Multiple factors have produced this change in terminology. Some suggested it because Jesus directed “make disciples,” while he is the one who builds his church. Churches (communities of faith practicing the “one another” passages) will result when people are discipled to Jesus. Secondarily, the shift happened because CPM terminology was being hijacked by folks who are not seeing rapid, multiplicative and indigenous growth. When terms are used to mean whatever you want them to, they really mean nothing (sort of like the guy shooting the side of his barn and then painting a bull’s eye around where the shot landed).
Intentionally discipling disciple makers forces you to:
- Use only resources, tactics and strategies that the indigenous people group can readily replicate.
- Strip away all the catalyst’s cultural “over-hang” and trust the Holy Spirit to guide family/friendship groups to contextualize the gospel as they learn and obey it (since different cultures already have strong, deep views of the context in which spiritual activities transpire and how they are conducted, that will impact the kinds of gatherings they develop and eventually call “church”).
- Model and train discovery of who God is and how he wants us to live at every level of growth and maturity. Jesus’ discipling of the 12, 72 and 500 was as much through the flow of life as it was what he said. (In traditional evangelism and missions we assume giving people new information will result in transformation. It won’t. On-the-job training and “just-in-the-nick-of-time” additional training is critical to DMM).
[NOTE: I originally wrote this as a comment on an article by Felicity Dale (http://simplychurch.com/what-is-a-church-planting-movement/#comments). She moved it and a couple of other comments to her main page and there has been some interesting dialogue there. I decided to re-post it here on my site so that my networks could interact with it, also. You probably ought to check out the other dialogue.]
One person who read my last blog responded, “Is there anything new here? This is something I have been saying for the past 40 years, and I heard it from others before me…” My response was, “While it is not new, the priorities of churches (house or legacy) indicate most reject this reality.”
Let me give you a little of my story as background. I have spent most of my life worshipping with congregations in the 100-150 range. I have served as a preaching minister in three of those for a combined 31 years. But almost ten years ago God invited me on a journey exploring the great need of people who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel once. “What will it take to get the gospel into regions where the power brokers do not want it?” became a compelling question for me.
But what about 50+ years of spiritual journey? Juxtapose those two questions.
Being a “both/and” guy, I tried to do both. Amazingly, God gave me several years of knowing where he was taking me before he called me make the change. I am so thankful for his patience with me and wish I would have done a better job of extending the same to others around me (oh, well, that is “water under the bridge”).
But, most people who came to the Lord like me, still want to take the church with us when we believe God has called us on a new journey. We want their prayers. We want their money. We want their approval. We want their manpower. We keep thinking it would be so much easier if they would join us in this transition. And some of us do everything we can to “shoe-horn” them into it. And then we wonder why they resist us and resent our tactics.
Just because God called me does not mean he called Stones River Church. It was easier for me to see that truth for someone else than for myself.
Not wanting to deconstruct, contributes to resistance. While not like the actual weight of the concrete on those large posts, other concerns create emotional resistance. I must confess that I had mixed feelings about taking out a tree. You see, we planted that maple the fall of 1992. We wanted shade and it gave us in the back yard. But the problem is its roots grew along the top of the ground and within three years would be cracking the foundation of the new construction, so it had to go.
Many changes are never undertaken because of what has to go. Bad-mouthing what other people are invested in is no way to encourage them to change. Helping them see that the new strategy actually helps them do what they already want better is more likely to get a positive outcome.
People selling new curriculum rarely count the cost of discontinuing the old. Yes, some people have likely tired of it long ago. But what about the teachers who have grown comfortable with it? Some may have taught its cycles enough that their prep time is significantly decreased. Will they stop teaching because they feel they no longer have the time to properly prepare? If so, who will replace them?
Finding new teachers is one of the great challenges for any education program. Starting a new series of classes almost always requires killing an existing set. New coordinators don’t get that. Old ones have paid this high price so often they are unwilling to go through it again. Inertia is a powerful force.
“Just do it!” is rarely said by someone who will actually help make the change.
Coupling a vision for something new with dissatisfaction can be powerful fuel for the proper first steps. Recently Debra and I needed to prepare our back yard for an upcoming construction project. The Friday and Saturday after Thanksgiving provided perfect weather and we had time off. We needed to remove several sections of privacy fence, the posts that held them, a swing set frame and a twenty-year-old maple tree.
