TILL HE COMES Blog

Today I was reading a discussion over at Bob Robert’s blog about how getting conversions should not be the primary goal of church planting. Instead, we should aim for what Jesus tells us to aim for, which is making disciples.

The issue, of course, is “How best do you make disciples?”

For now, the comments by Bob Roberts reminded me of something very similar I read in Exiles by Michael Frost. He writes that after they started their church in Australia, some older Christians started coming “to take quick look at how we were doing and if it was working.” He says that he “discovered that most of these older people were survivors of similar community-building experiments from the 1970s” and had become jaded and cynical. They told Frost that his new community “wouldn’t last” (p. 108).

He goes on to say that after studying the transitional nature of the early church in Acts, he realized that aiming for community is not a goal in itself, but is instead a by-product that is gained through aiming for a better goal - that of mission (p. 109).

And this brings us back to the question of discipleship and reasons for church planting. How does a person become transformed? How best can we make disciples? I’ll take a quick stab those questions tomorrow.

No Comments »

Over the past year, I have experienced a huge paradigm shift in my thinking about life and ministry. As a result, I have watched with interest how this shift has affected my theology and my ministry practice. Below is a brief explanation of the shift that has occurred, and a few of the resultant ramifications.

The SHIFT: 
I no longer view myself as pastor, or church planter, but as a missionary…and not just any missionary, but a missionary to a cross-cultural, unreached people group. In plain English, I view myself as a person who wants to introduce Jesus to a group of people who don’t know much (if anything) about Him, and as far as they are concerned, don’t really care to know Him.

The Ramifications:
There are many changes I’ve gone through, but here are four examples:

1. Use of “ministry” time. While a pastor primarily does ministry among the people of his church, a missionary focuses on the people who are not yet part of a church. He immerses himself among them and learns their culture, their language, their issues, their needs, and their concerns. He lives life with them and among them. Practically, while in the past, I have spent most of my pastoral time in the church office and with church people, in the future, I want to spend most of my time out of the church office, and with the people of the community.

2. Vocation. A pastor wants to get paid by the people of the church so he can free himself up to do “ministry.” This is not bad, but a missionary will often get a job in the community so he or she can live and work among the people, and be seen as one of them. I don’t yet know what I’m going to do, and maybe some of my income will come from the “church budget” but ideally, I want to be living and working among the community. This also has the added benefit of freeing up as much money as possible to actually serve the community. (Many churches are handcuffed by pastoral salaries and building mortgages. Imagine what the church could do in the community and around the world if it didn’t have to pay for pastors or buildings!)

3. Bible translation. (This one I can hardly believe.) As a pastor who focused primarily on preaching and teaching believers, I wanted a Bible-translation that was as close to the Greek and Hebrew as possible. Now, I want to use a Bible that is as close as possible to the language of the people I am working among. When Wycliffe goes into a community to translate the Bible, they don’t try to make a translation that is hard to read but instead, while trying to maintain accuracy, try to get a translation that is as close as possible to the vernacular. So, while I used the NASB and the NKJV, I now think I’m going to switch to the NLT.

4. Truth meets life. I used to be a professional theologian-pastor. All I did was read, write, think, talk, and teach about the Bible and theology. I now believe that while doing so is valuable and important, if it does not result in loving and serving others (especially those who are not followers of Jesus), then I don’t really know the truth I talk so much about. While some pastors can afford to live and work in an ivory tower, missionaries must get down and dirty. Theology must come to grips with life. I have discovered that as I try to live with and love other people (especially those who are not like me and don’t believe the way I do), a lot of what I thought and taught becomes much less important. Knowing the various views of the rapture are not that important when you are talking to a drug addict who is facing divorce. Truth, I believe, is both tested and forged on the anvil of relationships.

If you are undergoing similar shifts, please let me know in the comments below. Maybe I will add more as I think of them.

