A couple of weeks ago, I gave a presentation at Every Nation ministries. They are a network of like minded churches with a heart for church planting, campus ministry, and leadership training (three key leverage points in our culture, I believe).
If you read the blog much around here, you have seen Steve Murrell comment. He is one of the key leaders of the movement. Well, Steve, Kevin York, Rice Brooks, and David Houston invited me to come to the meeting and share some characteristics of movemental Christianity and then do a little Q&A.
Based on my own observations, and adapted from an earlier version I presented at the National New Church Conference and a church planting gathering in Philadelphia, I think that movemental Christianity will have certain characteristics if it breaks out here in the West. And, although I draw from his excellent work, some of those characteristics are different from what David Garrison speaks of in his paradigm-creating book, Church Planting Movements. Since most of his examples are from Two Thirds World settings, I think there will be some differences with movements in the West.
Anyway, here is the outline I shared at the meeting last week. I may develop it more into an aritlce, but for now I wanted to share it with you... feel free to give me some feedback or additional thoughts.
If and when movemental Christianity happens in North America I believe it will consist of (at least) 10 elements:
Prayer
Prayer will need to be more than a habit, or a discipline. It must be a conviction that establishes its priority. Before we see movemental Christianity, we will have to be praying, asking God to change us.
Intentionality
We will also need to show the intention of being movemental (see the next 8 elements). As of now, I believe our focus is primarily defensive and incremental, not intentional and exponential.
Sacrifice
Change will not come without giving something up. No movement will happen until pressure is applied to move the church from the place of being static to a body of believers in action. This sacrifice will be paid by denominations, individual churches, and believers.
Reproducibility
Movements do not occur through large things (big budgets, big plans, big teams). They occur through small units that are readily reproducible. Those who want to see movements need to see reproducibility at every level. This is a challenge is to resist the grandiose in favor of the reproducible.
Theological Integrity
Churches wanting to be involved in transformative, movemental Christianity hold firm and passionate positions on biblical views. The Baptists and Methodists won the Western Frontier (1795-1810) because they were passionate about their beliefs. The Pentecostals are not de-emphasizing what they believe to win Central America. Movements are found among people with robust beliefs, not generic belief systems.
Incarnation
Movemental Christianity recognizes that the gospel is unchanging, but the expressions and results of the gospel will vary from culture to culture. It also recognizes that as the sent people of God we are called to appropriately identify with those to whom we have been sent. All of this means that we must understand both the gospel and culture in order to be the biblically faithful, culturally relevant, counter-cultural movement of God. Movements will look like, and be owned by, ordinary people in their setting.
Empowerment
Movements only occur when the disempowered are given the freedom, and then take up the responsibility, to lead. In our case, the clergification of the church has marginalized those God has called - all people. The disempowerment of church members simultaneously satisfies and disturbs many pastors. Frustration results from not being able to get others to do the work of ministry, but satisfaction comes from being affirmed in doing the work others should be doing. Such co-dependency is the death-knell of movemental Christianity.
Charitability
Movemental Christianity is messy. Those involved in it make mistakes, over-emphasize certain things, and even believe things different than I do. Nobody gives her or his life for a bland belief system. A movement of God cannot be contained in a single movement or theological tradition. Therefore, movemental Christianity requires charity to maintain our firmly held convictions while rejoicing for and speaking well about those with whom we differ but are being greatly blessed by God.
Scalability
Movements often are stifled within smaller communities because of the small mindedness of local believers. When God begins to move, and believers allow movement Christianity to begin to grow, structures must be able to rapidly re-size to not stifle such movements.
In many cases, movements will break out of structures. More frequently, non-scalable structures (like some training programs or denomination structures), will actually hinder the movement. These structures become bottlenecks rather than catalysts.
Wholism
The modern evangelical separation of gospel proclamation and societal transformation is an historical oddity. Movemental Christianity will practice wholistic ministry much in the way of Jesus. Current movements and historical awakenings are and were accompanied by societal transformation. (Cities of God: How Christianity Become an Urban Movement and Conquered Rome provides a helpful look at this subject.)