Thankfully, I had learned that a fence jack would easily lift 4″x 4″ fence posts out of the ground. Our vision of a detached shop and dissatisfaction over the clutter and persistent dust in our garage fueled our dream. Yes, I knew the first steps that were adequate for overcoming the resistance of the concrete that had been placed around those fence posts more than fifteen years ago. Removing the fence just took time and persistence. But late Friday afternoon we attempted to remove one of the two 6″x 6″ posts that supported the swing. This resistance was much greater.
My grandfather’s fence jack was not able to budge either of these posts. I suspected there were tree roots that were helping hold the extra weight of the larger posts and concrete down. But the reality was, it was going to take more force to push that pole out of the ground. A 12-ton hydraulic jack and the fence jack were able to provide the force. It took some ingenuity to apply that force in the right places, but Saturday ended with the site prepared.
Now we wait for the building to begin. All our hard work was just getting things out of the way that had to go. What will you need to demolish to create a capacity to build new strategies? Too often we do not count the cost of what has to go before new building begins.
The vision of movements captured my attention! Considering the possibilities became what I thought about while showering (I have read these are the “big” ideas that you don’t get paid to ponder). I wondered what could happen if thousands of Discovery groups started happening here in North America.
No, that has not happened, yet. But there are hundreds. Some of these have even jumped to homelands of immigrants who are here in the U.S.
I know people who reject those results as insignificant because these are not Anglos. While I continue to pray for my people group to experience sweeping spiritual transformation, I will not wait for that to reach out. In Acts, the earliest evangelistic efforts of the apostle Paul were among Jews. But God told him he was being sent to the Gentiles. But then there is that shocking statement in Romans that Paul was working diligently to reach Gentiles in hopes that their response might provoke Jews to jealousy and they too would come to faith.
What if the best way to light the fires of revival among Anglos is to reach Hispanics and Latinos? Wouldn’t it be just like Papa God to use Native Americans to launch national transformation? Turning to those who are spiritually open does not mean we are giving up on the people groups that we know the best and possibly love the most. Maybe we can provoke them to jealousy, for the kingdom. Many will only perceive the vision when they can see it with their own eyes. Let’s start it wherever!
Recently, I was introduced to The Change Formula: C = (D x V x F) > R. This business principle affirms that Change equals Dissatisfaction x Vision x First Steps that is greater than the Resistance. Without being able to envision a new reality, being dissatisfied with status quo and armed with a knowledge of how to get started, change will never happen. But these three must all be present and their combined force must be greater than the resistance that is present.
When I first heard this I thought, “Oh, well, that is interesting.” But a couple of weeks later I found myself referring to the formula. What I began to notice is that failed attempts to produce real change lack at least one of the three being present in sufficient quantities. Most change agents appear to assume that presenting a new vision is enough to produce change. Often, when they find that to be inadequate, they will attack the status quo in an attempt to produce dissatisfaction. But it is possible that people will become dissatisfied with the pressure being placed on them to produce change and the net result is the resistance is actually increased.
But the piece of the equation that has really grabbed my attention is the call for “First Steps.” When I first encountered the vision of Church Planting Movements, I lacked clear First Steps to model, coach and mentor others to take who caught the vision and felt the dissatisfaction. Without being able to suggest first steps, I could not catalyze change.
Yes, these recently settled people were at great risk. Their situation was dire.
The king of Assyria ordered, “Send back some priests who were taken into exile from there. They can go back and live there and instruct the people in what the god of the land expects of them….They honored and worshiped God, but not exclusively—they also appointed all sorts of priests, regardless of qualification, to conduct a variety of rites at the local fertility shrines. They honored and worshiped God, but they also kept up their devotions to the old gods of the places they had come from” (2 Kings 17:27,32-33, The Message).
The Samaritans of Jesus’ day were descended from these peoples. This is the historical-cultural background behind Jesus’ parable we call “The Good Samaritan.” It also informs his interactions with the woman at the well and people from her village. Jews considered the Samaritans spiritual mutts. While they claimed to worship the God of Israel, the religious purists knew their sordid spiritual lineage.
Sounds remarkably similar to Islam.
Would Jesus shock us with the modern-day Parable of the Good Muslim? Would he spend a couple of days with Muslims who want to hear about the Messiah?