Today's installment of "Putting the Hip in Church Planting Fellowships" kicks off our look at the unintended consequences of subcultural targeting and how embracing a more well-rounded philosophy of church planting can head those side-effects off at the pass. Here's the first tick on the list:
- A divergence from the biblical pattern of gospel-centered identity inevitably promoting a culture-centered identity among those gathered in the church plant
At the end of the day, this first issue we're tackling is one of the primary fenceposts that mark off the problems associated with the trend in church planting in view here. This issue is really more of a big picture kind of problem and is not one that a) the vast majority of church planters are eager to see happen, even if they champion the subculture-as-necessary-target method and b) can be treated beyond abstract reflections here. It's way too big of a potential flaw in the garment to patch up with the little thread available here, so our task is going to be identifying what the problem is abstractly and providing helpful perspective on how to rightly and biblically think "abstractly" about the nature of the local church. Not much here by way of practical tips or specific targets - just a potentially major problem that would otherwise skew the perception of the local church's identity among a whole lot of people. And that makes it an issue worth addressing first.
Any self-identified "evangelical" assents to the need to proclaim the gospel, regardless of nuances or definitions. Finding basic tenets of gospel truth are just as easily accessed on a prosperity gospel teacher's website as an Orthodox Presbyterian website. Which makes the identity issue surrounding the gospel so crucial for those involved with the establishment of new local churches. How is it that such divergent groups (theologically and by way of philosophy of ministry) can affirm the same "core" truths, yet have such radically different agendas for carrying out ministry? I suggest it is because, apart from adjacent areas of doctrine, the assumption of the gospel has given way to the prioritization of things outside the realm of focus for a New Testament church.
Since the 19th century, the atmosphere of American evangelicalism has generally pushed back against the press for doctrinal purity and towards models of what has been considered more "practical" matters facing people. The suspicion that the very end of days was upon us provoked a rise in end-times groups, swallowing up people whose hopes were, at best, diverted from the gospel to the supposed prophecies and biblical interpretations that were only empty and false promises. The recasting of evangelistic sermons and presentations of the gospel into the mold of anxious-bench emotional manipulations drove many well-meaning Christians to reliance on presentations of the gospel instead of the power of God at work through the gospel itself. The emotionalism of the early 1900's drew the focus of many on what was billed as the work of the Holy Spirit, instead of seeing the clear gospel fruits of holiness, godliness, faithfulness, and the like prized among the miracles worked by the Holy Spirit among the people of God. Theological liberalism has consistently maintained the idea that meeting felt needs was really the missionary task. And finally, the last 30 years has seen the ascendance of a method of ministry, particularly church planting, that has focused so heavily on identifying emerging cultures, classes, and sectors of society that assembling groups of similar people has become a staple food in the diet of homefront missiology.
While the recent church planting focus is not as radically off-base as the others listed above, it might be appropriate to consider it an opening act in pressuring local churches away from identifying closely with the gospel. Consider one of the primary purposes of Acts, signifying an interpretive lens for the book as a whole: "So when they had come together, they asked him [the resurrected Jesus], 'Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?' He said to them, 'It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.'" These were the parting words of the Lord Christ before His ascension - and words that instruct the missionary endeavor of the church.
The words of Acts 1:8 are often associated with missionary enterprises. But the context (immediate and the big picture of Acts) supplies us with an even more helpful perspective than what might otherwise be taken from the verse itself. Notice that the apostles ask this question: "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" This cannot go unnoticed for the reader of Acts, because it shows an issue that surfaces multiple times in the book: the idea that the Kingdom of God would come only to Israelites. Instead, the expansion of the Kingdom to include people from every tribe, language, people, and nation is in view throughout the book. So while it was a temptation for the apostles to restrict their ministry to the Jews, the missionary commission drives Peter to not only preach to the Jews gathered (from all manner of nations) at Pentecost, but to enter Cornelius' home and proclaim the gospel to him and his household. It was through that encounter that Peter's eyes were opened to the truth that the gospel shapes the identity for all who believe.
Even though the contemporary emphasis on targeted church planting may not stress the need to follow certain aspects of the ceremonial law for inclusion, the tendency in the human heart toward self-righteousness and partisanship is not altogether removed. Thus, the warnings in the New Testament for the people of God to avoid such behavior in the church. And that brings us full circle to what stands as a primary concern regarding the culturally-driven identity shaping many church planting efforts: they run a significant risk of strengthening the cultural aversions (doctors, lawyers, and businessmen don't typically spend time with migrant workers) that the gospel eradicates as it becomes the new identity of the people of God. This is the potentially great hazard that a culture-centered identity poses for the relationships within the church, a hazard that a gospel-centered emphasis in evangelizing a whole community would do well to avoid. And it almost goes without saying that it runs the risk of compromising the church's identity as a church targeting "X type of people," rather than the identity the church holds as the people of God, where the gospel replaces other identities.
At the end of the day, the risk to gospel-centered identity has the potential to compromise to significant aspects of the local church: its ministerial focus and its identity as the gospel-transformed people of God. Both of these are priorities that ought to be guarded and pursued by any local church. In the next few days, we'll be moving on to another "unintended consequence." All of these are related in some way, though they all are tangential to this: the local church needs to be shaped by, driven by, and held together by the gospel. It is its message and its identity is found in the glorious Christ whose gospel it is. We cannot afford to assume it.