10 Comments »

I was just listening to a message given by Michael Frost, and in it he read the following poem by Adrian Plass. It is exactly what I am thinking and feeling. For me, following Jesus has become a life full of deep faith and great fear. The poem portrays both wonderfully.

When I Became a Christian
By Adrian Plass

When I became a Christian I said, Lord, now fill me in,
Tell me what I’ll suffer in this world of shame and sin.
He said, your body may be killed, and left to rot and stink,
Do you still want to follow me? I said Amen - I think.
I think Amen, Amen I think, I think I say Amen,
I’m not completely sure, can you just run through that again?
You say my body may be killed and left to rot and stink,
Well, yes, that sounds terrific, Lord, I say Amen - I think.

But, Lord, there must be other ways to follow you, I said,
I really would prefer to end up dying in my bed.
Well, yes, he said, you could put up with the sneers and scorn and spit,
Do you still want to follow me? I said Amen - a bit.
A bit Amen, Amen a bit, a bit I say Amen,
I’m not entirely sure, can we just run through that again?
You say I could put up with sneers and also scorn and spit,
Well, yes, I’ve made my mind up, and I say, Amen - a bit.

Well I sat back and thought a while, then tried a different ploy,
Now, Lord, I said, the Good book says that Christians live in joy.
That’s true he said, you need the joy to bear the pain and sorrow,
So do you want to follow me, I said, Amen - tomorrow.
Tomorrow, Lord, I’ll say it then, that’s when I’ll say Amen,
I need to get it clear, can I just run through that again?
You say that I will need the joy, to bear the pain and sorrow,
Well, yes, I think I’ve got it straight, I’ll say Amen - tomorrow.

He said, Look, I’m not asking you to spend an hour with me
A quick salvation sandwich and a cup of sanctity,
The cost is you, not half of you, but every single bit,
Now tell me, will you follow me? I said Amen - I quit.
I’m very sorry Lord I said, I’d like to follow you,
But I don’t think religion is a manly thing to do.
He said forget religion then, and think about my Son,
And tell me if you’re man enough to do what he has done.

Are you man enough to see the need, and man enough to go,
Man enough to care for those whom no one wants to know,
Man enough to say the thing that people hate to hear,
To battle through Gethsemane in loneliness and fear.
And listen! Are you man enough to stand it at the end,
The moment of betrayal by the kisses of a friend,
Are you man enough to hold your tongue, and man enough to cry?
When nails break your body-are you man enough to die?
Man enough to take the pain, and wear it like a crown,
Man enough to love the world and turn it upside down,
Are you man enough to follow me, I ask you once again?
I said, Oh Lord, I’m frightened, but I also said Amen.
Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen; Amen, Amen, Amen,
I said, Oh Lord, I’m frightened, but I also said, Amen.

1 Comment »

I wish I could be at Exponential this week. Instead, I’m going to Exposed, which I am actually a bit more excited about. Why? For three reasons. First, Exposed is more “grassroots” which fits me better. Second, since it’s smaller, It will be more intimate and relational. There will only be about 30 of us, so I’m hoping to make some life-long church-planting friends. This would be nearly impossible at Exponential. Finally, Exposed is closer to me, and therefore, cheaper, which also allows my wife to come. Yay!

Of course, as the title of this post indicates, I’m also feeling a bit exposed right now. I’m changing, in a lot of ways, and it’s somewhat scary and embarrassing, while at the same time exciting and exhilarating. One thing is for sure, I’m closer to Jesus than I’ve ever been before.

Anyway, I was reading Scott Hodge’s blog today, and he is going to Exponential, and he attended a pre-conference session in which the following questions were asked:

    What is the Missio Dei?

    What is the Gospel?

    What is the message of Jesus?

    What makes a church a church?

    What is evangelism?

    How does it happen?

    What is the relationship between Christ and culture?

    Does activity guarantee maturity?

    What can numbers tell us?  What can’t they tell us?   

    What does it mean to lead?

    What does it mean to go?

    What does it mean to gather?

