Freeing Cross-Cultural Church Planting With New Testament Essentials

By J. Scott Horrell

[J. Scott Horrell is Professor of Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and Adjunct Professor at Seminário Teológico Centroamericano (SETECA) (Guatemala), Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary (Amman), and Center for Leadership Development (Maputo, Mozambique).

This article will also be published in Churches on Mission: God’s Grace Abounding to the Nations, Evangelical Missiological Society series number 25 (2017).]

Abstract

Certain kinds of preconceived ecclesiologies undermine effective cross-cultural church planting as well as the growth of existing churches. A renewed focus on the church as a decentralized form of the kingdom of God frees missionaries and indigenous leaders to adapt forms and organize in ways that encourage the vital New Testament functions of the church: worship, teaching, fellowship, and outreach.

------------

Missionaries today are aware that much of what has been exported or repeated in missional church planting remains freighted with North Atlantic and traditional institutionalism that is often peripheral to New Testament church essentials. Ecclesial structures and ways of doing church have been perpetuated by well-intentioned second- and third-generation leaders who replicate these forms—forms through which they themselves responded to the gospel in years past. For all of us, loyalties to particular ecclesiologies (if not denominations) lie embedded in our experience with the God we love. Yet what worked well in one generation and culture does not necessarily transfer to another. In church planting, a living ecclesiology is as vital to missions as vigorous missions is to ecclesiology.

One group of pastors in São Paulo, Brazil, lamented that the concept of church in their own congregations—said to be typical of tens of thousands of congregations around the world—centers in four images: a church building (or “temple”); Sunday as the “Christian Sabbath”; the worship service (the more powerful the better); and the full-time pastor (“the man of God” and mediator).[1] In the mind of most believers, if one of these four standards is lacking, then one does not truly have a church.

Many in evangelical missions agree that these kinds of preconceived ecclesiologies undermine effective cross-cultural church planting as well as the growth of existing churches. Yet a glance around the world suggests that most church planters, whether indigenous or cross-cultural, repeat traditional or preconceived concepts of what the church is. By so doing, some church planters assume that they protect “sound doctrine,” others that they continue a denominational heritage. Still others seek to clone the megachurch or nouvelle structure through which they have been commissioned. I suggest, however, that there is need to return to the primal experiential dimensions of New Testament Christianity. A more biblical ecclesiology in fact sets church planting movements free to mold their “forms” to the central “functions” of the New Testament church.[2]

This article proposes a flexible ecclesiology that maximizes the spiritual functions and activities of the New Testament church with minimal prescribed structures and organization. If the local church is observed especially through its New Testament functions, then our ecclesial structures should be highly adaptable to specific cultures and circumstances. In no sense does this work intend to define an entire ecclesiology. Rather, in brief strokes I will set forth two theological principles helpful to church planting.

1. The church exists as a decentralized form of the kingdom of God. In defining the church as the body of Christ, I will argue that the church exists in some ways as the dialectic antithesis to Old Testament Israel. Whereas through Moses and David the Old Testament kingdom of God was centralized in a geography, racial lineage, Sabbath, and professional priesthood, in the New Testament the outward form of God’s kingdom is the opposite—centralized in Christ but decentralized geographically, organizationally, temporally, and ethnically in its expansion throughout the earth.

2. The local church is practically defined by New Testament functions. Regarding the forms and structures of the earliest local churches, Gerald Bray observes:

The evidence of the New Testament is not sufficiently detailed to allow us to re-create an authentically “biblical” church to the exclusion of any alternative. It may have been the case that individual congregations were organized along different lines but we do not have enough details to be able to compare one with another. It may also be that many of the churches lacked any fixed organization. Perhaps they operated on a fairly ad hoc basis, with little sense that there was only one right way of doing things.[3]

If the New Testament reflects ambiguity regarding organizational forms, what appears tangible are the God-glorifying activities of the early church. That is, in terms directly relevant to church planting, the local church is identified and measured especially through its primary activities in response to its Lord. What the church is by nature (theologically) should be reflected in the intentional, Spirit-generated functions of local churches. Thus ontology (what God has made the church) and functionality (how God’s people rightly respond) are closely related. While necessarily having some organizational structure, the local church is designed to reflect its Lord through its activities of worship, teaching/disciple-forming, fellowship, and evangelism/mission. Whether in missional church planting or established local churches, the forms of a local church (excepting certain New Testament directives) are flexible and subordinate to New Testament functions that reflect what God has ordained the church to be.

