An Epistle on Church Planting
Demetrius, a fellow worker for the truth, to Georgias, whom I love in truth.
Grace and peace from God the Father and Jesus Christ his Son.
It is my greatest desire that you walk in the truth that our brother John received from Jesus Christ, handed on to me, and which I am now handing on to you. My time of labor is almost over, but I commit this to you now so that you may be able to teach others also.
In order to abide in the tradition, you must understand that God is light; therefore, those who have fellowship with him must walk in the light. In order to live the tradition, you must understand that God is love; therefore, those who know him must walk in love. These underlying principles are true throughout all of creation, and they form a basic presupposition for everything I say to you: God’s nature must control how we live if we are to achieve the purpose for which we were created and redeemed. To say this in another way, everything God created has a nature and a purpose, and it must operate according to that God-given nature and purpose if it is to thrive. This is also true of the church you are seeking to plant. You must know what the church is, what the church is for, and what obligations that creates for you.
Nature and Purpose
Your opportunity is much like the olive grove which your father handed to you, and which you are now entrusting to your son as you go out for the sake of the Name. You know well that your success cannot be measured by how fast your trees grow or by the amount of any one-time harvest. Your success is measured by trees which will still be providing oil for your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. A tree which produces a little each year for centuries yields far more than the gain of cutting down your trees for a quick cash crop. Because you are a wise farmer, you have endeavored to leave your little grove healthier than when you received it.
As you now leave planting trees to plant churches, the principle is the same. The church has a God-given nature and this nature is directly connected with the church’s God-given purpose. If you keep these firmly fixed in your mind, you will remain in the tradition of Christ.
Immediate Success
Now let me warn you of some evils which you must not imitate and which will take you far from the tradition we have received from the apostles. These are the characteristics of those who go too far and become innovators instead of faithful stewards.
There are those who judge what they see by what they see, and who think that what works must be good. These sorts of men will almost always appear more successful than you, simply because of what their work is based upon—immediate success.
You will recognize this sort of innovator by a lack of the sense of the sacred. He does not begin with the fear of the Lord, so he has no reticence to tread upon holy ground. The sense of honor does not pulse through the whole of his relationship with God and man.
You will recognize this sort of innovator by his constant obsession with “facts” instead of truth. Endless “studies” on how to plant churches, and what kind of churches to plant, manifest the restless mindset of scientific man severed from apprehension of God’s absolute truth. He will think that his success hinges upon his strategic skill, his financial backing, his technological capability, his cultural competence, or a thousand other things, rather than faithfulness to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and love for his neighbor.
Absence of Restraint
You will recognize this kind of innovator by his overriding desire to be free—free in the sense of absence of restraint. He will be convinced that he is free from the restricting taboos of his predecessors. To him, the mere fact that he is different from others is a justifying mark of authenticity. He will see no need to maintain continuity and unity with those who have gone before.
Likewise, the innovator, like a man named Diotrephes I once knew, wishes to be free from the bonds of love with the elect sisters. But since every true church is implicated in every other true church, it is arrogant to disregard the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of the brothers.
In a similar vein, this kind of innovator has no respect for those who will come after. Covenantal bonds and distinctions extending over generations, like the family, play little role in his understanding of how to work with people. He will dream of large campaigns, great programs, and influential positions, thus reducing everyone to banal equality, a herd of individuals to be managed and manipulated for a supposedly good end. By this lack of brotherly love, he departs from the tradition given to us by Jesus.
You will also recognize this kind of innovator by his continual drift toward the popular. He believes that popularity qualifies him for leadership and influence and that his passion certifies his experience as authentic. In his pride he will want to franchise the church in order to cement his influence, rather than diffusing his influence by training other faithful men.
Permanent Things
Those who abide in the tradition, however, believe in permanent things, eternal verities, God-given essences which are always and everywhere the same, revealed in the word of Christ. The universe is structured, directed, and meaning-full. Human existence has purpose impressed upon it at every point. This is a crucial distinguishing mark between a traditional church and a progressive church. A traditionalist will never say that you can grip your teaching tightly and hold your methods loosely. A traditionalist will never say that as long as your doctrine is right, your methods are immaterial. The truth must be walked in.
