Author: Greg McKinzie

Interpreting Christian missions as foreign policy is a meritorious hermeneutical strategy. This article traces how North American missiology has mirrored US foreign policy through seven historical eras, then concludes with reflections and potential perspectives on the topic of mission as the church’s “foreign policy.”

As the church conducts her mission in the world, the historical moment of each era inevitably shapes the missiology of each generation. The foreign policy of nation-states shapes the ideas and practices of Christian mission.

By using foreign policy as an interpretive framework of Christian mission, this essay explores how mission can be viewed as “Christian foreign policy.” After introductory remarks on the general relationship between foreign policy and Christian mission, a historical survey examines how North American Protestant missiology has mirrored US foreign policy.1

Foreign policy is a course of action or set of principles which a national government adopts to define its relations with other countries or groups. This developed strategy sets forth the purpose and agenda of the insider’s relationship with the outsiders, outlining when, where, and how to engage others. A nation’s foreign policy identifies its goals, the basis of such objectives, and the instruments for accomplishing them.2 No country’s foreign policy is ever static but always evolving to satisfy the domestic interests of a country in an ever-changing global context and new administrations. The acceptable manners of conducting international relations develop with time.

Likewise, missiology is the church’s set of principles that define its relations with outsiders, thus outlining when, where, and how Christians are to interact with non-Christians. In light of foreign policy studies, we can study Christian mission as the church’s foreign policy. Although missiology necessarily transforms from era to era to meet the needs of a dynamic world, every generation identifies strategic objectives and means for Christian mission. Whether elaborated or not, this foreign policy of the church guides missional practices.

Missiology and foreign policy share commonality because each field must answer the same fundamental questions: Who are ‘we’ (the insiders)?, Who are ‘they’ (the outsiders)?, How should ‘we’ relate to ‘them’?, and Why should ‘we’ relate to ‘them’ in that particular way? As earnestly as Protestant mission practitioners desire to follow the biblical precedent in thought and action, the reality remains that each generation operates within a particular socio-political context that undoubtedly influences the aims, means, narratives, problems, solutions, and models of mission. We might expect that foreign policy would influence Christian subjects, considering the tremendous resources that governments expend to propagate nationalistic narratives and construct national identities.

In this article, I do not portray the Christian missionary movement as the naive servant of nationalistic and imperialistic agendas. Yet, the nationalistic objectives of the US government did nevertheless shape how the church viewed her missiological task, even though the motivation of most American missionaries was foremost spiritual and theological.3 This essay does not portray American Christian missions as extensions of the government but explores how the foreign policy of the US government cast a shadow over the theology and practice of American mission.

Interpreting Christian mission from the vantage point of foreign policy certainly includes limits. Firstly, any one theory is incapable of integrating all of the historical data into a comprehensive model. Not every mission impulse is related to foreign policies, and conversely, not all foreign policies shape mission approaches. Foreign policy is prominent in the contours of missiological models due to their unique similarities, but we must consider other cultural factors.4 A synthesis of topics as broad as foreign policy or mission will suffer from selective analysis and artificial harmonization. We should understand the relation between foreign policy and mission as more fluid and tacit than wooden and direct. Nevertheless, the historic mirroring of US foreign policy and North American Protestant missiology reflects one influence upon missions.

By holding the foreign policies and mission strategies of seven distinct eras in the same line of vision, I examine their similarities. My proposed title for each section encapsulates both the government’s and the church’s policy towards “foreign nations.”

Pioneering Westward (1790–1880)

During her first century, America was reluctant to act on the international stage, due partly to her limited powers as a newly birthed nation but also because of the great opportunities in the neighboring lands westward of the original colonies. George Washington outlined the earliest US foreign policy in his farewell address of 1796, when warning against involvement in political intrigues with foreign nations. In 1823, the Monroe Doctrine warned European powers against interfering with nations of North and South America and implied the United States alone would complete the settlement of North America. During the mid-1800s, the rapid expansion of US territory through settlement of Native American lands guided the policy and captured the heart of young America. The concept of Manifest Destiny reflected the jingoistic belief that (white, European) America was commissioned by God to mediate divine blessings through settlement of the western frontier, just as Israel was to be exalted through the conquest of Canaan.5 The compass of God’s purposes for America pointed westward, not abroad.6

This preoccupation with domestic opportunities and general disinterest in foreign affairs also characterized nineteenth-century Christian mission. As the American political borders expanded westward, the church followed in mission. The Congregationalists of New England formed state-based mission societies in the first decade of the 1800s “to Christianize the heathen of North America and promote Christian knowledge in the new settlements within the United States.”7 Soon after, other denominational mission boards (Presbyterians in 1816, Methodists and Episcopalians in 1820, Baptists in 1832) and Bible societies were founded to meet the specific needs of the frontier mission to European settlers and indigenous peoples. Since African slaves and Native Americans were the “foreigners” for early Protestant Americans, the North American church focused primarily on these home missions,8 in contrast with European missions that invested heavily in Europe’s African and Asian colonies during the nineteenth century.

