Quiz: Which text in the New Testament gives us the imperative to plant churches?
If you have an answer, share it in the comment section. In the meantime, keep reading!
Church Planting Model #1:
In 2001, my wife and I accepted the generous gift of free registrations and accommodations to a Church Planters Bootcamp in the denomination we were serving. We had actually already started a church a couple of months before the seminar, but our district leadership thought it would be helpful to us. It was. We learned a lot, and we used the things we learned for several years after that. When the workshop began, the leaders told us,
“We are not going to give you a mission-statement or a mindset. You get to dream your own dream and develop your own vision. We simply want to give you the tools and methods you need to live your mission and see it become a reality.”
When we left that weekend event, we had…
- A carefully written mission statement (ours was “Reaching and Discipling Entire Families for Jesus Christ.”).
- A calendar of ministry events for our first year of ministry (think Christmas, Easter, etc.)
- An outline of all the ministry departments and leaders for each position that we’d need to fill (think admin, worship, kids, youth, etc.).
- A budget of our first year expenses, and a list of all the things we needed to buy to do ministry (think sound, furnishings, technology, etc.).
- A plan for raising support and encouraging our church members to tithe (think teaching, letter-writing, solicitation, etc.).
- A clear set of goals for promoting the church and accommodating the growth we anticipated (think mailers, newspaper, website, letters, etc.)
In short, we spent the entire weekend focused on the methods, techniques, and mechanisms by which we would “do” church for our first year. We were assigned a church planting coach (who was an incredible friend and blessing to us personally), and we were sent back home with prayer and encouragement to launch a great church. That first year, we met most of our goals, including growing our staff, securing a long-term rental facility, renting a church office, starting a worship ministry, a children’s ministry, a youth ministry, and a men’s and women’s ministry. At the end of the first year, our supervisor told us “Your church plant is waaaaay beyond the norm in every way.” We were invited to attend the church planters seminar for the next two years to share our ideas and to coach other new church planters in the methodology we had learned.
Here is the basic flow and diagram of the church planting process in the paradigm we used to plant our first church.
- A coalition of churches (e.g., our denomination/movement) sponsored us as…
- The leaders of…
- A new church plant that would be focused on
- Making disciples
After twelve years of ministry following our first church-planting experience, we personally gave around $100,000 of our own money to the church we started. The total income over our twelve years was about 3.5 million dollars, and we spent about 3.2 million of that on the functions of the church organization, and put the rest in the bank. We probably baptized about 8-10 people per year (maybe 100 people during our 12 years), and saw a few dozen people make first-time commitments to Jesus (though it’s impossible to really count how many there were). We spent tens of thousands of dollars on office rentals, tens of thousands of dollars vehicles and trailers and equipment, supplies, and utilities, tens of thousands of dollars on rental space and equipment for our Sunday gatherings, hundreds of thousands of dollars on payroll and benefits for staff, and tens of thousands of dollars on missions (largely through missionary sponsorship through our denomination — though a few people took missions trips in the church). We also spent tens of thousands of dollars on benevolence for members of the church. What’s the point? It was very expensive. I’m not sure how many people we lead to the Lord who actually became fully devoted followers of Jesus and eventual leaders who could reproduce disciples. I know there were a few, but in all, our emphasis was on ministering to our members through our Sunday gatherings, mens, women’s, youth, and children’s ministries, and weekly small groups and classes. No other successful churches were planted out of our church, and at our largest, we had about 300 members. When I left, we had about 150 people in regular worship attendance, though our giving was pretty consistent and we never functioned in a financial deficit during my entire tenure in the church. By the basic measure of success in this paradigm, we were moderately successful. The church was larger than the national average, was financially solvent, and was re-directing funds back to the parent organization.
Church Planting Model #2:
In February of 2014, nearly four months after we completed our pastoral assignment in the church we planted in 2001, my wife and I heard about another church-planting workshop being held in Arizona. We read the description of it online, and it intrigued us. We had read a book by the author who developed the material, and we really liked it — so we decided to take a road trip and spend two days learning more about it. We paid for our own gas, hotels, meals, registration, and materials and jumped in. This was our first 180. In the first scenario, we were sponsored by an over-seeing organization. In the second scenario, we sponsored ourselves. When we walked into the first session on Friday night, the seminar facilitator began by saying…
“We are not going to give you a methodology or any ministry techniques in this seminar. The Bible does that already, and it’s the same for every Christian and every church. We simply want to give you the mindset behind this mission, and then you can work out how that will shake out in your own context.
This was our second 180. The first group told us, “No mindset, only method.” The second group told us, “No method, only mindset.”
When we left that event we had…
- A fresh commitment to center our lives on learning the ways of Jesus, and following him as King
- A re-ignited passion for one-on-one relational discipleship
- More ideas than we could count about what we could do with our money now that it would be 100% focused on mission & discipleship
- A renewed passion for sharing our faith with friends and family who would never “go to church”
- A strong commitment to live in the world as missionaries whether we were working for a church or not
- A simple return to the value for making disciples, leaving the building of His Church to Jesus himself!
In short, we spent the entire weekend focused on the mission of Jesus to bring the nations under his Kingly reign through teaching them his ways, and calling them to live for him (largely by living for him in front of people). We were not assigned any overseer or coach, but were told that all of the DNA — the SEED of the Kingdom of God was resident within us, and within every other Christian, and we were sent back home with prayer and encouragement to start making disciples as the Great Commission directed all believers to do. In this phase, we have only one goal. Make disciples. Period. That’s it.
