There seems to be two responses to the church today in the West in terms of challenging it to be more than what it is. One is a church planting movement--let’s start new churches to do what the established church can’t do and reach more people because, no doubt about it, new churches reach more lost people than anyone. Then there are modern reformers, or should I say post-modern reformers, that are experimenting with what a new emerging church out of the old church looks like. Been thinking about this a whole lot lately. Is there really such a thing as a church planting movement or is it a Jesus movement? Can emergent replace existing where the church already exist (emergent in China and Asia is very different from emergent in the West).
So here’s the big question. How do we see change happen? What if, and I’m thinking out loud here, it wasn’t to do with "church" at all. We start with church forms, be they central or decentralized, church models, be they house or building, but, is there a movement in history that did that and was successful? I can’t think of any. They may be there. I just don’t know them.
Meno Simons, Count Zinzindorf, and Tolstoy all started movements, but they came as a result of a passion for Jesus. The church in Asia is exploding because of their passion for Christ--church is an outgrowth. Church is present, church is real, but it doesn’t start with church, it starts with Jesus and church evolves. Evolve is the right word because movements each have a unique expression of church. No Chinese pastor woke up one day and said, "I’m going to start a church planting movement!" They did wake up, in love with Jesus and change their community and ultimately other communities as the Gospel spread and people congregationalized.
We start with the church, and all her functions, regardless of model or philosophy, and try to engineer things to produce what we are after. Here’s the question, does the church make disciples, or disciples make the church?
For disciples to make the church, you have to believe the Gospel is powerful enough to change. You have to believe the Word of God is alive and can bring the character of Jesus within us. You have to believe the Spirit is active on a regular basis in the life of the believer. This is discipleship as a petri dish--the DNA placed within it and emergent life--as opposed to discipleship as a classroom.
So here’s the big question. How do we see change happen? What if, and I’m thinking out loud here, it wasn’t to do with "church" at all. We start with church forms, be they central or decentralized, church models, be they house or building, but, is there a movement in history that did that and was successful? I can’t think of any. They may be there. I just don’t know them.
Meno Simons, Count Zinzindorf, and Tolstoy all started movements, but they came as a result of a passion for Jesus. The church in Asia is exploding because of their passion for Christ--church is an outgrowth. Church is present, church is real, but it doesn’t start with church, it starts with Jesus and church evolves. Evolve is the right word because movements each have a unique expression of church. No Chinese pastor woke up one day and said, "I’m going to start a church planting movement!" They did wake up, in love with Jesus and change their community and ultimately other communities as the Gospel spread and people congregationalized.
We start with the church, and all her functions, regardless of model or philosophy, and try to engineer things to produce what we are after. Here’s the question, does the church make disciples, or disciples make the church?
For disciples to make the church, you have to believe the Gospel is powerful enough to change. You have to believe the Word of God is alive and can bring the character of Jesus within us. You have to believe the Spirit is active on a regular basis in the life of the believer. This is discipleship as a petri dish--the DNA placed within it and emergent life--as opposed to discipleship as a classroom.
Comments