Some people love the Church, some are suspicious of the Church and still others hate it with a vengeance!But which Church do they love or hate? Is it the greying, largely traditional Church; the aggressive, contemporary mega or regional Church; or the almost hidden (no buildings) emerging Church? And which Church needs to change?

The pundits are predicting the demise of many of the established congregations over the next 20 years due to their failure to attract young adults. This happened in the UK amongst the Methodists two decades ago and out of the closures of many Churches there arose a whole new vibrant Church planting movement which successfully engaged people with the Gospel.

It is a foolish thing to write off the Church when Christ said He Himself would build it! Individual congregations may become non-viable but the Church will always be with us in some form or another.

The question many Church leaders are asking is, “How can the Church in Australia re-invent itself in order to get back on message and fulfil Christ’s mission in the world?”

This question implies there are certain non-negotiables that are presumably sacrosanct due to Biblical constraints.

I am fairly certain there has not been enough homework done on these issues to date. For this reason we may have made the mistake of calling some emerging “models” Churches, when in fact they do not fulfil the basic functions according to the Bible.

The question also implies it is possible re-invent the Church in any age. There is a need for clear contextualisation here.

If we can determine the difference between what is obviously Biblical and valid in all cultures, and what is clearly cultural in the Australian Church, then it will be possible for a new Church to emerge that is clothed in the Australian culture yet challenging to those aspects that defy the Bible.

Eddie Gibbs in Church Next declared our Churches can display one of three attitudes towards the world around them.

Firstly, we can display an attitude of judgmental isolation. This head-in-the sand attitude ignores the fact that complete isolation is impossible because most of our people have to cope with the pressures of the world on a daily basis.

Secondly, we may display an attitude of protective separation. This attitude involves engagement with the world, but it also demands that individuals who wish to enter the Church must clean up their lives first and undergo cultural indoctrination and initiation.

The third attitude is one of missionary engagement according to Gibbs. In this case, the Church recognises its “distinctive identity in the Gospel but also its calling within a specific culture.”

In this preferred third alternative, “The Church goes into the world with the same degree of dependence as Jesus demonstrated towards His Heavenly Father, and also with humility and repentance in communicating its message.” This third attitude best describes where the Church should be.

The primary challenge facing the Australian Church is not the challenge of re-inventing itself, but the challenge of re-connecting with people who have a different worldview so as to present the Gospel in a way that makes sense to them.

This challenge necessitates a missionary mindset and demands all the skills employed by cross-cultural missionaries overseas.

Three of us who minister together out of this missionary conviction are embarking on a journey together. I (John Tanner) am a missiologist, Colin Stoodley is a Church planter and the training director of The Pines Training Centre, and Dean Thomas is a pastor evangelist. We also represent three generations. We’re not sure where our journey will take us because we know we don’t have all the answers. We need input from others that we meet on the road.

[John] During the years when the influence of Christendom was pervasive within Australian culture, people connected with the Church as a relevant and necessary part of their community. Now Australia is a multi-cultural nation in a post-Christian phase. We shouldn’t allow the high profile of a few mega Churches to hide this fact from us.

We are correct to view Australia as a mission field that requires us to re-connect with various sectors of our society in redemptive ways.

[Dean] John’s point regarding the decline of influence of Christendom within Australian society can no longer be argued against. For some within the Church, this has been a frightening development causing all sorts of negative reactions detrimental to the cause of ‘winning Aussies for Christ’.

Some Churches are now so disconnected to society that unless a miracle occurs the Church will continue to be, at best, irrelevant or at worst, counter-productive to reaching the unsaved.

[John] The first step in the journey to re-connection is preparation. Everyone knows the key to a successful journey lies in being properly prepared. Our preparation involves: understanding the worldview of the people we’re trying to reach determining what is to be contextualised, and identifying appropriate ministry models

1. Understanding Worldview We can think of worldview in three general categories. The surface category is the cognitive dimension dealing with what people know, the way they think logically and how they view wisdom. The intermediate level of worldview is the affective dimension which deals with feelings and aesthetics. The deepest level of worldview is the evaluative dimension which is comprised of beliefs, values and allegiances. In order to reach people with the Gospel, we must first understand and appreciate their worldview.

