visible assocational leaders challenge our churches to set goals and standards by which we might be able to plant more churches. It seems there is a real disconnect here. Why are our visible leaders reluctant to put out the challenges and set goals? Are they afraid to step over some invisible barrier that may or may not exist? Or do they feel that this is not in their 'job description'?
How simple (to my way of thinking) it would be to establish an exploratory committee on church planting and how to advance church planting in our associated work. Now why would this be so hard to do? Would it accomplish anything in the way of church planting? I don't know. But I would like to believe it would move church planting to the forefront of why we even exist.
Where is the visionary leadership to do this? Where are the visionaries?
David
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