Expanding Abroad (1880–1919)

Propelled by domestic needs, America stepped abroad with confidence and optimism around 1900. Reconstruction, westward expansion, industrial growth, and rapid urbanization wrought an American thirst for overseas markets. This forced the domestic-focused country to adopt expansionist policies. Influenced by Alfred Mahan’s vision for the US to become a naval power, Republicans expanded the concept of Manifest Destiny to include interests overseas.9 The acquisition of the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam in the Spanish-American War of 1898—America’s first significant foreign conflict—clearly established America’s ascending military power and imperialistic aims. Theodore Roosevelt (US President, 1901–1909) expanded America’s involvement in foreign affairs by meddling in Chinese markets, the Russo-Japanese War, and the Panamanian revolution. As superpowers often do, America began to view herself as “the primary agent of God’s meaningful activity in history” during the high imperial era.10

The government’s expansion into foreign arenas opened new doors for missional opportunities overseas. Western Christians viewed the imperialistic gains of Protestant Britain and America as God’s means of paving the way for an era of great missionary success.11 From 1880 to the climax of mission activity in the early 1920s, missionary personnel and financial giving increased seven-fold. By 1914, half of the 29,000 Protestant missionaries were from North America—a remarkable fact considering hardly any North Americans were involved in overseas missions just 100 years earlier. For both the US government and the American church in this period, “China had become the major American field and Latin America had been added to the earlier spheres of interest.”12 Supporting apparatuses sprouted in the late 1800s to facilitate this burgeoning missionary movement. These include: Bible institutes and missionary training schools (e.g., Moody, Gordon, Nyack, Biola), journals (e.g., The Missionary Review, The Gospel in All Lands), conferences (e.g., Northfield Conferences, the Ecumenical Missionary Conference) and sending agencies (e.g., Africa Inland Mission, CMA, and “faith missions”). As the primary mobilizer of American missions, the Student Volunteer Movement (SVM) tapped into America’s youthful optimism and inflated confidence, reflected in their ambitious motto, “the evangelization of the world in this generation.”13 However, the harsh realities of World War I (1914–1918) soon checked the overseas march of the American church and government.

Retreating to Isolationism (1920–1939)

In the period between the two World Wars (1918–1939), America retreated from foreign affairs.14 The rapid shift back to isolationism began when the Senate rebuffed Woodrow Wilson’s proposal for America’s membership in the League of Nations in 1920, thus absolving America of any foreign military commitment. America withdrew economically as well during the Great Depression; protectionism from foreign competition led to the highest tariffs in American history. As an implicit condemnation of America’s expansionistic foreign policy, the Neutrality Act of 1935 and other similar Congressional measures prevented future entanglement in foreign affairs by banning loans and sales of munitions to warring countries.15 Americans intentionally retreated from the international scene by actively resisting foreign relations.

For the North American church, the 1920s and ’30s represent a marked slump in mission activity. The resignation of Samuel Mott in 1920 during the SVM’s marked decline indicated the “Great Century”16 of Christian mission had concluded. The levels of involvement in foreign lands reached in the early 1920s would not be surpassed until after World War II. Missions (like the foreign policy of expansionism) were not only abrogated but also heavily criticized. For example, William Hocking’s influential Laymen’s Report (1932) questioned previous missionary assumptions, motives, and methods. The American church began to doubt its missionary activity. The fretful years of the Great Depression increased ecclesiastical isolationism by restricting revenues for foreign missions.

Spreading around the World (1940–1959)

World War II (1939–1945) and its aftermath established America as the world leader in global politics. A pragmatic approach to international relations pulled America into global affairs on multiple fronts: Russia, Western Europe, and the Pacific. Even after World War II concluded, American troops and weapons remained spread around the world for a protracted period under Truman’s “containment”—a policy of rearmament and collective security designed to avoid another war. The financial backing of the Greek monarchy fighting communist insurgents in 1947 marked the first time America had chosen to intervene in affairs outside of the Americas during a time of peace17 and commenced the beginning of America’s global fight against communism. The onset of the Cold War years caused America’s foreign policy to become remarkably global in scope.18

After World War II the American Protestant church experienced revitalization in terms of mission. Christian soldiers who encountered the world for the first time during their tours of duty returned overseas as missionaries. For example, former Air Corps pilots founded the Mission Aviation Fellowship in 1945. This revival was most prominent among post-war evangelicals, whose mission agencies proliferated to serve the burgeoning missionary force. The number of foreign missions from America doubled from 1935 to 1952 and would double again by 1970.19 Mainline churches in America invested resources in forming the World Council of Churches to coordinate global mission activity. The church’s renewed interest in foreign matters was part of the larger revival of domestic post-War religiosity—itself a bulwark against “godless Communism.”20

Negotiating Polarized Agendas (1960–1989)

The 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s were decades of intense critique, confrontation, and turmoil in American society. Political leftists pushed for social reforms in response to hawkish Cold War policies. While the White House remained combative against threats of communism, university students protested against military conflicts and questioned the morality of a warring nation meddling in foreign affairs. The nation’s approach to international relations was polarized into “hawks” and “doves.”