The worldview of the Baby Boomer is radically different from that of the Gen Xer. Similarly, recent immigrants from Hong Kong will have a different worldview from third generation Australian Chinese. Unless the Gospel penetrates deep down to the level of beliefs and values, true conversion is not possible.

One of the greatest challenges facing the Australian Church is to understand and appreciate the worldview of people under thirty-five years of age in order to re-connect with them and to introduce them to Jesus.

2. Contextualisation [John] The second task in preparing ourselves to re-invent the Church is the work of contextualisation. Because Jesus commanded us to preach the Gospel to “all the people groups,” we may safely assume that the Gospel will fit within every sub-culture on the planet. One problem we have is that we constantly fail to distinguish between what is Biblical in the Church and what is cultural.

Whenever we move across cultures we must be careful to leave behind the “cultural garments” of our home Church and to plant relevant Biblical truth and practices within a whole new “garment” indigenous to the new culture. It is necessary for us to determine the Biblical nature and functions of the Church; the essence of the Gospel; the character of true conversion; the responsibilities of discipleship and the descriptors of spiritual maturity to begin with.

In our Churches we have added much to basic Biblical Christianity that is cultural. If we are to share the Gospel in redemptive ways to another culture or generation we had better understand what the message is, how it relates and what are the implications of conversion within that culture.

[Colin] The point John makes about contextualisation is absolutely vital. When I began ministry as a planter in the early 1980s there was no discussion about this among planters in Australia. Now it is rightly becoming a rigorous part of our preparation and ministry as planters.

As well as this, with regards to describing Australia as “post-Christian” I also like to think of Australia as “pre-Christian” because this helps me see the opportunity just as seeing us as a post-Christian nation helps me see the challenges realistically. This is a great day for us if we will accept the challenge. We must not be intimidated but release the creative elements of our lives to the task.

But seeing ourselves rightly also involves accepting the reality of what we have “added” to the Gospel by way of “western” enculturalisation. This involves examining our message and methods to discern what must be stripped away. This will be a painful process but among new Churches being planted there is a natural and amazing opportunity to do this without major dislocation. In planting new Churches we can not only do evangelism better but we can complete the reformation of the Church quicker.

[Dean] There are several emerging grassroots “movements” which have identified the need for careful contextualization in the preparation stage and have created a community of faith amongst those who understand evangelism is no longer an event but a process in context. The Engell scale (of evangelism) has become second nature to these people. The Engell scale, by nature, “forces” God’s people to contextualise. Succesful evangelism is no longer about getting the ‘kill’, it is working at moving people along the process from completely unaware of religion through to a conversion experience and on to becoming replicating followers of Christ.

With this in mind evangelism is no longer just the realm of the evangelist. It is now the responsibility of the whole Church! Once again the power is in the hands of the Church, not a select few.

3. Appropriate ministry models [John] Possibly the easiest task of the preparation stage is discovering and developing appropriate models of ministry. Note that I was careful to say “ministry” and not Church.” Today there are experimental models that I would call ministries which do not qualify Biblically to be called Churches. I applaud those who have the courage to experiment and cheer them on to complete the task God has called them to do.

The appropriateness of the models will be determined by the worldview of the people we are seeking to reach. For example, anyone seeking to reach people under thirty-five must adopt a model that has a strong relational base because this generation relates to friends more than to family.

Church leaders tell us that the Mega Church model based on marketing techniques is no longer the preferred option. In some Denominations this policy shift will create a vacuum. There are many possible models, but we must be discerning in our choices.

[Colin] The models of our ministries will look different. We are already seeing that and, I believe, accepting that as a fact. But there are some very big picture things that we must somehow never lose sight of.

What underpins this three stage process that John presents is that we retain the element of God’s Spirit in a continuous process of transformation. Even if we understand worldview, do our contextualisation and change our ministry models, we must not lose what God Himself brings to the table. Being people of the Spirit and prayer cannot be replaced.

My great concern is that we will become “clever” but not “consecrated.”

