I’m sitting on a plane at Brisbane airport. I’ve just spent two days at the first Australian Acts 29 Church Planters boot camp. I went because I was tired of hearing about Acts 29 (and Mars Hill Church and Mars Hill Global) second-hand. I wanted to meet the people leading the movement face-to-face and hear ‘from the horse’s mouth’. Let me share with you what I thought, and let me tell you about the who, what, when, where and how of the conference.
The name
Before I speak about the ‘who’, I need to mention the conference’s name. I found out that the Brisbane event was not officially a ‘boot camp’. Acts 29 have changed the names of these events from ‘Church Planter boot camps’ to ‘Church Planting Foundations Conferences’. Dave Fandey said, “Apparently the word, ‘boot camp’ has all kinds of negative connotations around the globe, so we went for the word ‘Foundations’ instead”. I replied, “Maaaaaaate, that is one of the things Aussies love about your movement: you are blokey blokes who expect a lot from those you assess and send as planters. I’d encourage you to stick with name ‘boot camp’.”
Dave was surprised by what I said. Hopefully they’ll change the name back!
The who
Acts 29 invested a lot in this conference. They sent out the Acts 29 International Director with his wife and the Acts 29 Australia/New Zealand Director with his family.
The speakers and presenters were:
- Mike Gunn: Acts 29 International Director. Mike (and his wife Donna) is pastor of Harambee Church in Renton, Washington State. Mike has pastored churches in three very different parts of the USA: the north-east, south-west and north-west. Mike studied biology, and has completed formal theological education. Mike was a bit like a Christian version of Wendel Sailor: he was built like a brick toilet, and he was a straight talker, dogged and determined and always looking for a laugh.
- Donna Gunn: Donna was one of the mentors running the women’s stream. Donna’s attendance, along with Wilma Fandey, was a clear sign that Acts 29 invest deeply in the wives of church planters. Women I spoke to who attended the wives’ stream said it was very good.
- Dave Fandey: Acts 29 Australia/New Zealand Director. Dave, with his wife Wilma, planted The Fields church in the summer of 2003 in Carlsbad, California. Dave is a native of Southern California. Dave was an Aerospace Engineer prior to undertaking a Masters of Divinity at Talbot School of Theology (same college as Mike Gunn). Dave reminded me of Frodo from The Lord of the Rings. He didn’t have the whizzbang tricks of Gandalf, but he reeked of integrity. He constantly spoke of Acts 29’s desire to serve the church in Australia.
- Wilma Fandey also played a key role in the wives’ stream. The Fandys travelled to Australia as a family, and their children were present for some of the conference.
- Steve Chong: Pastor of Kirkplace Presbyterian Church, Kogarah, New South Wales. Steve spoke for a one-hour session on the Monday under the title ‘Lessons learned’. Steve trained at Moore Theological College and the Presbyterian Theological Centre, both in Sydney. Steve has been pastoring Kirkplace for just under two years. Steve was very candid about being inexperienced as a planter.
- Mark Driscoll: Pastor of Mars Hill Church, Seattle. The conference pack sent out prior to the conference said, “Australia/New Zealand conference speakers: Mark Driscoll—via video”. When I read that, I thought, “We’ll be hearing from out brother via Skype or some similar live feed, just like he did at the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) Conference in August 09”. That is not what happened. Instead, a two-minute pre-recorded DVD greeting was played on screen. In this clip, Mark announced that he will be visiting Australia in 2011.
- Steve Addison and Tim Sheuer—via video. Like Pastor Mark above, these men had a pre-recorded message on DVD. I did not hear it.
The local organizer was Will Henderson. Will has planted a Presbyetrian Church in Brisbane called Engage City Church. Will’s church launched the night before the boot camp, so he had a lot on his plate. Will was a gracious host and a very prayerful emcee. I was interested to note that, unlike Pastor Mark, everyone else had done full-time formal theological education. I’d assumed something different.
Positives
The aim of the whole conference was to talk about three things:
- The message: The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. What is it? What is it not?
- The man: What kind of person is God looking for to lead his people?
- The mission: How do we take the gospel of God to God’s world in love?
There were many, many positives. Let me list just some of them:
- They spent a lot of time talking about ‘The message’, or what Acts 29 thought was ‘the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ’. I was very impressed, and could see that they are grace-alone-faith-alone-Christ-alone-and-Scriptures-alone people. They understood and articulated clearly what was the difference between the gospel and the fruits of the gospel. I was very encouraged.
- The Acts 29 blokes were earthy, tough, straight talkers.
- Acts 29 are unashamedly complementarian. Thank the Lord for the ‘man up’ message of these brothers. Too many organizations have custard in their spines on this issue, which results in less Australian blokes reached in the long haul.
- They’re on about the Great Commission, primarily. They see making disciples as the primary activity that, when blessed by God, gives birth secondarily to a church—that is, a group of believers. They’re after conversion growth, not transfer growth.