The work concludes with suggestions on how better to initiate and nurture local churches in a widely diverse world. With a theological ecclesiology in place, church-planting methodology advances as creative interplay with culture as guided by the Holy Spirit. A student of the target culture, working together with believers indigenous to a particular setting, will seek to test and mold forms (organization, appearance, activities) to that which best facilitates New Testament functions.

Initial Observations: Toward A Framework For Church Planting

From the outset, certain assumptions need to be clarified. First, the people of God should be reflective of the triune God they claim to worship (cf. John 17:18; 20:21). Within progressive revelation, the missio dei as God’s creative, graceful movement toward humankind provides the metanarrative for why both Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church exist.[4] That God has worked in different ways throughout the history of salvation reflects the unity and diversity within the holy Trinity itself.

Second, affirming the pattern of the book of Acts and more broadly the entire New Testament as written to the church, a missional hermeneutic is encouraged. The overarching covenants to Adam, Noah, and Abraham point to the grace of God offered finally to all humanity.[5] So all the Bible, but especially the post-Pentecost New Testament, informs church planting efforts in a largely Gentile world.

Third, the New Testament clearly does prescribe formal aspects for the local church, notably qualified leadership, regular gathering together as “church,” and the practices of baptism and the Eucharist. On the other hand, not everything described in the New Testament is universally mandated. New Testament patterns guide but are not necessarily constrictive to innovational forms for the local church.

Last, this work does not intend to criticize more highly organized ecclesiologies. Indeed, formal denominational ecclesiologies are sometimes helpful in church multiplication. Moreover, such church structures give leadership and accountability to church-planting efforts. Rather, this article seeks to define the essential functions of the New Testament church as criteria for evaluating the forms and activities of today’s churches. A host of missional church-planting books are available, most of them with valuable contributions.[6] I will argue for a simple (perhaps controversial) template for the local church—one as adaptable in Tehran or rural Cameroon as in Shanghai, Paris, or Chicago. As such, the article is designed to complement established ecclesial and missional forms by stimulating new possibilities, as well as to orient church-planting efforts in situations calling for radical adaptations. In short, this proposal seeks a minimalist ecclesiology that maintains New Testament mandates regarding structure while emphasizing New Testament functions as the primary measure of a local church.

Church As A Decentralized Kingdom

The Bible itself attests to progressive revelation with significant differences between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church.[7] Whatever one’s eschatology and however much similarity or dissimilarity one finds between Israel as God’s theocratic kingdom and the New Testament church, certain distinctions are paradigmatic. Four categorical differences distinguish Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church, with significant missiological implications.

Geography

From the earliest covenants with Abraham, central to Jewish identity is the “land”—found over 2,500 times as the fourth most common noun in the Old Testament (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:7-20; 17:8). The promised land figures prominently in the exodus, Joshua’s conquest, the ensuing wars up to (and after) the Davidic kingdom, the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, subsequent returns to the land, and the Jewish tenacity to live in and defend the land even today.[8] Not only is the land of Israel endemic to Old Testament theology, David’s Jerusalem becomes the city of God and Zion the mountain of God. Even more concentrically defined, Solomon’s temple and later temples were structures erected both to invite yet keep out foreigners, women, Jewish laity, and finally everyone but the high priest from the holy of holies, the epicenter of God’s presence on earth. The invitation to the nations was to come to Jerusalem and worship the only true God, to “bring an offering and come into his courts” (Ps. 96:8).