When I was a planter the first time around, I attended a conference on the new thing at that time – Church growth. For a while I think we lost the deep transforming work of the Spirit and became quick to analyse and adapt but not quick to yield. My prayer would be that what John is calling for will be adopted in lives that resound to the person and work of God the Holy Spirit. My sense as a Church Planter is that this dimension gives energy and vitality and effect to the disciplines we must adopt.

[Dean] I can also see a change regarding ministry models happening amongst my evangelist friends. The evangelists of the past who have been so successful in times gone by are no longer reaping the same size harvest in Australia. As a result, some of them are looking for someone to blame (eg lack of pre-crusade preparation on behalf of the Churches). This in turn increases the gap between Church leaders and evangelists.

These old models of evangelism won’t be successful in this postmodern culture. “Modern” evangelists (as opposed to those who operate within the current postmodern context) are looking for harvest fields in which they can once again see dramatic numeric results. So many are turning to other countries. The decline of the big time Evangelist’s hey-day has well and truly started and it won’t be long before it is complete.

Now I know this sounds dark and gloomy, but the story doesn’t end there. I believe the Scriptures – not even the gates of hell shall prevail! Before our very eyes we are witnessing grass roots movements that are changing the way Churches and evangelists work together to re-connect with everyday Australians in order to bring in the harvest. I for one am very hopeful.

[John] This is just the start of the discussion. If you would like to join us in the journey we would welcome your presence and comments. Together we may discover some principles that will help to shape the mission of the Church in the next five years.

~ John Tanner (Minister at large, Southern Cross Institute and Missiologist) ~ Colin Stoodley (Training Director, The Pines Training Centre) ~ Dean Thomas (Pastor/evangelist and pioneer in internet evangelism)

Growing up I feared with a passion school report card day. To this day my father has not seen all of my report cards.

Last week my four year old son brought his first report card home from kindergarten.

How is that possible? How do you prepare a report on a four year old who can’t read or write, whose favourite conversation starter is, “Is sixty bigger than sixty hundred?”

After careful reading I soon discovered the report card serves no purpose other than to evaluate my son’s ‘imagination’ or creativity. Now I don’t need a teacher to tell me my son has an imagination – he told me last night he was going to buy me a new car for my birthday.

By nature all kids are creative. We don’t have to teach kids how to explore, how to ask questions, how to make up stories, it just happens!

I think it’s this creativity in humans which makes us different to all other created beings, and to the rest of creation. The Bible tells us the reason our kids are creative is because they are created in the image and likeness of the God who is ‘creative’. Not just the creator of the universe but the creative of the universe!

God imagined our world before He created it, and when He spoke it came into being.

Obviously, there is a difference between you and me and God. God created out of nothing, we create out of something. We can’t just speak into being things which have never existed before.

As I look at the Church in Australia, particularly as I look at the top level leadership, I fear we are missing something – something we were created to have and experience but something which we are fearful of reclaiming, perhaps even a little embarrassed to mention. Or depending upon the doctrine we believe a little reluctant to pick up on.

I am talking about our imagination or creativity.

You might say. `But I’m not creative’.

Not true. You might not be ‘artistic’.

You may not be able to sculpt, dance or play the drums (I can’t even clap in time) and you’ve been tricked into thinking you’re uncreative.

Absolutely untrue! You may be uncoordinated… but you’re not uncreative.

Creativity spans the full spectrum of human talent and gifting and all of us have within God-created creativity waiting to be set free.

In Galatians 5 verse 1 Paul writes, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”

And verse 13, “You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.”

WOW! Did you see it? It is for freedom Christ has set you free.

Despite this amazing proclamation so much of our conversation, our time, our understanding of God is understood in terms of rules and commands and all the “don’ts” in life.

We get the false impression that God is trying to put us in a box, trying to standardize us yet Paul knew that what Jesus Christ came to do is to set us free.

You are called to be free!

But sadly, as we grow up we make choices which destroy that freedom. Choices which may rob us of our health, our joy, our peace. Choices which rob us of freedom.

What choices have you made that have stolen your freedom?

I’m not just talking about those easy to see sins. But what choices have we made as Christian leaders which have robbed us of taking a fresh approach to something?

What choices have we made that deny or hinder the Church from trying something new, because something, somewhere in our past has urged us to lean towards caution or even a ‘just don’t do it.’

