Is There (Still) a Place for Barnabas?
[NOTE: I've expanded this from the original post that I made earlier today]
Soon after Saul's conversion in Acts 9, many apostles were perhaps confused and fearful that his life change was for real. Barnabas took the risk to take Saul around to the believers and make a case for why he was authentic in his new found faith.
I'm reminded of this passage because I wonder if the role of Barnabas is one that is often overlooked in the starting of new churches. It's been almost ten years since we completed our church planting experience and just over four years since I last served full-time in a church setting. I share that because there may be resources that are available now with which I am unfamiliar that address this topic. But, from my brief research I have not been able to find much that explores the significant role that a "Barnabas" could play. I'm not thinking strictly of a team-based ministry approach - that has been tried, written about, and over-conferenced for a long time. I'm thinking specifically of someone who is well-connected in a community who serves as a person of influence who takes the planter around to introduce him/her to various community leaders to explain away confusion and fear over the new church start.
I'm interested in this topic for a very specific reason: our current church is looking to add a third campus over the next year or so and I am researching some items to pass along. I have no idea what role (if any) we will play in this project, but I want to make use of any insights that I can pass along.
If my memory serves me correctly, when the Crossroads Community Church was planted in Sullivan, IN, in the late 1990s, the planting pastor (Eddie Hammond) had someone from the community who served as a strong support for the initial planting phases. Thank you to Brian for adding after the earlier post:
"Crossroads was launched with two staff people. One was a seasoned pastor, who served as a people magnet. One was a local businessman, who served as the administrator/organizer.I thought the model worked very well. Most Planting Organizations strongly encouraging planting in teams and to find a partner who has strengths where you are weak."
Here are a few questions I am pondering:
- Is this model (church planter moving to community with established partner) a recurring pattern in church plants?
- Are there organizations or trainings that address this topic?
- Are there better biblical examples than Barnabas for this approach?
- Do you have any thoughts or insights about the whole notion of multi-site church starts (as opposed to straight up church plants)?
- Are there geographic regions that would be more receptive to this approach than others?
- Could a person serve as a Barnabas (as I'm desribing him here) and simply be the "#2" in a new church/multi=site ministry and serve this role repeatedly for different planters?
Labels: church planting, multi-site ministry
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 7:23 PM
20 Comments:
Great question Brent!
Simple answer from my experience: No, this is not common practice.
Multi-sites are popping up everywhere. There is a multi-site site in the town next to us. The main site is about an hour away. The town with the remote site near us has about 4000 people and has a site with over 400 attending the church! That amazes me. It is a Vineyard.
There are plenty of people who can tell you how they've started multiple sites, but I would find one in your area that is (or was) similar in size and pick their brains.
I like your idea about the Barnabas, but I have never seen it.
Brent,
You are describing something that Barnabas did that is not connected to the creation of new communities of disciples (or 'church planting').
When Barnabas and Paul travelled together on that missionary journey, Barnabas was as much an outsider as Paul was.
Having said that, I do think that Barnabas displayed spiritual gifts, natural abilities and temperament traits that are important in creating new communities of disciples. He seems to have been an apostle/shepherd. His apostolic gift is evident in the ease with which he moved from culture to culture. His shepherd gift is what the Word describes about him when he is first mentioned. His name was Joseph but he was nicknamed Barnabas, Son of Encouragement.
Many of the apostles I have met are Barnabas type apostles. I believe that those people are best employed in creating disciple communities out of new gatherings of people in Jesus' Name.
In the American context, it may be wise to see the apostle/shepherd or shepherd/apostle as integral in creating new assemblies of believers. As was the case in that missionary journey, the Barnabas figure will probably serve as the 'side kick, ' no matter how crucial s/he may be.
Brian,
Thanks.
If you were going to relocate to start a new church/site what characteristics would you look for in a person currently involved in that community?
- who should they know?
- what resources should they have access to?
- how "well-connected" should they be?
Bill,
Absolutely - I am not suggesting that Acts 9 is about starting new churches. I am mainly focused on 9:27 in which Barnabas appears to escort Saul around to meet the other apostles.
Also, I agree that the Barnabas role would always be the "side-kick" - in fact, that's part of my point.
What if someone would follow the model of Barnabas and escort the church planter around to the other peoplle of influence?