- I got no hint of them having pentecostal or charismatic theology; in fact, they considered anything even remotely ‘gospel plus’ as anathemas. They spoke vigorously against prosperity teaching and wordless incarnational evangelism. They were very serious about reaching out without selling out.
- American generosity: Acts 29 said repeatedly, “We have come to serve”. I believe them. They don’t want ‘Acts 29’-badged churches; they genuinely want to share their tools and resources. They also provided two books to all delegates: Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions by John Piper, and Movements that Change the World by Steve Addison (Melbourne, Australia).
- It was a diverse group denominationally and demographically, and yet the room was full of people keen on evangelism. There were Christian surfers from Coolangatta, Presbyterians who’d reviatalized struggling churches, and ex-convicts who’d planted as young Christians.
Questions
- There was not a lot of expository preaching. This is understandable as most talks were topical, but when there was a reasonably long section to deal with (e.g. 1 Peter 5:1-5), the speaker skipped across it. This was not a big deal, but a difference I noted in comparison to my heritage.
- They spoke repeatedly about contextualization—that is, taking time to be truly missional. This was a great thing to focus on. They said make sure you do two things firstly, learn the language of the people you minister to, and secondly, study the culture. Ironically, I did not feel that the Acts 29 leaders did this with regards to working out what was the best way to recruit and train church planters in Australia. I asked Mike Gunn, “Do you want to use indigenous Aussie coaches to mentor the church planters you assess and approve?” Mike said, “Yes”. I asked, “Who are those coaches?” Mike said, “Will Henderson and others”. I asked, “So your strategy must be very long-term, I assume, because you will need to wait for a while before Will is experienced enough to coaches others?” Mike didn’t seem like he had a plan to identify, recruit and train indigenous church planters or coaches for those planters. If I was Acts 29, I’d shout an Aussie leader dinner—someone like Col Marshall (http://www.vinegrowers.com) or Phil Campbell (Michelton Presbyterian Church, Queensland) or Rory Shiner (St Matthew’s Shenton Park, Western Australia), and glean the local intel from them to find the best possible indigenous coaches. I know an Aussie can still learn a lot from a mentor on the other side of the globe, but I expected Acts 29 to have a bit more of a plan for using gifted, like-minded locals. Perhaps they’re scoping the territory right now, trying to find them. Will Henderson will certainly be a source of good information.
- Dave Fandy used the word ‘calling’ erroneously to refer to being called by God to plant a church. He used the word numerous times with reference to church planting: “The pastoral ministry call”, “a unique calling”, “vocational calling”, and so on. Half the world’s Christians use the word ‘calling’ erroneously, but I raise it because it surprised me. Acts 29 were so careful with their use of language, and if there’s a word you want to use carefully in ministry recruitment, it is the word ‘calling’.
- The conference talks were a little confusing. The boot camp was meant to cover ‘The message’, ‘The man’, and ‘The mission’. The speakers seemed to conflate talks, and were very repetitious. They all wore countrymen microphones , spoke to PowerPoint slides and spoke without notes. As a result, the talks were fairly sloppy (in packaging, not theology), disjointed and repetitive.
- Speaker choice: It was very curious to me that the Australian church planters put on the ticket at the conference were Steve Chong (Kirkplace Presbyterian Church, Sydney) and Will Henderson (Engage City Church, Brisbane). These two men were godly, humble saints, but neither of them have had much experience in church planting (nor did they claim to be experts). Steve began in January 08, and Will’s church launched on 15th November 09. I would have liked to have heard from one of the nation’s best practitioners who was long in the tooth.
- It appears Acts 29 is an entirely different entity to Mars Hill Global. I said to Mike Gunn, “Mark Driscoll said on the video you showed on Monday that he is coming to Australia in 2011. Is he coming to plant Mars Hill Campuses, or is he coming to promote Acts 29 boot camps?” Mike said, “It is all a little confusing at the moment. Mark will be coming with two hats on.” Mike said that only a very small percentage of Acts 29 churches were video venues. He said Acts 29 and Mars Hill Global overlap with regards ‘personnel involved’, but they are very different organizations.
- Acts 29 do not understand ministry apprenticeships, nor the role they’ve played in Australian church history. When I explained Ministry Training Strategy (MTS)Apprenticeships to both the International Director and the Australian/New Zealand Director, it was like someone pressed ‘pause’ on their screen savers (their faces). When I finished my 60-second description of the MTS recruiting strategy (MTS Challenge => MTS Apprenticeship => theological education => MTS Trainer), they simply got back onto talking about what they do in the States. It was like two ships in the night. This is really important, though, for Mike and Dave to understand. You see, my theory is that most Aussie blokes don’t want to lead a Bible study, let alone a church. At a recent NSW MTS conference, only eight out of 356 conference delegates ticked the box titled “I’d like to be assessed as a Church Planter”. Australia needs a two-stage approach to recruiting Aussie church planters. MTS’s suggestion is the following:
- Stage 1: Bill Bloggs signs up to be a church planting apprentice under an experienced church planter, and spends two to three years planting side-by-side with the expert—like Luther Symons, who was an apprentice to Dave Sheath when Dave planted The Lakes Evangelical Church (NSW Central Coast).