Missiology during this period of social upheaval was likewise polarized into the contrasting approaches. The resurgence of conservative evangelicals continued, while mainline liberals invoked a moratorium on Western missionary activity.21 Missionaries from mainline denominations declined from being 34% of the North American Protestant Missionary personnel in 1960 to only 11% in 1980.22 On the other hand, evangelicals by 1973 “provided 66.5 percent of the funds and 85 percent of the personnel for American Protestant overseas missions.”23 In terms of mission education, Dana Robert notes how mission programs in mainline university-related seminaries virtually disintegrated in the 1970s as politically-active student bodies rejected the church’s mission legacy as imperialistic and exclusivistic. Meanwhile, evangelical seminaries such as Fuller, Trinity, and Asbury flourished.24 The polarization of ecumenical and evangelical mission agendas (social justice vs. evangelistic witness) in the 1960s and ’70s mirrored the schisms of America’s foreign policies.25 Conservatives remained intentional and even confrontational towards the “other,” and liberals questioned such engagement as imperialistic.

Meeting Global Needs (1990s)

The Clinton doctrine of “enlargement” of free-market democracies after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 defined America’s foreign policy along economic and humanitarian lines. Clinton (US President, 1992–2000) inaugurated a new period of economic globalization characterized by free trade agreements, open markets, and economic aid.26 Due to America’s dependence on global resources and markets in the new borderless economy, Wall Street rivaled the Pentagon as the heart of American’s foreign policy. America also increased its involvement in global issues such as the environment, human rights, arms reduction, poverty, and negotiations of peace processes. The American military became involved in humanitarian missions that did not involve American national interests, in places such as Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Ethiopia, and Kosovo. This altruistic foreign policy of the Clinton administration made America responsible for addressing humanity’s needs on a global scale.

Similarly, the church since the 1990s has given more attention to economic and humanitarian objectives, in contrast to propositional approaches. Acceptable forms of Christian mission now include business development, debt relief, legal justice, inter-religious dialogue, environmentalism, reconciliation, and AIDS treatment. The topics addressed in the 31 Lausanne Occasional Papers from the 2004 forum in Thailand illustrates how evangelical missions, which had rejected social forms of mission for most of the twentieth century, were incorporated into “holistic” approaches to address wide-ranging, global issues.27

Islam vs. Globalization (2000–present)

Twenty-first century America has navigated the tension of two pulls: the desire for a multi-polar and international impact, and the intractable vortex of the Islamic Middle East. Affairs in the Muslim world hampered global ambitions. The attacks of 9/11 instantly reshaped American’s foreign policy and even its self-identity. The Bush Doctrine targeted global terrorism and the “Axis of Evil” (Iran, Iraq, and North Korea), which aided terrorists. The administration maintained a strong commitment to “nation-building.”28 But while Bush sought to promote democracy around the world, the “Global War on Terror” diverted most resources to the battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obama emerged as a popular resistor to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He sought to untangle America from the Middle East and “pivot towards Asia” to advance American’s political, economic, and climate interests in the growing Asia-Pacific.29 However, Obama could not escape the two wars he inherited,30 and then faced the Arab Spring in North Africa and the Syrian Civil War. Problems in the Middle East frustrated his internationalist program.31

American Christianity in the twenty-first century likewise navigated the twin realities of globalization and Islam. Regarding the former, Philip Jenkins’ The Next Christendom (2002) noted the historic geographic shift of global Christianity towards the South and East.32 The new global mission had become “from everywhere to everywhere.”33 With this shift, mission conferences now gathered the international church. For example, Lausanne’s Cape Town 2010 hosted 4,500 people from 200 nations, garnering the title “Most Diverse Gathering Ever.”34 The church and her mission has become multipolar and polycentric.35 This has involved a de-centering of American mission efforts and partnering with Majority World leaders as equals.

America’s political and military engagements in the Middle East have attracted the church’s attention to the world of Islam. The encounter has been more conceptual than personal, as American Christians seek to comprehend Muslims. For example, the late Nabeel Qureshi produced several best-selling books about Islam,36 and the 2020 conference of the Evangelical Theological Society focused on “Christianity and Islam,” yet the amount of missional engagement (in terms of American Protestant workers residing in Muslim-majority countries) has remained stagnant.