With the New Testament church a geographic inversion occurs. Believers are commissioned to go into all the world. For the church, finally, there is no geographic center, no promised land, no Jerusalem, no temple, no altar, no Rome, no houses of God. Where two or three are gathered Christ is present. Early Christians met wherever they could in both public and private spaces. While literature mentions church buildings from the end of the second century, prior to Constantine, “it is uncertain whether these were existing structures remodeled for church use . . . or new constructions.”.a href="#TopOfPage".http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/november/why-and-when-did-christians-start-constructing-special.html./a.. -->[9] It is not that church buildings are unhelpful as meeting places for believers, rather, unlike the temple, church buildings themselves are unessential. The local church can meet anywhere.

Racial Lineage

The children of Abraham are God’s covenantal people. Not through Ishmael, not through Esau, but through Isaac and Jacob the Lord God promises to multiply the patriarchs’ children like the stars of the sky and the dust of the earth (Gen. 15:5; 22:17; 26:4; 28:14). That Rahabs and Ruths are incorporated into the chosen people reflects a coming universality and God’s grace to the world. Yet in the Old Testament the purity of the Jewish racial lineage remains of central importance. Priests were to be wholly Hebrew. With the return from Babylon, Ezra and the leadership of Israel required all who had intermarried to send away their foreign wives with their children, then to offer guilt offerings, so that God’s blessing would return to his people (Ezra 9-10).

With the New Testament form of the kingdom, the church radically reverses racial centrality: while once many were “excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope . . . now in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:12-13) the barrier is gone. “There is neither Jew nor Gentile” (Gal. 3:28). Non-Jewish believers are made coheirs of promise, children of Abraham, and participants in the new covenant. Now in the local church racial unity-in-diversity is encouraged.

Sabbath Day

Contrary to what some suppose, the Sabbath was introduced to Israel in the desert as manna fell only six of seven days (Exod. 16:23-30). Unlike circumcision, no credible evidence exists that anyone anywhere in the known world had practiced a Sabbath[10]—including Noah, Abraham, and Jacob’s offspring in Egypt. In the fourth commandment (20:8-11) the Sabbath is defined and related to God’s own rest at creation (Gen. 2:4). That Sabbath ordinance—by word count longer than the fifth through tenth commandments combined—apparently describes something new to the Israelites. Like circumcision, the Sabbath serves as an explicit covenantal sign between the Lord God and Israel: “The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever” (Exod. 31:12-17; cf. Ezek. 20:12, 20). As Nehemiah 9:13-14 reiterates, God made known his Sabbath at Sinai.

With Jesus’s inauguration of the new covenant at the Last Supper, there appear parallels between Israel’s two covenantal signs of circumcision and Sabbath and the two ordinances given to the church—baptism and the Lord’s Supper.[11] Whatever one’s perspective on the age and mode of baptism, like circumcision in Old Testament Israel, so New Testament baptism is the public sign of one’s new identity with Christ and his body, the church (cf. Col. 2:11-13). Implicitly as well, the Jewish Sabbath is replaced by the regular meetings of Christians that culminate in the Lord’s Supper (“Do this in remembrance of me,” 1 Cor. 11:24). The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:24-29) conspicuously set aside Old Testament commands of circumcision and Sabbath for the emerging Gentile church—a discontinuity argued forcefully by Paul (cf. Rom. 14:5-6; Gal. 5:1-6; Col. 2:16). Whereas early Jewish believers may have also worshiped on the Sabbath, Sunday as the Lord’s day of resurrection takes precedence but without commandment. While believers are not to forsake gathering together for worship (Heb. 10:25), no day is commanded. A believing community appears free to come together “as church” whenever it deems appropriate as long as it is habitual.

Professional Priesthood

The Pentateuch designates Aaron and his sons as the priestly lineage and “sets apart” the entire tribe of Levi for special service to God. Heirs by bloodline (especially the Levitical clan of Kohath), the Aaronic priests were the mediators between Israel and God. The Mosaic law gives detailed instructions for rituals, various forms of sacrifices, even proper clothing. “The Levitical priests—indeed the whole tribe of Levi—are to have no allotment or inheritance with Israel. They shall live on the food offerings presented to the Lord, for that is their inheritance” (Deut. 18:1).[12] Led by the high priest, the Levitical priests of Israel were to be a professional religious caste financially sustained by the people. Only they were ordained to offer sacrifices. When King Saul offered sacrifices by himself, he was irrevocably disqualified as Israel’s monarch. By God’s own design, the priest was to be the mediator between God and the nation of Israel.

