cpm... for every context?
In many of our discussions about mission, I see the word "context" used quite frequently. We usually bring out that word when someone describes something that God is doing among their people group but we don't see that happening in our "context". Just to clarify, I think we are using the word to describe our: circumstance, situation, framework, perspective or environment. Somewhere along the way we hear, "That may be the case in your field, but it does not work that way in our context." In other words, what works in one part of the world among a particular people, does not work in a different circumstance.
I am good at generalizing and over-simplifying things. So bear with me here as I attempt to describe a few of my observations about missionary environments. (BTW - when I use the word "nation" I am referring to a people group).
1. Third-world Unevangelized Context - Much of the 10/40 window would fall into this category. Underdeveloped nations with little or no Christian presence. This is the context where we see most of today's church planting movements.
2. Third-world Evangelized Context - Many African nations (not all) fall into this category. Underdeveloped nations with a large percentage of the population professing to be evangelical Christian. There are great numbers of churches, denominations and organizations focusing on the reached people groups. There are pockets of lostness, neglected people groups/population segments in the same countries.
3. Industrial Unevangelized Context - A few Latin countries and many Asian nations are in this category. Emerging developed nations with little or no Christian presence.
4. Industrial Evangelized Context - Most of Latin America is in this category. Emerging developed nations with a large percentage of evangelical Christians. Again, there may be unreached people groups or segments in the same highly evangelized country.
5. Post-Industrial Unevangelized Context - Most of Western Europe and some parts of the U.S. are in this category. Developed countries with little evangelical presence or very little among certain segments.
6. Post-Industrial Evangelized Context - A few Asian countries, most of the U.S. and very few overall in this category. Developed countries with large evangelical presence. Pockets of lostness found in newer generations emerging.
I know that there is better terminology out there and well researched data about this sort of thing, I am just mentioning some very general contexts that I observe in the world today. Now, maybe you would like to add to or take away from what I offer here, that is fine, go ahead. This is not meant to be an academic exercise. I have a question:
Is it possible to see a type of church planting movement in each of these environments (or any other context you may define)? A church planting movement is defined as: Indigenous churches rapidly multiplying among the people of that culture so that everyone can access the good news of Jesus Christ.
Here are some general stages of development I observe as nations/people groups are evangelized through church planting movements:
A. In the beginning of a movement where there is very little or no evangelical Christian presence, small groups/house churches reproduce and multiply to spread the gospel. There will be certain individuals that God will use mightily to stimulate and nurture this initial stage of development.
B. As the gospel is spread far and wide through small reproducible groups/house churches, there will be church development that will produce larger congregations. Some small groups/house churches will die, some will remain small but network with others, some will combine with others to create larger congregations. Another type of leader emerges in this stage to train others and deepen the maturity of the churches.
C. Some of the congregations will develop into mega churches with cell groups. During this stage believers will access mass media to saturate regions with the gospel. Christian sub-cultures will develop and the gospel will not reach into every segment. Sophisticated and well-groomed leadership characterize this stage of development.
Okay, I know I have used some very broad brushstrokes here. Please forgive me for that. The purpose is to get us thinking about our context. In what context do you find yourself working? Can you identify with any of the situations I have described? Is cpm possible in your context?
posted by Tim Patterson @ 3:15 PM
13 Comments:
I think this is a great question. So far, at least among indigenous majority population groups, there has been nothing closely resembling a bona fide cpm in Western Europe, that I know of.
Is this because the missionaries in other parts of the world are smarter or more spiritual or more biblical in their approach?
Or are there perhaps other factors in play?
Do we say "cpm" or bust? When do we "shake the dust off of our shoes" and move on?
David,
I don't know the answer. But I think that some sort of multiplication of disciples must be possible, even in a Western Europe context. But in what form? What would that look like? Would the churches take a different form?
We don't have to call it a cpm, it could be something else. But I really believe the Lord desires to multiply followers in every context. Our way of being and doing church may be the problem.
What do you think?
mr. t,
First of all, thanks for your candor in your response. I sense a generally humble spirit from you, and for that I am grateful.
What do I think?
