Plant Jesus Not Churches

Two posts on Facebook this afternoon have got me animated…..

The first was a friend who posted a link to an article on Tall Skinny Kiwi’s blog entitled ‘9 reasons NOT to plant a church in 2012‘.  The other was the posting of a YouTube video from NewForms Media, via Mission Britain/ SimpleChurch UK, called Dandelion Wind (see below):

What TSK writes makes a lot of sense, and I think we, the church, need to take notice of his warning.  I especially think this is the case over here on the right hand side of the Atlantic pond, specifically as far as I am concerned, here in the UK.

If the vision that is given in Dandelion Wind is to happen in this increasingly post-modern and post-Christian culture, then I feel we need to accept that ‘church’ planting, as in setting up a bunch of Christians as a new church in a new place to be a catalyst to reach the surrounding community, just doesn’t work in the same way that it used to do.

Unless, of course, you are satisfied with occasional addition rather than dandelion multiplication…..

We need to think again.  We meed to find a ‘new’ way to communcate the love of God in Jesus to our increasingly God-less nation.

The answer?

How about we focus on planting Jesus into people’s lives as TSK suggests and then see what happens….who knows, we might see ‘Dandelion Wind’ multiplication after all….just in a way that we didn’t expect.


Mark Cutliffe – celtic missional communities

Here is a short video of Mark Cutliffe talking with Peter Farmer about celtic missional communities:

As Peter writes on his blog:

Mark has been involved in pioneering a simple church network for over 7 years in the Swansea Valley, South Wales.

He is passionate about Celtic/Monastic forms of church combined with simple missional communities.

The church and culture contextualisation


What is the right way for the church to engage with its contemporary, surrounding culture?  Should we engage, or should we be distinctly separate?  And if we do engage – in what form should that engagement take?

These are big questions that we need to get a hold of if we are to be effective disciples.

To this end, Ed Stetzer has posted a number of articles on his blog recently about the ‘contextualisation’ of the church within contemporary culture:

The call to contextualize is not a call to gospel compromise and syncretism, or living thoughtlessly and recklessly. The call to contextualize and engage the culture is simply an implication of being called to preach the gospel and make disciples.

Read the articles in the series – Part 1 here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here and Part 4 here.

Any thoughts?

Mission, ecclesiology and discipleship in our contemporary culture

It is not very often that I read a blog post that really gets me thinking – but I did today.

I happened to find a link to Jim and Bobbi Hoag’s blog ‘Mission Now‘ and started to read a recent post by Jim entitled ‘21st Century Mission, Ecclesiology and Discipleship‘.

As he explains at the beginning of the post:

“I’m just thinking outloud on this post, nothing chisled in stone here. Put up a Tweet the other morning that went like this: “On being missional: Less trying to be early church “radical”, more room for the marginal (by being relational) without compromising the core”. I think it might be helpful to ask, does the early church and,  say, the contemporary Chinese church provide appropriate (relevant) models for the church in the West in this hour? If we are to emulate the vision and ambition of the early church in this culture, at this time in history, I believe we need to understand in what way that is to be achieved.

I think in some ways we need to appreciate the early church of the first two or three centuries as historically transitional and an example of the effect of God’s love/grace on human hearts. But because we live in a historical continuum (not vacuum), it’s possible we are making a mistake adapting a perceived first century church paradigm as a universal model of mission, ecclesiology and discipleship, without factoring in cultural and historical differences. Dogmatic interpretation often moves from context to the abstract and universal, ignoring historical and contextual contingencies, reducing and limiting Spirit-led creativity. For instance, in 21st century Western culture we are not living in, nor do we have to fear being eradicated by a satanically inspired imperial regime or a hostile persecuting Judaism and thus huddle up in places hidden from view. A narrative theology suggests to us that chunks of biblical truth, wrenched from their historical and eschatalogical setting, can result in serious damage to cultural connection.”

This really got me thinking – and I’ve been mulling it over, on and off, for the last few hours.

There does seem to be a trend at the moment, both in Christian literature and praxis, to move towards a more organic/ simple/ liquid/ incarnational/ missional church paradigm – with so many seemingly rejecting inherited church expressions and traditions as dated and restrictive, or even pagan, in structure and substance.  In parallel with this, so many are looking back to the first century church for inspiration – seeing it as a time when the worship of the risen Lord Jesus was undiluted by culture and the carnal desire for power and influence.

