Centrality of the local church in “missions” and the Pauline strategy

Acts 2.2; 3.1
May 2008

David Hasselgrave, in his book Planting Churches Cross Culturally: North America and Beyond, gives us a terrific definition of “missions,” the mission of the church.

“The primary mission of the church and, therefore, of the churches is to proclaim the Gospel of Christ and gather believers into local churches where they can be built up in the faith and made effective in service; thus new congregations are to be planted throughout the world.” (Planting Churches Cross Culturally: North America and Beyond p. 17)

Mr. Hasselgrave hit the nail on the head. The local church is absolutely central to successful mission work. This model, suggested by Mr. Hasselgrave is totally in line with Paul’s strategy found in Acts 13:1-14:28.

Paul, sent out by the church in Syrian Antioch, preached the Gospel in Salamis, in Paphos where the Proconsul Sergius Paulus was converted and Elymas the Sorcerer was made blind, in Pisidian Antioch where a church was established, in Iconium where a church was established, in Lystra where the people mistook Barnabas and Paul for Zeus and Hermes and a church was planted, and finally in Derbe where another church was planted. On their return trip to Syrian Antioch Paul and Barnabas stopped at each one of these fledgling churches to encouraged them and appointed elders to oversee each flock. This model is reflected in the quote from Mr. Hasselgrave.

Paul’s mission was to preach the gospel and plant churches, he gave each group a foundation to build upon and if they followed his model, people from within each congregation would be rise up to preach the gospel in other towns and plant churches there. It is a cycle of organic growth.

It seems to me that in an age where travel has become faster, easier and more accessible the movement to spread the Gospel and plant churches has nearly ground to a halt at least in New England. Church growth has been redefined as growing existing churches in size, adding to their numbers and programs rather than growing the universal church through Gospel preaching and church planting. Not that new churches aren’t being started; however, new churches are started as a result of splits in local congregations, not from a desire to grow but from a desire to change. Boredom and frustration with tradition has become the primary motivator to start new churches not the increase of the Gospel.

If the local church were to lock on to the mission as modeled by Paul and suggested by Mr. Hasselgrave to take the gospel to the areas surrounding it then support of the idea of sending career missionaries to do the same work in foreign lands would be greatly increased. As it stands now our understanding of what missionaries are to do is limited by our understanding of the mission of the church. If we understand our mission locally and follow that same mission globally the gospel certainly would spread with greater success into the outermost parts of the world. This is the mission of the church; we must be faithful to follow the example laid out for us in God’s word – preach the Gospel and establish churches.

This understanding of our mission is a great threat to our flawed ideas about success and church growth. Even so, the paradigm needs to shift in order for the church to be obedient to God’s Word. Local churches must shift from bunkers and safe havens to training grounds and educational centers where the people of God can grow and learn what they need to know in order to continue the work of the Gospel so that they, in turn, can be Christ’s witnesses in their own Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth.

Unfortunately our local example does not reflect this ideal scenario of planting a church, teaching and training its people to plant another church and teach and train those people to plant another church and so on. We have to start over. Our paradigm must shift. We must let go of our traditions and grab on to the original mission of the church – to spread the Gospel and plant new churches, teaching those new converts and congregants to follow the example set for them.

How should today’s Church use the principals and patterns found in Acts?

Acts 1.1
April 2008

There is one main principal that is present in the book of Acts that I think the modern Church should embrace not in function only but also in form. That main principal is that of spreading the Gospel and the expansion of the Church. I believe that most modern Church leaders would agree with that function but the proof of our belief bears out in the forms that we adopt in accomplishing this task.

The problem lies with the desire to create “mega-churches” with the idea that if we build it (a mega-church) they will come to us. Meaning, that if our structure and programs are attractive enough to the non-believer than they will come to us to find salvation or at least involvement in something that is bigger than them and perhaps more meaningful. The idea of “you all come to us to hear the Gospel” is contrary to the patterns set forth in the book of Acts. I also believe that the idea of large, impersonal, “corporations” are also contrary to these patterns. I am well aware that some of these “mega-churches” are quite effective at spreading the Gospel and have no problem expanding but I believe that the further we get from a small, mobile, and personal Church reaching into our local communities the more difficulty we will face in actually spreading the Gospel and expanding the Church. Most “mega-churches” have had to embrace the small group movement in order to survive, I believe that this is where the Church really lives and moves and has its being.

I believe we have lost sight of the intentions of the early disciples to actually go into local communities with the Gospel and establish Churches there. We have traded this vision in for a much safer model of sharing the Gospel on our home turf. The pattern set forth in Acts was to go into communities that didn’t have the Gospel and give it to them at all costs. This was not easy or comfortable for them but they shared as the Holy Spirit empowered them as should we. I believe that this pattern supports the idea of many starting more mini-churches and not just a few mega-churches.

The bottom line is that the patterns found in the book of Acts suggest a more locally based, more personal, more outwardly focused Church than the modern American church is leaning towards.

Here's A New Idea!

So here is what I am thinking... I have been asked many times about the Antioch School and what it is all about, how it works, etc. So I thought maybe it would be a good idea to blog about my experiences and post some of my projects. I'm not sure it will be earth shattering but it may be a good way to at least give a snapshot into this wonderful leadership development paradigm.
A lot has changed in my thinking about the church, what it is and what it is for. The truth is, it is kind of hard to explain. I feel especially bad for my dear wife who has tried hard to stay right with me without having the benefit of reading many of my papers or participating in any of our class discussions. My aim is to help people understand what exactly is happening to me and to the church. I hope it helps!