That's a loaded question, as I am still trying to sort through a lot of this in my mind, and kind of hoping some of these blogs will provide some of the "missing pieces."
In any case, here goes for now...
1. I am immensely grateful to God for what He is doing in other parts of the world through CPMs. I am also "proud" to be a part of an organization (IMB) that is able to recognize God's work, and adapt accordingly.
2. I would love to see something like the CPMs we hear and read about in other parts of the world take place in Western Europe also. I pray that my "lack of faith" and analytical mindset are not barriers to seeing this happen.
3. I do sense there seem to be several key factors that distinguish Western Europe from other parts of the world in relation to the possible viability of CPM methodology.
4. It is interesting to me how few indigenous Spaniards (this is pretty much the only group I can speak with much authority about) seem eager to jump on board the "house church bandwagon." There is a lot of interest among North American m's, and not just among our "company", but almost zero interest among the Spanish pastors and believers, irregardless of the denominational affiliation. There has been somewhat more interest, and limited success with various sorts of cell church models.
I am hopeful regarding the potential of a "hybrid" model based closely on Wade Akins' Pioneer Evangelism, if you are familiar with that. It would involve working closely with existing churches and pastors, to get them to catch a vision for church planting, and helping them to begin to train key "lay" leeaders within their congregation in relational and small group evangelism, and beginning "satellite evangelistic cells" that are semi-autonomous, maintaining supervisory contact with the "mother church" and pastor, but not expecting particants to participate fully in all the activities of the "mother church."
5. Some may say this is not a pure "cpm" vision. But I see it has more chances for working here in Western Europe.
6. One thing I am pretty convinced about is that we as North American m's are not going to be the catalysts for CPMs in Western Europe doing it by ourselves in isolation from the national believers.
David,
Thank you for your openess and for sharing your ideas.
I am familiar with Wade Akins PE, we had Wade come do some training when I was in Latin America. Some of the traditional churches we worked with there implemented PE and had some success in church planting. I was thrilled to see them do this and encouraged it. I think this would work in your context.
I see limitations using this method. In our situation, when those first generation of new churches wanted to branch out on their own and expand the kingdom, the mother churches would not authorize it. The new leaders could not baptize, administer Lord's Supper, or be empowered to plant new churches. The new believers had to be baptized by the mother church ordained leaders and they continued as satellite congregations, never getting beyond that stage. This means there were never any grandchildren, only children. This limited the growth potential since there can be no multiplication without generational growth and reproduction.
One thing we have done to get past this obstacle with traditonal partners in South Asia, is to encourage our partners to authorize lay leaders to baptize and administer the Lord's Supper. We explain to all that this is not the same as legal ordination. But we are authorizing/empowering them to obey the Great Commission. They still must be accountable to someone up the line. The traditional leaders agreed. We modeled how this could be done. This greatly increased our harvest among those churches. We are still waiting to get the third generation of leaders empowered, but we are seeing progress.
Using this approach means that we must empower lay leaders to do all that is required to obey the Great Commission. They are held to regular accountability so that there is less likelihood of abuses. They make a distinction between the ordained and lay leaders, but that is okay as long as the lay leaders are given authority to do all that is necessary to birth new churches.
We have a ceremony of laying on of hands and prayer for the lay leaders. We are confirming them as leaders and sending them out to obey the Great Commission. I say "we", but it is the indigenous leadership that is authorizing and sending.
Very interesting dialogue between the two of you! I can identify with what you both are saying.
My 2-cents on Pioneer Evangelism is that it is one of the best ways to get our Baptist traditional churches and pastors to get involved with church planting. I see it as kind of a half-way approach between traditional church planting and cpm. Most Baptists are willing to at least give it some serious consideration (at least this is true in Ecuador) whereas there is a lot of suspicion associated with cpm methodologies.
I guess what I am trying to say is "go for it, David, give it a try!"
David,
One more thought. I hear what you are saying about Spainards not going for the house church model. We ran into the same problem in our Latin situation. The problem not only stems from traditional evangelicals, it is part of their Catholic worldview - all things religious tied to a "templo". One way around that was through raw new believers from the younger generation (postmoderns). Easier said than done.