And I must admit, I have done the same.

But is looking backwards to what we think is a golden age in church history the answer to our contemporary church problems?

Well, maybe, in part, it is – but maybe we should also be looking to the future to influence our contemporary church expression – as Jim puts it so eloquently in his post:

“There is an eschatalogical horizon set in the distance for us, meaning that if we take as the final objective the renewal of creation (not escape to the heavens), we have a mission that is creational in scope unique to us. The community that is expansive enough, improvisational enough and imaginative enough to embrace that mission will participate in what the future will be, modeling new creation. And it will do so motivated and compelled by the love of Christ who gave Himself for that community, for His church.”

I think this is brilliant – and spot on!

The final objective of our faith is to be part of the renewal of creation – and that starts now – in Christ – being part of His Kingdom – today.  If our only hope as Christians is heaven when we die then we have sort of missed the point – and missed out on the blessing of day to day transformation in Christ as part of His body – the church.

I love the idea of our mission being ‘creational in scope’ – and that this view of mission is unique to us as disciples of Jesus!

Our purpose – to bring the new creation into reality by the Holy Spirit working through us as salt and light in our tainted world – being a community compelled by the love of Christ, modelling what that new creation will be like through the love and compassion, forgiveness, mercy, and grace that we show to others in response to that which we have found ourselves, hard won by Jesus on the cross at Calvary.

And that is the call to us across the whole age of the Church – until Jesus returns for his Bride, and the new heaven and earth are brought into being.

How we do it needs to be sensitive to the culture in which we find ourselves – but most of all – it needs to be centred on Jesus alone – dependent upon His power and presence through the Holy Spirit – led and sustained by Him – rather than just blindly following the current fashions of men.

As Jim puts it:

“…missional communities will organize themselves according to the conditions of their calling and existence. We are dealing less with religious hostility and imperial oppression and more often with indifference, irrelevance and cynicism. (This is tough enough to deal with in its own right and is not to say the church doesn’t face its own very real persecution and unique difficulties in every generation). It is not only our faith but our imagination and intellect that is being challenged today. So, what does the ecclesia look like in it’s 21st century implementation? It will examine the Great Commission and discipleship in the first century, understanding its origin and form developed under the shadow of suffering and martyrdom, living in the expectation of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This effected the task of making disciples then, and needs to be adjusted for discipleship in the context of our NOW. Though discipleship is a “given”, it is not (IMHO)  a generic, one size fits all proposition. Its form relates to (among other things) a particular period in the history of a people. This is hard to grasp because we relate so totally to universal timeless truth, not a narrative, not context, not a continuing story. We can think that the Great Commission, being shaped to current culture, is somehow being reduced or diminished in it’s power and purpose. But we have to have faith in God and the leading of His Spirit, not a timeless, context-less program of discipleship.”

So should we reject the current trend towards a more organic/ simple/ liquid/ incarnational/ missional church paradigm?  No, not at all – I think we should embrace it – but not as a replacement for inherited or traditional church – but as a catalyst for renewal, and complementary to it!

We must not throw the baby out with the bath water – but be led by the Holy Spirit to express church in an appropriate way for the time, place, culture and circumstance in which we find ourselves.  That might be organic/ simple/ liquid/ incarnational/ missional or inherited/ traditional in expression – or maybe a hybrid of both.  The point though is that the gospel truth stays the same – but how we express it changes.  The key, I think, is to not be restricted in our way of doing church, but to be open and willing to be led by the Spirit – in prayer together as ‘church’.  This might actually mean that our church community expression is different in different places – as we reject the idea, as Jim says, of discipleship as “a generic, one size fits all proposition”.

Has the time come to put our business model ‘strategic’ thinking back in the box and get back on our knees together – seeking the will and purposes of our Lord for us in our specific time, place, culture and circumstance rather than just adopting the latest fad, trendy programme or worship style that worked for someone else?  I’m not saying we reject business or programme led thinking altogether – just maybe it’s time we put it into its proper place in the church context – subject to the discerned purposes and heart of God!

Our mission, ecclesiology and discipleship must start and end with Jesus – creational in scope – focussed on His life, death and resurrection – bringing the transforming power of the Kingdom of God into reality today – through the work of the Holy Spirit in and through us, His church – reaching the lost and serving the needy in response to the love and grace we have found in Him.

Everything else is peripheral!

(HT: Miguel Labrador)