- Stage 2: Bill Bloggs, after learning by doing, plants his own church with church planting apprentices as his co-workers. Luther is now pastoring, and is on the verge of recruiting his first apprentices.
This is a great way to, firstly, coach Australian men in the difficult task of church planting, and secondly, to help people to learn the trade without being ultimately responsible. Thirdly, it multiplies planters for the future.
Summary
All in all, the conference was really good. I was really impressed by the leaders of Acts 29—their godliness, their theology, their goals and their practice.
I think they have been a great catalyst to the church planting movement in Australia, and I think they will be good friends and brothers to the other indigenous planting organizations that have started up recently—for example, The Geneva Push (Australia), Entrust (Sydney), City on a Hill (Victoria) and 121 Degrees (Western Australia), along with those church planting organizations that have been around for a while—for example, FIEC (Australia), Sydney Anglicans, the Victorian Presbterians, and so on.
May God give strength to the arm of Acts 29.
Ben,
Thanks for this generous and constructively critical review of Acts 29.
It would be great to see lots of effective and entrepreneurial planting initiatives with solid conservative theology.
One other question I’d like help with is training and teaching for pastors in established churches on how to identify opportunities and personnel for planting.
Some churches have a great potential to recruit and send planters and planting teams, but have no experience ourselves in doing the planting, and don’t quite know how to do more than just be a permission giver. (I am speaking personally here!)
On the side issue of the call terminology, I refer readers to an earlier discussion at solapanel here.
Thanks Ben,
I have a concern that ‘Acts29’ and looming ‘Mars Hills Global’ are trying to reduplicate their Churches in Australia and around the world, including size (mega Churches), style (free from any denomination), and other things that are uniquely American. Is this something you picked up on?
Also as you mentioned we have many planting groups starting/working and many ministry training programs, are they interested in assisting these groups and programs or are they adding to the competition?
Ben
Thanks for your critique, I appreciate it and can learn from it.
I would like to say in regards to one of the subsequent comments, that Acts 29 is a network, and is not interested at all in duplicating any of the churches we have planted. I hope that was clear at the conference. In A29 you couldn’t find one church that looks like another. Any network that has room for video venues, traditional denoms (We work with many different denominations) and the “Crowded House” (Steve Timmis “Total Church” is working for A29 Europe) can honestly claim no one methodology to plant churches and present the gospel throughout the world. Though A29 has a few “Mega-Churches” most of our churches are medium in size and are not mega-churches at all.
Our interest is to help plant healthy church plants, and we will come alongside anyone who asks us to help create them, with no hidden desire to force methodology or fly the Acts 29 flag.
I hope that clarifies our intention, and I am again indebted to your critique, as it will help us sharpen what we do in the future.
Thanks Ben! It was a pleasure being in your great country! We appreciated the opportunity to be there, and enjoyed the people and will be in prayer as you all continue to plant churches down under!
Mike Gunn
I think one of the confusing things about Acts 29 and Mars Hill is its hard to know when you are dealing with one, the other, or both. As was said when Mark comes, is he coming in regard to Acts 29, which, while they may be independent of Mars Hill, there is no denying that Mark Driscoll is a huge part of. Witnessed by the fact that he was part of the conference, (albeit by video) and that one of the speakers is the one person he hand-picked while in Australia to have an on-going mentoring relationship with him – the other I understand also has a ties with Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll.
It doesn’t help Aussies to see the deliniation between the two entities.
Having other experienced Aussie church planters speaking who perhaps have less or even no connection with Mark would have helped with this.
Maybe if Mark intends to come here in 2011 to look at Mars Hill campuses (which I suspect, and sounds like he does), it would be more helpful if he would leave the Acts 29 to others.
Hi Sandy,
I reckon Acts 29 would be more than happy to help leaders seeking the kind of advice you’re after.
Hi Dan,
Praise God, Mike Gunn answered that question for you direct. (Thanks Mike)
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your humility brother. We have much to learn from you, and look forward to doing so. I look forward to seeing what God might do through Acts 29 in Australia. And I was also very impressed by your godly leadership . . . and very impressed that you know how to play cricket!!
Hi Jenny,
Thanks for your comments. It is really hard isn’t it, to communicate clearly who’s who, and who’s doing what, on a shoe string budget. I run an organisation that is not Sydney Anglican, yet heaps of people think it is and therefore don’t get involved. I’d love to have $100,000 to de-programme that, and communicate a ‘pure, clear’ message, but that mobney will never come. Acts 29 and Mars Hill have evolved and morphed and changed and added and have incrementally increased . . . and therefore it’ll take time to work out what is what. I praise God that both Acts 29 and Mars Hill Church have done heaps to put evangelism back on the agenda even though the delineation might be a bit unclear for while . . . (just thinking off the top of my head here).