    What does it mean to be faithful?

    What is hope?

As I read this list, it hit me that nearly all my answers to these questions have changed over the past 12-18 months. It really startled me. I thought about doing a blog post on each question to explain what I used to believe 2+ years ago, and contrast it with what I believe now, and why I think I am experiencing the changes that I am, but probably nobody would be interested in this but me. So I won’t bore you.

Instead, you might want to ask yourself the questions above, why you answer them the way you do, and how those answers lead you to live your life. My changes and current views on these questions are causing me to be more concerned about following Jesus, making disciples, caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, loosing the captives, living on less, loving others, and making friends with people on the fringes than ever before.

Where do your answers to those questions lead you?

No Comments »

I made it to round 3 at the PlantingSpace Blogging Tournament! Thank you to everyone who voted for me. Below is my submission for Round 3, in which we were to address some aspect of leadership selection and training. I chose to focus on how to find leaders. If you want to vote for me or someone else, click here. Thanks!

If you want to find the leaders in your church, you need to look for marshmallows. No, not people who are puffed up and white. We have enough of those already. Instead, look for six other good marshmallow leadership qualities.

First, marshmallows are tasty. They can make bad things taste good (Marshmallow Yams) and good things better (Fluffer Nutter). Similarly, leaders are enjoyable to be around. They will be people of grace, kindness, tenderness, and compassion.

Second, they bind together and are sticky. Rice Crispy Treats would be just a bowl of cereal without the marshmallows. And have you ever tried to get melted marshmallow out of your hair? Leaders bring people together and bind them around a common purpose or goal.

Third, they always rise to the top. Ever try to sink a marshmallow? It can’t be done. People naturally follow leaders and leaders naturally lead. In your church, who do people look to for solutions? Who do they go to for answers and advice? Who do they turn to for comfort and safety?

Fourth, marshmallows are multifunctional. Marshmallows are not only good for eating, they can also be used to generate laughs (Chubby Bunny anyone?) and for endless holiday crafts. Similarly, leaders are flexible enough to work in a variety of situations and flow effortlessly from one role to another.

Fifth, they’re often singed because they’re frequently near fire. A good church leader storms the gates of hell. They make friends at the fringes and take risks where they might get burned or come home smelling like smoke.

Sixth, when they get in the fire, they actually get bigger. Leaders learn best in the forge. If they can stand the heat, they will increase their leadership skills, expand their sphere of influence, and become great leaders.

3 Comments »

I was reading the Gospel of Matthew today and came to the sobering realization that if I were alive at the time of Jesus Christ, I probably would not have been one of his disciples. All Christians today like to think that if we were alive when Jesus walked the earth, we would be the thirteenth disciple. I think most of us are delusional. I know I am.

In Matthew 8:19, a man comes to Jesus and says, “I’ll follow you!” It’s so easy to say. Isn’t it?

How does Jesus respond? He basically says, “If you follow me, you won’t have a home, an income, a bed to sleep in, or regular meals to eat. Still want to sign up?” (Matthew 8:20).

Take a real, good, hard, honest look at your life. Are you really willing to give up your house, your job, your bed, your income, and your meals to follow Jesus?

I know my own heart. I think I would have said, “Oh. Well…in that case…let me go home and ‘pray’ about it.” (Which is Christian lingo for “No.”)

And then I read this in Alan Hirsh’s book The Forgotten Ways:

I have come to the conclusion that for we who live in the Western world, the major challenge to the viability of Christianity is not Buddhism, with all its philosophical appeal to the Western mind, nor is it Islam, with all the challenge that it poses to Western culture. It is not the New Age that poses such a threat; in fact, because that is a genuine search going on in new religious movements, it can actually be an asset to we who are willing to share the faith amidst the search. All these are challenges to us, no doubt, but I have come to believe that the major threat to the viability of our faith is that of consumerism (p. 106).

Consumerism has actually become the driving idealogy of the church’s ministry (p. 110).