This article refrains from analyzing the post-Obama era, as I may be too close historically to discern the impact of Trump’s isolationist doctrine of “America First.” However, the recent rise of global nationalism and aggressive populism37 reflects the intersection of national idealities and contemporary identities. Historical distance may reveal how such cultural currents are shaping contemporary missiology. I suspect Christian missiology will become further divided, as we see fault lines already emerging within evangelical approaches to justice and mission.

Conclusions and Implications

The modern missionary movement has commonly been portrayed in either (1) hagiographic terms of gospel bearers overcoming hardship to save souls or (2) critical terms as the religious arm of imperial powers bent on subduing foreign lands. In response to a Eurocentric interpretation of missions history, newer histories of mission examine how national populations in the global south adopted and adapted the message.38 Yet, minimal historical scholarship has understood the Western missionary movement as the object being acted upon and influenced by other factors, such as foreign policy. Western missions are not merely the creators of history (whether that history is interpreted positively or negatively) but also exist as the creations of history. By examining the relationship between governmental foreign policy and American Protestant mission trends, I offer a fresh historical hermeneutic approach. Juxtaposing American missiology and US foreign policies provides us insights to how American missiology of each era parallels the prevailing foreign policy.39

So what is the precise relationship between foreign policy and missions? The link is best viewed as one of correlation likely derived from a common source—a shared worldview or national mythology. Both the interpretative ideologies of mission and foreign policy stem from a common national mythology shaped by notions of identity, otherness, purpose, and even notions of salvation. For Christian mission practitioners, foreign policy functions as a sort of mirror, in which the readily identifiable assumptions and values of state actors expose parallel tendencies in our missiological theory and practice. The above historical survey suggests the architects of American foreign policy and missiology drink from the same wells. Despite our pious intentions, we missioners today ought not locate ourselves as exceptions, as though we have escaped the magnetic pull of national narratives. Christians from all nations, to a certain degree, are beholden to socio-political influences. The relationship may even be one of indirect causation, as when outsized elements of foreign policy (e.g., America’s response to 9/11) sway national ideologies, which, in turn, shape the means and ends of Protestant missions.

We missioners must grapple with the meaning and significance of this relationship. In doing so, I suggest at least two important questions we must ask. Has the North American church adopted political ideas uncritically and lacked appropriate biblical reflection? When has the church redeemed the political currents of its generation in pursuit of her biblical mission to the world? Reflecting upon history’s meaning remains essential for God’s people in pursuit of her mission in the world.

To illustrate some potential benefits of the framework of this article, I observe some personal notes. Living abroad affords greater opportunities to interact with people from the US State Department. I have pursued these as a means of learning dialogue. During informal conversations with Peace Corp members or public lectures, I have observed their assumptions and approaches. This in turn has offered new light upon the theories and practices of my own “foreign policy.” In addition to personal interactions, I have found the magazines Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs to offer helpful analysis of global affairs and international policy. Mission practitioners, especially in sensitive contexts, often avoid associating with governmental ideas and actors. This is perhaps a response to historical moments when missions and government became too intertwined, such as nineteenth-century missionaries advancing European “civilization” or covert agents assuming religious identities. But despite such examples of historical co-opting, we ought not to distance ourselves from political institutions to maintain our illusions of distinction from their influences. In the end, missions and foreign policy both have the same aim—constructing and implementing an ideological narrative of the world.

Jayson Georges (PhD candidate, Durham University; MDiv, Talbot School of Theology) has lived in Asia for fourteen years. His publications include Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures (IVP Academic, 2016) and the website http://honorshame.com.

Recent events have renewed concern over race relations in the United States and invigorated a long overdue conversation on the church’s role in racial reconciliation. This is especially pertinent given the church’s past failures and the divisions between historically white and African American congregations. This paper argues that the Lord’s Supper, as the focal point of Christian worship, identifies opportunities towards this goal of reconciliation in Christ. These include the opportunities to build community, to “re-member” the “dismembered” body of Christ, to unlearn racial prejudices through the thankful practice of seeing God’s face in one another, to confess sin and receive forgiveness, and to express the hopeful expectation of the eschaton. Specific practical suggestions are given as “conversation starters” for churches to begin their own exploration of racial reconciliation.

The death of George Floyd, a forty-six-year-old African American man, during an attempted arrest on May 25, 2020, in Minneapolis, MN, reignited flames of racial tension across the nation at a time when anxiety levels were already high due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For many, the incident was just one more example of injustice in a nation that has yet to reconcile fully the sins of its past. The accumulated effect of this event after numerous other racially charged incidents in recent years has renewed the national conversation on justice, racism, and inequality at every level of society, including the church. Of course, the church has not always lived up to its call to live out the mission of God and to be agents of reconciliation in a divided world. Today, however, it faces new and great opportunities to do so in light of these recent, troubling, and very public episodes.