An example of the ambigious relationship between Acts 29 and Mars Hill is what happened with the City on a Hill church in Alburquerque in the US.
A part of the Acts 29 network since 2007, it was approached in by Mars Hill in 2009 to consider becoming a Mars Hill campus. The Pastor became the campus pastor and regional director of both Acts 29 and Mars Hill with responsibility for starting new campuses and new churches.
So it is at least possible that an Acts 29 church plant in Australia could be approached to become a part of Mars Hill global.
Jennifer and Matthias
I appreciate your comments, and understand your concerns to an extent, but I am not sure what your real fears are? Yes, what Mathias iterated has happened on more than one circumstance, and the leaders of both of those plants made no claims to territory, and felt the gospel could be best served in their context by becoming a campus ministry of Mars Hill, so yes that could happen anywhere (There has also been decisions to not change to a campus ministry of Mars Hill based on the same process of thinking contextually); but the one thing that seems to be missing here is the lack of trust of the leaders (Australian or American) that are working to best display God’s glory in their own context. Isn’t what this should be about, and not whose territory it his, or what ministry gets the glory?
As I have said at the conference, and in my brief comments above, Acts 29 is NOT interested in planting their flag anywhere, and we have proven to be able to work with denoms, other networks etc. (Proving that we aren’t trying to change anyone’s methodology) for the gospel of Jesus Christ to go out through a multitude of methods, denominations, networks etc. Shouldn’t the church work together for the goal of planting churches that express and proclaim God’s glory to the nations, and not worry what ethnic, racial, national background they are from?? Acts 1:8 commands all of us (Americans and Aussies) to be His witness to all of the world, and that command hasn’t been rescinded. I think it would be best to stop worrying who’s coming to preach the gospel, and continue to do what God has called each of us to do to make that happen. We (Americans and A29 Guys)have learned from men like, Michael Frost, Phil Jenkins, Alan Hirsch, Charles Ringma and other Aussies who have sold their books in America, taught in our schools and held conferences in our churches. Can’t we learn from one another?
So I ask you, what are your fears? If a Mars Hill type church is planted and peole come to Christ, praise God! If an Anglican Church is planted and people come to Christ, praise God! If a church planted out of Geneva is planted and people come to Christ, praise God! Let’s take our lead from the words of Paul’s mentor Gamaliel, “For if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail, but if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (Acts 5:38-39). One denom, network, methodology, etc. is not going to be enough to reach 22 Million people with the gospel (Not to mention the world); let’s begin pooling our strategies to fight the enemy, and not one another.
God is sovereign, and I believe He is bringing His body together in this information age, so it is our responsibility to throw away our national pride, and cultural traditions and begin working together for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ and His glory, not our own.
I pray that Australia has a revival of men and women turning their lives to Christ, filling up your churches, because Aussies have banded together for God’s glory, and His gospel to begin transforming their land with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ!
I pray that we can learn from one another so that the gospel can be furthered!
I hope this is heard in the grace and love it was intended! I know the written word can have a different tone than the intent!
Amen Mike.
If Australia had 20 church planting organisations start up tomorrow, Dec 3rd, 2009, we still wouldn’t put a dent in the side of reaching all those who do not yet know Christ from all the tribes/micro-cultures in Australia.
Thanks for the review Ben, I felt like I had a genuine window into the event and some of thinking surrounding it.
I tend to agree with Ben that it is a bit unrealistic to expect strong separation between Acts29 and Mars Hill.
Mars Hill thinks it’s got a good ‘product’ that is faithful in creating growing churches in new locations. It’s seeking to expand its network – by planting and linking up with partner churches. That is good and right for any church, but especially when you are in the position they are in.
Acts29 wants to encourage church planting. If they have confidence in Mark Driscoll it would be crazy not to make good use of him given his gifts, track record, and status on the evangelical stage at the moment.
Expecting them to not use Mark Driscoll because of a conflict of interest seems strange. Others can correct me on this, but for a while MTS and Matthias were closely connected, and MTS drew heavily on Phillip Jensen. Did Matthias benefit from that? I know people who went and did MTS at Matthias because they associated MTS with Phillip and wanted ‘the best’ MTS experience.
Would it have been better if MTS had distanced itself from Matthias and Phillip? I strongly doubt it, I think everyone benefited from the partnership, even if there were extra benefits that came to those doing the heavy lifting.
Encourage and support everywhere, partner as opportunities arise. And don’t be embarrassed that those two activities will sometimes feed into each other synergistically for ‘our benefit’. It seems to me that’s been the motto of our circles when we’ve been at our best. It’s good to see others doing the same.
I suggest that it also makes sense that Acts 29 would begin by drawing on locals with whom there is some significant personal relationship. Again, to expect them to add some experienced Aussies – who are unknown qualities to them – just seems odd.