[Consumerism teaches us] that the thing that will complete us in a new kitchen or a house extension, whereas in fact these only add more stress to our mortgages and our families. … Offered “heaven now,” we give up the ultimate quest in pursuit of that which can be immediately consumed, be it a service, product, or pseudo-religious experience (p. 111).

What are your thoughts on all this? I want to follow Jesus, but I also want to provide a nice home, good food, warm clothing, and a soft bed for my wife and three girls. How can that be incompatible with following Jesus? I don’t see how it can be, but maybe I’m just drunk on consumerism and am in denial. Any suggestions?

No Comments »

David Murrow is one of my favorite authors. Not only that, he is a creative thinker about how to reach one of the hardest segments of our culture–men. Here is what he wrote about a new paradigm for church planting that he has been rolling around in his head. I think he is on to something here that will help all of us do a better job at making disciples. Thank you David! I look forward to reading the rest of his thoughts on this. 

Today’s most talked-about church models are polar opposites: megachurches and house churches. Megachurches attempt to draw thousands each weekend with a combination of professional music, top-flight preaching and a phalanx of ministry opportunities. House churches assemble a handful of believers for intimate fellowship, personal expression and a sense of belonging.

These approaches have both strengths and weaknesses when it comes to reaching men. Megachurches offer amazing quality – but they’re so big men can fall through the cracks. House churches offer close fellowship – but they can become ingrown and a bit stale.

I’d like to suggest a third model for the local church, based on Luke 10. I call it The Seventy-Two Church. It’s an idea that’s been rolling around in my head for a couple of years. It’s a hybrid – a cross between a house church and a typical congregational model. It bears some resemblance to the Methodist societies that led so many to Christ in the 1700s and 1800s. Let me share the concept with you and see what you think.

How we plant churches now. Almost every church plant begins as a weekly worship service. The goal is to present good preaching and music so that people start coming. Eventually you buy property and build a building. The idea is to create a large gathering of strangers (a crowd) and eventually work these folks into the life of the church (the core). This is the concept that built Saddleback into one of the world’s most influential churches.

The weakness of this approach is obvious: as the church grows, its ability to minister to individuals is diminished. Big churches know this, so they work overtime to get people into small groups. But most church attenders never find their way to a small group. So these churches draw big crowds, but their impact on their members’ lives is not what it could be (Willow Creek recently admitted as much).

Now, what if you flipped the equation? Instead of growing a large worship service, then trying to get people into small groups, why not build the church on small groups in the first place?

This is how Jesus did it. He started His church with one small men’s group. Twelve regular guys learning, doing and living life together.

Eventually He expanded his reach to 72 men (see Luke 10). Now, where do you think these 72 came from? How were they trained? The Bible does not say. But I have a theory: if each of the 12 apostles trained 5 more men, you’d have 72 men either directly or indirectly trained by Jesus.

Why couldn’t you establish a church today based on this model? Its centerpiece would not be a weekly worship service, but rather a network of relationships – in this case, seventy-two men who are all being personally discipled every week.

I hear paradigms cracking all over the world. I can imagine the objections are already rising in your throat. Bear with me a moment, as we see how a seventy-two church might work in the real world.

Structure and leadership are crucial. Our new church plant starts with a leader (let’s call him Pastor Jack). His first task would be to call 12 men to a rigorous, demanding course of discipleship. Jack would meet regularly with his twelve, focusing on the basics of the faith, including mutual confession, accountability, Biblical living, beating temptation, and practical service to God.

Once friendships form among the men, Jack would pair them up two-by-two. He would give each pair of men a nickname. (Jesus dubbed James and John “The Sons of Thunder.” That sounds nice and manly.) Jack would send each pair out to do stuff together: ministry, recreation and fun. The idea is to get them working together as a unit.

