Where to plant a church

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[maranatha]

I think it was at the DeCommissioned blog where there was discussion of deciding where to plant GCM churches.

Over at the 9 Marks blog there's been an interesting discussion on this same topic today of  where is a strategic place to plant a church.  If you are interested, it's over at

http://blog.9marks.org/2007/07/what-makes-a-st.html#comments

There are other posts after this one, but I don't want to take up space with them.

Also, it was Matt Schmucker who posted the question, who I've been told was a member of GCM at one point.

[The Clone]

Plant?  Why plant when it's already made up in the pastors head who is in or not in.

[theresearchpersona]

A thought, but...doesn't it strike you guys as odd that we even ever use the term "Church Plant": the Bible speaks of evangelists ("missionaries" is actually a Latin misnomer! some trivia for you, I guess) preaching, and wherever some believe a congregation was there formed by God's Spirit, not enthusiasm of a bunch of people utilizing methodologies...even biblically it seems like God may not necessarily intend there to be believers in every place, as, for instance, Jesus saying to his disciples that wherein they aren't received they're to leave and shake the very dust of the ground of that place off of their feet as a witness against them.

I know of, for instance, cities in South America, the Catholic kind that's not even really Catholic, more like the syncretism that so often is tolerated by the Vatican but which is so extreme that even Paul 2 endeavored against it. Entire cities...I know of missionaries there who stay for years and get nowhere (one is finally packing bags to move-on to another city...he just couldn't find, establish, or see any real worship or believers, and had exceeding difficulty trying to keep purity of worship vs. people who'd show up for emotional consumerism). If you go to Southern Mexico, for instance, and live there you get in a legal debacle because each house is required to have one idol to Mary: and of a generous size, but alas Christians refuse this, and so suffer greatly at the hands of the locals.

Or think about Saudi Arabia: nobody gets into Mecca: they check everyone, and a Christian can't deny God and lie about being Muslim just to get a Muslim I.D. card--we musn't deny Christ, even at the cost of life.

I think we ought, when possible, to drop anchor and serve those who believe where we find them, personally...one reason I really haven't endeavored to go on mission yet: I don't now that I'd come back!

[lone gone]

Missions are never guaranteed to succeed.

If you gauge where to go by the likelihood of succeeding, you are in danger of using human motives to justify God's activity. It's like fishing in an aquarium.

 Why do you need to succeed? Are you scared to fail? Are you afraid you'll do "something wrong" and the failure will be attributed to you?

Which of St.Paul's mission churches is still in existence today?

God's ways are not our ways.

[theresearchpersona]

If you gauge where to go by the likelihood of succeeding, you are in danger of using human motives to justify God's activity. It's like fishing in an aquarium.

This is contrary to businesss "sense", though...but I think it's a sign of human self-glorifying in those trying to guarantee "success" than trying to glorify God. GC does this so much too when it says "to God's glory" but uses all its own means; or when it says "but I've seen this work" when, well, so does everyone else...and when the Word is against it. That experientialism vs. obedience (which oddly enough GC harps on those who seek experientialism in some quarters, and more oddly it's pastors who've utilized and continue to utilize worldly tactics!; and then it harps on the "disobedient" to their leaders, rather than urging those who're disobedient to God to repent).

But just as GC is teaching business-stuff like "be a visionary" to impressionable youth, sadly, and robbing them of the true riches in Christ, and just as they utilize means derived not from God's Word which are even contrary to God's Word, we are to walk by faith, in faith, believing God wholly and surely, and not by sight.

[MidnightRider]

If you gauge where to go by the likelihood of succeeding, you are in danger of using human motives to justify God's activity. It's like fishing in an aquarium.
...

If I recall correctly, "likelihood of success" was one of those principles that GCx had extracted from the book of Acts, along with others like:
- move out from where you are (Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, uttermost parts of the earth)
- the Influence Principle (syangogues and public square, which now would mean college campuses)
- Cities first
- and others I was told existed but never heard what they were.

Everyone feel free to add to the list.  
[/list]

[EverAStudent]

midnightrider wrote:

the Influence Principle (syangogues and public square, which now would mean college campuses)

Wow, reading that 30 year old tenet of GCx evangelism policy sent a cold shiver down my spine.  The leap of illogic that makes one see what Paul did (his habit of using public debate with the town leaders and older statesmen for the advancement of the gospel) and turning it into a "we must reach the youngest, best, and brightest," as if that were a biblical principle is still staggering to me.  It never was a biblical principle to "reach the young as our highest priority" anywhere in the Bible or in Acts.  

Reaching the young (college kids) was nothing but a pragmatic preference on the part of GCx.  And why college kids?  Could it be that they are more easily manipulated than more mature people?  Could it be that it is because the elders are generally so young that a mature congregation would be too intimidating?  

Whatever the reason, the tactic is not biblical, and worse, it leads to churches unbalanced in maturity at all levels.

[wastedyearsthere]

I remember John Meyer telling me that it is almost impossible to see anyone get saved after the age of 30......