The apostle Paul spoke of his work as a “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18) reflective of Christ’s ministry towards humanity: “That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:19). That is the hopeful expectation of the gospel.

The church has not always contributed positively towards the work of racial reconciliation. In fact, one might point to many instances when the church has contributed to the problem. In this essay, I will explore a small portion of the history of Churches of Christ to provide some context. I then draw on the historic commitment to the practice of the Lord’s Supper in Christian worship and explore avenues it opens up towards the goal of reconciliation.

Churches of Christ and Sins of the Past

In 1960 Martin Luther King Jr. lamented, “It is one of the tragedies of our nation, one of the shameful tragedies that eleven o’clock on Sunday morning is one of the most segregated hours, if not the most segregated hour in Christian America.”1 Today, some sixty years later, not a lot has changed. The Multiracial Congregations Project led by Michael Emerson, a Rice University sociologist, defines a multiracial congregation as one where no one racial group is more than 80% of the congregation. Using that standard, Emerson has found that only 8% of all Christian congregations in the US are racially mixed to a significant degree.2 Churches of Christ are no exception. According to statistical data collected by 21st Century Christian, Churches of Christ that identify themselves as predominantly Black represent only 9.4% of the total fellowship. Even fewer congregations identify as “integrated” according to the demographic summary offered by the publishers, however, no specific data is offered.3

Church historian Doug Foster has noted that in the early days of chattel slavery in America, enslaved people were often kept from becoming Christians by their “slave owners,” who feared they would have to set their slaves free were they to become Christians. Eventually, churches began to insist that slave owners teach Christianity to their slaves, with the promise that their spiritual state would not affect their status as “property.” In the revivalism of the early nineteenth century, African Americans, both slave and free, were baptized in large numbers.4

The seeds of racial division were sown early in the Stone-Campbell Movement. Early Restoration leaders disagreed over the issue of slavery. Some, like Barton W. Stone, called for its abolition,5 while most argued for the status quo, especially in the South. Alexander Campbell attempted a middle ground in his sporadic comments on slavery in the Christian Baptist and the Millennial Harbinger. His hesitancy to take a side either as an abolitionist or proponent of slavery earned him criticism from both sides. It did, however, reveal his chief concern of unity.6 He wrote, “To preserve unity of spirit among Christians of the South and of the North is my grand object, and for that purpose I am endeavoring to show how the New Testament does not authorize an interference or legislation upon the relation of master and slave, nor does it in letter or spirit authorize Christians to make it a term of communion.”7 Though it is said that Campbell privately disagreed with slavery, his attempts to maintain unity within the movement did little to advance the cause of the enslaved individual.8 By 1851, a report of the America and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society recorded “Campbellites” as owning 101,000 slaves, many of whom learned the gospel and became members of white congregations.9 They were as in other religious fellowships forced to sit apart from their white brothers and sisters.

Within a few short years after the end of the Civil War, African American believers began forming their own, separate congregations. As these congregations developed, increasingly African American converts were encouraged to become members of those congregations rather than their white counterparts.10 David Lipscomb stood as a counter voice to the prevailing sentiments of his day. He labeled segregation and racial prejudice a sin and an outrage that should not be tolerated. He insisted churches that condoned such a spirit had forfeited their claim to be the church of God.11 Lipscomb’s voice crying in the wilderness went largely unheeded, however. For the most part, Black preachers were kept from opportunities to preach in white pulpits and Christian schools barred Black students from enrollment. It was not long before two separate fellowships had emerged.12

African American congregations increasingly developed apart from white congregations. In the first half of the twentieth century, key leaders began to emerge. Marshall Keeble (1878–1968) soon became one of the most influential leaders within African American churches. He believed that key to the success of evangelism among African Americans was education and greater partnership with white brethren. Keeble courted relationships with influential leaders from among white Churches of Christ, while traveling the country preaching the gospel and baptizing thousands. Most famously, his relationship with A. M. Burton, founder of Life and Casualty Insurance of Nashville, TN, allowed him to fund much of his own evangelistic work as well as the work of other black evangelists. He founded the Nashville Christian Institute in 1940 in order to educate young Black preachers.