The traditionalist believes that the standard of success is this—walk in the truth. Love one another and keep our Lord’s commandments. Remember what the church is, remember what the church is for, and remember the obligations this places upon you. In this way, the Day will disclose that you have built God’s church with gold, silver, and precious stones on the foundation of Jesus Christ.
I would wish to write to you more about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for the way a man engages with God determines everything else in his life. I wish to write more about the wisdom given to Paul to urge you to preach Christ, and him crucified. But this will have to wait until I can talk to you face to face.
Give these instructions to the faithful Urbanus, knowing that he is engaged in the same work. Greet all the friends.
- 16 views
[Susan R] Modern cultural practices can be taken into account without compromise, but IMO this is very difficult to do in some areas. There is no way to make the Gospel more palatable to the lost. And by the time some church leaders dress up the truth in a pink mohawk, ripped clothing, and labret piercings, it is unrecognizable, because the focus has left the Gospel message and instead is directed at the embracing of culture- which is what they are supposed to be rejecting, right?…I’ve found in dealing with folks that they respect honesty and compassion before they pay attention to your clothes, hairstyle, or music choices.I have always enjoyed the “official” position taken and expressed by the LCMS regarding this issue (though one can see a departure from it from time to time in a small number of LCMS assemblies that choose to embrace a culture relevant ministry):
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=837
However, many do not realize that Lutheran worship is its own culture, distinct from the pop culture and the evangelical culture of Christianity in our country today. The church must develop and maintain its own cultural language that reflects the values and structures of the Scriptures and not of the current culture. This church language can only be shaped by a biblical theology which affirms the real presence of Jesus Christ in worship and our belief that this presence binds the culture together as a community. The context that shapes our distinct Lutheran ethos is Scripture, theology, and history. Local circumstance is secondary. Traditionally, this Lutheran culture is liturgical, theological, and counter- cultural.
Here’s the scenario in much of modern day fundamentalist church planting:
A church planter announces his new ministry and raises support to go start the church
He moves to the place to start the church
Does some planning
Maybe holds some bible studies
The phone callers come in and call everyone in the community and flyers are handed out.
The first Sunday is usually a big day and many of the attenders are from other churches
Instead of reaching new converts, they are recycling believers who are upset at their church
After the big bang Sunday, the attendance trickles down to less than half of those who attended the first Sunday.
Oh, and the church plant must have three services on Sunday or we have to question his committment to fundamentalism.
While this is not all bad, I can understand a church planter that is not interested in planting a church in this “tradition.”
Perhaps someone just fainted and needs oxygen. Let me tie this to Scripture.
In Acts 2 you have a group of “traditionalists.” They are believing Jews. They make up the early NT church at the beginning. As you come to Acts 8, 9, 10 and 11 something strange happens. The Lord brings “non-traditionalists” inside the church (I would say these are “the contemporary” of the day). These were non-Jews. They were Samaritans, Gentiles, Greeks, no doubt Romans as well. In the NT church the traditionalists, were told that many of their traditions (that even had a “root” in OT law), were not to be imparted to non-traditionalists (non-Jewish believers). At the same time, Timothy was circumcised for the sake of ministry by a non-traditionalist to the traditionalists.
Traditionalists not only often have a hard time in co-ministry with non-traditionalists (see Acts 15 and the many examples of leaders like Peter having to be confronted), they even sometimes have a hard time with each other (see Acts 6 - the rift caused by the needs of Hellenistic Jews vis-a-vis Palestine Jews - that is widows - two sub-groups of traditionalists that results in the needed office of proto-deacon to help resolve an issue.).
I like what our author says about not worrying first about “success” but rather do the right things the right way (Tetreau paraphrase). That’s great. Here’s how we’ve tried to do that at SVBC these soon to be last eleven years.