After a year or so, Jack would have a dozen trained, committed leaders who will become the foundation of his church of seventy-two. Then Jack would issue the big challenge: each pair should go out and find 10 more men who really want to grow in faith. Jack would continue to meet with his original 12 men to help them form their groups and raise their men up to maturity.

Assuming the pairs fill their groups, you’d have 72 men being discipled. (12 original disciples, leading 6 groups of 10 men each = 72 men). The foundation of Jack’s church is not a weekly gathering of strangers but a rich honeycomb of men becoming like Jesus. These men are already in accountability pairs, following Jesus as a team.

At this point, a church of 72 would look more like a men’s ministry than a church. But don’t worry; you’re just laying the foundation. Christ told us to build upon a rock. He looked a Simon (a man) and changed his name to “Rock.” It’s time we begin building our churches not on preaching and music, but on the bedrock of transformed men. Upon this rock you can build a strong, enduring church.

No Comments »

So we’ve seen the two basic models of discipleship and the pros and cons of each. Ideally, there should be a way to blend the two so we keep the positive aspects of each while avoiding the negative. Here is what Matt Chandler is doing at his church: 

1. You must create an air that celebrates life transformation and change. These things must be championed and celebrated from the stage in the service every single week. Use video and testimony to celebrate growth, transformation, and movement. It cannot be a sermon series once a year. You have to constantly, constantly bang the drum of progressive sanctification. And you MUST celebrate more than just the “miracle.” Yes, put up the guy who drank and drank and drank, and then came to Christ, and hasn’t desired a drink since. But also, champion the guy who is still raw, who still struggles. You get a guy up there to say, “I’m struggling, but let me tell you where I see God.”

2. Have lots of “on ramps” and “off ramps.” Make it easy for people to get involved in various ways of spiritual transformation, and make it ways for them to just rest in what they have learned. Allow times when you just back away from everything, and not try to control things, and just let them sit, rest, and germinate.

3. Keep flexible. The mission and end goal is sacred, but nothing else is. Ask yourself: What stirs your affections for Jesus Christ? And what robs you of that affection? Almost all of us have different answers to these questions. You must be flexible enough not to dictate to the people in your church how they are to grow spiritually. Some read Edwards. Some play the piano. Some go to the graveyard. Some go the art museum. We’ve got to figure out how to give our people freedom to press on toward the Lord. You can lay some track for them, but you can’t punish people when they deviate off that track.

4. There needs to be a relational aspect to everything. Everything. Here are some ways to make things relational:

a. Home groups. You can’t just throw people in a room and have community together. We need to try to help people build community, but it is very, very difficult. If they already have community, encourage them to stay with that group. Tell the older people they have a fishing license, and you are giving them a stocked lake. Tell them to look around and invite a couple over for dinner so they can pour their lives into someone younger. If you try to assign people to relationships, it won’t work.

b. Recovery ministry. There are lots of “short circuits” that people need help with. Drug. Alcohol. Relationships. Porn. Anger. Eating.

c. Whatever teaching you do, be heavy on application.

d. Use film to teach theology. (But get a license to show these films.)

e. Children and youth. Don’t teach moralism. Don’t teach a fake, external morality. Teach strong doctrine, and then engage the parents in the process. Provide the parents tools to help teach the children. For example, suggest field trips they can take their children on and questions they can ask. If we teach the children at church, and this doesn’t get reinforced at home, all we are teaching our children is to compartmentalize their Church life from the rest of their life.

6. ALL OF THIS TAKES TIME. LOTS OF TIME. Find mature leaders. Pair them with 2-3 others, and tell them to walk together for 2-3 years intentionally. Then, these people turn around, and disciple 2 or 3 more, while they are still being discipled by those over them. So eventually, everyone is discipling and being discipled.

So, that is a broad-brush overview of what they are trying to do. He said to check back in 20-30 years to see if it worked. Do you have any ideas or suggestions on how we can encourage community while keeping people in the Word?

No Comments »

Yesterday I introduced the two basic discipleship models. Today, I review the pros and cons of each model as presented by Matt Chandler.  

