
Theology in the NewsThe End of Church Planting?A look at whether churches should expand through a missionary model rather than relying on professional entrepreneurial pastors to plant churches.Jason B. Hood | posted 7/15/2011 09:55AM
Next year marks the one hundredth anniversary of Roland Allen's small book Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours? In that landmark text in mission studies, Allen argued that Western missionary methods had little in common with Paul's missionary practices in the New Testament. The apostle and his partners did not establish large, permanent institutions, nor did they stay in one place for a decade or a career.
Allen wrote during the height of Western optimism, paternalism, and colonialism, and it took time for his ideas to gain traction. Yet the book eventually grew in influence and helped spur the shift toward contextualization and indigenization in world mission.
David Fitch wants to do something similar for North American missions and church planting. Fitch is Lindner Professor of Evangelical Theology at Northern Seminary and the author of several books, most recently The End of Evangelicalism (not the first doom-casting attempt in recent years).
In a recent blog post that is attracting attention around the web, Fitch encourages church expansion via a missionary team model, rather relying on professional entrepreneurial pastors to plant churches. The latter model has become common in recent decades (Rick Warren is a leading example). Fitch proposes that churches, denominations, and missions organizations send out teams consisting of three or four leaders or "lead couples" who could operate as a team in under-churched contexts.
Rather than emphasizing biblical practice as Allen did, Fitch argues pragmatically and fiscally. (His approach echoes that of Allen's predecessor, Henry Venn, General Secretary of the Church Missionary Society; Venn proposed indigenization in the 19thcentury in response to lack of funds and warm bodies.) Money is a perennial issue, and not just for the planting organization; Jerry Bowyer recently blogged at Forbes onmoney problems for seminarians, mixing opinion and statistics.Fitch argues that such problems are addressed by his model.
The "lost and hurting" need not wait on financial windfalls, Fitch notes.Fitch would like us to "have three to four leader/leader couples" funded by full-time jobs, which would leave each couple "15 hours of labor (a week) to work together to organize and form a gospel expression … in their context."They would plant themselves in a context for 10 years, and their careers would fund and fuel ministry to a small local group. Institutionalization and massive growth—typified by recent "suburban" church plants and the sort of large institutions opposed by Allen in 1912—would be avoided at all costs.
Mission methods that do not depend on massive finances certainly deserve consideration, and not just for the reasons Fitch cites. In the first instance, expensive church planting models are not well-suited for many contexts. In poorer locations, teams prepared to minister bi-vocationally could serve for the long-term in communities where churches have little or no chance of producing a minister's salary.Fitch's strategy also has value for those who desire to work in expensive under-churched contexts, many of which are cited by experts as locations in need of more gospel witness.
Secondly, seminary graduates increasingly struggle to find employment in ministry, thanks to the economic recession and over-saturation of the market with young seminary graduates. Joel Hathaway serves as Director of Alumni & Career Services at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis and is regularly involved in placement consultation for churches and students. When open positions are publicly posted, Hathaway sees an average of fifty and as many as 70 applicants per position.
]]>-->July (Web-only) 2011, Vol. 55
There is a massive shift happening right now in our culture. The ink and pixels that have spilled on the change are markedly hopeless and without answers. To see the tip of the iceberg, we only need to look at the LA Times from last month. The nuclear family is now the minority of households in California.
“New census figures show that the percentage of Californians who live in “nuclear family” households - a married man and a woman raising their children - has dropped again for the last decade, to 23.4% of all households. That represents a 10% decline in 10 years, measured as a percentage of the state’s households. Those households, the Times analysis shows, are being supplanted by a striking spectrum of postmodern living arrangements: same-sex households, unmarried opposite-sex partners, married couples who have no children…new sorts of households - blended families; bands of middle-class singles who live and vacation together; families that were once called “broken” - are increasingly the standard.” LA Times, US Census Data Show California Families Changing, June 22, 2011
What it means to be a family is being re-defined, largely by a tectonic shift in gender roles. In the Wall Street Journal, Kay Hymotitz argued that because women are moving ahead more quickly and in greater numbers in our advanced knowledge economy, that husbands and fathers are now optional. This, she says, has created a situation in which today’s pre-adult male is like an actor in a drama in which he only knows what he shouldn’t say, and in which most men in their 20s hang out in a "novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance."
Perhaps the things that really need redeeming are the church’s lack of a voice in what it means to be a man or woman.
In Hanna Rosin's article in the The Atlantic entitled “The End of Men”, she paints a nearly identical picture of the alpha-female dominating mute and passive males. “He can be sweet, bitter, nostalgic, or cynical, but he cannot figure out how to be a man. 'We call each other man,’ says Ben Stiller’s character in Greenberg, 'but it’s a joke. It’s like imitating other people.'”
The New York Times described this new "emerging adulthood" as a block box where 20-somethings delay reaching adulthood, often until their 30s.
Of course that is true in the church, only you can replace the Teach for America jobs with short-term missions trips. For all of the time and energy spent on “redeeming the arts”, “redeeming cities”, and everything else we want to attach the word "redeem" to, perhaps the things that really need redeeming are the church’s lack of a voice in what it means to be a man or woman. Exerting so much effort on people’s activities is only addressing externals, symptoms. Chances are if a guy can be a man who loves Jesus, reads his Bible, gets a job, leaves his parent’s house, and loves one woman, then he will also be effective wherever God has called him, be that the arts or in business.
One important thing that needs to be pointed out about this cultural shift described in the articles above is that it is turning us into autonomous individuals. Mrs. Hymotitz even went so far as to say that husbands and fathers are optional in this new economic paradigm. While we might bandage the need for relationship with loosely-defined friendships, these float on the surface of lives marked by selfishly avoiding commitments, being untethered to romantic partners, or permanent homes.
Perhaps the most loving, most prophetic thing the church can do is to call men in their 20s to love Jesus, read their Bibles, get a job, to leave their parent’s house, and to love one woman.
In the face of the confusion, hopelessness, and lack of any answers from our culture, one of the most radical things the church can call Christians to is back to God’s design for men and women. Men and women were created to cultivate and steward God’s creation—to rule over it as his representatives. But what is often underemphasized is that we were created to do that together. God made men and women in complementary ways to reflect his trinitarian nature, his covenantal love in marriage, and his authority and submission in the church. This ultimately points toward the unity that will exist when Jesus comes back for the bride he loves. All of this is his love towards us.
Perhaps the most loving, most prophetic thing the church can do is to call men in their 20s to love Jesus, read their Bibles, get a job, to leave their parent’s house, and to love one woman—according to the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and the New York Times, no one is doing that.