With the new covenant, now Jesus alone is the great high priest (Heb. 4:14), and through him every believer is declared a priest (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6). Indeed, the Christian is not only priest but also daughter or son of the living God. While the apostles and later leaders are given certain authority, they serve as shepherds for the purpose of equipping “his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up” (Eph. 4:12). The contrast is striking between the Old Testament priestly hierarchy and the leadership of the New Testament church, simple fishermen, called to strengthen others for full service to the Head of the body.[13] Rather than conduits of God’s will for the “sheep” or mediators between God and humanity, Christian leaders function as facilitators in nurturing believers to maturity in their own obedience to Jesus Christ.

Summarily, then, in the Old Testament the kingdom of God was centralized in: (1) the promised land, Jerusalem, and the temple; (2) the Jewish racial lineage (Abraham’s offspring) as God’s covenantal people; (3) the Sabbath day that distinguished Israel from the nations; and (4) the hierarchy of priests as an exclusive professional guild.

In the kingdom of God, the New Testament church is the dialectic antithesis to the centralized forms of Old Testament Israel. No one denies the continuity of many other aspects of God’s kingdom through the Old Testament and New Testament, however, the form of that kingdom radically shifts with the New Testament church. In the condominium of God’s people, different apartments function under different rules. This should not surprise us from a Trinitarian God constituted in both unity and diversity. As a spiritual entity the church is centralized in the Head, Jesus Christ, unified by the indwelling Holy Spirit, sent into every part of the world, a communion for all peoples, manifest in local churches, acknowledging every day (ultimately) alike, and affirming the priesthood of every believer. Contrary to popular images, the New Testament local church is not defined by a building (or “temple”), Sunday Sabbath, worship service, and full-time pastor. Thinking afresh sets church planters free from conventional conceptions to focus on what is essential to the local church in the diverse contexts of a lost world.

The Local Church As Practically Defined By New Testament Functions

While various lenses enrich our understanding of the church, the local New Testament church is especially identified by both adherence to the apostles’ doctrine and its God-glorifying activities. In contrast to the carefully prescribed, external forms given to ancient Israel, New Testament ecclesial forms exist to accomplish the primary roles prescribed for the local church. This is not to say that certain unifying forms of organization, qualified leadership, and ordinances (or sacraments) do not remain in place (such forms are established by our Lord and the apostles). Nor does creativity in ecclesial forms in any way negate firm adherence to classical Christian doctrine (“the Great Tradition”). But beyond these minimal organizational prescriptives that unite all true Christian assemblies, the church’s organization, structure, liturgies, and music are to be deliberately flexible in order to accomplish the transgenerational and transcultural functions of the church. The forms of the church should maximize the congregation’s spiritual vitality in ways reflective of the experiences of the early church.

Acts 2 initiates the outworking of Jesus’s Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) with Pentecost’s sequence of proclamation, making disciples, baptizing, and teaching.[14] Describing the first expression of the body of Christ, Acts 2:42-47 can then be seen as a matrix for categorizing the primary New Testament functions of worship, teaching/discipleship, fellowship, and evangelism/mission—activities of the church amplified throughout the New Testament.[15]

While the approach might seem simplistic, this fourfold description remains heuristically useful as a blueprint for church planters everywhere in the world. Indeed, for many Christian workers entangled in the mechanics of church institutionalism, a return to the simple, central functions of the New Testament church brings perspective and generates creative, contextualized expression.