As Ben’s observation about their reaction to the MTS program indicates, they are encouraging church planting from within a certain set of principles and a certain framework (as we all do).
Fusing together the best of different approaches is going to be longer term work. An Acts 29 conference should probably reflect an Acts 29 position – not a ‘broad tent.’ They’re giving people with a heart (or who want to have a heart) for church planting in Oz what they have to offer.
These harvest fields down under are not our possession, and there’s an awful lot of room for more planters and evangelists. If Mars Hills picks up some good people and churches as a result of its generosity in being involved in Acts 29, and the kingdom grows thereby, well I think that’s just how God’s economy sometimes works.
Thanks Mark, I was nodding all the way (i.e. agreeing NOT falling asleep)
All truly evangelistic ministries look more like an insurgency than a regular army i.e. they are messy. MTS ministry apprenticeships accidentally happened in 1979, they flourished and developed over several chaotic years and it wasn’t until 1992 (13 years later) that the organisation formally came into being in any strutcured form. May the mess continue and grow!
Thanks much Mark! Good words! you make a great point re: the “locals” we used. We totally work in relationship with men that want to partner with us, and a lot of the above mentioned men are probably great options, and I do hope to be working alongside some of them in the future.
The one other Aussie who presented via video at the “Engage” Conference was Steve Addison, who gave us all a copy of his book “Movements That Change The World,” and I have enjoyed it, used it already and am learning from it!
Thanks again all fro thinking through this together!
Is it just me…
I am having trouble seeing what a ‘church planting network’ is, if it isn’t a denomination… Like Mark B says, if it doesn’t have a culture and an ethos, then… what IS it?
@Michael,
I take your point, but on the other hand, does culture+ethos (if those are different) = denomination?
Grimmo.
I am just trying to see what value is added by ‘church planting networks’, if they aren’t replicating what denominations do. Which is to say: if Acts 29 aren’t interested in planting their flag – then what are they doing? Certainly, today’s cp network is tomorrow’s denomination, surely.
The ‘brand’ has to mean something – it isn’t purely a matter of letting local people do their thing, because what would be the point? We already do that.
Certain theological emphases will come out – Ben mentioned how strongly complementarian the Acts 29 message is, for example, and that this is a complete non-negotiable. In which case, there is a theological vision for church. Speaking from a SydAnglican perspective, I wonder if we (or many of us!) will prove Reformed enough, to tell truth.
Anyhow, forgive me for thinking aloud. I just don’t geddit.
@Michael,
Now I see, and yes, I agree with you completely. Even if the affiliation is loose, it ends up being a denomination (in a way such as the Baptist Union is a denomination while trying not to be one).
And I want to agree with Mark at that point, I think that it’s what it should be like.
Grimmo.
I like Michael’s question about whether a church planting network is a denomination. I’m not sure I know exactly what a denomination is – so it’s the kind of question that helps clarify things.
I think my instincts are in the ‘a church planting network is not a denomination’ camp.
I start with analogies – MTS is not a denomination even though it has a distinctive theological culture every bit as much as Acts 29. Moore’s Cert Theol is not a denomination, nor are non-Anglican churches that use it fifth column Sydney Anglicans.
That suggests that one can share a theological culture, and come together for support in a specific task and not take on the formal trans-congregational structures that usually are involved in being a denomination doesn’t it?
Church planting is a task for denominations, as is mentoring another generation of leaders, as is theological education. But I think they can be done by partnerships across denominational boundaries as well.
Those trans-denominational partnerships are going to have their own theological culture and that will give a distinctive ‘feel’ to ministries that are shaped by those partnerships.
An independent Acts 29 church, a anglican Acts 29 church, and a Baptist Acts 29 church may have an awful lot in common. I’m not sure that necessarily makes them a denomination. I know “Moore men” heading up churches in Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, and independent contexts. They have family resemblances, they might feel closer to other “Moore men” in other denominations than to some of their fellow denominationalists, but I would question the validity of seeing them as a denomination.
They aren’t a denomination, just a bunch of fellow travellers with something significant that is held in common. No formal structures are going to evolve out of that common heritage, and there’s no need for it too.
I would think that, in some ways, a church planting network like Acts 29 is going to be the least likely vehicle for the creation of an actual denomination. At most, it might birth a large group of fellow travelling independents churches. But Acts 29 would need to take a stance on church govenment, on baptism, on holy communion, on ordination, and probably on a range of contemporary questions beyond just the complementarian and Reformed issues to generate a denomination in its ministerial footprint. If it does that, it looses the very qualities of being tightly focused on a single task and keeping theology to a minimum that will give it the cutting edge that is the main thing that makes such non-denominational parachurch ministries ‘work’.
pfft. Anyone who finds me not Reformed enough can go and enjoy their purity with my blessings. They can join those who don’t find me Creationist enough, Anglican enough, radical enough, or conservative enough.