Here is the basic flow and diagram of the “church planting” process in the paradigm we learned at this seminar:
- A christian helps another person to become a follower of Jesus, and
- if he/she does this effectively, a “leader” emerges and helps the other Christian grow in faith.
- Jesus will meet with those two or three (or more) as His own Church whenever they gather together in His name, under His Lordship
- If they continue to do this, and this process multiplies over and over, the Christian movement will continue to grow on the Earth until every person is reached.
Jesus-followers who function in this paradigm can spend 100% of their tithes and offerings on whatever Jesus is doing through them and their families. That might involve getting training (like the seminar we went to), helping friends with their bills, feeding, clothing, and visiting people in need, buying Bibles for friends who don’t have one, buying meals or food to share with other friends with whom they gather to be the church of Jesus, and even taking missionary excursions to places far and near to share the good news about Jesus. If there is a need among this group, they can simply decide how to help one another. If the group really grows and disciples multiply, they can — if they wish — rent a spot to have a large gathering every once in a while for teaching and worship, or whatever. But if they never do this, their movement will not suffer either the threat or the reality of catastrophic failure or death because it is only dependent on their willingness to continue to live in relationship with each other, with Jesus, and with the lost people they’re sharing with. No one in the group is dependent for their livelihood on the rest of the group, and the group is not bound to purchase or maintain real estate or properties. They are not required to file papers with the government, nor are they required to pay an organization an annual fee to license their leader(s) to officially perpetuate the Jesus-movement (e.g. ministerial ordination). That’s it. Their ministry rhythm fits with the rhythm of their every-day lives and relationships. There is no going to church, there is primarily being the church. Churches are “planted” organically and naturally when there are two or three Christians who agree to follow Jesus together and continue to disciple others as a group. If a disciple decides to venture out and begin the process elsewhere, the movement continues and grows, and new churches (of 2, 3, or more Jesus-followers) can keep growing, and the mission of God continues. This paradigm is 100% sustainable and reproducible by any Jesus-follower regardless of their income, their age, their gender, or their social status. It takes absolutely no organizational infrastructure to begin it or to maintain it. It only takes commitment and consistent intentionality, making the mission of Jesus to reach people a life-priority.
Back to the quiz…
At the beginning of this post I proposed a quiz to identify the verse or verses that charge Christians to plant churches. In my reading of the New Testament, there is no such imperative because the Church of Jesus is built by Jesus through the relational and organic work of discipling people. Any time two or three disciples gather together around he Lordship of Jesus Christ to worship, serve, and grow in their knowledge of and obedience to him, and to join him in his mission, there is the Church. It rises out of discipleship rather than out of organizational strategy or the vision of a “church planter.” People who live in the second example don’t think of themselves as church planters. They think of themselves as disciple-making Jesus-followers, and if they’re doing that, then church emerges out of what they do naturally and organically. It is also absolutely free (though it will cost a person their whole life) to think of Church in this way. That doesn’t mean that there is no financial cost, but the movement will not die if no one tithes to the organization planting the church. This group of disciples can tithe too. But they individually or collectively use their resources to carry out their missionary and discipling priorities.
By the numbers…
When we planted our church under paradigm #1, we raised over $200,000.00 the first year, and we spent most of that money on the things I described in section one above. If it costs two hundred thousand dollars to plant a church, and if it must be done by a gifted leader with a special calling, and a core-group consisting of department and ministry functionaries who can do all of the ministries in the church’s program, and if that leader group will need to collect the money buy all the stuff needed to facilitate “church” the way it’s described there, then I propose that the Christian movement cannot grow and cannot expand fast enough to reach the whole world for Jesus Christ.
The town we live in now has 60,000 people in it, and the average church has less than 100 people. There are a couple of medium, large, and very large churches, but the total number of people in these churches totals around 15,000 people. Fifteen thousand people “go to church” (one of 70) in a town of 60,000. If my supervisor was right, and our church was way beyond the norm in the first year, then imagine replicating what we did enough times to reach all of the other 45,000 people in our city. At the end of the first year, our church was around 200 people and had about 225k in income. Divided by 45,000 people, our town would need 225 more churches of 200 people (like our “way beyond the norm” church), and if they all did ministry the exact same way we did the first year, they’d all need about 200k to do ministry the first year (and more every year after that). So, we’d need 225 churches and 40 million dollars to reach every person in our town. Yep. That’s right. 40 million dollars. But we would also need enough buildings to accommodate the 225 churches of 200. Some of them would want to buy land and build their own buildings. That would add millions of dollars to the equation. Anyway, you get it. We can do the numbers all day. It’s incredibly expensive!
By the way, all of this assumes lots of evangelism, which is not the primary way our church grew the first year. We grew by affinity and transfer. That means people already knew us and joined us, and others came from other churches. In the 225 new churches, 100% of the members would need to come from evangelism.
In the second paradigm, every single Jesus-follower can start a church for free. He/she needs to lead at least one or two other people to Jesus, then meet with them regularly around the Lordship of Jesus in order to disciple them and walk with them. If each of the 15,000 already-Christians (?) in our town though to themselves, “Hey I’m a missionary,” then each of them would only need to lead 3 other people to Jesus in 1 year in order see the entire city we live in come to Jesus. Yep. 15,000 x 3 = 45,000. On the other hand (using the 225 new churches idea), if there were 225 Christians in our town who thought of themselves as missionaries, then the math would look like this.