Vibrant Worship

From the beginning, the church was characterized by worshiping the Lord God and his Son Jesus Christ. Adoration and praise spilled over into everything. The believers “devoted themselves . . . to prayer” (Acts 2:42); “everyone was filled with awe” (v. 43); “they broke bread in their homes” (v. 46), “praising God” (v. 47). The early church recognized that it exists preeminently for the glory of God. On certain occasions the church’s reverence before the Lord is described as the fear of the Lord (5:11; 9:31; 19:17). With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, believers perceived themselves as the living temple of God’s presence. From the very beginning, the Lord’s Supper became a focal point of worship and came to function as the Christian’s holy of holies (1 Cor. 11:23-33). Collective devotion included singing, reading of Scripture, sacrifice of one’s material possessions (gifts, offerings), and prayers of adoration to God and Christ. Worship occurred not only in official assemblies but also on spontaneous occasions when believers simply met together (Acts 4:23-31; Eph. 5:18-20).

As the new bride of Christ, the earliest church effervesces with creative love. To be creative means to be innovative and at the same time authentic to who we are as individuals and as believing communities. Many North Americans (myself included) have little experience in communal worship where the presence of the Lord is both openly sought and emotionally experienced. As biblical truth and self-honesty help guide us, the New Testament allows freedom to experiment with expressions of worship indigenous to a culture yet reflective of the New Testament church. While certain ecclesial traditions might be transferable, when beginning a new congregation, a primary manifestation of the true church is genuine, heartfelt worship. Without collective honoring and experiencing of God, a church is less than what our Lord intends.

Vibrant Teaching/Discipleship

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). In view of the negativity toward “doctrine” and “theology” among millions of evangelicals around the world, it is surprising how frequently the Bible speaks of teaching, doctrine, and example. Jesus speaks of himself as teacher (John 13:13). Of the 77 occurrences of terms for “teacher” (ῥαββί, ῥαββουνί, διδάσκαλος) in the New Testament, 59 refer to Jesus. The verb διδάσκω (“teach”) and the term διδαχή (“teaching, doctrine”) are repeated about another 160 times in the New Testament[16]—with generally positive connotations. Teachers such as Apollos (Acts 18:24-28) stand in high esteem in the early church. In 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus alone, we find nearly fifty references to instruction, doctrine, and teaching by example—all with a view to strengthening others in Christlike maturity. Paul charges Timothy, “Watch your life and your doctrine closely. . . . because if you do you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16). The Bible insists that teaching is foundational to the believer’s life (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:11-13). In an age in which lax study, subjectivism, and prophetic “visions” rule many pulpits of the world, it is essential that those forming new congregations teach and model the biblical doctrines and principles of the faith (Jude 3). A primary function of the local church, modeled by qualified leadership, is to teach “sound doctrine” and “refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9; 2:1).

Neither teaching nor its intended effect of learning captures the breadth of New Testament exhortations. Christ’s Great Commission specifies that believers should “make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19). Activities involve multiple levels of discipleship, testimonies, and models of godly living. Learning is generated both by the power of the Word and by examples of faithfulness. If believers are not steadily learning truths that excite and nurture them in the Lord, then the local church, again, is failing in its God-given New Testament responsibility. The church-planting task is to maximize faithful teaching and learning, grounded in Scripture, in contextualized patterns that fit the participants’ ways of learning.

Vibrant Κοινωνία

The intra-Trinitarian love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is to be reflected in believers’ affections toward one another (John 17:26; 1 John 4:7-16). Recounting the birth of the church at Pentecost, Luke writes, “They devoted themselves . . . to fellowship” (Acts 2:42); “They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts” (v. 46); and “All the believers were together and had everything in common” (v. 44). The initial intensity of this sacrifice-all fellowship did not continue, but the exhortations and examples to care for one another are frequent in the epistles. In classical Greek the term κοινωνία denoted fellowship within a close bond, a two-sided relation—notably in marriage—“closer and more comprehensive than all other forms of fellowship.”[17] Occurring some twenty times in the New Testament, κοινωνία refers both to personal communion with God and more often to one believer’s relationship with another (1 John 1:3, 6-7).