What contemporary characteristics would that person need? Perhaps you can suggest a better biblical example than Barnabas for the questions I am asking.
Thanks.
Brent,
It would be interesting to read Paul's letters for the throw-away lines in which he says personal things to the people in the churches he writes to about individuals who were helpful to him in building the ekklesia in those cities.
There's no question that networking in those days was even more important than it is in the way we do, um, 'church.' They met in houses. They were rarely all in one place at one time.
Brent asked,
- who should they know? As many people as possible. If they were a person who was respected in the community, it could give the site instant credibility. That would help a lot in certain communities, especially smaller towns.
- what resources should they have access to? At Crossroads, the local guy knew a realtor who gave them a tour of the town including who lives where and who might be a good fit for the new church. Any networking tools would be great.
- how "well-connected" should they be? The more the better. They don't have to be a "power-player" in town, but the more people they know the better.
I do have some concerns that there is often a divide between upper and lower class and it is difficult to create diversity.
Many experts are saying if you want a multi-cultural church, you need to have a multi-cultural staff. I have never heard anyone say it, but I might add, if you want an economically diverse congregation, you should have an economically diverse connectedness among your staff.
Does that help?
Bill & Brian,
Yes, the responses help.
I guess what surprises me is that in an era where every good (and bad) idea has been written about and the subject of a conference, this idea hasn't been explored - or at least not in an arena with which we are familiar.
One lingering question is whether or not churches/denominations could be kingdom minded enough that they would be okay with someone who worked with their group moving on to perform a similar supporting role with another church plant/multi-site campus.
As I understand your comments you both suggest this idea has merit. Do you think churches/planters/pastors/denominations/groups would support and seek out this type of supporting ministry?
I'm not looking for a new job - I just think it's an interesting idea whose time may be at hand.
What do you think?
We do have a church planter in Columbus who is with Southern Baptist but who will be planting some CGGC churches.
As far as I've seen, we are still at a place where we look for dissatisfied pastors and ask if they can plant a church. I was one of them.
We will have to find a model that multiplies disciples and churches before we will ever have a movement.
Brian,
We will have to find a model that multiplies disciples and churches before we will ever have a movement.
Amen.
That's, of course, what Dan H's link to "Why the Missional Movement will Fail" says.
Lately, I've been doing a study of the word ekklesia and the verb that goes with it in the LXX and then interpreting the New Testament teachings about church in a way that is rooted in the New Testament culture. I think the reason we don't have a model that makes disciples is that we aren't planting/mulitiplying what an ekklesia really is and, as a result, we don't church as a verb. We church as a cafe or bistro or a Rotary Club and, more frequently than ever, as a Golden Age Club but not as a disciple making organism which, by its nature, radically transforms lives.
What we plant is not ekklesias. If you doubt me, examine the fruit.
It probably doesn't surprise anyone that I'd suggest that our problem is rooted in embracing a tradition and not the truth but, as far as I can tell, we don't plant ekklesias. What we plant is more like club meeting sights in which living for Jesus is not the organic result of being a church.
In the definition of the notion of ekklesia that Jesus adopted in Matthew 16, being an ekklesia and making disciples is organically connected. I don't think you can really be a church and not create disciples. If that's true, our gatherings are not church and, as Isaiah and Jesus said our "worship is in vain."
Anyway, right on, brother!
We need a different model. I'll just say that that model is to be discovered in the Word, not in a really new, creative and groovy planting strategy.
Bill,
We need a different model. I'll just say that that model is to be discovered in the Word, not in a really new, creative and groovy planting strategy.
I agree. If what I've written about here looks like a "groovy planting strategy" then I'm not being clear in what I'm suggesting.
I look at the example of Barnabas in Acts 9 and see someone who was willing to take a new leader around to confront the fear and confusion that emerges from new ministries. As you pointed out, this passage isn't in the context of starting new churches, but I don't think that alone disqualifies it from consideration.
My point is that a Barnabas-type person who has strong roots in a community could greatly aid the starting of new churches which, yes, should be disciple-bearing in order to carry that name.
My goal with this post was to offer at least one interpretation of a biblical example of how a church could develop. We haven't worked together enough for you to know how much I despise how a psychological/busines mindset has penetrated the church environment.
Brent,
What I hear you saying is a longing for something more organic and natural where at least one person on the planting team is already established in the community.
We tend to take a planter and drop him in a community unknown to him because the community is growing and economically viable.