I am sure a true movement will involve more than this... but these would be a start.
Posted on July 21, 2008 at 10:12 AM ~ 22 Comments
Tagged with: christianity, every nation, movemental
You are welcome (and encouraged) to comment below, but be sure your comment relates to the post. Feel free to discuss the topic, but do not denigrate individuals. Comments are moderated and usually appear within 15 minutes of being posted. Regrettably, Ed cannot personally respond to most comments and questions.
Leave a Comment
22 Comments
07/21/08 @ 6:36 PM
Ed,
Interesting. How is movemental Christianity similar to or different from revivals such as the Great Awakening in the early to mid 1740s?
Les
07/21/08 @ 8:07 PM
Oh, I could write a book about this. Still praying...
07/21/08 @ 11:14 PM
Your chart is great. But, I get the impression from what you wrote that their is a progression, or at least a few steps involved from one element to the next. Is this correct?
If so, the chart might give the impression that these elements are/will be essential while not signaling the progression or priority of one to the other.
I hope those observations are helpful.
07/22/08 @ 6:32 AM
Ed,
I'm an EN missionary church planter in the U.K. Something that is a bit intimidating about your chart is that it involves a lot of things that might be difficult to have all at once. Is there an order that you see to these that might make some attributes more essential than others?
07/22/08 @ 7:41 AM
Dr. Stetzer, I was at the EN conference, just wanted to say thanks for speaking to us and we are still talking about and going over some of your notes in our staff at our local church. Hope to see you again at future EN events.
07/22/08 @ 7:59 AM
I'm confused by the term "Movemental" - seems to imply a movement, a specific purpose, but then it's defined by these principles ... can you give a case study or specific example of Movemental Christianity, and how it fits the criteria? Would LOVE an example!
Love what you said about "Empowerment." I think this is a serious problem in the Church!!!!!!!!!!! =(
07/22/08 @ 3:14 PM
Les, I would see many awakenings as having movemental characteristics.
Kelly and Adam, that is helpful... and the answer is, I am not sure. I think they will all be present but I am not sure if there is an order.
Jesse, I think there are few movements in the developed world today, so I can't give many. Historically, we see some in eras over the centuries. Today, we see Church Planting Movements in the Two Thirds World. But, I want one here, now, today... and that is another story.
07/22/08 @ 3:25 PM
Ed, this is really a great post. I know one of those guys you mentioned at EN and God has really blessed them in this arena.
I particularly appreciate what you are saying in regards to Garrison's work. I love his book but I have long wrestled with translating his paradigm to western soil. I think these "elements" are incredible and I can't wait to read as you continue to flesh them out. You "theological integrity" element sparks curiosity - specifically in regards to robust versus generic beliefs.
07/22/08 @ 3:46 PM
I actually find the design of the chart to be quite helpful. It encourages one to think in a less linear manner about these elements. Looking at them linearly might lead one to adopt a "checklist" mentality - "Develop prayer... check. Be intentional... check." Many of us find comfort in that, but connect-the-dots models are seldom sufficient to address all variables and their relationships to one another.
Correct me if I'm going down the wrong path here, but I see these elements less as "tasks" to be completed and more as values that describe the overall life and culture of the community in which such a movement might emerge.
07/22/08 @ 11:15 PM
Ed,
I have a couple of questions that came to my mind that might be worth interacting with:
1. Garrison appears to place more of an emphasis on speed than movement itself. If I understand him correctly, a CPM requires that the conversion rate to outstrip the birth rate, so a prerequisite would be speed or rapidity. What I find problematic is that I see this becoming the undercurrent driving the rest of the marks in the movement. Should a movemental Christianity seek to have an undercurrent more grounded in biblical principles and eternal realities?