With the collapse of human significance in the twenty-first century, perhaps the greatest apologetic for Christian faith is anthropology—our createdness in the imago dei. Our humanity, all the more reconciled to our Creator, has the richest of meaning. Christian κοινωνία signifies the deepest of human relationships through mutual openness and heartfelt commitment around love for our Lord. Yet connectedness with other believers cannot be orchestrated. It is dependent on the Holy Spirit himself. Indeed, prayer is one of the most powerful forces that unites the local church. Incumbent upon the church planter, therefore, is the challenge to pray and think through with others in the local church how best to create conditions for strengthening genuine κοινωνία. A primary task of the church planter and pastor/leader is to nurture deep fellowship among believers.

At the same time, the New Testament function of κοινωνία is perhaps the most sensitive of a cross-cultural church planter’s challenges. To be considered are issues like gender relations, the ages of participants, social class, race relations, mixtures of cultural and religious backgrounds, and the boundaries of what is perceived as proper in a given socio-religious context as well as prescribed in the Bible itself. Christian fellowship will look significantly different between churches in Tokyo, Cairo, Rio de Janeiro, and Portland—even as leaders are called to encourage genuine spiritual friendships. In the New Testament, a living church is known by the love that members have for one another.

Vibrant Outreach

Fourth among these core functions of the New Testament church is mission itself. In his last words before ascending into heaven, Jesus commissioned his followers to spread the gospel throughout the world (Acts 1:8). At Pentecost, Peter preached the gospel, and three thousand people were baptized. Luke records that these first believers enjoyed “the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47). Acts records the failures as well as the zeal of the early church in spreading the good news through courageous testimony, open preaching, apologetic debate, missionary travels, and martyrdom. While outreach directly entails evangelism and mission, the New Testament also exhorts doing good to others (Titus 3:1-2, 8, 14), sharing possessions (Heb. 13:16; James 1:27), exemplary conduct among unbelievers (1 Pet. 2:12), and readiness of response to those who ask about the reason for one’s hope (1 Pet. 3:15). Especially powerful is the infectious attraction of the communal life of the early church, even with its problems.

The church must be both attractional and missional. As Greear puts it, the church is not a cruise liner, and not always a battleship—it is called to be an aircraft carrier, teaching its people “to share the gospel, without the help of the pastor, in the community, and start ministries and Bible studies—even churches—in places without them. Churches must become discipleship factories, ‘sending’ agencies that equip their members to take the battle to the enemy.”[18] Intentional proclamation, outreach, and mission are fundamental for every truly New Testament church, whether a congregation in formation or one established generations past.

In short, the theological ontology of the church is evidenced by the palpable, visible activity of the local church first reflected in Acts 2:24-27. The popular conceptions of the church as a building with a Sunday Sabbath, full-time pastor, and high-octane worship program stand distant from the New Testament ideal. They are also distant from what underground believers experience as a persecuted church in various parts of the world today. The vivid functions of the New Testament church are the Spirit’s invitation to simplicity and in many cases sincere, critical rethinking for ecclesial change.[19]

Conclusion

This work has set forth two ecclesiological principles central to the church planting endeavor.

1. The church exists as a decentralized form of the kingdom of God. Through Abraham, Moses, and David the Old Testament kingdom of God was centralized in geography, racial lineage, Sabbath, and professional priesthood. In the New Testament, the form of God’s kingdom is precisely the opposite—spiritually centralized in Christ but decentralized in the world. Quite decidedly, the church is not constituted by temples, a priestly caste, or Sunday performance. Rather, the New Testament allows significant freedom to test and mold the forms of local churches to cultures, contexts, and circumstances.

2. The local church is tangibly defined by its New Testament functions. If a local church is to reflect its ontological relation to the body of Christ, then it is measured especially through its God-glorifying activities. That is, while necessarily having some organizational structure, the local church is designed to reflect its Lord through its functions of worship, teaching (disciple-forming), fellowship, and outreach (evangelism/mission). These are the pistons that move the church forward in the power of God. Many a church struggles with only three, or two, or one piston functioning. To the extent that the vital functions of the New Testament church are not experienced, that congregation is less than the church God intends. A re-tuning of the local church in light of the primary New Testament functions—throwing out what encumbers, cleaning out what has encrusted—can revive a congregation to new life. Missiologically speaking, in the formation of new congregations, the vibrant activities of Acts 2:24-27 serve as a basic, transferable matrix for incentivizing, praying, organizing, and structuring the local church, all by the power of the Holy Spirit.