225+225 = 450
x2 = 900
x2 = 1800
x2 = 3600
x2 = 7200
x2 = 14,400
x2 = 28,800
x2 = 57,600
In less than 8 multiplication cycles, the entire city I live in would be reached for Jesus Christ with just 225 people who said, “I am a missionary to my city, my friends, my family, and my neighborhood.” This would have to be done relationally, but there would be no need for any specially gifted leaders with the vision to plant churches, nor would there be any need for millions and millions of dollars for equipment, buildings, offices, land, payroll and benefits, or anything like that. Every penny that anyone spent could go 100% to their own sense of mission. The only catch here is that each person would need to be faithful to Jesus personally instead of turning over the task of mission to the men and women with the official licenses and the “vision.” The Jesus-movement would either live or die based on the faithfulness of each Christian to keep the mission going.
Some conclusions
About a month ago I had lunch in Fresno with a friend who is getting ready to plant a church under paradigm #1. He is not ignorant at all about the two paradigms I shared here. He can articulate both fluidly. He said, “Kenny, I feel called by God to live in the first paradigm and to do it that way.” I said, “then do what God calls you to do!” So this is not an indictment of, or a rant against the first paradigm, though it is a critique (which has to be a self-critique at the end of the day, because it’s how we “planted” and functioned). Whether we choose paradigm #1 or #2, every Christian is called to be on mission with Jesus and His Church.
The first paradigm begins with an organization and a key leader who plant a church (of already-Christians), which they hope will make disciples. The leader dreams, organizes, leads, and raises the funds needed to make it all work. Again, there are 70 of these in our town, and 15,000 people are connected to them. Hundreds (if not thousands) of people among the 15,000 have been part of the other 70 churches at one time or another.
The second paradigm begins with one disciple who decides to lead another person to Jesus. If they do it, they instantly become a leader, and if they meet together regularly with that disciple, around Jesus as Lord, and if they both follow him together and keep repeating this over and over, they are organically and automatically a church. If they keep doing this, the movement grows and grows.
1+1+Jesus = Church. If this addition (which becomes multiplication in just one generation) continues, it’s not long at all before there are thousands, then hundreds of thousands, then millions and millions of Jesus-followers. There was a time in the Jesus-movement when this was how the message of Jesus took over the world without a building, a website, a program, a slogan or logo, a fog machine, or anything else that has become the stock-in-trade of contemporary church-planting.
Whatever paradigm we embrace, (there may be others, or hybrids of these two), we need to be on mission with Jesus and His Church.
All authority in heaven and earth has been handed over to Jesus
So, get going — to every kind of person, discipling them by baptizing them into the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit
Teaching them all the things that Jesus taught — and calling them to obey Jesus
He’s with you to the end of the project (My translation of Mat. 28:18-20).
Okay – time for you to jump into the comments. Let’s dialogue more about this.
———-
For more resources on this important subject, check out…
“The Forgotten Ways” by Alan Hirsch
“Organic Church” by Neil Cole
“Church 3.0” by Neil Cole
“God’s Missionary People” by Charles Van Engen
“Organic Discipleship” by Dennis McCallum & Jessica Lowery
Good article. After being in a church plant where i saw that there was an obsessiveness to stick to a model, i started questioning the whole church plant movement. I came to realize that we are not told to plant churches but to make disciples. Even the way how church planters define church is very different from the way the Bible uses the word Church. I also find that there are many churches who busy themselves in building mini-institutions as opposed to making disciples. So in the end i see many churches straying away from scriptures, but i guess we have to work with what we got.
Samuel – Thanks for the feedback. I resonate with your conclusions my friend. Before reading Neil Cole, I was of the belief that “Church Planting is the fastest way to spread the good news around the world.” This is actually a fallacy. Discipleship is actually the prescription Jesus gave for spreading the good news. There is nothing at all about church planting in the Great Commission. As I discussed in this post, if I’m right, then church planting is simply the natural result of effective discipleship. It’s organic. I also agree with your conclusions about the definition of church. That is so muddy now it’s hard to even talk about it. What are you doing now with respect to church, evangelism, and discipleship. Have you changed your praxis along with your changing paradigm? I’d be interested to know. I once would have agreed with the conclusion “work with what we’ve got,” but I’m no longer convinced that this is necessary.
Interesting reflections! But surely you really need to write this article in 2026, when you’ve also had 12 years’ experience of trying “Model 2”?
At the moment you can only speak of it in theoretical terms, just as you would have spoken enthusiastically of “Model 1” 12 years ago.
Chris – brother! Thanks for reading and for your important comments. Here are a few responses.
1. I was happy to write the post before 2026 because (as you noted) it is really a theoretical comparison between two church-planting ideologies — both of which are based on events that I attended. It would be much like going to an Apple store and a Samsung store to look at different phones, and comparing the differences between them. However, you point is a good one. It is at least 50% theoretical (I already own and iPhone, and I have already worked in the other model for 19 years — 12 of which were spent in a church I planted). However, I offer a bit of “push back” to the “only theoretical terms” perspective. I think I (and many other Christians) live in varying levels of tension between these two paradigms, and perhaps many Christians function in both of them. That has definitely been true for me. I have been instrumental in the mission OUTSIDE of my church and ministry vocation on relational and organic levels as well as within the institutional structures (see an image of row-boat and docking pier, and one foot on both). I think at this point, I’m opting to jump more fully onto one, and off of the other. That said…
2. A post in 2026 might be necessary because at the end of the day the question about my own missionary participation in the Great Commission is what matters. Will I give over 100,000 of income to mission? Will I teach God’s people, disciple new believers, baptize them, and help them to grow in their faith when it’s not my paid vocation, and when I am not doing it as part of the program of an institution? I think this is a question for every follower of Jesus — including me — and it is one of the reasons I am thankful for your input.