This leads to my second thought. What I find as movemental Christianity in Scripture is rooted and validated by the Word. You can find this, for instance in
* "those who received the word" (Acts 2:41) resulting in 3,000 added
* "many of those who heard the word believed" (Acts 4:4) resulting a totaling now 5,000
* "and the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem" (Acts 6:7)
* the first scattering from Jerusalem to Samaria is described as "those who were scattered went about preaching the word" (Acts 8:4)
* after the death of Herod, Luke writes that "the word of God increased and multiplied"
* in Antioch Pisidia, after Paul's preaching, it is said that the Gentiles "began rejoicing and glorying in the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region" (Acts 13:48-49)
* in Ephesus, after the sons of Sceva were run out and evil practices denounced, the Scripture says that "the the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily" (Acts 19:20)
I lay out this case not disprove your other ten points, but maybe to point out something that may be assumed, viz., that whatever movement that is distinctively Christian must inherently and definitively be driven by the Word of God. Why else would Paul ask the Thessalonians, for example to pray that "the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored, as happened among you" (2 Thess. 3:1)?
I don't want to hash out all the flaws of Garrison's paradigm, but I do want to positively emphasize what I believe Scripture underscores as movemental Christianity contoured and characterized by the Word of God moving in and through the people of God.
Thanks for hearing me out on this, and sorry for the long comment.
07/23/08 @ 12:08 AM
Ed,
Thanks for sharing. I would be interested in learning more about the "Scalability" segment. For churches outside of mega-cities, how can a Jesus movement still break out and sweep up the area? That is my desire and this struck a chord with me.
Thanks.
07/23/08 @ 1:03 AM
Tim,
Yes, I think you are right... the word has to be central.
In the IMB notes I have, the CPM materials cite of the indispensable elements as:
For me, the scriptural authority would fall under theological integrity.
I think in both cases (David and I have talked about this very thing, so I know he agrees), the missionaries must bring in, and leave with the people, a high view of scripture.
However, regarding the rapidity of Garrison's growth rate, I think that may be descriptive more than prescriptive. The IMB does emphasize moving quickly, but I have not found that to be reckless. Whereas in the past, the work sometimes took generations before the "natives" were considered capable, I think the IMB's "New Directions" (CPM focused) sought to speed that up greatly. I think that is a good thing.
Of course, there are many movements, even rapidly reproducing ones, that lack biblical fidelity. One of the best books on this kind of movement is Hesselgrave's, Dynamic religious movements: Case studies of rapidly growing religious movements around the world. It is worth a read.
Ed
07/23/08 @ 9:59 AM
Ed,
I really appreciate you taking the time to address my thoughts.
The concern I have is not scriptural authority but how that is communicated to new churches. In other words, how is scriptural authority and theological integrity communicated and authenticated in movemental Christianity? I readily admit that my absence of field expertise or research does not perhaps qualify me for asking such questions, but I do wonder when speed becomes the controlling factor of a movement, at how high a cost is to be paid for upholding that conviction (and here syncretism would be chief among my concerns, as well as reversion).
When I think of Paul talking to his church planters, I hear him telling them, "Preach the word." When I hear Jesus giving His mission to his disciples, I hear him telling to teach them to obey all that He has commanded them. (What does this look like in movemental Christianity or in a CPM Garrison-style?) What I do not hear echoed throughout the NT is the demand for speed. The church progressed as the word progressed by the Spirit of God. It was a movement spearheaded not by principles of men but the power of God. I am confessing that I struggle to find that in Garrison.
But having said that, you are correct in saying that biblical fidelity and theological integrity are lacking in churches that are not moving, and I would argue that therein lies the problem. Because we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture does not mean that we believe in scriptural authority or have theological integrity. It's what we do with the inerrant Scripture and how faithfully we apply it to our churches and our lives that makes the difference. In our corner of the evangelical world as Southern Baptists, we would be the best case to prove that a hat tip to Scripture does not a movement make.
In any case, I appreciate you directing me to Hesselgrave's book as I certainly hope to learn and benefit from what he has written. Again, thanks for hearing me out on this, and I hope that my concerns are welcomed as cordial edification.
07/23/08 @ 1:37 PM
ed - thx for talking to our leaders @ our "F.U.E.L." conf.
timely mssg. great job communicating! people are still talking about your points.