In everything that has been said, what is not being suggested is that all church-planting efforts are subject to the whims of maverick founders or isolated, autonomous congregations. Churches are to seek out and nurture relations with other local churches and recognize themselves as part of the great tradition of orthodox doctrine and the historic, worldwide body of Christ. New congregations must work toward and remain within New Testament directives for presbyters/elders and deacons, the ordinances of baptism and communion, discipleship, and discipline in the congregation. Most churches are related to traditions or mission orientation and should respect their greater ecclesial families. On the other hand, wise denominational and mission leadership will encourage fresh experimentation and cultural adaptation in efforts to begin new congregations—whether in unevangelized fields or in established settings closer to home. Older churches can and should parent and encourage fresh models for daughter churches.

In the end, Scripture itself allows significant diversity among the transcultural, transgenerational manifestations of Christ’s followers. Recognizing New Testament flexibility regarding forms and the primacy of New Testament functions in the church-planting effort, missionaries and indigenous leaders are freed to adapt forms and organize in ways that encourage the full expression of these activities. A student of a target culture, working together with believers native to a particular setting, will seek to test and mold forms to that which best facilitates these foremost New Testament activities. This is the challenge of creative ecclesiology and church planting. The implications of the simple New Testament teachings are remarkably liberating.

Notes

1. Ed René Kivitz, Quebrando Paradigmas (São Paulo: Abba, 1995), 37-56.
2. Allison divides current ecclesiological models into three clusters: functional, teleological, and ontological ecclesiologies (he affirms the last) (Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012], 50-53). During the 1970s and ’80s, functional ecclesiologies were often at the forefront of missional church planting. In recent years, the functional methodologies have been overshadowed by ontological (theological) or more teleological (pragmatic) models. I suggest that we can affirm an ontological model (the divinely given nature of the church) without losing the richness of identifying the early church’s central activities as instructive for what the church should be.
3. Gerald Bray, The Church: A Theological and Historical Account (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), 42.
4. Timothy C. Tennent, Invitation to World Missions: A Trinitarian Missiology for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010), 53-101; Fred Sanders, The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 127-66; and J. Scott Horrell, “The Trinity, the Imago Dei, and the Nature of the Local Church: The Framework of Christian Mission,” in Connecting for Christ: Overcoming Challenges across Cultures, ed. Florence Tan (Singapore: F. P. L. Tan, 2009), 13-24.
5. Of note are two classics, George W. Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions (Chicago: Moody, 1972), 83-102; and Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 29-69, 324-29. See also Graham Hill, Global Church: Reshaping Our Conversations, Renewing Our Mission, Revitalizing Our Churches (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2016), 429-33.
6. Works widely used in evangelical church planting include: Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962); Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013); David J. Hesselgrave, Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: North America and Beyond (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000); Graham Hill, Salt, Light, and a City: Introducing Missional Ecclesiology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012); Graham Hill, Global Church: Reshaping Our Conversations, Renewing Our Mission, Revitalizing Our Churches (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2016); Timothy Keller, Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012); Aubrey Malphurs, Planting Growing Churches for the 21st Century: A Comprehensive Guide for New Churches and Those Desiring Renewal, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004); Aubrey Malphurs, The Nuts and Bolts of Church Planting (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011); Craig Ott and Gene Wilson, Global Church Planting: Biblical Principles and Best Practices for Multiplication (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011); J. D. Payne, Discovering Church Planting: An Introduction to the Whats, Whys, and Hows of Global Church Planting (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009); Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger, Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process for Making Disciples (Nashville, TN: B. & H., 2006); Andy Stanley, Deep and Wide: Creating Churches Unchurched People Love to Attend (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012); Ed Stetzer and Daniel Im, Planting Missional Churches: Your Guide to Starting Churches That Multiply, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: B. & H., 2016); and Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church: Growth without Compromising Your Message and Mission (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).