Despite the good produced by partnerships like Keeble’s with white brethren, the relationships were hardly symmetrical. Wes Crawford, in his insightful book Shattering the Illusion, demonstrates that the relationships between whites and African Americans were paternalistic and unequal. Such attitudes galvanized the African American church into further separation and independence from white congregations–the effects of which are quite obvious today.13

The racist attitude of white Churches of Christ in the twentieth century is further confirmed when one considers the history of its dominant institutions, its publications, and its schools. Writing in the Gospel Advocate in 1931, A. B. Lipscomb, a nephew of David Lipscomb, wrote this rather patronizing commendation to describe the work of Marshall Keeble and his students: “The work among the colored people here was sponsored and financed by the white disciples. We have never made a better investment for the Lord nor any which brought such quick and happy results. . . . This means that we now have better farm hands, better porters, better cooks, better housemaids than ever before.”14 Even more indicting was the attitude expressed by Foy E. Wallace Jr., in the March 1941 issue of the Bible Banner. He berated white preachers who attended “Negro meetings” and praised the Black preachers for their work. He concluded, “If any of the white brethren get worked up over what I have said and want to accuse me of being jealous of the negro preachers, I will just tell them now that I don’t even want to hold a meeting for any bunch of brethren who think that any negro is a better preacher than I am!”15 The Christian schools of the movement also did little to affect the status quo. In 1954 the Supreme Court passed the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision mandating schools across the nation desegregate. At that time not one of the schools associated with Churches of Christ allowed African Americans to enroll. Even after the decision, it would take almost a decade for the schools to comply. Several were criticized for eventually making the change solely for the purpose of receiving federal aid.16 An embittering turning point came in 1967 when Keeble’s Nashville Christian Institute closed its doors permanently. After Keeble passed away, the school’s majority-white board made the decision to close the school, sell its assets, and distribute the funds to the recently desegregated David Lipscomb College rather than to the only other remaining predominantly African American college associated with Churches of Christ, Southwestern Christian College in Texas. This became a source of bitterness and deepened the divide between what was, essentially, two independent fellowships.17

As the Civil Right Movement swept across America and challenged the status quo everywhere, Churches of Christ were largely apathetic. While there were a few outspoken voices, predominantly from African American preachers, by and large Churches of Christ remained on the sidelines. Keeble, himself, was often disapproving of young Black preachers who were too outspoken, even of Martin Luther King Jr.

I have offered this brief rehearsal of history in order to acknowledge the hurt and division that exists today because of the sin of racism. True reconciliation is only possible if the truth of the brokenness, however painful, is realized. Once acknowledged, the church must then turn to the reconciling work of Christ, celebrated in Christian worship and commemorated in the practice of the Lord’s Supper, which can heal even the most hostile of relationships.

Christian Worship and Reconciliation

Christian worship provides one of the best contexts for Christians to unlearn racist patterns of thought and action and to relearn new ways of thinking and acting in the world.18 While the worship service has, sadly, often been one of the most segregated spaces in our society, often confirming and even re-enforcing patterns and practices of racism, Emmanuel Katongole argues for Christians to view worship as “a site for imagining and embodying concrete alternatives to the dominant cultural patterns and values.” In other words, worship, properly understood, provides Christians with wonderful new possibilities for living out a different reality, a kingdom reality, and to call the world to a different vision of the future.19 Even more specifically, the Lord’s Supper, with its emphasis on confession, forgiveness, and reconciliation affords opportunities for the church to be honest about the sins of its past and to demonstrate a renewed “kingdom-focused” call for justice to the world.

In Churches of Christ, nothing has been more important to worship than the practice of the Lord’s Supper.20 Referred to variously as communion, Eucharist or Lord’s Supper, the sacrament of the Table stands as the centerpiece of Christian worship. In 1982, the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches penned and distributed an ecumenical document known as Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM). It has become a significant statement in discussions regarding the Eucharist between different faith communities. The key theological principles discussed in the document illustrate the implications for and inspiration toward reconciliation the Supper provides.21 In speaking of the Eucharist as the “Communion of the Faithful,” it states:

The eucharistic celebration demands reconciliation and sharing among all those regarded as brothers and sisters in the one family of God and is a constant challenge in the search for appropriate relationships in social, economic, and political life (Matt. 5:23f; 1 Cor. 10:16f; 1 Cor. 11:20-22; Gal. 3:28). All kinds of injustice, racism, separation, and lack of freedom are radically challenged when we share in the body and blood of Christ. . . . As participants in the eucharist, therefore, we prove inconsistent if we are not actively participating in this ongoing restoration of the world’s situation and the human condition.22

The Opportunities of the Lord’s Supper

Mark Powell emphasizes the important need to recount the gospel story consistently, regularly and creatively in Christian worship. The Lord’s Supper is a prime opportunity to do so.23 Since the gospel is so rich and multi-faceted, and since the meaning of the Lord’s Supper is so rich and multi-faceted, it behooves those who preside at the Table to think creatively about how to emphasize its various depths and dimensions. The following are offered as possible areas of exploration and emphasis in the hopes of utilizing the practice of the Supper to highlight the goal of racial reconciliation.