Pros of the Mechanical-Linear Discipleship Model

1. There is no better way to disseminate information, and get people to learn Bible and theology.
2. It has had some historical success.
3. There are TONS of resources and curriculum.
4. It’s easy to measure. How many went through all the steps?
5. It’s easy to motivate people to join and participate.
6. It lends itself to great theology.

Cons of Mechanical-Linear Discipleship Model

1. It’s hard to sustain. It starts big, and people fall off every week.
2. It can lead to coldness.
3. It lends itself primarily to the mechanical, mathematical, engineering types (which is a good thing) but most others have trouble keeping up.
4. Such programs have a tendency to become very sacred, and if you later try to stop such programs, people get angry.

Pros of the Organic-Relational Discipleship Model

1. It seems to yield the greatest results. People stick around when there are authentic communities. If they feel safe, they are much more prone to stick.
2. It tends to appeal to a broader group of personality types. Most of us are not intellects. But almost all of us are relational. We all long for and want community and relationships. It still allows the intellects to cross-pollinate.

Cons of the Organic-Relational Discipleship Model

1. We are all sinners. If we are not intentionally maturing, we won’t mature. Maturity doesn’t just happen.
2. It’s nearly impossible to measure. The only thing you have to count is numbers, and that doesn’t really tell you much.
3. It’s nearly impossible to control. You get leaders teaching very strange things in their groups.

Curiously, there is a huge schism over these two approaches today, and generally, this schism seems to follow along generational lines. Those who are in their 20s and 30s lean more toward the organic model while those over 40 lean heavily on the mechanical.

There may be ways to blend the pros of both while avoiding the cons. We’ll look tomorrow at what Matt Chandler is doing in his church, and maybe make a few general suggestions for what other churches can do as well.

3 Comments »

The number one question in most churches today is “How can we properly, adequately, and effectively make disciples?” If this isn’t your church’s number one question, you should probably shut down the church and go read Matthew 28:19-20 again.

This was the topic of Matt Chandler’s session at the Regional Acts 29 Conference yesterday. (They recorded the session, and so if/when I find out how to obtain the audio, I will update this post with that information.) In the next three posts, I will review what he said. It parallells exactly what I’ve been thinking for about a year now, which is why it was so exciting to me.

Today, I will simply introduce in broad brush strokes the two most common methods of making disciples in our churches today. Tomorrow, we will discuss the pros and cons of each, and on Friday, we will present a few ideas for how to take the pros from both approaches and incorporate them into the church while avoiding the cons.

Organic Discipleship

Matt began by pointing out that there are two basic approaches to making disciples in churches today. The first is relational discipleship (which he called “organic”), where the church encourages people to get together in some sort of home groups where they hang out, develop relationships, and just trust the Holy Spirit to work in their midst bringing them into the knowledge of the truth. They will often have some sort of “designated driver” to lead the group in a particular direction, but often the leader doesn’t really know how to get people “home” or what that “home” is. This approach tends to generate lots and lots of numerical growth in a church, but very little deep spiritual growth.

Mechanical-Linear Discipleship

Then there is the content-based model of discipleship, which Matt referred to as the “Mechanical-Linear” model. It will often have certain steps and classes that a person has to progress through on the “path” of discipleship. In this approach, discipleship is often equated with learning. There will be notebooks full of notes, classes that people can take, and different levels to aspire to. This approach does not get the great numbers that the organic approach does, but does give a few people a lot of information and knowledge about the Bible and theology.

During my five years as a pastor, I adopted and leaned heavily upon the Mechanical-linear model. I even spent time in certain sermons and Bible studies to criticize and condemn the Organic model. Now, three years out of pastoral ministry, and looking at heading back into it through church planting, I have been able to think, reflect, watch, and study these two models at work, and see numerous pros and cons to both. Tomorrow, I will review the pros and cons of each model that Matt Chandler has seen. 

No Comments »