A couple of weeks ago I was traveling home from work, a journey for which I have two choices – do I go the old way which is full of traffic lights and a lower speed limit, or the new way which has no traffic lights and a higher speed limit?

Riding my new Ducati I chose the fast way. You can guess what happened, I got stuck behind a slow moving Honda Jazz. I am going crazy behind her, and the traffic isn’t that bad, but it is an unbroken line.

So I sit there muttering in my helmet. People go this way because it is quicker, it is faster than the old way. I look at the car, look at the speedo, look at the double lines, say to myself, “Don’t do it Dean, obey the law today” and finally when we hit the round about and we have the extra lane for 10 metres, I speed around her and get in front.

For a lot of us, we think our spiritual experience is just like getting into the faster lane. We are trying to go full speed into life and zoom we get behind God and we think Jesus starts slowing us down.

The whole world is moving by. They can change lanes, they can have a good time, they can mock you as they go by, because they made that choice and are going faster than you.

Because we wrongly think God is the one who narrows our options rather than expands our freedom. Wrong.

We think God is up there going ‘No no no’ when in fact He keeps saying ‘Go go go’.

Maybe you’ve risked, dared or even stepped out and advanced, and you’ve been disappointed.

Maybe you’ve experienced failure and humiliation.

Don’t forget we were created as creative beings.

God frees us to be creative, to lead in creative ways.

Don’t let your past choices hinder you from advancing, don’t allow them to force you to say no, let them free you to go.

What happened to us?

The One who created the intricacies of gravity, the balance of nature, the complexity of human emotions…He’s the One in whose image you were created.
Get out of the box. Be free.

~ Dean Thomas </P

From science we recognize that there are capacities and limitations to our own perceptions.

From the early 20th century two guys named Donald Broadbent and Thomas Kuhn did separate studies and discovered we have filtering processes that both allow and prevent information from coming in to our minds. Broadbent’s research was all about selective sensory perception (SSP). We all have this amazing ability to filter out meaningless information.

And because you have this ability, this selective sensory perception, you can block out the person next to you who is sneezing, or the one scratching their nose, or the person in front of you who’s moving around and fidgeting.
You can block out lights and sounds. Wouldn’t it be horrible if all the information or stimuli of your immediate area came flooding into your brain without any kind of filter? You would go crazy. In fact you would have an attention deficit disorder because so much information would be storming your brain you could not possibly stand it.

There’s an old story about the cosmonauts and astronauts’ first space journey. The cosmonauts, when they stepped outside the earth’s gravitational pull, said, ‘We have explored the universe and there is no proof of God’s existence’. And the astronauts stepped out beyond the gravitational pull of the earth and said, ‘We have stepped out into the universe and there is evidence of God everywhere’.

Selective Sensory Perception may be vital to help you function in a rational manner, but it does have it limitations. It causes you to see what you want to see, and not see what you do not want to see.

That makes me pause. What filtering am I doing in my journey to extend God’s kingdom?

All of us have this filtering process going on. Some of it is governed by our past experiences, circumstances and paradigms. What’s that, you ask?
Well if SSP is a way of filtering information, paradigms are our way of distorting information. Around the same time as Broadbent and his discovery of SSP, another scientist released findings in a book called Revolution of Scientific Discoveries with his thesis being we operate with unique paradigms.
Paradigms are not only our way of filtering information so we see what we want to see and block what we don’t want to see – they go even further and distort the information which has made it through our SSP.

Kuhn's theory of paradigms said scientists had a natural inclination to reinforce their already set beliefs so new scientific discoveries were already rejected not because they weren’t discoverable, not because there wasn’t enough empirical evidence to prove them but because the scientists’ paradigms actually blocked out the information that would change their minds.

And so they kept seeing the world as flat, not because all the evidence said the world was flat, but because all the evidence that proved the world was round was flattened by their paradigms.

Have you ever had someone on your leadership team who just seems to be on another planet to you? Who thinks differently to you?

It’s not a bad thing (although it can be painfully frustrating). It can be very beneficial as those type of people make it easier for you to see your own filtering process and paradigms.

Unfortunately, some Christian leaders tend to get so caught up with the experience of the western Church their SSP slowly begins to change.
We begin to lose our first call, our passion. In fact, sometimes we even begin to walk another paradigm to that in which we want and ought to be traveling.