3. I am a huge fan of organization, structure, etc. In fact, my undergraduate work was in organizational leadership, much of which was helpful to me in my church work. However, I have no appreciation for structures that exist to be served. I prefer functional structures that accommodate Spiritual life and mission. Even in the church I pastored for the last 12 years, I highly resisted non-functional structures (which got me into trouble with people who wanted a very programmed experience of Church). So, I agree about “structures to support healthy growth.” In my 19-year journey in what Neil Cole calls “Church 2.0” – I did not see much of this. I typically saw (and was expected to) create structures to further organizational/institutional objectives that tended to center on numerical, financial, programmatic, and even facility-oriented interests. I have NO problem with organization or structure. It’s not evil, but in churches it’s often not organic, health-oriented structure. My physical body has plenty of organization and structure, but it is, for the most part based on the function of my body. So I’m very cool with life-sustaining and life-accomodating structures. I have a friend who says “you can organize love,” of which I am reminded every time I set up a “date night” with my wife. But that work is about deepening our relationship, and not about being true to the rule about dating. I think you get it.
4. The biggest take-away for me is the challenge to truly live in Model 2. You are correct. I spoke (and lived) enthusiastically in the first paradigm 12 years ago, and had success (by the measures given to us in that paradigm). There is theoretical compare/contrast between these 2 paradigms, and I can do that as well as anyone on the theoretical level since I have been “taught” both models, and I can comment pretty fluidly on the first paradigm (so that’s not hugely theoretical). Now it’s time to live in the world as a missionary with the rest of God’s people. My wife and I talked about your comments on our walk this morning, and she encouraged me to write down the key points of impact that I felt I had in paradigm 1, and to track those over the next years.
5. Thanks for the book reference. It looks like a good one!
6. Chris – what is your experience in church work, mission, discipleship, etc? I’d be interested to interact with you about that.
Kenny,
I have not done much as far as my praxis goes with my new paradigm. I am really working with what i have. I am not a pastor or a church leader, so i cannot make any big changes. I think the most hopeful things anyone has said to me in a while is when you said that we don’t necessarily have to work with what we have. I hope it becomes a reality 🙂
Kenny, I want to agree with your views on structure. Here in the west we are structural, which means we make people to be slaves to structures. Just look at our political discourse, it is all about serving the structure. What happens to people is secondary.
I think with the Sabbath controversy, Jesus made it clear that structures need to serve people.
Loved this! One thing that is so interesting to me, is that many Type#1 churches use some ideas of Type#2 churches to expand. For example, several around me are promoting Neil Cole’s model of “Life Transformation Groups”. I’m skeptical that the motivation is discipleship, rather than multiplication. In Church Planting #2, there is not financial incentive to multiply disciples. I think that changes EVERYTHING. What do you all think?
Couple of thoughts here:
(1) I wonder if there could be a more robust ecclesiology underneath both of these church planting models. I don’t know what else to say other than the fact that I have yet to read a church planting article or book or essay or had a discussion on church planting that makes me think, “Wow, there is a rich ecclesiological framework going on here.”
(2) I’d venture to guess that in my context, small town (think rural) church planting takes the best of both of these two models. Yes, I just said that… and I think it’s because of the context and cultural/social issues that are raised within it.
(3) Everything that Bob Logan just coached myself and some other Vineyard pastors on leads me to conclude that the church planting movement in the U.S. is going through a transition/improvement.
(4) I appreciate, Kenny, that you are thoughtful and creative and not mean-spirited in your assessment. That goes without saying, since we’re such good buddies, but I really do appreciate that.
(5) I wonder what models 3 and 4 will look like.
(6) I’d like to back up and consider the implications of church planting and disciple making in a global context. What differences exist and what can we learn from our global brothers and sisters? My first impression is that in my experience in Africa, there is a focus on both discipleship and church planting… combined. It makes it rather interesting… especially since the money issues largely don’t exist because there simply isn’t any!
Still thinking….
Erik – Hey thanks for joining the dialogue here, bro!
I completely agree with your observation – “Type 1 uses Type 2 to grow/expand.”
Your comment that “in type 2 there is no financial incentive to multiply disciples” is why I wrote that the only thing stopping this movement is willingness to participate in it as a lifestyle. It’s a true test of motives. Think about this too — Many churches have a pastor of discipleship, small groups, spiritual formation, etc. to organize this because it’s not being done organically. The church is paid (via offerings) to do this, and PAYS (via salaries) to get it all done. In the most cynical terms, it’s transactional ministry vs. organic ministry. And YES — I think this changes everything. Will we be part of the mission of God if/when we’re not getting paid to do it. I think this second approach tests that motivation in huge ways.
On the other hand, the post provides two views in polarity (e.g. – the 180 terminology). I think (as I said in a comment above) that many Christians live somewhere along a spectrum between both of them and try to find what is good and helpful in both. It’s something I’m still sorting out in terms of my own praxis, but man! Going to the Greenhouse training was so eye-opening.
What is your ministry/missional focus in life?
Kenny
Wow. “Transactional ministry”. That is exactly what I am trying to escape.
About 20 years ago, I was giving my everything to fulfill “my calling”. Bible college, ordination, church staff…the whole track. And then, I couldn’t quiet my conscience, and I asked too many questions. It led to me eventually leaving the whole scene altogether. For many years after that, I wrestled with guilt and shame. I wondered if I had failed God because I “settled” for being a teacher.
