The Essentials of Missions: Cultivating Active Church Members

[Adapted from a paper I wrote]

In Acts 13-14, we see Paul and Barnabus spending time teaching and strengthening local Churches to the point where they are established. This resulted in new converts being established in their personal faith as well as established as a body, such that Paul could identify gifts in the saints as they served one another.

Some Churches see Sunday attendance as the true measure of success. Others look to the number of baptisms. Our true call is to be faithful and leave the fruit up to God. However, we should have a goal, and the goal of the Great Commission is to have disciples who have been baptized and taught everything that Christ commanded. This is not just young converts but mature believers.

Dr. Carl Trueman suggests that confessionalism is an important part of protecting this emphasis on maturity:

"It is the elders’ task to nurture and bring to maturity, in terms of life and belief, those who are members. Practically speaking, if a doctrine is not in the church’s confession, it is going to be very difficult to persuade any member that it is important. Thus, the confession of a church should represent what the mature Christian should believe."[Link here]

Whether or not your Church adopts a historical confession, it is certainly Biblical for a Church to define Christian maturity. Furthermore, honesty and transparency would probably demand that we write this standard down and have the local body agree that it represents a true understanding of the Bible. Until there is such explicit agreement from the Church membership, a Church's commitment to the Great Commission has not been properly established.

Important questions to ask of your local Church:

1. Does your Church have a clear way of establishing new/young believers such that they understand Christ's role in their lives?

2. Does your Church have a clear way of establishing new/young believers such that they can serve one another, identify their gifts, and be active members in the household of God?

The Essentials of Missions: Connecting to Unbelievers

[Adapted from a paper I wrote]

Point 2: Churches established in missions are connecting to unbelievers

In Acts 13-14, we see Paul and Barnabus actively engaging the lost with the Gospel. We also see them entrusting their ministry to the local Churches, presumably because the Churches were mature to continue the ongoing work of evangelization.

Existing Churches should consider whether they have the capacity to engage with unbelievers. Specifically, they should consider whether they have cultivated that gift in their membership rather than relying solely on paid clergy.

This does not only mean having active evangelism to the local community. Churches should consider whether they are able to correctly communicate the Gospel to those who are yet to be saved within their own walls. Most North American Evangelical Churches will always have unbelievers in their midst, whether they be family members, false conversions, or friends. A Church is not properly established in missions if they are not equipped to speak the good news of Christ to people outside their walls and inside their walls.

To make it simple, here are two practical questions to ask:

1. Does your Church actively engage the unbelieving community with the Gospel?

2. Does your Church have the maturity to continue the work of evangelization?

The Essentials to Missions: Connections to Church Networks

[Adapted from a paper I wrote]

As previously discussed, here is my four-point model for evaluating how established local Churches are in missions:

Churches Established in Missions are -
1. Connected to Church networks
2. Connecting to unbelievers
3. Cultivating active Church members
4. Commissioning Church leaders
 
In the next few posts, we will consider each point. First: Point 1.

Point 1 - Churches established in missions are connected to Church networks
In Acts 13-14, we see an interdependence between the Church-planting team and the Churches they have planted. This, of course, starts with the team being physically present for long periods of time. However, after the work has been entrusted to the local leaders, we still see an ongoing relationship between the team and the Churches. An example of this is the case of Antioch of Syria, where the Church was first built up by Paul and Barnabus and then had the opportunity of blessing the two by sending them to the Gentiles.

Therefore, I think we should have strong, ongoing ties to Church planters/reformers/refreshers. I do not think that this necessarily means denominationalism. However, I cannot escape the fact that Paul and his team continue to have authority in these local Churches after they have finished their terms as Church-planters. This seems to be missing in much of the Church-planting and denominational life that I have been exposed to.

Two very practical questions regarding a Church's connection to Church networks: 

1. Does your Church belong to a network of faithful, gifted men and women that they can contribute to as an extension of their mission to expand God's Gospel work?