I once attended a formal function at a Church I knew nothing about. As soon as I entered the building I noticed a mission statement hanging on the wall (maybe you know a Church with a similar one). It started, ‘To teach God’s people’. A worthy priority, I’m sure.

The minister was a gifted teacher. But in the back of my mind I was thinking, `What a waste.’ It was an uneasy feeling. The clanger for me came when I heard him say, ‘Christ died for the Church’.

Yes, true, but not complete.

I began to see a pattern – an emphasis on teaching God’s people. He was a gifted teacher who sadly did not give a single voice in his message to evangelism, and presented a theology which viewed Christ as dying only for the Church.

Perhaps I should have asked this man about his views on the Kingdom of God? I should have asked how did he participate in bringing about God’s Kingdom or was that even his role?

Clearly, this pastor’s filtering process differed to mine. Although we may walk towards the same goal we were walking in totally different paradigms!

One of the most profound learning experiences I’ve had happened very early on in my Christian walk. I was asked by a man who I had great respect for, ‘What do you say is the Kingdom of heaven’.

I babbled on talking about one thing then the next, but all I could do was describe it – I couldn’t define it. Finally he told me to be silent and said, ‘The kingdom of heaven is the glorious reign of God through the Messiah Jesus Christ’.

I knew from that moment my life was going to be devoted to that purpose, ‘To see the glorious reign of God through the Messiah Jesus Christ’.

My paradigm was set! My filter process changed that day. My number one priority in life became to advance the Kingdom of God.

Think about that for a moment. The glorious reign of God through the Messiah Jesus Christ.

How can a pastor be so occupied with equipping the saints that he/she fails to be a co-worker in the harvest, reaping the crop for the reign of Christ? When we see the Kingdom of God as the WHOLE ENTIRE reign of God through the Messiah, we cannot, we dare not, neglect one single aspect.

So today can I ask some questions of you and the Churches you serve? Hopefully these questions will help us address any shortcomings we have through an inadequate view of the Kingdom of God.

More than likely most Churches have a pastoral care system in place, and perhaps most of the congregation will be aware of the pastoral care process.
However, does your Church have a clear process for evangelism? If so, is your congregation aware of it?

Do you and/or your Church see evangelism as an event or process or perhaps both?
What is your purpose in equipping the saints? Is it so your Church will live in harmony? Or is it to advance the Kingdom of God?

Would you say the majority of your time in Church leadership is consumed with matters of maintaining the ‘status quo’ or on ‘bold’ steps of faith in future evangelistic plans?

Would your leadership team be mainly ‘managers’ or ‘leaders’?

What is the priority of your day? Where are you spending most of your time? If evangelism is not a priority for you, time-wise, how do you expect your congregation to believe you when you say it is to be a priority?
Have a look at your preaching roster, what topics have you covered in the past six months? How does your roster reflect the Kingdom of God? Is it more concerned with the Kingdom of God just for the Christians?
What percentage of your Church’s budget is spent directly on evangelism?
It is not enough to fill Churches – we must transform the world!

Ok with all that said, I will let you in on a little secret, my aim thus far has been to help you discover your own paradigms.

Some of you started the ministry journey with the expansion of God’s Kingdom as your priority, but circumstances and pressures changed your path. How can you go about realigning your filter process? How can you go about walking the paradigm you long for?

The short answer is…. I don’t know.

But I do know that it will require a conscious effort on your behalf. I do know it will mean you’ll have to do some serious soul searching. I do know you will cop a beating from some people because of it. And I do know the road you want to travel will cause you to be viewed by some as an eccentric.

If you’ve gone off-course somewhere along the line, you may now find yourself overwhelmingly consumed with maintaining the status quo.

You’re governed by the voice of the sheep who are bleating, “Feed me, feed me,” rather than looking out into the harvest saying, “Send me, send me.”
If you really want to return to a Kingdom perspective, I have a few suggestions, but I’m certain some of you aren’t going to like them (perhaps it’s because my paradigm is unbalanced, that is for you to decide). Here’s a couple of ideas;

1. Quit the pastorate! Now that got your attention didn’t it? But in all honesty, if “ministry” is getting in the way of the ministry God is calling you to, GET OUT, and go with God.