Then, as one of my 9 year old students was dying of Leukemia, I began to see things completely different. As one of the few white teachers in my Boston school, I had to directly face the effects of privilege, racism, and economic injustice. Families had every right to not trust me. But, as I spent months teaching this boy in hospitals and in his home, racial reconciliation happened among many. Parents and children told me that I proved them wrong about “how white people are”, and the gaps between “us” and “them” were shown to be false.
That boy died, practically in my arms. But, he showed me that “ministry” was not a professional occupation. I discovered that I had not failed God’s will for my life. I had just misinterpreted it.
My “ministry/missional focus in life” is love. I just want to love like Jesus loves, who He loves, and however He loves. I honestly have no clear idea what that means within the institutions called “church”, but I know that I haven’t found it yet. I just very recently started reading perspectives like Neil Cole and it does resonate with me.
I very much look forward to learning from you Kenny. Peace!
I did #1 for 10 years and help plant 3 churches and did those seminars for FTS CEFI then switched to a combo of the 2 with discipleship centered model, help plant 20,000 churches; thus #2 may work better…
You didn’t finish the story. How is the church doing under the 2nd paradigm?
Chris, the experience-based article you are looking for was written in 2011, summarizing the detailed book T4T: A Discipleship Re-Revolution by Steve Smith with Ying Kai. The article is here:
https://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/article/training-for-trainers-process
In short, Ying and Grace worked with a ministry which expected them to plant a new church every five years, but prior to 2000 they were doing this every year: leading 40-60 people to Christ, gathering them into a new church plant, then moving to a new city to repeat the process.
Then in 2000 Ying and Grace were asked to move to an area with 20 million people and few known believers (where the 40-60 per year would be inadequate) and trained in multiplying discipleship (aka church-planting movements). Ying found a small church and trained 30 others how to do what he was doing, and how to train the next generation, etc. By the end of 2010, 1.7 million people had been baptized and on a monthly basis, around 2,000 house churches and small groups were being started in villages, urban high-rises and factories.
Several years before 2010, this “Training for Trainers” (T4T) model was inspiring similar efforts around the world and combining successfully with best practices from other experiments in multiplying discipleship. The current issue of Mission Frontiers offers case studies from four movements growing here in the U.S. and another in Asia:
https://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/archive/4×4-movements
Additional experience-based resources are available here:
http://t4tusa.com/videos/
http://www.churchplantingmovements.com/
http://www.movements.net/
Kenny, I’ve commented below with links to current case studies detailing movements such as Richard mentions below (see the graphic from the current Mission Frontiers).
Those particularly interested in integrating church models 1 & 2 may find the following three articles most interesting. All involve large churches (above 1,000 people) which have created a discipleship culture in which the members (rather than the staff) do “the primary ministry”:
No Longer “Church as Usual” (2013):
https://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/article/no-longer-church-as-usual
The story of “Real Life Ministries” (2011):
http://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/article/avery-willis-last-dream
Antioch Church (2013):
https://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/article/antioch
Acts 2:41-42 works: “Those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
Baptize
Add
Count
Teach
Share
Commune
Pray
The apostles made their disciples in churches! Those who plant churches make many more disciples than do those who only make disciples.
One point of clarification? confusion? irrelevance?
There are two kinds of multiplication, both in English and in Greek:
1) mathematical
2) biological
Which is more appropriate to the NT? Or both? Or neither?
Thanks for these Robby. I’m looking forward to checking them out.
Hi Rusty – GREAT question, with some echoes of the input from Chris Edwards (check out his comments and my responses to them). I have been in a leadership role for 19 years in paradigm #1 — 12 of which were spent as the lead pastor of the church we planted. I just finished my assignment there in November and have been decompressing, deconstructing, and detoxing. Part of that process involves a fearless re-appraisal of my ecclesiology, missiology, and the praxis that emerges out of both of those. I have been in default to paradigm #1 for almost my entire adult life. I suspect that is true for many of us. So – as Chris points out, I am primarily speaking from a theoretical compare/contrast perspective about these two paradigms at this point, since I have participated in training for both of them. NOW I am on the edge of the starting-gate in paradigm #2 — though there are veteran organic disciple-makers who can tell you the story of the flourishing church of Jesus and the mission to disciple all nations who live primarily in that paradigm of church and mission. At some point, I will have more personal information, experience, and perspective. How about you? What is your experience with mission, evangelism, and effective discipleship in your context?
Awesome! I got your email. Will respond asap. Thanks Robby.
Friend Ngallendou –
I really appreciate you jumping into dialogue here! Thanks. I offer one primary response to your input (in addition to my observation that the list you gave in Acts 2 is not best seen as a pattern to be followed, but as a description of what happened there):
“Those who plant churches make many more disciples than do those who only make disciples.”
I appreciate that you’re sharing this as though it were axiomatic, but I seriously doubt it. It would be interesting to see the research on this in North America. My suspicion is that church planters are primarily effective at gathering already-Christians, and perhaps do lead some straying Christians back to church (along with hiving off chunks of members from other churches), but I’m not so sure they are any more effective at discipleship than an organic discipling missional community. My other suspicion is that in the organized model, discipleship is easily reduced to a program that you go through, vs. a relational life-shaping process that is accomplished by walking with Jesus and a few other Jesus-followers in transparent relationships — on mission together. I think we need lots more dialogue (in the larger discussion) about what exactly our churches mean when they use the word “disciple.” In most churches it involves regular attendance, volunteering, tithing, regular Bible reading and prayer, and other things along the lines of “spiritual disciplines.” I would be in favor of an alternative definition that looks more like — JESUS FOLLOWING MISSIONARY. Not sure that church plants churn out more of those than other expressions of Christian community.