(FYI- ate w/my wife at my new fav nash joint yesterday - the std - and passed by your world and paid my respects to the billy G statue.)
07/23/08 @ 2:29 PM
Tim,
Fair 'nuf.
I think it would be more concerned if speed were the driving motivator. That has not been my experience in IMB settings.
I guess I would put it this way. When you have been going 10mph for a century, 30mph seems like a breakneck speed. And, I think that in many cases, the hand-off and reproduction process has been much slower than needed. I think this is a step in the right direction.
So, in my experience, the word has been central with IMB settings. And, in the case of my "movemental Christianity" suggestions, it would also be.
Ed
07/24/08 @ 12:25 PM
Hey ED!
intriguing and engaging as usual..what about another element:
"pneumatic". This is related to but distinct from prayer. Consciously embracing "God's empowering presence"( Fee).Moving away from ministry as methodology ,ministry as a bundle of techniques and ministry as merely Masterplanning. A shift to ministry as guided by ,prompted by,illuminated by and energized by and dependant on the Holy Spirit.This was part of the theology and praxis of the Methodists you mentioned who took the Western frontier.This emphasis on the Spirit is clearly a Pentecostal distinctive but not distinctly Pentecostal. It is a hallmark of primitive Christianity.
What thinkest thou,Ed?
07/25/08 @ 11:11 PM
ED,
Thanks so much for coming to our EN conference. Our staff are still chewing on your notes...
I just finished an intensive at TEDS and was reminded that you mentioned that you were teaching a church planting intensive soon. I was wondering if it would be helpful to bring along one of our pastors who will head up our church planting efforts in the future? Just wanted to see what you thought.
PS. If you see kevin york in Nashville tell him to call home occasionally and to never forget his West Texas roots!
07/26/08 @ 12:56 PM
Ed:
Great post and thank you for your contribution to the kingdom in this important area of ministry.
I amen Tim Brister's excellent thoughts here.
To probe with you in another area that I would relish your thoughts: pragmatics. It seems to me that so much emphasis today in missionally minded ministry is methodological. It seems to be at its core nothing more than repackaged Finneyism. Meaning, the right techniques, cultural paradigms, historical lists, pragmatic methods done effectively equals spiritual growth, healthy churches, increased evangelism, etc. I think that would be a false assumption.
With all the increase interest in church planting, and going wider than growing deeper there is a void of real discipleship and maturity in the faith. Whole churches are being tossed to and fro by the winds of unsound doctrine. And that is why the inner circle of evangelicalism today not only consists of orthodox leaders like MacArthur, Sproul, and Mohler; but will also include men outside the purview of orthodoxy like Jakes, Osteen, Todd Bentley, and McLaren. And many will consider unloving and divisive to say so.
Therefore, reliance upon the Word of God to mature the saints, the power of the gospel of sola fide to bring salvation, the work of the Holy Spirit to sanctify and gift the church for service, and the sovereignty of God to accomplish His divine purposes in the world is severely diminished if not altogether eclipsed.
Genuine movements of the Lord are sovereignly designed, not mechanically produced. So help me out here... How do all these various and multifaceted paradigms from Garrison on, truly benefit the work of biblical ministry within the local church and in evangelism... biblically?
I am convinced, if the Holy Spirit were to withdraw Himself from most movements that function in the name of Christ today, there would be no noticeable change in their structures or organizations. This is spilling over into the church as well. Young pseudo-reformed emerging pastors are culturally intune and doctrinally inept.
IOW, what can any of these systems and pragmatic structures being developed at rapid rates ad nauseam today, do to improve the effectiveness of the man of God who is armed with the Word of God, filled with the Spirit of God, living in humility and serving under the Sovereignty of God, on his knees in prayer before a holy God? What can any of these architects of ministerial pragmatism add to say that which we would find in 2 Corinthians?
I respect you deeply and treasure your thoughts. Thank you for tolerating this lengthy comment and don't forget about a visit to St. Arbucks in the near future.