The young are more easily influenced that is for sure

[AgathaL'Orange]

I too remember messages about how college students are so much more "open."

[MidnightRider]

Wow, reading that 30 year old tenet of GCx evangelism policy sent a cold shiver down my spine.  The leap of illogic that makes one see what Paul did (his habit of using public debate with the town leaders and older statesmen for the advancement of the gospel) and turning it into a "we must reach the youngest, best, and brightest," as if that were a biblical principle is still staggering to me.  It never was a biblical principle to "reach the young as our highest priority" anywhere in the Bible or in Acts.  
...

After a while, I began to see that these "principles" could be used to justify quite a lot. During the '85 invasion, some of our people were sent, not to a top-20-largest city in the USA (which had no GCx church) only 100 miles away, not to any of the small towns nearby, but were instead sent 500+ miles away. Not sure why they ignored Jerusalem-Judea-Samaria in that case.

GCx put a lot of stock in the idea that the book of Acts gave a repeatable method for reaching the world with such principles. I am no longer convinced. At best, it is very tricky trying to reason from a few specific incidents to a general principle. At worst, it becomes an invitation to read into the book of Acts whatever you happen to want to do, if you can somehow say it is like what the apostles did.

[theresearchpersona]

Now that you guys keep getting more specific with these principles...it makes me think I've seen an old book that they might come from...but I haven't put my finger on it, if there is one. Yet I've seen the same "principles" come up and in other groups and there may be another source for them...even for older GC.

[lone gone]

There is nothing new under the sun.

We brothers used to play the board game Risk a lot.   In some ways it influenced us.

[EverAStudent]

You bet--you'll have to fight me for Australia...

[maranatha]

Linus, you mentioned Jollyblogger over on another thread.
Was just reading him and he had some interesting thoughts on "the most "strategic" place to live?" (plant a church)

Here's what stood out to me:

"One might have thought that Jesus would do something effective.  If you want to have maximum results, don't waste your time talking to the first person whom you meet on the street, figure out a way to get to the movers and the shakers, the influential and the newsmakers, those who have some power and prestige.  If you really want to promote change, go to the top . . .

But Jesus?  He didn't go up to the palace, the White House, the Kremlin, or Downing Street.   (Jesus never got on well with politicians.)  Jesus went outback, back to Galilee.

Why Galilee?   Nobody special lived in Galilee, nobody except the followers of Jesus.  Us.

The resurrected Christ comes back to, appears before the very same rag tag group of failures who so disappointed him, misunderstood him, forsook him and fled into the darkness.  He returns to his betrayers.  He returns to us."

www.jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2008/05/so-where-is-the.html

[Linus]

maranatha--glad you read that too.  I like it a lot.  It seems like there's a tendency to see 'maximum effectiveness' as the obvious goal for a Christian or a church.  

I'm glad I'm just trying to obey and be a child of God now.  Who knows what God will accomplish with what I contribute?  Why even worry about it?  

[lone gone]

How effective was Philip... the Spirit led him into the desert for one man.

It really goes to show that God's ways are not our ways.

[EverAStudent]

How effective was Philip... the Spirit led him into the desert for one man.
It really goes to show that God's ways are not our ways.

Amen!

What would be an extravagant waste of resources for a man are of virtually no cost or concern to the God who owns all, commands all, and creates all.  If God wishes to spend a man's entire life by having that man marry a prostitute as a prophetic warning to Israel, then it is no waste at all (though the man may personally feel that way).  Whatever we think we are giving up--even our comfort, "happiness," wealth, health, time, or mortal life--for the sake of the gospel, will seem like nothing at all when we are in the presence of Christ.  In fact, we will wonder why we thought any of that was of any import.  

Sigh...it is hard to truly grasp that reality, however...I am so darned self-centered...

[AgathaL'Orange]

I would like to add that sometimes God even wants someone to "go into the desert" just to know God better and to pray... maybe even for life.  It isn't ALWAYS about ministry.  Ultimately we need to be pursuing God ourselves, not just to bring others to God but that we may be more like God and be united with Him.

I don't love my mom and do nice things for her so OTHERS will do the same.  I love my mom and do nice things for her because she's MY MOTHER and I love her and she sacrificed a lot of things in life to parent me.  It's the same with God.

If all I did was to love God and love others my whole life... and never gave out one tract or one sermon... I would have lived an amazing life.

[Linda]

I would like to add that sometimes God even wants someone to "go into the desert" just to know God better and to pray... maybe even for life.  It isn't ALWAYS about ministry.  Ultimately we need to be pursuing God ourselves, not just to bring others to God but that we may be more like God and be united with Him.

I don't love my mom and do nice things for her so OTHERS will do the same.  I love my mom and do nice things for her because she's MY MOTHER and I love her and she sacrificed a lot of things in life to parent me.  It's the same with God.

If all I did was to love God and love others my whole life... and never gave out one tract or one sermon... I would have lived an amazing life.

Nicely said.

[lone gone]

Yeah , just what did Christians do before we had tracts to hand out?

and what is God's definition of true religion again?... something about orphans and widows....