This is great stuff, Kenny! But has now left me in a disheartened, perplexed state.
My wife and I have felt for a few years now that God has been preparing us for such a journey; vacating Model #1 for #2. If you could see the journey we’ve been on for the last 10 years or so, I’m certain you’d agree. Here’s my perplexity, without going to too much detail:
We recently relocated back to the US from working overseas (US Civil Service) with a mixture of civil service and military service worked in over the last 25 years (my wife is 23 yrs retired AF). We searched for a church here with little success based largely on feeling the way we do about Model #2. We eventually “settled” on a Model #1 setting because our circumstances (or lack of patience) were keeping us from visualizing Model #2. And what’s funny, is that the body of believers we “settled” on was originally a Model #2 about 35 years ago that has now become a Model #1 in many aspects. And I’ve now pretty much committed myself to running sound for this new body of believers. They’re great people and were very warm and welcoming, which is why we joined with them! But…they are not experiencing organic joy and enthusiasm of walking with God as more than likely will be the “fruit” of Model #2.
Am I making sense here?
Blessings!
Kevin
Hi Kenny, and thanks for your continuing thoughts! I totally agree with you that what every church needs is health-orientated structures, rather than structures that exist for the sake of it.
I count myself fortunate that since becoming a Christian I’ve been in a couple of churches that (while far from perfect and far less fruitful than they long to be!) have led well in this area. They’ve had large and expanding buildings and facilities, without any sense of empire building, and they’ve had growing staff teams with the aim that the staff are ‘equipping the saints for ministry’: every-member mission and ministry. They’ve believed we must all go out and make disciples one at a time, as well as making the most of the fact that ‘established’ churches can put on big events that bring people in, and sometimes get the opportunity to minister to people who turn up out of the blue looking for ‘the church’ at times of happiness and sadness, such as marriage, birth, sickness and bereavement.
So I’ve been blessed! The ‘Model 1’ you describe is certainly a bad thing to the extent that it gives a priority to building a ‘trellis’ rather than tending the ‘vine’. ‘Model 2’ as you initially described it sounds so refreshing – something totally decentralised with no structures at all. But without any trellis the vine will soon be in a heap on the floor! Hence my comment (which was semi-serious!) about needing to try it for 12 years and tell us what happens!
I guess you hint at the answer near the end of the article – ‘a hybrid of the two’.
Great to share thoughts – forgive me if I’m slow to reply or don’t get to say any more – busy time at present. God bless.
Thanks for the link!
step 1. pray – discipleship – pray some more.
step 2. pray – leadership – pray some more.
step 3. pray – Church plant – pray some more.
step 4. pray – discipleship/movement – pray some more.
and then in between somewhere make more time to pray about it
Kevin, brother! Thanks for taking some time to engage and converse.
I began feeling this transition about 3 years ago when I began a very intentional study of the Gospel of Luke, along with doing quite a bit of reading on the Message of Jesus (the Kingdom of God). We were in our church, and I even told them that I was feeling God doing something new in me — helping me to change the way I thought about church, mission, etc. but I couldn’t put handles on it all. My wife actually gave me Neil Cole’s church 3.0 book. I read 10 pages, handed it back to her and said, “I can’t read this. It makes too much sense and I’m going to want to do it — but I can’t right now.” I suggest reading Neil’s church 3.0 book, then Organic Church. I also suggest reading Robby McAlpine’s book “Detoxing from Church.” Much work done on this suggests that we actually need time to NOT go to anything that looks like a typical church for at least a year while we sort out our ecclesiology and missiology in terms that are substantive (rather than reactionary or negative). At the end of months of asking lots of questions and clarifying your positive values, you can begin to re-engage in modes of fellowship and life with other believers that mesh with your conclusions. I personally would not be able to go to a church (like the one you described) and do anything to help further their objectives, but that’s me. I refuse to do anything that is not oriented around mission. My suspicion is that much of church centers on “Churching” (which is a word for another post). Anyway, there are no easy answers. It’s a journey OUT of defaulting into systems and structures that say, “Hey this is church, so do this” into a very ruthless assessment of your ecclesial and missional values, then living those out no matter who thinks you’re crazy. I hate to just point you back to books, but Cole, Hirsch, and McAlpine are essential to the process, in my opinion.
Related to the morphing that happens in model 2 into model 1 in time, I think that is actually “normal” (in a bad way) in most churches, as it was in the early Christian movement. Hard work MUST be done in order to ensure that we don’t build structures that exist to be served (like a regular Sunday meeting with all the bells and whistles, where we collect the money to pay the bills, which, if we don’t have it, will result in catastrophe). When you have something like that, you get the hint really fast that we’re serving structures rather than mission. I’ll stop here and let you chime in.
1) In one of the comments below Chris Edwards wrote that you should write this article in 2026. While that might seem a little extreme, I would agree that it would be better if you wrote in about 5 years (2019) so that you could share the victories won and the lessons learned through the experience of model #2. Neil Cole wrote Organic Church 9 years ago (2004). I would really like to see an analysis of his ministry over the last 9 years with hard data, not anecdotal stories. If he and/or others are seeing true multiplication, the resulting movement should be making waves, not ripples, in society. [This is not to criticize Neil Cole who is obvious being used by God to see lives changed. I do question whether the model is as effective as advertised, not having seen a comprehensive analysis.]