Us SydAnglicans could do with some Reformed neighbours that tap into different parts of the Reformed tradition than we do, and can present a credible alternative. If we want people to start seeing ‘Anglican’ as more than just ‘nondenominational biblicist good fishing platform’ and as having a theological heritage that is a good expression of being Reformed and Evangelical, then we probably need some Reformed ‘competition.’
In other words, I think this could help the very thing Michael Jensen spoke of in his recent article on the Sydney Anglicans website. Which, as I said ‘Amen’ to it when I finished reading it, means I’m positive about this.
I also think it could help us sharpen up theologically and in terms of church planting know how as we take on some bits, reject others. We took what the Billy Graham crusades, what Campus Crusade and Navigators, what Alpha course all had to offer and made it our own. We have benefited over generations now from great insights from other parts of the world that have been grasped, inwardly digested, and then creatively made our own. Under God, it’s been more than what we could have generated on our own.
This seems to me to be another variation on that theme of God’s generous gifts to us in our distant part of the globe that have come from other parts of the world. Traditionally we have found that “Some Assembly Is Required due to context or theology, but ‘twas ever thus.
Thanks Mark, I appreciate your words and concur with them. A “Network” is a band of men “Journeying” together to help expand the kingdom of God, not their own kingdoms; and of course there will be theological distinctions in the midst (As there is in A29 since we work with denoms, non-denoms, charismatics and non-charismatics), which is a reflection of A29’s “Open Hand, Closed Hand” policy in relation to theological and methodological differences. We will defend the faith against heresy and a moralistic/therapeutic gospel, but we are very willing to work with men that aren’t “Reformed Enough,” who deeply love Jesus and want to see His name glorified among the nations.
Michael, I honestly don’t understand what you don’t get?? You seem to be caught up on denominations and whose “Flag” gets posted, and didn’t even interact with my post in regards to the gospel of God’s kingdom displayed without any one group getting the credit.
None of us have the “Goods” on theology and methodology, and I don’t see why those that are on the same basic theological team can’t band together to help one another continue the expansion of God’s kingdom in this world? And God forbid, maybe even learn from one another.
Men, I appreciate the dialogue, because I am learning much, and I know there is still much to learn! Thanks!
Mark, we are (as often) in substantial agreement.
I think the history of the Methodists and the Baptists are instructive. They don’t necessarily start as denominations, but inevitably progress to becoming them. How could they not?
@ Mike, when you say ‘Our interest is to help plant healthy church plants, and we will come alongside anyone who asks us to help create them, with no hidden desire to force methodology or fly the Acts 29 flag’
– that’s what I am not getting. If you aren’t promoting a methodology, then – what is it? What do you add? I think actually you DO have a methodology and a theology (of course) and these are nothing to be ashamed of.
I am interested (as a complementarian meself) as to why complementarianism ends up in the closed hand and charismaticism in the open hand.
I am also interested to hear a response from Acts 29 to the local emphasis on MTS traineeships. Ben seemed to think this message hadn’t really yet got through.
Michael
Maybe we’re dealing with semantics a bit, but in regards to methodologies that you infer we are “promoting;” what are they? When you have an organization that has mega-church video venues, and “Total Church” house churches, how are we promoting a particular methodology?
If you mean theology (we believe that healthy church plants need to have a healthy view of the gospel, qualified leadership and a vision to take the gospel into the culture(s), then I guess we have a methodology, but I’m not sure how’s that any different than Paul and Barnabus in the NT??
If you can say our theology is aberrant or heretical, then I guess we’d have something to talk about from scripture, but to say that you can’t work with an organization because they are from another country, or have a bit of a differing point of view sounds quite prejudicial.
As to your question re: “Complimentarianism” vs. Charismatics. It’s simple, it appears fairly clear throughout scripture that God has called qualified men to lead in their homes and in the church; it isn’t as clear as to the use of gifts in the church. We are not cessationist, and do believe that there is an order as prescribed in 1 Corinthians 14, and that the gifts are to edify the church (1 Corinthians 12:7), and that not everyone has all of the gifts (1 Corinthians 12:11), thus we believe that any theology that uses the gifts as the only “Sign” of the spirit is erroneous; and we say such during our “Boot Camps.” Obviously we partner with like minded people, but that doesn’t make us a denomination, since a lot of the denoms we partner with have quite different approaches, structures, and even disagreements in regards to the “open hand.”
So, the Charismatic issue is an open hand issue because we’re not cessationist, but we are also not dogmatic as to the uses of the gifts (Most of our churches don’t manifest any “Sign” gifts, some do, some believe tongues is a personal prayer language, others don’t. We just choose not to argue about the rapture, method of baptism, tongues, etc. and choose to debate poor theology and the lack of the desire to take the gospel to the billions who are in need of Jesus).
We do however make it clear that we wouldn’t work with a group that denigrates the gospel by adding to it such as some charismatic groups (Especially the health/wealth gospel, which ironically is an export from the USA).