1. The Lord’s Supper is an opportunity to build community.

Jesuit Priest Brian Lennon writes out of his experience witnessing the conflict in his native country of Northern Ireland between Republicans and Unionists during the 1990s and sees hope for reconciliation in the Eucharist: “In the Eucharist, then, we are called to build a human community on earth, to make peace with our enemies, and to include sinners in our community (in part because we are sinners ourselves), and we cannot relate to the God revealed by Jesus Christ unless we do this.”24 Lennon unpacks two key theological principles that undergird his hope for political and religious reconciliation in Ireland: (1) The Eucharist is essentially a community event as the community of the church is brought by Christ into the presence of God; (2) The God into whose presence Christ brings the church is a community of Three Persons. The community is strengthened by looking at the nature of God as a Triune God, three Persons in one divine essence. This point is not merely academic. It impacts our understanding of the importance of human relationships and community.25

Because the Lord’s Supper is a community-building practice, it serves to strengthen koinonia, the relationships shared within the church.26 That the Supper is intended to be a community-building event is evident in Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. Paul has “no praise” for what he has heard of the Corinthians’ practice of the Supper (1 Cor. 11:17). Rather, he writes to rebuke and correct their malpractice. It seems that as the church gathers for the Supper, likely within the context of the agape meal, there is clear division among them (1 Cor 11:18). It is this division that is contrary to the nature of the Supper. “It is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk” (1 Cor 11:20–21). The problem, as Paul identifies it, is the clear lack of community-building that is taking place, which runs contrary to the meaning of the Supper itself.27 Just the opposite is occurring, in fact. Ferguson points out that the Supper is a community act, not a private one. Thus, one should make “every effort” to come to the Table in harmony with brothers and sisters of the community.28

2. The Lord’s Supper is an opportunity to “re-member” the “dis-membered” body of Christ.

Shoop and McClintock Fulkerson point out that, at the Table, Christians come in real bodies and, as they do so, it becomes all too evident that all are not represented equally. “Yet when real bodies gather at the Table there is a thoroughgoing dissonance that signals rupture and betrayal as well as particularity and possibility. Estranged relationships are allowed to splinter—and instead of all nations and tongues at the Table, we look around and see people just like us.”29 The Table has a way of revealing the church’s “contorted, truncated, dis-membered Body.”30 Thus, their term “re-membering” is a way of describing the Table’s function of allowing participants to come back together, reconciling themselves with one another. Jesus emphasized the importance of reconciliation between broken relationships in the Sermon on the Mount. “So, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matt 5:23–24). Jesus may have in mind the context of Temple worship; however, in the context of Christian worship, it is the Table, not the altar, which seems to be the most relevant point of application. This teaching reveals the importance of relational integrity within the fellowship of the church and the necessity for reconciliation in Christian worship.

In Galatians 2, Paul addresses another issue. Writing to the Galatians, he recounts his encounter with Peter some time earlier. “But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party (Gal 2:11–12). The occasion was a meal together in Antioch and the fellowship, or lack thereof, that Peter was demonstrating to certain Gentile Christians. It is possible— perhaps likely—that the meal referenced here included the Lord’s Supper. Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy in his refusal to eat with the Gentile brothers. Paul saw the moment as an opportunity to “re-member” the “dis-membered” body of Christ by calling out Peter for his hypocrisy. It is not typical to expose one’s (and certainly not another’s!) sin in traditional gatherings around the Lord’s Table today. And yet, Paul’s bold reprimand to no less than Peter underlines the importance of relationships within the congregational body around the table..

Shoop and McClintock Fulkerson also look at the Lord’s Supper through the lens of traumatic memory, which comes because of the ills and injustices suffered from past experiences. They view the Supper as an opportunity where traumatic memory can give way to transformative memory.31 It becomes a moment to remember the stories, the story of the gospel as well as the stories of past injustices and hurts, through the communal acts of sharing, proclaiming, ingesting, and receiving from God the power to form and transform.32

3. The Lord’s Supper helps participants unlearn racial prejudices through the thankful practice of seeing God’s face in one another.

“So, how do we unlearn our racial prejudices and open our imaginations to God?” asks Michael Battle. His answer: by church members looking at creation and, specifically, at the face of God in one another.33 “To see God’s face in each other,” he continues, “we must (re)discover eucharistic reconciliation, that miraculous reality in which the Christian community may find overall agreement. God will be found not only in our images, but also in the image of our neighbor.”34 Battle’s contention manifests the theological principle of imago Dei, that mankind is created in the image of God (Gen 1:26). The Table of the Lord is an opportunity for individuals to come around the common table and to celebrate the communion shared one with another. It is the place of conversation and fellowship. It is a place to share thoughts and ideas. It is a place to look into each other’s eyes and appreciate the good that is seen in one another.35

It is not a coincidence that it was at the moment of “breaking bread” together that the two on the way to Emmaus recognized Jesus for who he was (Luke 24:13–30). They had encountered this strange “visitor to Jerusalem” along the way, and at the invitation to sit down at table with them, the visitor “took the bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them” (v. 30). It was at that moment their eyes were opened and they recognized the face of Jesus. Eucharist literally means “thankfulness,” and Battle suggests that the Supper provides an opportunity to do just that, to “give thanks” for for the opportunity to see God’s face in one another.