Our last planter in the Grass Roots Network had been in his community for 15 years, coached high school sports team, participated in other community activities, ... It was a much easier church to plant.
We were able to work this particular planter because his home denomination didn't have a process for such a natural transition.
Guys,
I think that the answer here may be in a fresh look at the way the creation of new gatherings of disciples are formed by a community in which apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherd and teachers all all empowered to live within their callings.
That's what I think I see in Paul creating a missionary community including Silas and Timothy and Titus and Epaphras, Aquilla and Priscilla and Andronicus and Junia, etc..
Bill,
You've said several times that we are not making disciples.
You've yet to describe what you think it means to be a disciple, so far as I can tell. You did mention some time ago that you were working on a proposal.
How do you know that we aren't making disciples?
How can we evaluate the fruit of communities in disciplemaking until we together come to a biblical understanding of what that means?
I'm lamenting that our body does not have a context to explore these deep themes. We have a lot of doctrinal assertions, yet no widespread context to discuss disciples, church, mission...
M,
You are correct. I say repeatedly that we are not making disciples.
When I pray for the CGGC, the Lord repeatedly tells me a few things.
One of them is that we are being judged for creating a Mission Statement that is an oath in the Name of Jesus and that we are not keeping it.
In the Name of "the Lord Jesus Christ"..."we commit ourselve to make more and better disciples..."
That being the case, we should be in a frenzy about discipleship. And we are not.
Why do I say that? Let me count the ways:
1. We have no definition of what a disciple is.
2. We have not generated a coherent effort to make disciples.
3. We are not developing a "metric" to determine if we are making disciples. (0r, as you say, we don't know if we are making disciples.)
4. We continue to value things that are not connected to actual discipleship, e.g., how many butts we put in seats on a Sunday morning.
5. We are not bearing the fruit of discipleship, which is disciples.
I am doing my best to define what a disciple is but I'm not certain that I am correct and I have no community that is joining me in searching for HIS definition. (Can you say, "Angry?" See, I knew you could. Yes. I am angry.)
So far these are the components of my defintion.
1. Obedience to the three "Love commands." (Love the Lord with all..., love one another as Jesus loved us and love your neighbor as yourself.)
2. Love of Jesus that makes love for father and mother, wife and children, etc. seem like hate and carrying one's cross to follow Jesus.
3. The living of the 'relgion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless.' (To keep a tight reign on your tongue, to look after orphans and widows and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
4. To feed, hydrate, invite to ones home as a stranger, to give clothes to, to visit when sick and to visit in prison the least among us.
That's my working definition as of this moment. I'd love to participate in a community that is shaping a defintion and, then, carrying it out.
To this point, if I'm anywhere close in my definition, we are not making many disciples.
Gang,
Sorry.
I misquoted the Mission Statement.
It's not, "In the Name of "the Lord Jesus Christ"..."we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples..."
It is, "As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ...we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples..."
It is a pledge in which we call on Jesus as our authority. It is an oath.
I'd love to have a discussion about discipleship - perhaps a new thread. It needs to be done.
In your thoughts on discipleship, there is little to disagree with, of course, because they are Jesus' centered.
I still come back to Jesus' words in the 'great commission' He says that discipleship is 'teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."
Jesus defines love for him as obeying his commands (John 14:15) Of course this points back to the Love the Lord and Love your neighbor.
The gospels should be the field manual for disciples.
Of course the rest of the N.T. plays out how to live as disciples as well.
M,
It would be a nice thing to have a thread on discipleship on this blog.
What we need is to have a discussion of discipleship as a BODY!
Bill- that's what I meant.
But for the time being, I hijacked this thread.
Dan -
I completely disagree that you hijacked this thread to discuss elements of discipleship.
There are at least two different, but related, conversations that need to take place. One is a discussion directly exploring the elements of biblical discipleship. But the other conversation, which is more in line with this particular thread, is an exploration of a more specific aspect of discipleship. In this case, I see this conversation pointing toward a biblical example that can contribute to how churches are developed and the various calls and biblical models available to fulfill that call.
In other words, there needs to be one larger conversation about disciplelship but many smaller conversations like this one to complement the larger one.
... there needs to be one larger conversation about disciplelship but many smaller conversations like this one to complement the larger one.
But, not only here.
Post a Comment
<< Home