2. Surround yourself with people who are different. Now I know most of us like to think we are ‘innovators’ or at the very least ‘early adopters’. But in reality most Church leaders are far from that. Most of us are stable, slow adopters at best.

Why is that? Churches tend to vote for safety first. You may have been voted in because you feed the Church folk, and because you are safe.

If, however, you are surrounded by people who will risk everything for an ideal, you will soon come to understand you’re not a person who is as willing to simply go with God as you thought you were.

3. If your existing Church leadership is not interested, just go and do something on your own. See if it flies or falls. Even if it fails, you are not a failure, it is just you doing what He asked of you, nothing more, nothing less!

The Kingdom of God is much bigger than you or me.

When we understand that, our safe ministries won’t seem important, our false views of ourselves will be challenged, and the risks we take will be worth it regardless of the physical outcome because He is the one who leads us!

Our SSP will be one that helps us be the type of people God calls us to be. Our paradigms will not be self-centred, not consumed by the bleating of the saved, but will be governed by the heart beat of God for the lost!

~ Dean Thomas

Ed: Colin Stoodley is the Assoc Training Director of The Pines Training Centre. He has planted two Churches, pastored a “thriving” suburban congregation and now trains Church planters and those who would be. We asked him why “successful” Churches aren’t successfully reproducing in Australia. Here’s part one of his reflection:

Before I tackle this question, I want to make something clear. I have come to the view that all Churches (like all disciples) should be reproducing – they should be life giving.

I know a few people will take issue with this, but I really believe I am right on this question.

And I also want you to know that sharing this with you, I’m not blaming anyone for anything.

I’m certainly not calling into question the heart or motives of anyone at the Church with whom I just concluded ministry.

That said however, I do have a personal sense of regret that we didn’t plant a Church.

I have been a Church planter twice.

In the first one planted in the ACT early in the 1980’s I was able to see the plant get through the early phases of growth and left it (at the instruction of the denomination) with about 100 adults and about 60 children in regular fellowship after six years. But I never planted out from that work.

The second was in Brisbane in the mid-90’s. Very different context.
Whereas the first work was planted in a suburb of a growing city; the second work was planted in inner-city Brisbane. I only saw this second work through the first phase before mentoring a young man to replace me.

I left behind about 35 people and a lot of hope.

In 1997 I was led to take over a very small Church which had, in its past, been a thriving Church. After periods of real difficulty, the Church had dwindled until in 1996 they faced closing. I was their last call. I’m still not sure how I feel about that!

From January 1997 to December 2005, I was Pastor and then Senior Pastor.
At one stage it was a 600 strong congregation, with strong mission emphasis and support as well as an emphasis on grace and restoration.

But we never planted!

Here it is. I wanted to plant; most of the leadership wanted it; there was no opposition in the Church; but we never planted!

Why not? The answers may surprise you, but I think they go a long way to explaining a problem we are facing.

In 2000 I sensed the time and decided to add to the staff a man who I believed would coach the whole process.

He was willing and in fact, looking back, would have been an excellent facilitator of the call I sensed. But it never eventuated. Here’s what I think happened.

First, I got distracted.

I know that our warfare is not against flesh and blood and so I realise this distraction was a critical intervention by the enemy. But I also realise it still didn’t need to go this way – even a little bit!

Tough side-issues come up for all of us, so focussing on the important stuff is crucial.

In my case, it was leadership tension that arose within the Eldership which meant the process to support and guide the staff appointment and the task of planting beyond that was left untended.

It lapsed. It just died on the vine while I “managed” the whole matter to prevent it from becoming some sort of division. And by the time I was ready to return to the matter, the opportunity and the ‘moment’ had passed.
Distraction is, I believe, the major reason why other Churches never plant.
We all face distractions; they come up all the time. Yet we must not allow them to dictate whether we do this most fundamental of works.
That distraction aside there was another problem.

When I returned to the matter in 2002, I began looking for a leader. Some of you will be saying now – “why did you have to look for a leader? Weren’t you raising them up?”

Yes, all true.

