Macrorepentance Question
Where in the New Testament are followers of Jesus told/commanded/commissioned to plant churches?
posted by bill Sloat at 5:57 AM
CGGC in an Emerging World
The world is changing rapidly. Postmodern thinking is increasing in the west and the East is becoming part of the Global community. Many in the Churches of God General Conference are interested in what church will look like as fresh expressions in the 21st century. This blog has been encouraged by the CGGC but in no way reflects the official thinking of the denomination. It is a place for free flow of thought and conversation.
Saturday, July 02, 2011
12 Comments:
Neil Cole spoke at the Midwest Region about multiplication. He very clearly said that nothing the CGGC is doing is multiplication. It is addition, which of course is better than subtraction, but nowhere near the power of multiplication.
Cole speaks of three areas of multiplication. (These are not the terms he used in case I am misrepresenting his intelligent and precise work)
1. Discipleship of Individual
2. Development of Leader
3. Forming of a church
He went on to say, you cannot multiply leaders, if you are not multiplying disciples. And you cannot multiply churches if you are not multiplying leaders.
So Cole's case for a mandate for planting churches would probably be totally dependent on the multiplication of individual disciples.
Out of the many great speakers I've heard in the last few years, I found Cole's stuff the hardest to apply in ministries based on addition (which is every CGGC ministry at this point including mine).
Brian,
I noticed that about Cole in Ed's notes in his enews account of Midwest Conference.
The question is: Based on our VISION Statement, will we begin to pursue multiplcation?
So Cole's case for a mandate for planting churches would probably be totally dependent on the multiplication of individual disciples.
Brian,
My Macrorepentance Question was not quite rhetorical. I know of no place in the New Testament in which followers of Jesus are sent to plant churches and I think it's unlikely that we'd be sent to plant churches because I don't think a church, as the Bible defines what the church is, can be planted but I don't have every word memorized and I'm learning new things daily.
The metaphor of planting, in fact, is inappropriate to what the Bible conceived of a church to be--as I understand what the Bible teaches. I hope to blog more about this but I'm not sure I can do it well in few enough words.
What we know in the CGGC, based on our Mission Statement, is that we are sent by Jesus to disciple the whole world. According to Jesus, we achieve that commission one disciple at a time, not one 'church' at a time.
Bill wrote: "According to Jesus, we achieve that commission one disciple at a time, not one 'church' at a time."
That's what I said in my comment.
Brian,
Out of the many great speakers I've heard in the last few years, I found Cole's stuff the hardest to apply in ministries based on addition (which is every CGGC ministry at this point including mine).
It seems to me, based on reading Cole, that it would be nearly impossible to apply his stuff if you are going to continue to define leadership in a way that involves the existence of a clergy at all.
It's curious to me that you guys invited Cole of all people. He entirely rejects the Constantinian model of the church. What he advocates goes even farther from CGGC-ism than what I advocate and what we are doing in ministry here at Faith.
What do you think the powers that be hoped to gain from the invitation? (Were you one of them?)
Is there a taste for Cole's radicalism among some in the Midwest Region?
Are there people in the region willing to tear apart the Christendom model of the church?
I had no role in bringing in Cole. I don't know what they were hoping by bringing him in.
Most people I talked to thought Cole was great. They did not see him as radical, though everything I heard him say was very radical.
So what does that mean? They have a taste for radicalism? They didn't understand the implications of his radicalism? I don't know.
There has been talk of follow-up to insure people have the ability to apply the conference teaching. I hope and pray that happens.
People seem to be naturally sort of syncretistic. We blend Christianity with folk beleives, astrology, myths etc.
In a similar vein, we think of what we can add or tweak from someone like Cole without really feelign the tension. The dissonance.
Bill is one of the few people I know who has very pointedly tried to point out the differnces between what we do and a 'New Testament' church.
Cole doesn't seem to push on that as hard. Hence he's more popular then bill ;-)
Cole is not really a prophet though, I don't think, which would explain some of that...
M,
I understand that in a relationshp-focused, fad-driven culture like the one that dominates the CGGC syncretism, even very sloppy syncretism can take place. It has been for at least a generation. However, Cole stands for something completely at odds with what we stand for. Some things cannot be combined. This is an example of one of them.
Brian's right. You'd have to abandon our model of ministry to even begin to apply what Cole teaches.
Cole is, based on the fruit of his ministry, an apostle. They're generally more popular and easier to live with than prophets.
What I am saying is that people don't readily see that what he's saying is non-compatible with the way we practice things. And to be fair to them, Cole can sometimes lead people to believe that some of practices can be incorporated into different church settings (I'm thinking of the introduction to Church 3.0).
People like tweaks, not radical paridigm shifts. They need to be told directly (like you do) and they don't like it when they are told.
M,
I have to admit that I'm a bigger fan of what Cole does than the books he writes.
I tend to like Cole better than Frank Viola, but I think Viola paints the contrast between current and organic more starkly.
Anyway, my primary point in this discussion is that people can easily hear Cole's ideas as something that can be initiated within the current way of doing church.
That, of course, gives him a wider audience as well.
M,
You are correct about Cole and Viola. Viola has a lot more prophet in him than Cole does.
One difference between Viola and Cole is that Viola says that if you have a Christendom church you probably can't do what he says you should do. Cole suggests that there are principles that you can apply. While I don't like saying this, I agree with Viola more than Cole on this point.
An irony in this that I can't not point out is that there is no one more unabashedly committed to the New Testament plan than Cole yet the CGGC, which has a Mission Statement that claims commitment to establishing churches of the New Testament plan, finds what Cole teaches so hard to apply.
Post a Comment
<< Home