Sure, there all kinds of ways to plant a church–traditional, missional, hive-off, or some mix of the three–but it is the missional church that I am particularly trying to plant. As a result, what we do and how we do it do not fit traditional paradigms, like forecasting numbers and certain types of goal-setting, which tend to force missional ecclesiology into a traditional, measurable mold.
Alan Roxburgh’s recent work articulates my particular struggle to plant a missional-incarnational church within a modernist-traditional atmosphere:
Alan Roxburgh says: “…leaders who want to cultivate missional communities in transition must set aside goal-setting and strategic planning as their primary model. Leadership in this context is not about forecasting, but about the formation of networks of discourse among people. It’s about the capacity to engage the realities of people’s lives and contexts in dialogue with Scripture” The Sky is Falling?! (89).
HT: JR
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 17, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Steve
What do you see as the differences between missional, traditional and hive-off?
December 17, 2007 at 6:41 pm
jdodson
Good Question. I think all three have benefits, and God uses all three; however, i do believe that recovering a missional ecclesiology is most faithful to what we see in Scripture.
Hive-off churches plant churches by taking a 100 or so people and transplanting them to a different area in order to begin a new congregation. Typically, this is just another incarnation of the mother church, with no self-formed vision/values/strategy or cultural awareness. Larger churches do this to deal with growth issues. One issue with these plants is that they tend to be inwardly focused, less aware of their new context and how to best engage their surrounding culture, and less evangelistically driven. If they dont grow, they still have a worshipping church. Being missional isn’t essential.
Traditional is a catch-all and deserves much more attention than I will offer. Some traditional plants rely heavily upon a denominational or organizational curriculum for church-planting. Often a one-size fits all approach. The reality is that one size does not fit all. Sure, basic transferrable ecclesiology needs to be in place but this ecclesiology also needs to be missional, meaning that the church sees itself as a part of the Missio Dei, translating the gospel into culture, address local social, cultural ans spiritual needs and issues, which should also inform how the church forms look…indigenous. Traditional paradigms sometimes talk about being missional but are often numbers-driven, highly structured, and as a result, miss the post-modern context.
Missional-incarnational paradigms don’t prepackage church-planting. There isnt a one size fits all. There isnt a single “missional church.” Instead, this paradigm calls for a re-understanding of what church is–that it is essentially a missionary community redemptively engaging peoples and culture with the gospel in culture-sensitive ways. It aims at expanding the kingdom through social and spiritual renewal, always asking “What is it like to NOT believe…in the gospel?” As a result, the preaching, conversing, discipling, community, “outreach” etc consider how to best incarnate the gospel without dummbing it down.
I wish I had time for more…but thats all for now. Love to hear your thoughts…is the Orthodox church planting?
December 17, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Missional church planting « Khanya
[...] read blogs that talk about missional church planting and traditional church planting, and I wonder what the [...]
December 17, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Steve
Thanks very much.. I’ve posted on my blog about it and linked to this, and hope to clarify my ideas a bit through any ensuing dfiscussions.
December 17, 2007 at 7:57 pm
jdodson
Sounds like you are involved in great but challenging work, brother. Grace to you in this high calling.