First though, when I say “look” I meant that I looked within the fellowship.
I had managed to develop leaders in the mission and pastoral care areas, but not in the planting area.

When I couldn’t find anyone, I began intentional leadership development within the Church in mid-2004. But what leaders we did have at that time simply weren’t planters.

The advice I knew in my head and the advice I heard from Bob Logan (who I had just heard speak in mid 2001) was unless you had the right leader, you ought not to start.

Perhaps I didn’t look hard enough. But I couldn’t find the leader I needed.
We began to put money aside. I began to do some planning. I decided on a training phase and established in a formal sense with the leadership that we would use the Pines Training Centre.

But we never found the leader!

This is the killer isn’t it? We’re all struggling with it as an issue. It will not go away.

I went another two years before the transition out of the Church began, without taking another step towards Church planting. We never planted.
How about you?

I’m not telling my story to give reasons and defend myself.

Pastors who are leading Churches that don’t plant aren’t awful people.

They are not rebellious or anti-Kingdom leaders.

No-one intentionally refuses to plant do they? Really? Do they?

I think most of us get distracted and because we aren’t intentional enough we never get back to it and it never happens.

Some people say if you don’t plant in the first four years you will never plant.

That’s true and it’s also not true!

I believe it is never too late.

The barren can be fruitful and this isn’t just a Biblical theme of hope.
The barren Church can be fruitful but there needs to be attention given to the DNA factor.

I haven’t mentioned this yet.

The third issue was, as I look back, that I never took the time to check whether the DNA to plant was in place.

In a sense, if this is right, almost nothing can stop you.

The DNA is what drives a Church to plant. It’s what guides the process of planting. It’s what summons the leader to take passion into the work.
Looking back, I never checked. Now I see why.

In late 1997 in a prayer meeting a sister felt to say she believed the Lord was asking us to make our Church a “safe-place.” A place where people could come to recover and re-vision.

This really made sense to us that Sunday night.

My own guess is in Brisbane for every believer in Church – there are two not in Church!

So we took that theme up in everything we did as a Church.

The next year, a brother raised the same matter. This brother hadn’t been at the meeting the previous year. But his word was, that the Lord was giving us a name – Hebron. It was the name for a safe-place in the Scriptures. Again, it seemed to fit and we were even more intentionally focused on being that place.
My point is, this became our DNA and I didn’t even realise it at the time.
When I raised the issue of planting and Kingdom-focus in 2004, it was mainly in the hope the Church’s new leadership would take it up and move with it.
What I was attempting was to change the DNA. Or at least start the process of change.

It has been pleasing to see the Church continuing to develop these fundamental aspects and I pray it continues and ushers in a cycle of reproduction and results in a new Church planted.

I think the reason we didn’t plant was that our DNA wasn’t quite right and we were in actual fact – sterile.

We didn’t look sterile. We looked healthy and we were in every way except this one. We were growing. In fact what began around 40 in early 1997 became almost 600 by 2004.

But we were sterile; we couldn’t birth babies (baby Churches, that is) because we couldn’t conceive.

I don’t blame anyone. Not God. Not myself.

All I know is I think God wants our attention on this matter. We need missional Churches. I define this word missional as meaning “reproducing”.

These missional Churches must be supported to birth as many times as possible, birthing other Churches with the same missional factor in their DNA.

This is how you get a Church Planting movement.

When I write part two of this reflection I want to take up the question of whether every Church should be planting.

~ Colin Stoodley
Ed: check out issue 4 of ignition (published Nov 06) to read part two of Colin’s reflection.

"Having met Bob Roberts; seen him pace up and down speaking at an enormous rate of words per minute; having had to get past the awful Hawaiian shirts he wears; but also having great regard for his ability to get things done, I don't have any difficulty with the sincerity of Bob's words in his blog "Why they start churches -through their eyes".
Bob is a Kingdom minded man who places great store on doing the stuff and not talking about it. I have to say he's right about the "religous industry" built around the concept "missional" and as usual we in the West are seeing the Lord "break out" around the world except in our part of the world. We have to ask why. We must ask why and we must learn to learn from the Church in places like Vietnam, China or Tehran. Bob, as usual, is asking the right questions. Have a look and see what you think."

~Colin Stoodley