7. A host of works debate whether Old Testament Israel is the church and whether the New Testament church is the new Israel. For a variety of views see Chad Owen Brand, ed., Perspectives on Israel and the Church: 4 Views (Nashville, TN: B. & H., 2015); Stephen J. Wellum and Brent A. Parker, eds., Progressive Covenantalism: Charting the Course between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies (Nashville, TN: B. & H., 2016); Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, IL: Victor/Bridgepoint, 1993); D. A. Carson, “When Did the Church Begin?” Themelios 41 (2016): 1-4; J. Scott Horrell, From the Ground Up: New Testament Foundations for the 21st Century Church (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 29-52. For more information, see Gerald Bray, The Church, 14-29; Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 60-69; and Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 61-122. In my understanding, the universal church is constituted by all regenerate believers in Jesus Christ, beginning with the baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost, united under the headship of Christ, and present in believing local churches and fellowships throughout the world.
8. Walter Brueggeman, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in the Biblical Faith, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 2002), esp. 1-45; Gerald McDermott, ed., The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel and the Land (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2016), 29-40; Gerald McDermott, “Covenant, Mission, and Relating to the Other,” in Covenant and Hope: Christian and Jewish Reflections, ed. Robert W. Jenson and Eugene B. Korn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 19-40; Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glasser, eds., The People, the Land, and the Future of Israel: Israel and the Jewish People in the Plan of God (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2014), esp. 71-82.
9. Everett Ferguson, “Why and When Did Christians Start Constructing Special Buildings for Worship?” Christian History (Nov. 12, 2008), accessed September 9, 2016, www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/november/why-and-when-did-christ-ians-start-constructing-special.html?share=ZOF5b2x7pFtJN8LFr7bP3E3S10YR7-Evn.
10. Gerhard F. Hasel, “Sabbath,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 5:849-56; cf. Samuele Bacchiocchi, “Remembering the Sabbath: The Creation-Sabbath in Jewish and Christian History,” in The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Tamara C. Eskenazi, Daniel J. Harrington, and William H. Shea (New York: Crossroad, 1991), 70-79.
11. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 78-79.
12. Cf. Merlin D. Rehm, “Levites and Priests,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:303-4.
13. Bray comments: “Following the legalization of Christianity in the Roman Empire (in 313) and its establishment as the state religion (in 380), church leaders looked to the OT for models of how a Christian society ought to be governed. . . . The Christian clergy were organized into an order of priests on the Aaronic model and given a tithe of all produce for their maintenance, just as the ancient Levites had received. . . . [T]he OT was allegorized to make it fit the needs of the Christian church” (The Church, 14-15).
14. Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 14.
15. Van Gelder assigns the category of “functional ecclesiology” to various subgroups of churches, including seeker-sensitive, purpose-driven, small-group, and niche-market churches (Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000], 21). Allison does somewhat the same (Sojourners and Strangers, 50-51). But one would have to say that almost all missional ecclesiologies are variations of functional ecclesiologies. Only the most naïve of treatments would not also affirm the importance of the ontological (theological) dimension of the church as the chosen people of God and the body of Christ. But this ontology is to be manifested in the visible activity of the local church. I have not included miracles, prayer, and social outreach as specific functional categories—the first is not always evident in the New Testament church, and the latter two overlap with more than one category (Horrell, From the Ground Up, 73-85).
16. Moisés Silva, “Διδάσκω,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, 2nd ed., vol 1, ed. Moisés Silva (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 710.
17. Friedrich Hauck, “κοινός, κ.τ.λ.,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 798.
18. J. D. Greear, Gaining by Losing: Why the Future Belongs to Churches That Send (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 191.
19. Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the 20th Century (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1970), 71-77; Howard A. Snyder, The Problem of Wine Skins: Church Structure in a Technological Age (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1975), 89-99, 105-11; Andy Stanley, Deep and Wide, 265-91.