2. Does your Church belong to a network of faithful, gifted men and women that they can look to as a resource when they need strengthening, reform, or doctrinal correction?

Is Your Church Established in Mission?

[Adapted from a paper I wrote]

My experience in North American Evangelicalism is that there are many Churches that think they are established and yet have not established themselves when it comes to their participation in the Great Commission. Many Evangelical Churches can say that they fulfill the marks of a true Church with regard to their ecclesiological tradition. They can also say that they have fulfilled their state’s requirements to be registered as an official charity. Yet I have observed, both as a current Church leader and a former missionary, that this does not necessarily lead to a Church being able to articulate their involvement in making disciples of all nations.

From my limited perspective, it seems that the Evangelical Church has a renewed vigour for local and global Church-planting. This is very commendable. However, I am worried that existing Churches can often be pushed aside in the process of expanding new Church-planting networks. Hopefully, God will awaken a desire for existing Churches to evaluate how established they are in mission. The next few posts will be an attempt to look at the first missionary journey in Acts 13-14, and create a model for evaluating existing Churches and their commitment to missions.

Applying Acts

[Adapted from a paper I wrote]

Although it is true that Luke intends Acts to be a source of instruction for local Church life, whole Church traditions have been built upon suspect applications from Luke’s account.

The following are three principles I have identified when considering whether a practice in Acts is normative:

1. Consider whether a direct application flows from understanding the passage in the context of Luke’s main purposes.

2. Consider whether this practice is an isolated event or a reoccurring practice.

3. Consider whether this practice is meant to be a principle rather than a blueprint.

Let’s take one common interpretation and consider whether it violates these principles.

As can be seen through reading the book through, Luke is primarily interested in chronicling the development of the early Christian movement. We see the Church move in its geography from Jerusalem to Rome. We see the Church move ethnically from Jewish to Gentile. And we see the Church move in its leadership from a small, centralized leadership to the establishment of local bodies with local leaders.

Before applying any part of the Book of Acts, we must consider how the event fits in with these primary interests. For example, some have used the conflict regarding food distribution in Acts 6 as a model for how Church government should be organized. The Apostles declare that they should devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word. They then assign the responsibility of food distribution to Hellenistic Jewish widows to seven other men.

Some apply this passage by dividing Church responsibilities in a similar way. Specifically, this passage is traditionally believed to be the foundation of the deaconate. An example of this is in Calvin’s commentary on Acts, where he comments on this passage, “Luke declareth here upon what occasion, and to what end, and also with what rite, deacons were first made”. Elders in the Church are to handle the spiritual leadership of the Church, while deacons handle the more practical aspects of Church ministry. However, this event in Acts 6 has more significance as we consider its context in the narrative with regards to the movement in leadership and ethnicity. The Church here seeks to solve problems of ethnicity, namely this dispute between Hebraic and Hellenistic Jews. Also, the Church here expands its leadership beyond the twelve Apostles to seven more men filled with the Spirit.

A fact that underscores this view is that the following chapters show some of the seven, specifically Stephen and Philip, doing evangelistic preaching activity. In fact, the chapters seem to be focused on the activity of these two members of the seven rather than the twelve Apostles. The point is that leadership of the Church is expanding as the Church itself is expanding geographically, not that a template of Church polity is being presented.

Once this story is understood in the context of Luke’s main purposes, the Church can apply it more carefully. Christians across the Theological spectrum must be careful to treat the Word of God with care and not give too much authority to their doctrinal traditions.

Is Acts a Church Manual?

[Adapted from a paper I wrote]
Is Acts a Church manual? If we want to figure out Luke's purpose, we must start with Luke. Acts is the second part of Luke's writings to Theophilus, which is written to give him "certainty concerning the things you have been taught". Therefore, any explanation for Luke’s purpose of writing Acts must first start with how it gives Theophilus, and others, certainty.