2) I would like to emphasize a point that you seem to imply. I do not believe that it is an “either/or” approach. Having been briefly involved in a wonderful mega church (5000 members) I saw first hand the resources that a large church/organization can bring to bear on a particular need, resources that small house churches/communities simply would not have access to. Much good was done in the community, and God’s name was praised. (Matt.5:16) On the other hand, institutional churches have a hard time with evangelism that touches the hearts of non-believers, and with assimilating those who do respond. Small groups/house churches/multiplying home communities in certain cultures can easily reach people and give them a taste of the gospel being lived out in real life. Assimilation in such situations is usually easier.
3) Connected with points 1&2 above, over time needs will arise from among the new believers who are part of a house church movement. A teens youth group (an imperative in my mind), counseling from qualified believers for troubled marriages or others in difficulty, resolving conflict between the leaders of different house groups, etc., are just some that come to mind. And there are many, many more, most of which a loose association of home groups would have a hard time addressing. I see a house church movement evolving into a more traditional church as the natural result of that church body loving its members and trying to meet the needs of those members. I don’t see it as a negative thing. Of course, the difficulty then becomes not becoming inward and program focus, a test that most of us fail. But Jesus is faithful, and will either renew that church, or raise up others to continue the work of evangelism and discipleship.
4) I have been involved in trying to make disciples (Matt.28:28-30) for over 40 years. The problem with model #2 that you do not mention is the difficulty in disciple making. Those we work with and love on and develop do not always go on to become disciple makers on their own. In fact, many do not. I used to believe that every believer should become a leader/disciple maker. Now I believe that each has been given gifts by the Holy Spirit to serve the body of Christ, and it is often easier to find places to use our gifts in a traditional church.
5) The letters from Paul to Timothy and Titus seem to indicate more organization in the 1st century church that you are willing to allow in model #2 (appoint elders in every town, etc.). In Acts 6 you see the church recognize roles and division of labor (the difference between apostles and deacons, etc.). The point is, that as God gives growth to a model #2 movement, organization inevitably becomes necessary. Otherwise there would be chaos.
6) I believe that the biggest problem with model #1 is how easy it is for believers in such churches to become comfortable. Certainly I am susceptible to this as well. I agree with you in your comments below that discipleship classes in such churches tend to revolve around content absorption. Real discipleship, in my opinion, takes place in real life AND in ministry, preferably to non-Christians. Below you define a disciple as a Jesus following missionary. I can live with this, although to be honest, the word missionary is redundant. If we are following Christ, we are preaching the gospel as He did, confronting untruth and ungodliness as He did, and pouring our lives into others as He did. In modern day society where we live our lives more and more in isolation, this is harder to do. Model #2 describe above probably in most cases gives a better chance of doing this.
Roy – I’m grateful for your participation in the discussion here, and you have LOTS of great input. Thanks!
My primary take-aways from your comments:
1. Beware of either-or.
2. More study needs to be done on impact of paradigm #2 (especially from N.C.)
3. Each paradigm has strengths / weaknesses.
My sense, having ONLY worked in paradigm #1 for 19 years, is that the auto-response is… “Well, like, dude, we HAVE small groups n stuff, so we’ve addressed your concerns.” This is/was what I typically saw and experienced. The paradigm #1 churches see the same problems, but since they are so married to their models (and their pastors are so financially dependent on the institutions they have built), there is almost a terrified unwillingness to do anything more than throw programs (and the paid staff to run them) at the problems. One of the biggest reasons that I can say (at this point) I will NEVER go back to a paradigm #1 church is that I refuse to either collect or disburse funds that really need to go to actual ministry instead of: (1) Payroll, (2) benefits, (3) land purchases, (4) buildings and mortgages, (5) offices and administrative expenses — all of which are called ministry in paradigm #1. But they are often the business that captures (and holds captive) the true impact a church can have. I have a friend in San Diego who has 14 adults and about 6 kids in his organic church. When he talks to me about the ministry they do, it blows my mind. 100% of the resources they collect go to actual discipleship, benevolence, and outreach. My problem is I know too much about how much money is spent in churches funding the machine and I refuse to do it again. I see it as a multi-generational misappropriation of kingdom resources. Problem is, folks in that model cannot envision ministry outside of the paradigm#1 context.
A second point of feedback is — I have no problem with organization, structure, or even recognized leaders. I agree with you about Paul’s communities in the New Testament. He wanted there to be a good amount of order and clarity. Those are what I would call functional structures. In current churches, structures often exist to be served, so pastors say things like, “Well, I’m the pastor here, so…” and this is when we know we’re serving a structure rather than being brothers and sisters who have gifts (including gifts of pastor, etc.). In the contemporary church, Pastor is synonymous with “boss” or “the leader.” I don’t think this is what Paul had in mind much at all. So – I had that role for 12 years. I have given up on it in favor of living in the world as a missionary, embracing my gift of pastor as a relationship toward people as a shepherd who helps to lead and feed them.
I don’t disparage the good that all expressions of the church of Jesus are doing. That would, in my conviction, be ANTI-Christ. But I refuse to participate in expressions that are so lopsided that more than 50% of their resources are spent on the machinery of the organization called “the ministry.” Anyway – it’s the beginning of a new phase of journey with me, and you’re so right that in 5 years I’ll have WAY more perspective than I have now. I personally enjoy spending time with people who are 5-10-20 years ahead of me. They encourage me that it can be done well (and others show that even the “best” model of church can be messed up because… just add humans). I enjoy the chance to process like this. Thanks for the feedback, bro!