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
07/26/08 @ 1:55 PM
Billy,
You are right on. Amen and amen. I am assuming such, but it is always good to include that.
Daniel,
Yes, I think it might.
Steve,
Always good to have you visit. I met your pastor and he was at the EN meeting-- sharp guy. I told him I knew you.
On to your questions… I am writing a book now and am past deadline, so I am putting a few words that probably are insufficient, but at least they are a start.
You wrote:
>>It seems to me that so much emphasis today in missionally minded ministry is methodological. It seems to be at its core nothing more than repackaged Finneyism. Meaning, the right techniques, cultural paradigms, historical lists, pragmatic methods done effectively equals spiritual growth, healthy churches, increased evangelism, etc. I think that would be a false assumption.
And, I agree that much of it is. But, I also think that so many of the theologically pre-occupied have abandoned all "means," and I think that is a mistake. I think it is wise to take into account missiology and context when we think about ministry.
Personally, I want to find a way that is both biblically faithful and missiologically sound.
You wrote:
>>Genuine movements of the Lord are sovereignly designed, not mechanically produced.
I agree with the first part of the sentence, but think the second part does not really convey the intent of those who think about missions, systems, and ministry. Some probably try to "mechanically produce" movements, but that has not been my experience… and I don't think Garrison would disagree.
They are not mechanically produced, but I do think that we can consider if the way we do things gets in the way of a true movement of God. Yes, God and does overcome even our poor models of ministry, but I just think we could think through them more discerningly if we are going to engage in missions and evangelism.
I think some of the most theologically minded among us are the least focused on multiplication and mission. They do some things right, but others wrong, and they should think through some of the missiological implications of their actions.
You wrote:
>>what can any of these systems and pragmatic structures being developed at rapid rates ad nauseam today, do to improve the effectiveness of the man of God who is armed with the Word of God, filled with the Spirit of God, living in humility and serving under the Sovereignty of God, on his knees in prayer before a holy God?
This is probably where we disagree because I think they can make a difference.
I believe you can take two pastors or missionaries who both meet this qualification and they may have different outcomes depending on their approach to ministry. If you send them to a mission context, the outcomes will be a different if one learns the language, understands the culture, uses culturally appropriate forms, creates structures that are equally reproducible, etc.
In other words, the means matter.
Yes, the bigger issue to me is that most do not meet the qualifications you listed. And, I would share your concern that some are all "means" and no gospel. They should spend more time listening to Jesus and less time reading books on missional (even my book, grin).
And, ultimately, it is God that chooses to bring a movement. However, I think we should use our best missiologically discerning approaches when we seek to live out biblically faithful ministry. That is what I am trying to do in my writings—to encourage both.
Gotta go… but thanks for helping me think it through. Your challenge (and Tim’s) are always helpful.
07/26/08 @ 7:13 PM
Ed
Thank you for your reply especially while under a deadline. I will be praying for your new book for many of us are being ministered to by your writings and thank the Lord for the investment you make through your tomes. Give ‘em heaven man!
You said, "Personally, I want to find a way that is both biblically faithful and missiologically sound." I fully agree. I don't think we have to dismiss practical sound ministry functionality to remain biblical. But remain biblical we must and it should always trump our pragmatic concerns.
One quick thought: when we consider how the Lord dealt with Gideon in Judges 7 it is disarming to us today. He strips Gideon of his best and most strategic forces. He doesn't leave him armed with conventional weaponry either. They were already outnumbered 4 to 1 before his forces were dramatically slashed. But when Gideon's forces were finally whittled down to a mere 300 men, the odds were then 450 to 1.
Gideon wasn't left with a sword or armor or any of his usual weaponry. God left him with a torch, a pitcher and a trumpet. Laughable by any military strategery. And Gideon was instructed to shout before they attack, "behold the sword of the Lord and of Gideon."
But again, he had no sword! Instead the Lord gave him the weapons HE desired and a very small army of men for one main reason: "The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast over me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’"
The Lord took the conventional wisdom of this military commander and shattered it so that he could not boast of their own strength and declare their own hand had delivered them. The Lord does His work by different standards and means; and it usually is to guard His people against pride and self-reliance.