As to your question re: MTS. I don’t make it a habit of speaking of things I am ignorant of. If you would like to enlighten me, then maybe I can speak, but since I have never gone through the training it would be unfair for me to discuss it.
God bless!
Well Ben Pf will have to talk about MTS.
@Mike – I don’t have a problem with ACTS 29 having a set of theological and ecclesiological convictions, and a set of thought-through and worked-out ministry practices. In fact, as others have said here, bring it on! We have a terrible tendency to parochialism here and we could do with a shake up. Just don’t be shy about owning them!
oh, and ‘Which methodologies?’ Well I don’t know, I haven’t been to the conferences or read the lit. But I assume you say something at Boot Camp. There is some content, right? Doesn’t that constitute a methodology of a kind? As I say, I am pro-methodology, so I don’t have a problem if there is one.
Michael
Well thanks, that clarifies a lot, and shows why we need one another to continue sharpening one another theologically as well as, methodologically. I obviously wasn’t understanding completely, which is the obvious bane of text. Thanks bro, I appreciate the clarification!
God bless!
great post Ben and helpful discussion.
thanks also to Mike for taking the time to clarify.
would it be fair to say that denominations and networks all have the following
1. theology
2. structures
3. philosophy of ministry
4. friendships
my take is that the network
a. approach shares most theological convictions but allows room for difference (e.g mode of baptism)
b. has some structure but it is minimal and faster moving in comparison
c. deeply cherishes a shared philosophy of ministry ( ie we must plant new churches)and d. foster friendships that are situational and supportive( we are all planters in this together etc )
whilst a & b are very important, its c & d that are core.
denominations on the other hand
a. have even more particular theological commitments ( hard to see if you are an Anglican!! )
b. more formal and complicated structures that are slower moving ( and even if you are a new independent church just give it time)
c. philosophy of ministry is less particular in comparison with shared history resources etc
d. friendships exist and in some instances are more collegial rather than situational.
there are many similarities but they function quite differently.
I think Mike has hit an important issue for us Australian reformed types, and that is we are not good at trusting those outside our own clan, resulting in an inbred parochialism that can be terribly fearful, seek the worst, point out the bad, and in its defensive posture – finds it difficult to learn from and celebrate others who may actually be friends.
This just maybe be indicative of some kind of unchecked pride and complacency or sheer arrogance – but it seems to be a common observation from outsiders.
whilst there is much more to learn from our friends in North America, I hope more people will be open to hearing from Steve Timmis and Tim Chester about their approach to mission through networks like Crowded House, which has also received a good deal of suspicion.
looking forward to seeing more from A29 and anyone else willing to have a swing !
I’m not quite sure how I got to this post, but thanks for the stimulation to thought.
Mr Baddeley, if you’re still reading might I enquire which country you’re now in (I’ve been out of the loop).
Spake Craig Schafer:
The United Kingdom, Mr Schafer.
Spake Michael Jensen:
The way IFES, Campus Crusade, Navigators, CMS, Scripture Union and many other movements have not.
In the case of Baptist churches, they were intentionally establishing a new church. They broke with the Church of England because that church was, in their mind, so disobedient to the word of God in its practice of baptism and church government that it was not schism but submission to the rule of Christ.
In the case of Methodists, well I think that helps my case. The Wesleys and Whitfield would have rather any other outcome then leaving the Church of England. Methodism was an evangelistic movement that was forced to become a denomination despite itself due to the intransigent opposition of the clergy. If things had been done differently, they probably would never have become a separate denomination – and it is likely that the history of Anglicanism and Methodism would have been better as a consequence.
Spake Shane Rogerson:
It may be unchecked pride and complacency, or it may be sheer arrogance. I think that might be a distinction without a difference. Are those really the only options on the table?
In my experience, it is a ubiquitous feature of confessional Christianity (such as Conservative Evangelicalism, or Reformed Evangelicalism) to be constantly looking for the possible error and trap in something new before it is prepared to extend the right hand of fellowship. Trust has to be earned by such movements and is easily lost.
That can be wearying, people can always feel as though their orthodox credentials need to be proved, and it can feel divisive. And it can be a genuinely negative feature of a movement’s culture. I’m not sure that SydAnglican is much worse than any other Conservative Evangelicals or Reformed guys I have seen.
We are a geographically isolated large landmass with a very small population. So we have little cross fertilization with movements outside Oz or within. That’s just part of what it means to do church in Oz. We don’t catch cold every time America sneezes, unlike the rest of the world, but we don’t experience a lot of constructive diversity either. That’s not pride, that’s Australia.
Sydney is a world city. And as a non-Sydney native, compared to my experience of Brisbane, Melbourne and now living in UK, Sydneysiders seem to think the world begins and ends in Sydney. The North shore and the Shire thinks it ends somewhere around deepest darkest Parramatta. That’s what happens when you have one world city in a large land mass with a small population. I don’t think that’s good – but I think it’s a feature of Sydney as a whole, not a distinctive feature of SydAnglicanism within it (which I think is a bit less like that than the city as a whole).