There is no biblical imperative to plant churches. Kenny, you’re speaking my love language!
It’s what we do, Andrew. It’s what we do. Hey, share a bit about your own experience with this (and your own understanding of the relationship between mission, discipleship, church).
Kenny, just reread this again today. It makes so much sense to me. The one nagging question I am having is this: what then is the point in continuing to invest so much money and energy into traditional, institutional churches, with all of the organizational structure and programming. I get that it might not be a bad thing, but I don’t really get why it is a good thing.
Kenny
A friend asked me to check out “Church Planting 180.” I appreciated, liked, the post and comments. The effort, ability, to explain Model #1, and Model #2, is also appreciated, and liked. I left Model #1 in the early 90’s, through much Pain, Tears, and Spiritual Abuse. The benefit – I had NO place else to go, But To Go To Jesus. And Jesus is the best.
Over the years I’ve been enjoying model #2. Sometimes 2-3, sometimes 7-8, sometimes 12-15, sometimes, just me and Jesus. With NO Expense, NO Titles, NO Leaders, NO Hierarchy. And, when ever we come together “every one” has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation. “Every One” can, and is expected to “participate.” 1st Cor 14:26.
And, Andrew says it well.
“There is no biblical imperative to plant churches.”
Yup – Jesus never asks any of His Disciples to plant churches. 🙂
And, none of His Disciples, asks another Disciple to plant churches.
Seems, the churches being planted today are more like franchises, businesses…
501 (c) 3, Non-Profit, Tax $ Deductible, Religious $ Corporations…
That the IRS calls church…
Should one of His Disciples call an IRS Corporation – His Ekklesia? His Church?
You ask Andrew…
“Hey, share a bit about your own experience with this (and your own understanding of the relationship between mission, discipleship, church).”
I do have questions, push back, about “Discipleship” and “The Great Commission.”
1 – Because, Neither term is mentioned in the Bible.
2 – Because, “Disciple/s.” Making Disciples, Is NOT mentioned in any the Epistles.
….“Disciple/s” – Is only found in the four Gospels and Acts.
…. Paul, with all the instructions to His Ekklesia, never mentions Disciples, Making Disciples.
3 – Because, I finally had to admit, As hard as I tried, I never did “Make a Disciple of Jesus.”
So, today, I question “Discipleship” “The Great Commission”
and was wondering if you are still open for discussion?
What is popular is NOT always “Truth.”
What is “Truth” is NOT always popular.
Erik – I have my own thoughts about this that generally fall into three categories:
1. DEFAULT – It’s the default understanding of what it means to “do church,” so few people step back and question it, and instead, they roll up their sleeves and throw in thinking, “This is church, so this is what we should do.”
2. LEGITIMIZATION: It is a way for many believers to feel legitimate, “on the map,” relevant, etc. Big growing church can equal big growing reputation. For lots of people, it is very attractive to be part of something that seems like the latest, greatest thing that God is doing.
3. CALLING – Jesus asks some people to be part of those things because he also works in them (often despite the structures they use and not because of them). Thus, there will be many reports (true reports) of people testifying to their own conversions, baptisms, healed marriages, discipleship growth, call to ministry, kingdom impact, etc. who ONLY do church that way.
My guess is that if you conducted a scientific poll, most answers you would get to the question, “Why do you go to this and help sustain it?” would fall into one of those three categories pretty easily. Would you add anything to this list?
Because of reason #3 above, I don’t write “ichabod” on that model, but I also choose not to work inside of it or to become dependent on it because of the practical and biblical convictions that I have developed (while inside of that model). It’s time to let it go, leave it in the care of Jesus, and move on to what is next.
Unfortunately, many people who leave model #1 spend most of their time critiquing it rather than living out the imperatives of an alternative model. It’s pretty easy to deconstruct stuff, and harder to build. How is YOUR ministry going these days? I’d love to hear more.
I love how you always ask for feedback Kenny!
“Rage against the machine”, as Zach Hoag called the excessive criticism of institutional churches, is an easy trap to fall into. I’m guilty at times.
Just the other day, at a playground of all places, a stranger approached me and prophesized. What the Lord spoke through her was such a confirmation that the time has fully come for my family to be all that God told us to be in Dorchester. I’ve spent a long time processing things, and really testing my motives.
So, we’ve already started meeting regularly with some neighbors. Having young children had allowed us to meet neighbors who are also learning how to navigate the beautiful mess. We don’t force Jesus into our every sentence or activity, but we flow with Holy Spirit when occasions or topics merit. We’re at peace with this.
Also, as you’ve seen, I’m having provocative conversations online and off with my friends and family. I’m slowly learning how not to offend, while still questioning cultural norms. I’m growing in my identity in Christ, and experiencing supernatural courage and wisdom as I daily ask for it.
At school, I’m sensing God leading me to be a bit more bold. I’ve already had many discussions over the years about Jesus over the years, and everyone associates me as a “Jesus guy”. But, I’m hearing the Spirit ask me to pursue some of my co workers more, and to not worry about the consequences. It’s a very delicate thing. I am nervous, but at the same time aware that the living God opens the eyes of the blind. I’m trying to listen accurately to what Jesus is saying to them, that I might be a good ambassador. While my actions are noticed, I reflect that I can also proclaim the good news to bring illuminating connections. So, please pray for me.
My family has been gathering with several different institutional churches around us, just trying to get different perspectives. We might very well be hosting an organic gathering, as we don’t know of any others around us yet.
Thanks again for your heart brother. I very much appreciate you!
So blessed by this article!