Cross Cultural Church Planting

In recent years, missionaries have discussed and strategized ways to catalyze “church planting movements” (CPMs) around the world.  However, many people have challenged mission practices that are oriented on CPM-theory.  Both sides of the debate appeal to Scripture to support their arguments. Indeed, CPM theorists implicitly and explicitly contend that CPMs are found in the Bible itself.  This article examines and contests any such claim.
This article makes a simple argument: there are no “church planting movements” in the Bible. Although someone might regard this as a “negative” thesis, the aim of the essay is quite constructive. It is utterly critical that certain notions and associations be set aside if we are to develop biblically faithful and strategically wise missiology. Of course, there is much to commend in CPM literature. However, we cannot simply draw out what it good from a CPM theory without examining related ideas, such as its use of Scripture. When applying some aspect of CPM missiology, we may unwittingly assume ways of thinking or interpreting the Bible that are counterproductive. Therefore, this essay tries to help readers discern theory from theology.

The multicultural church matches a need in our society. In the “Foreword” to Manuel Ortiz’s book One New People: Models for Developing a Multiethnic Church, Harvie M. Conn crystallizes this point: "In a day of fear and mistrust the multiethnic (or multicultural) church is a sample of recomposition in Christ. E pluribus unum (“One out of many”) is a visionary slogan in politics; in the multiethnic church it is a response of the Holy Spirit to culture wars. It is well worth more than a quick glance by a fracturedsociety seeking unity in too many superficial solutions, and by a church that often doesn’t realize the treasure it has been given."

The multicultural church prepares us for a picture of eternity. “And they sang a new song: You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain,and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev.5:9).

This paper will look at some of the strengths and weaknesses of church planting models and will assess several different popular church planting models that have been used in many different contexts. Also, emphasis will be placed on what each model looks like, how they function, how they multiply, and how they have been used in various international contexts.

Unlike a decade ago, a plethora ofchurch planting models now existsfrom which church planters can select. New models continue to roll off the presses. While the multiplication of models provide valuable new insights into the ambiguous task of church planting, they also create a new dilemma. How can church planters select or design a church planting model that matches a specific people group? This article critiques six church planting models. probes how the church planter's personal philosophy and vision impacts such selection, and provides a two-dimensional model to show how to wade through the options and craft an effective church planting model for a specific people group. W hen we left for the Philippines in 1971 to plant churches among the Ifugao, no published church planting models existed of which I was aware. It would take almost another decade to pass before Hesselgrave (1980) would unveil his now well-known ten-step model. We were on our own to develop a model that would fit our audience. In rethinking the experiences of a number of my mission agency's church .planters, I came to realize that most of us were unacquainted with much that goes into the process of planting and developing churches. (Many of us, however, had had experience in church splits.) No one suggested to us during our training that we design a strategy, or encouraged us to develop models that could help propel our vision of indigenously run churches to completion.

This is an unpublished paper for a Global Church Planting class at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. This is a hypothetical strategy paper for planting a church in Berlin. I don't know if this strategy will work in Berlin, however, I have seen this strategy work across the globe in various contexts.

How precisely does culture influence ministry methods? The question is multi-layered. In a missionary setting, the relationship between culture and strategy becomes even more complicated. At one level, Christian practice should stem from a sound interpretation of the Bible. Yet, ministry does not happen in a vacuum. Global missions brings people from diverse backgrounds together in a cross-cultural setting. Mission strategies are constantly shaped by at least three different cultures––the missionary’s home culture, the local culture in which he or she ministers, and the biblical culture(s).  Of course, people may not be conscious of this fact.

Therefore, it is important that we intentionally consider how culture shapes mission strategy and practice. Given the vast breadth of the topic, a helpful approach would be to examine a particular philosophy of ministry that is popular among missionaries around the world. In this way, we can avoid abstraction. Also, our analysis will be relevant for a greater number of people.

This article highlights three specific ways that culture contributes to the evolution of a missionary strategy. As a case study, I will examine the cultural influences behind “church planting movements” (CPMs). This study first considers how CPM practitioners understand culture’s influence on Paul’s missionary efforts. The second section identifies a number of cultural assumptions affecting the application of the CPM paradigm. Third, I give one explanation why the model survives despite a lack of biblical precedent.  There are strong forces within missionary subculture that have enabled CPM theory to evolve into a popular ministry model. Finally, I conclude by offering a few practical suggestions that will help us resist the rapid spread of syncretism within contemporary mission strategy.

In this paper I suggest that theologizing is a significant missionary task because theology defines the church's mission and priorities. Theology drives methodology. In a next step I break this down for my missionary work in Thailand looking at issues like evangelism, discipleship and ecclesiology.

In this section, I propose a paradigm for ministering to those with an animistic worldview seen throughout the Majority World. Here, I propose that we need to have ministries that include power encounters, truth encounters and love encounters that challenge our listeners to have an allegiance encounter with Jesus Christ. I further contend that these ministries and should be done within the context of the local church.

Ed Tarleton is IMB Strategy Associate for the Russia Field and has oversight for guiding the IMB’s work across all of Russia.  He directly supervises three Cluster Strategists (European Russia cluster, Urals/Siberian cluster, and Far East cluster), who in turn, supervise all Strategy Coordinator-led teams in their respective clusters.  Ed was the first international missionary to be asked to teach at the Moscow Baptist Theological Seminary after the Soviet Union ceased to exist.  Ed was one of the first IMB career missionaries appointed to Russia in 1994. Perceived applicable insights follow each answered question.

In this paper, we will consider two types of poverty, spiritual and economic, and the program models to help address this poverty for Latino immigrants. Poverty is more than a lack of financial resources, but it is also individual brokenness and systemic injustice that hinders people from living a full life. The first part of the paper considers the role of the church in church planting among immigrant populations, exploring three models: the Pauline Cycle, the Developmental Phases of Pioneer Church Planting, and the Kangaroo Birthing and Reproduction model. The second half of this paper seeks to explain different program models, despite a lack of evidence of specific interventions that have happened in the United States America with the Latino immigrant population.

Ruvim is 44 years old and was born in the Moldovan city of Beltsa.  In 1978 when he was 16, he became a believer and was baptized and soon thereafter began to preach the good news. He married Tatiana in 1989 after moving to Siberia in 1987 to work as a lathe operator and church planter. He and Tatiana have three sons and a daughter.  While in the Siberian city of Chita, he noticed that in one church of 80 people, only four or five men were members and there was not a single active church leader, and he soon became pastor of that church.  After a few years of serving as pastor, he was selected to serve as the senior pastor for all of Eastern Siberia’s Russian Baptists.  In 1995 he was invited to work in Moscow as an assistant to the chairman of the Russian Baptist Union for missionary work.  At the 32nd RBU congress, Ruvim was selected to serve as the assistant chairman of the Russian Baptist Union. Perceived insights follow each answered question.