27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” -1 Cor. 1:27-31 - to which I know you agree.
So I am wondering, would today's missiologists be tempted to say amid all their plans and strategies and methods and techniques and culturally relevant paradigms , "my own hand has delivered me?" Even the growing belief of: let's take the big cities. Because if we are going to win the towns and communities and farms and hobbits we must first win the most populated cities. Because that is where the music, culture, fashion, money, politics, influence, etc. is developed and birthed..." - to me is a false premise to launch ministry from. As one young man recently said, "If we are going to win the world, we must first win London." Say what? Exqueeze me?
How about planting and replanting (rescue dying churches) churches in any community; do ministry faithfully according to God's Word wherever you live; proclaim His gospel boldly and without compromise calling all men to repentance; make disciples; etc, and then leave the results to God?
I so appreciate you brother and thank you for helping me work through this as well. I treasure our growing friendship and your wisdom on these things.
VIVIT,
Steve
Romans 1:16-17
07/26/08 @ 9:31 PM
Steve,
I will always be thrilled when God works in spite of us. However, I also want to work with wisdom born from the Word, history, culture, and missiology.
So, I actually like your friend's London passion. It makes some sense (though I would pick NYC, grin). Of course, God could just as easily start a movement in Nashville.
I think Paul focused on the cities, so that makes sense to me. (By the way, it is actually a debate in missiology if Paul had a strategy-- most think he did.)
Either way, I agree that we should go any place God calls us. But, I think it is also prudent to consider and pray through missiological strategy as we listen to God about His place and call for us.
Ed
07/29/08 @ 8:20 AM
Ed:
Thank you Ed for your reply here. The past few days have been busy with this morning being no exception; so my apologies for not responding sooner.
I agree that "to work with wisdom born from the Word, history, culture, and missiology are important things in the ministry of a local church and in general to our endeavors for the spread of the gospel. But biblically I wonder how this plays out.
I.e. - in the middle of huge revival, the Holy Spirit directs Philip to minister to one Ethiopian Eunuch in "the desert place" (Acts 8:36). Our Lord "had need to go through Samaria" to minister to one woman at a well (John 4:20-24). Paul invests much of his ministry in discipling a young timid Timothy. HIs instructions from a prison in Rome to Timothy shortly before his death was to "teach others to teach others" (2 Tim. 2:1-2). IOW, the ongoing work of the gospel was not so much "movemental" in the grand scheme of large urban cities primarily, but discipleship based within the local church.
Our "London friend" I believe has blurred vision in this case: "to win the world we must first win London." I won't ask for chapter and verse on that method :-); but hasn't our Lord called us to the "highways and byways" - not just large metropolitan areas - even though they need to reached for the gospel as well?
The letter of Galatians is a prime example of this. Paul is writing, not to just one city, but to an entire region which was compromised of cities and rural communities. I believe Spurgeon's ministry in the local church in London was powerful and impacting. But Edwards with a relatively small church of just a few hundred was just as impactful as well. Faithfulness is what marked both of their ministries rather than a pragmatic methodology for expansion. In fact, one of the things that Spurgeon fought against during the Down Grade Controversy was adopting a pragmatic worldly methodology in ministry not firmly rooted in Scripture. As you know, his stand for the truth among other Christians cost him dearly...
So here is the challenge, I believe, for both of us - to stay biblical. And by that I mean intensely and deliberately so. Not to be men that define ministry by the times, but by the truth of God's Word. One of my favorite chapters in the Bible on ministry is found in 2 Corinthians chapter four. Paul lays out for several key factors for biblical ministry that are not bound by culture, local environment, cities vs communities, or the urge for relevancy.
You are most kind to interact with me here brother. Thank you for the investment you are making in the kingdom and for being an instrument of grace in helping me think through these things more clearly. I appreciate you greatly.
Grace and peace to you,
Steve
Col. 1:9-14