Open But Cautious Church Planting
By Jonathan Dodson | May 17th, 2010 | Category: Missional Church | 3 comments
If we’re honest, many of us treat the Holy Spirit more like a silent partner than the third person of the
Trinity. We are so cautious of the Spirit that we eliminate him from our leadership. Instead of relying on the Holy Spirit, church planters often rely on one of two directions to plant churches: apostolic moxie or academic models and methods. When we lean on either of these, we lean away from the Spirit-led center of church leadership.
Reliance on Apostolic Moxie
Moxie is that self-starting, self-motivating quality, often present among entrepreneurs, which enables them to push through the odds of failure with a determination for success. When moxie is linked up to apostolic gifting, you get a type-A church planter. Sin results when we possess moxie without humility—a determination to plant and lead the church without leaning on the wisdom of others. The planted church will likely be unhealthy. Why? The church is treated like a task to be executed, not a people to be shepherded. It was planted in dependence on yourself not dependence on the Spirit. It’s planting by making little of the Spirit and much of yourself. Church planting takes more humility than it does moxie. We need less moxie and more Spirit.
Discernment in Planting Location
Self-reliance in planters is often expressed in a of lack discernment. Instead of asking “What is the Spirit already doing in this city, town, and village?” moxie-driven planters barrel into town with a “vision from God” and in the process burn their family, polarize their community, and disregard their city. Planters that depend on the Spirit, however, learn to listen to others, to God, and to the city.
Reliance on Academic Models
There also are planters who, instead of relying on self-determination, rely on information. They diverge from the Spirit-led center by resting on academics or personal knowledge. Those who depend on models and methods are, perhaps, more submissive to God’s call, but slowly attach their significance and success as a planter to what they know and not to God’s calling. They think to themselves: “if I learn enough then I’ll be ready to plant.”
Discernment in Mission
You have a plan to reach your city. That plan does not include the Holy Spirit; it includes your research. You pull out your strategic plan and your church planting model and methods and say: “This is what God is doing in the city.” You over-think and out-plan the Holy Spirit. What we need is fewer books and more prayers.
The Spirit Leads through (and away from) Methods
Following the Spirit does not mean we abandon methods and planning. The Apostle Paul clearly had a strategy for planting churches in urban centers, spinning his disciples off to lead and plant in rural areas.
When I arrived in Austin I was armed with a prospectus and timeline. I was also ready to protect my wife, son and baby to be in the womb. As if all that wasn’t enough change, I soon discovered a different church planting methodology. A friend told me I was more wired for Organic Church. I had previously blown off a lot of Neil Cole’s writings because of his weak church governance and polity. As I began to read Organic Church, however, I became convinced of the value of decentralized church and its fit for urban Austin. Indie church for an indie city.
As much as I like the word “organic”, I began to realize that it was not a process but a Person that was guiding me in all of this—the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who creates and directs the church, not models (organic or traditional). The Spirit should be free to change your expression of ministry, the way you plant Christ’s church.
The Spirit Leads through Suffering
Expect the Spirit to lead you into unplanned change in order to accomplish the mission of God. For example, Stephen’s stoning led to the Eastward expansion of the Church (Acts 7; 11:19). Paul’s planting strategy was directed westward, towards Rome. If we had stuck with methods, only half the globe would have heard the gospel, but the Spirit made sure that the church expanded eastward through the martyrdom of Stephen. The blood of the martyrs made church planting a global movement. It was unplanned change, suffering. How many of us have martyrdom written into our church planting timeline? How will you respond when suffering comes? Will you ask the Spirit for direction when it comes, or will you blow through in moxie or ignore it by taking methodological detours around the God-ordained suffering?
Conclusion
Planting churches isn’t meant to happen by might or by power but the Spirit of the Lord (Zech 4:6). We need planters that are less pridefully cautious and more open to the leading of the Holy Spirit. When we open ourselves up the Spirit’s leading, remarkable things can happen on the mission of Christ!
See the audio and notes from the original Acts 29 talk: Spirit-led Ecclesiology
For more on the Spirit check out Winfield Bevins booklet.
I deeply resonate with this post, based on my own experience (which I’ll not get into here – suffice it to say that reading people like you, Chester, Cole, etc. has spurred me on in a very good way). The one thing that I think may be helpful for you to expand upon, either in a new post or here is the following:
“I had previously blown off a lot of Neil Cole’s writings because of his weak church governance and polity.”
I’ll share my thoughts on this, because I had the same reaction initially. I believe that organic church can have very healthy church polity when the leaders are clearly functioning in a way so as to release others to lead. That is to say that in traditional churches (warning: broad overstatements ahead – please watch for qualifiers like “tend”, “may”, etc.) tend to preach and teach on who the leaders/elders are and their role so that people can know who is in charge and who to follow. In an organic church setting, leadership is more functional over and sometimes even against titles. That is to say, an “elder” in a more organic church a.) may not be called one and b.) may function in the role without external, explicit affirmation of the title. Without the external, explicit designation there may be a feeling of more freedom among the other members of the organic community to “do the work of the ministry” – to function as elders and more often as deacons without being given explicit permission to do so, but rather being given permission by way of creating a culture where people are given the freedom to serve and lead as necessary/where opportunity arises rather than designating exactly who leads and how.
So, for someone like me in a Gospel community* who believes in a plurality of male elders leading under the headship of Jesus, I believe that “plurality of elders” and the fact that they need be “men” is not something I need to harp on. Bottom line: in organic church settings, it seems that the lay of the leadership landscape may “feel” flatter, as leadership tends to “flow” in a more functional way than designated. Now, there could be true lack of leadership in an organic community, but if it is less recognized, I propose that it is not necessarily lacking.
Thanks for letting me explore and “process” under your post here.
*our Gospel community is a “small group” of a larger “traditional” EFCA church, but we’ve been given great liberty to explore “being the church” in our particular community with the possibility that we may become a separately identified congregation one day.
Great points here, Burly:
That is to say, an “elder” in a more organic church a.) may not be called one and b.) may function in the role without external, explicit affirmation of the title. Without the external, explicit designation there may be a feeling of more freedom among the other members of the organic community to “do the work of the ministry”
I see the advantages to promoting the work of the ministry, but is that an overreaction to a biblical structure of authority? For similar reasons we don’t harp on male leadership and plurality of elders, unless of course we are preaching through the Pastoral Epistles. However, it is important that the church community know and understand the role of spiritual authority, standard of leadership, and expectations to promote true family life, godliness, and mission. Without these explicit elements, holiness can be kind of optional and accountability to true discipleship anemic.
You said: “For similar reasons we don’t harp on male leadership and plurality of elders, unless of course we are preaching through the Pastoral Epistles. However, it is important that the church community know and understand the role of spiritual authority, standard of leadership, and expectations to promote true family life, godliness, and mission. Without these explicit elements, holiness can be kind of optional and accountability to true discipleship anemic.”
I agree. In my current context we haven’t become a “separately identified congregation” from the mother church, but if we do, I think what you stated here is true and will be important for us.