We’ve been a church that has been primarily traditional reaching mostly other traditionalists and a few contemporaries. We’ve been asking ourself this key question, “is this approach the closest we can get to the model of the early church? We don’t think it is so we’re in the middle of a change at SVBC. We now desire to equally embrace traditional believers along with contemporary believers (the majority of non-churched believers that need to be fed in our community are not traditional….we think we should still reach them both individually as well as corporately…which does effect method to some degree). We could say, become traditional, then you can be a member, serve, fit-in. We don’t see that in the NT text….at all. As a leadership team, we understand that it’s possible to be a Biblically healthy church and be essentially a “traditional” church. We also believe it’s possible to be a God-honoring church and be a contemporary church. We also believe that both “approaches” can be very unhealthy. We are in the process of taking healthy elements from each approach to enable us to be both “Biblical” and “appropriate” with whom we’re reaching……because we believe the best approach is a congregation that is both blended in content and outreach with both traditional and contemporary believers. Notice I did not say we want to make the church a place where contemporary sinners feel at home and comfortable with a God to Whom they are in rebellion with. IMO….most fundamentalist ministries reach essentially traditional believers. IMO….most evangelical ministries reach essentially contemporary believers. IMO….it’s easier to reach one or the other. Also IMO it is most consistent with the spirit of the early NT church to attempt to reach both traditional believers as well as contemporary believers. I believe that just as Paul was Jewish to Jews and Not-Jewish to non-Jews, we must learn how to be traditional (in some sense) to traditionalists and contemporary (in some sense) to contemporaries.
My guess is at the end of this process we will identify “elements” of the more contemporary model that are healthy and more Biblical and therefore more effective than the traditional approach. We will also discover “elements” of the more traditional model that are healthy (therefore effective) and more Biblical than the contemporary model.
Jason, long time no see. Great article. I love the speaking in parable/epistle thing. The emergent guys would love the medium….not sure they would enjoy your conclusions. I missed this tool from DBTS…..which class did you pick this up from? I bet you it was McCabe. That guy is amazing!
A final question/thought for you “traditional-only” guys. Do you want to guess what the spirit of your sub-culture traditionalism communicates to contemporary believers who do not share your traditional heritage? Should you care? What if I told you that some of the extra-Biblical traditions were/are actually an extra stumbling block to either the Gospel or discipleship? You wouldn’t believe me. I know. Let me say this a different way. If I could show you that, (and you would agree) that certain “traditions” are not exegetically or in-obedience necessary for being a Biblical church but are rather expressions of your individual or corporate “preference” (based not on specific exegesis per say but based more on certain philosophical implications from your view of the text - read authority stretched to the third or fourth power there) and that these traditional “preferences” where actually undermining your ability to reach, teach, connect with contemporary believers that otherwise would feed under your preaching, teaching…..and thereby might be convinced as to the superiority of your Biblical philosophy in some of these secondary “issues” [which assumes much for some of you] would you be willing for the sake of the gospel ministry…..would you be willing to “go without the tie?” (or the culture of the tie…..which is far worse than the actual tie IMO)? I would ask the cotemporary guys the same question on the other hand…..would you be willing to wear the tie? Steve comments the way he has because he asked those questions when he was in France and it resulted in a specific approach to ministry that was not concerned with first, “is this traditional?” If you guys are going to do church planting…..man you have got to consider the field you are planting the gospel seed in. That’s not a compromised gospel……or a compromised church……it’s a responsible one.
Straight Ahead you guys!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
[The Article] A traditionalist will never say that you can grip your teaching tightly and hold your methods loosely.Steve makes that objection:
[Steve]… whose tradition is being followed [?]… to invest our methods with the same certainty of the Bible message has no biblical support. The message cannot be altered. Our methods should be held loosely…The second objection is that the format of the “epistle” seems to, well, I can’t say it better than (or as well as) Alex:
[Alex]… the problem … is that the method supposes an elevation of the author’s thoughts so that they are postured in an equivocation of sorts with Scripture itself … without the obligation to present a theological argument from the real Scriptures.Joel’s post made something click into place.
[Joel] What if I told you that some of the extra-Biblical traditions were/are actually an extra stumbling block to either the Gospel or discipleship? You wouldn’t believe me. I know. Let me say this a different way. If I could show you that, (and you would agree) that certain “traditions” are not exegetically or in-obedience necessary for being a Biblical church but are rather expressions of your individual or corporate “preference” (based not on specific exegesis per say but based more on certain philosophical implications from your view of the text - read authority stretched to the third or fourth power there) and that these traditional “preferences” where actually undermining your ability to reach, teach, connect with contemporary believers that otherwise would feed under your preaching, teaching…Perhaps the two problems (the article equates teaching with methods, raising traditions to the level of Scripture -and- the article presents itself in the form of Scripture) are really one and the same.
Discussion