Bless you for working in a difficult context.
mr. t,
"Raw new believers from the younger generation (postmoderns)" seems to be the preferred option for many of our co-workers in Western Europe. But I have yet to see any type of reproducing church come from this. Whenever someone begins to see it happen, I will be the first to say "more power to them." I am also concerned, though, about the implications of this option related to what I say on my recent "Contaminated DNA" ? post.
David,
I see your point. I don't know brother. Like we say back home, "You've got a hard row to hoe." I encourage you to go all out with an adapted PE and see what happens. Sounds like you have solid relationships with the established leaders/churches. They should listen to you. If you get them mobilized with PE, that will be quite a feat (from what little I know about the Baptists there).
Hi Mr. T... Keep it up! Good to serve with you.
I think that the CPMS will always take on characteristics of the culture where they are taking place. You will find that there are real differences from CPM to CPM. Some meet almost exclusively in church buildings, others meet more in houses, some have characteristics of both. I believe that your identifying different environments is right on the money.
There are huge differences in working amongst an unreached group with few believers than working in a location that has all of the conventions, seminaries, and professional clergy. Movements will look differently in both situations.
You will have a hard time finding a "house" church in cultures where houses are extremely small and mostly dedicated for sleeping. In some cultures, it is taboo to invite someone else into your home. In those areas you may have fire churches where people gather around a fire.
I believe that in all of this we are talking about contextualization of the Gospel to the people with whom we are working. The resulting movement will certainly take on characteristics of the culture.
One danger that the IMB had during the first days of New Directions was trying to copy what happens in China (or where ever else) in locations that had vast convention structures that would never adopt the models being pushed. It doesn't mean the models were bad, but they were not cultural to the existing believers.
Here is the interesting thing to ponder. Who is our target? The existing convention or those who are lost within the people group? It could be that you can work with both and hold the fine line between existing work and new work. It also may be that we must dedicate ourselves to new strategies to reaching those that the institutional church is not reaching. If we choose the latter, we must tread ever so lightly and remain humble as we continue to relate to those in the existing Christian community.
Enough for tonight.
Thanks for your comment George. Good insight, I agree with your thinking.
I don't think we need too many foreigners relating to the established churches and conventions in a given country. We need to leave them alone already! Especially if they have existed on their own for decades. They don't need our help. If they ask for it, it is usually for propping up struggling institutional work.
That should not be our focus, the missionary (apostolic) role should expand the kingdom among peoples/ segments the established indigenous churches are not reaching. There is the possibility that the established church or convention might send their own missionaries, but they are usually trying to transplant their version of church. That always proves to be ineffective in starting an indigenous movement. This is why we have unreached peoples/ segments in the same region or country.
mr. t,
Sorry to comment on such an old post (especially since it is not likely many people will read this), but I just came across the last 2 comments by "George Klineberg" and you...
I am concerned about making an artificial division between the "established church" and the missionaries. It seems to me you are being a bit too cynical in relation to the "established church." I believe that just as God calls us as foreign missionaries to cross cultural boundaries in order to evangelize and plant new churches, he also calls those within the culture to do the same. And it doesn't make sense for us to have completely different agendas. There are many things we can learn from our national (or people group) partners, and hopefully, many things they can learn from us.
Maybe in other parts of the world, North American missionaries are able to make a bigger impact working in isolation from the local churches. But my experience in Western Europe has been that, although there are definitely barriers of traditionalism and tunnel-vision to be overcome, in the long run, we can see a whole lot more accomplished working with them than working in isolation from them.
The key many times is a lot of love and patience, and at times, helping our national partners to think concepts we introduced to them were really their idea in the first place, and not worrying about who gets the credit.
As you can tell, you've got me on a soapbox, and I could go on. But I'll leave it for now. But perhaps we can visit this topic some more on another blogpost somewhere where more people will be likely to read and join in on the conversation.
Blessings,
David
David, You said...
"As you can tell, you've got me on a soapbox, and I could go on. But I'll leave it for now. But perhaps we can visit this topic some more on another blogpost somewhere where more people will be likely to read and join in on the conversation."
I will take your comment to another future post and we will discuss it further there.
Thanks,
mr t
Post a Comment
<< Home