Lots of people find the negativity of Reformed and Conservative Evangelicalism unattractive. That’s one of the reasons why there are Open and Moderate Evangelicalism strands around. Their trust doesn’t need to be earned, it is given until it is lost – and then only slowly and piecemeal. They are happy to work with people that they disagree with on a whole range of topics – very few doctrines are partnership ending for them. They are usually genuinely nice people – and I enjoy their company. But as we are finding with the troubles in the Anglican Communion, they often find it hard to identify a point where they must make a stand.
Finally, Mike Gunn – if you’re still reading. Thanks for joining in the conversation. I really enjoyed, and found quite edifying, your combination of humility and backbone inspired feistiness. I thought it was a great model. Thank you.
Interesting how AFES has started planting churches in Australia, isn’t it…
Yes, it’s interesting. One of a number of quite creative experiments they’ve tried out. But I don’t think that it proves that church planting networks are denominations or that such groups:
A couple of independent churches established in an effort to create the kind of synergy that existed/exists between Matthias and UNSW and Broadway and SydUni doth not a denomination make.
I don’t disagree that a non-denominational network can give rise to a denomination. But I think you haven’t come even close to establishing either that they must give rise to one, or that such a network is one from its conception.
Mark – you could allow that we are in the realm of the human sciences and so words like ínevitable’ are not matters of scientific inexorability but of knowing what humans are like.
The thing is – and what I have been trying to suggest all along is this: unlike other parachurch organisations (such as those you mentioned) church planting networks must trade at some level in ecclesiology, either consciously or subconsciously. They can’t travel completely light to it. And Acts 29 doesn’t travel light to it, despite its protestations – see its very strong determination to include complementarianism in the closed hand, for example. Over time, the connections between those in the network will become stronger than those in the host denomination, resulting in shared training, shared structures of accountability, shared funding – in which case, at least quasi-denomination will have been birthed.
I am not against this, just against denying that this is a reality.
Methodism, it is worth noting, was set up as a seperate church in the US. The AFES thing is not a small experiment: such churches exist in Qld, Newcastle, Canberra, Tassie, Perth and so on.
Michael
I’m not sure I agree. All parachurch organisations have to have some kind of ecclesiology to function – if only to be explain to denominations why they are not a threat. They mightn’t develop it at length, but parachurch organisations need to have enough ecclesiology to explain why they are not a church. (Or, if they’re under the sway of the Knox-Robinson view of ‘church’, why they are, but denominations should still work with them.)
Acts 29 has to have a relatively clear idea of what a church is and what it should be. I suspect it is hard to try and start new churches without that piece of information.
But there is a baseline ‘evangelical ecclesiology’ whereby evangelicals are able to recognise quite different denominational versions of church as all being ‘true churches’ – a kind of “Mere Christianity” for churches.
It’s not enough to actually plant a church (one has to make decisions on issues that evangelicals consider aren’t part of the esse of church – single or shared leadership, baptise infants or not, written liturgy or not, independent or committee or episcopal structures and the like) but it is enough to work with anyone who agrees that evangelical essence is at the heart of what it means to be a church.
And I’m not sure the complementarian example helps us much. Everybody has to determine what is in the ‘closed hand’ and what isn’t. It is not like people with a developed set of ecclesiological commitments put things in the closed hand and everyone else keeps them in the open. The open hand is not the default position, and we put things in the closed hand as a choice.
With each issue we decide ‘are we open hand or closed on this?’ It is one decision between two alternatives.
The parachurch organisation (or denomination) that has egalitarianism in the open hand isn’t sitting lose to ecclesiology. It has made a decision that it doesn’t really matter where you stand on that issue.
That’s as big a decision as putting it in the closed hand.
It has nothing to do with whether or not one has a developed ecclesiology. It has to do with whether you consider the issue adiaphora, essential, or just very very important.
Over time, the connections between those in the network will become stronger than those in the host denomination, resulting in shared training, shared structures of accountability, shared funding – in which case, at least quasi-denomination will have been birthed.
You’ve got good intuitions Michael, so I want to see what you are seeing here. But I don’t see it yet, and just repeating what it is that you’ve intuitively grasped isn’t going to help me move forward. What you are saying here just doesn’t make any sense to me.
Let me give two examples of the problem I‘m having:
1. How could there be shared structures of accountability between an Acts 29 Presbyterian church and an Acts 29 Anglican church? Can they remove each other’s pastors? Can they even call an ordained guy from one church to be the senior minister at the other?
2. How can there be a denomination made up of believer’s baptists and paedo-baptists? Can they work together and share notes? Sure. How can they possibly form a denomination? One part of the denomination doesn’t recognise the entry sacrament of the other part.