The Ecclesiological Conundrum 4

Several days ago I began a series on the reasons why I believe that much of the mission strategy behind North American church planting is not sufficient for reaching the 75% of the unbelievers in the U. S. and Canada (est. 254,250,000 people), and over 4 billion others across the globe (of which 2 billion have never heard of Jesus).  And within each post, I offered what I believed were necessary shifts that the Church needs to make for healthy strategy and to be poised for multiplication.

This post concludes this series, but I do plan to write another series on strategy in the near future.  If you missed the other posts, you may find them below:

Post 3: Methods Must be Highly Reproducible

Post 2: Strategies Must Embrace a Philosophy of Multiplication

Post 1: Most North American Church Planting Strategies are Inadequate for the Task

Today, I am addressing the ecclesiological shift.  I recognize this is a longer post than I usually write.  This is because it discusses the most important shift.

Our understanding of the local church is not only foundational for healthy church planting but affects everything we do in church planting. How we answer the question, “What is the local church?” shapes our strategies and methods.  It affects how we see the new believers.  It impacts our understanding of biblical leadership and the requirements for pastors/elders and deacons.  The way we answer this question affects the resources that we believe are necessary for a church to be a church.  Our answer reveals what we believe about the Holy Spirit and the very gospel itself.

Many church planters presently exist with an ecclesiological conundrum, and it expresses itself as follows:

In the realm of biblical ecclesiology there is much freedom for the cultural expressions of the local church.  In other words, the biblical prescription for what constitutes a local church has wide-parameters, when it comes to local expressions.  Therefore, the local contextualized understandings of the church may be thoroughly within the biblical guidelines for a local church but may also have a great deal of local cultural preferences included as well.

Is there anything wrong with cultural practices being expressed through local churches?  Not necessarily.  No individual, and no local church, can be culturally neutral.

Wait, I thought we were supposed to plant contextualized churches?  Absolutely, we must plant contextualized churches.  The beauty of the gospel and the local church is that they are divinely designed to exist within any cultural context, among any people group or population segment, at any time in history.

So, what is the conundrum?

Just because there is much biblical freedom in our cultural expressions of local churches, does not mean that all such expressions are conducive to the multiplication of healthy churches across a continent and world.  Cultural preferences can hinder the healthy and rapid dissemination of the gospel. The ecclesiological conundrum is found at the juncture of biblical ecclesiology and the cultural preferences of church planters and, to a degree, the immediate people they desire to reach.

The longer a people experience their culturally understood ecclesiology, the more likely present and future generations will understand such ecclesiology to be the “correct” way.  Such is my concern for the Church in North America–and I am a traditional guy at my core!

Most church planters in North America have a cultural understanding of a local church that has been shaped by their experiences with local churches that have been in existence for decades.  The structures, organizations, liturgies, programs, policies, budgets, and memberships did not occur overnight, in most cases.  Unfortunately, many church planting strategies begin by answering the question, “What is a local church?” with an ecclesiological statement that is made with an aged church in mind.  Such is putting the cart before the horse.

While planting such expressions of local churches from the beginning will win the sprint, we will lose the marathon.  We will see our numbers of churches increase quickly, but we will not see the occurrence long-term, healthy, global impact.  The more complicated we make the birth of local churches, the more likely we are to hinder the multiplication of healthy disciples, leaders, and churches across the globe.

Missionaries in North America need to return to the Scriptures and ask themselves, “What is the biblical necessity that is required for the church to be birthed among any people, any time, in any location?”  Notice the question did not ask, “What should the church look like in 5, 10, or 15+ years, so that I can plant that cultural understanding immediately?”

Of course, these aforementioned concerns make little sense if we are planting churches by beginning with believers who have been Kingdom citizens for 5, 10, 15+ years. For they already have their eccelsiologies (some good and some very bad) in mind.  To begin with long-term believers and try to keep matters biblically simple is a difficult task.  Cultural preferences and expectations for a local church are already set in the heart.  To say to such people, “Let’s begin with the Bible, study what it says is the nature and function of the local church, and allow the cultural preferences to develop from you,” is very difficult.

Long-term believers typically expect developed structures, programs, organizations, budgets, ministries, and pastors/elders to be in place immediately in new churches.  So, we begin the planting process at a point of biblical ecclesiology (I hope) but also with a great deal of cultural expectations as well.  The more complexity that we believe is necessary for a church to be birthed, the more difficult it will be to multiply.

But, biblical church planting is not about planting churches with long-term Kingdom citizens, is it? The Scriptures reveal to us a completely different approach to the birth of churches.  Biblical church planting–as we read throughout the New Testament–is evangelism that results in new churches. It is the birthing of local churches with people who just entered into the Kingdom–new churches with new believers.  While no new believers come with a “blank slate,” they do come with a heart to learn to obey the commands of Jesus, which includes what it means to be and function as the local church.  They usually enter with great zeal and are impressionistic.  At this moment church planters have the opportunity to guide them to understand from the Scriptures what it means for them to exist in such covenant community.

Yes, overtime they will become more complex in the way they function as a local church.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  But let them make that decision, if they eventually think it is best.  Let’s not tell them immediately to be (or model before them) something they may become in 5, 10, or 15+ years.  For if we do, we may cause them to think that church multiplication is too complicated; and they may become too dependent on us.

The greatest problem affecting church planting strategy today is a theological problem.  And church planters must realize that the missionary task to which they are called requires that they teach the whole counsel of God and allow the cultural expressions to develop from the people over time.

An ecclesiological shift is necessary. Not a shift away from biblical prescriptions, absolutely not!  But there must be a shift away from expectations that may shackle new believers to longstanding  preferences that, while near-and-dear to us, are problematic for their sanctification and mission.

Let’s do evangelism. Let’s gather the new believers together.  Let’s begin teaching them to obey all that Christ commanded. And in the process challenge them with the question, “Is the Spirit leading you to covenant together as a local expression of the Body of Christ?”  And if such is the case, let’s lead them through that process, raise  up pastors/elders, and allow the Word and the Spirit to build them up and give them the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32, ESV).

Such is a matter of stewardship of the great gospel we have and the great need set before us in the 21st century when it comes to mission strategy.