But does "the things" include the Church? Kaiser addresses this when he says, “Luke-Acts was a work dedicated to assure Theophilus and all like him that no amount of persecution could be interpreted as a sign of God’s judgment or a sign that the promise-plan of God had failed” and later that “At the center of that promise-plan that Luke portrayed were two foci: Jesus and the Church he was building. What had been inaugurated in the life and ministry of Jesus was now continuing to be fulfilled through the church.” The Church is indeed part of God's plan to fulfill His promises and she is central to Luke’s narrative.

Specifically, it is clear from the structure of the Acts account that Luke is particularly interested in the Church’s transformation from a small, Jewish sect to what seemed to be a worldwide, multi-ethnic movement. Jesus says that His people will be witnesses “ in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” and we then see the Christian message as it is preached and manifested in local Church bodies: first with Jewish believers in Jerusalem, next as the Church spreads throughout Judea and Samaria, and finally, as local Churches are established throughout the known world. Fee and Stuart write, “Although Luke’s inspired broader intent may be a moot point for some, it is our hypothesis… that he was trying to show how the church emerged as a chiefly Gentile, world-wide phenomenon from its origins as a Jerusalem-based, Judaism-oriented sect of Jewish believers, and how the Holy Spirit was directly responsible for this phenomenon of universal salvation based on grace alone.” (98) It is clear that the universal nature of the Church is a primary interest of Luke’s. Therefore, any event in the book must be viewed through this lens.

However, Luke is not only interested in what the Church is but also how the Church came into being. Carson and Moo write, “Luke seeks to secure the full belief and commitment of such a person by describing the historical foundation for Christian faith and by showing, through this historical survey, that the church of his, and Theophilus’s day is the culmination of biblical history” (305) If Luke does want to defend the Church, he must also demonstrate to Theophilus and other readers that there is legitimacy in how the early Church was established. Giving more weight to this argument is that the sheer volume of information of Paul’s methods, both in the Acts accounts and in the Pauline Epistles, strongly suggests that the Biblical authors intend for us to learn from Paul’s model. Scholars such as Fee and Stuart have rightly identified Luke’s lack of interest in discussing the mode of baptism (not that it isn't important). However, other details of Church life, especially Paul’s plan for bringing the Gospel to the ends of the earth, are provided in great detail.

Not only is Paul’s plan given in great detail, it is revealed with a significant amount of uniformity. Fee and Stuart suggest that Luke is not interested in presenting a uniform Church with regards to structure or form. Giving the example of conversions, they write, “when he records individual conversions there are usually two elements included: water baptism and the gift of the Spirit. But these can be in reverse order, with or without the laying on of hands”. While this is true in the case of many controversial topics that use Acts as the primary exegetical fighting ground, other passages, particularly the missionary journeys of Paul, reveal a clear, consistent pattern. For example,  Paul’s first missionary journey reveals a pattern. Paul and Barnabus's three major stops are Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, and Lystra. In all three cities, they first preach Jesus in public places and saw people respond (Acts 13:14, 14:1, 14:9). Next, they encountered opposition and left (Acts 13:50, 14:5-6, 14:19). Then, on the way back, Paul’s team returned to the believers and strengthened them (Acts 14:22). Finally, they appointed elders in what were now established Churches (Acts 14:23). Having finished this, they could pray to God, entrusting the Churches to Him (Acts 14:23) and return to their home Church in Antioch where they were commended to the grace of God for “the work they had fulfilled” (Acts 14:26). As Jeff Reed points out, “This pattern – evangelizing strategic cities, establishing new churches, and appointing leaders over the new churches – was consistent throughout Paul’s entire ministry.” Therefore, we see Paul’s first missionary journey functioning not only as an apologetic for the Holy Spirit’s actions amongst the Gentiles, but also as an apologetic for Paul’s Spirit-empowered work, including this model of Church-establishing.

In conclusion, while the Book Acts does not operate primarily as a manual for Church-planting, it is written to the Church to defend the legitimacy of God’s work of bringing the Gospel to the ends of the earth. This includes an intentional, repeated model of ministry that is presented. Therefore, it is legitimate to look at the Book of Acts as providing instruction for Church practice.