While typically Churches of Christ have emphasized the commemorative aspect of the Supper, there are those who have also recognized this more communal dimension. Alexander Campbell, for example, saw more in the Supper.36 He wrote, “Each disciple, in handling the symbols to his fellow disciple says, in effect, ‘You are my brother. . . . You have owned my Lord as your Lord, my people as your people. . . . Let us, then, renew our strength, remember our King, and hold fast our boasted hope unshaken to the end.’”37

4. The Lord’s Supper is an opportunity for confession to be made and forgiveness to be received.38

“The explicit promise of forgiveness is the gift of the risen Christ. It is proclaimed in scripture and realized in ritual and symbol,” writes Lawrence Frankovich.39 He sees this renewed emphasis on reconciliation in proclamation, prayer, and the Eucharist as a welcome sign that Christians of all traditions are rediscovering the need to celebrate the gift of forgiveness.

What better place to recognize and celebrate the gift of forgiveness than around the Table? When Jesus sat with his disciples around the Table, he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28). As Christians gather to participate in the Lord’s Supper, it is certainly a moment of reflection upon this marvelous gift, but it is also a moment for confession as well. Frankovich rightly sees a need, not only for celebration of forgiveness in the Supper, but also an emphasis on confession as a means towards reconciliation. “Those of us whose tradition it is to celebrate a sacrament of forgiveness (in addition to eucharist and baptism) also gain from these reflections on the eucharist as reconciliation. When an offense so grievous has been committed that an explicit apology is needed, a sacramental confession is necessary. Good psychology requires an explicit apology or a confession from one who actually breaks a relationship.”40

The Catholic church, at least in the past, has placed a strong emphasis on the sacrament of reconciliation (or confession). Perhaps it is time that Churches of Christ place a stronger emphasis on confession and use the opportunity of the Supper as a moment to for sin to be confessed and forgiveness to be offered.

5. The Lord’s Supper expresses the hopeful expectation of the Eschaton

One dimension of the Supper that is often missing from the devotions around the Table, particularly in Churches of Christ, is its forward orientation.41 The future dimension, however, is clear from Jesus’s own instructions at the Table. “I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt 26:29). The BEM reminds us, “The Eucharist opens up the vision of the divine rule which has been promised as the final renewal of creation and is a foretaste of it.”42 It is a glimpse into the future, a future envisioned in Revelation 7 where representatives from every nation (i.e., ethnic group), tribe, people, and language come together around the throne of the Lamb (v. 9). The word translated nation in most English translations is the word ethnous and refers not necessarily to political entities but to people groups (i.e., ethnic groups).

This eschatological vision of the future, which is prefigured in the Table, however, is meant to give greater meaning to the practice today. Orthodox scholar John Zizioulas writes, “Although the catholicity of the Church is ultimately an eschatological reality, its nature is revealed and realistically apprehended here and now in the eucharist.”43 As the church looks forward to the eschaton at the Table, it is an opportunity to imagine such a scene today, believers of all ethnicities coming together to share in the riches and blessings of oneness in Christ. It is a glorious hope indeed. Is it a hope that might offer some encouragement and empowerment to overcome the differences that divide and the hurts, past and present, that are so much a part of our culture? Is it a hope that might offer some opportunity towards greater reconciliation? The church would be well served to exhaust every effort in trying.

Conclusion

Martha L. Moore-Keish begins her chapter on eschatology and Eucharist in A More Profound Alleluia by recounting the final scene from a movie, Places in the Heart.44 It is a moving scene which depicts the possibilities of the Lord’s Supper envisioned here. By the time of the final scene, the movie has told the story of a widowed mother in a small Texas town set during the Depression. Against the odds, with the help of a transient African American man and a blind boarder, she manages to plant and harvest her forty acres of cotton and keep her home. Along the way, characters in the movie engage in murder, adultery, theft, assault, and mean-spiritedness. The final scene shows a congregation gathered for Communion. As the bread and cup are passed, the camera pans for the audience to see one face after another: first, anonymous members of the community; then the widow’s sister, who passes the tray to her cheating husband; then members of the KKK, who share the elements with the Black man they had earlier beaten up; then the children; then to the widow herself, who finally passes it to her husband, the town sheriff who had been shot and killed at the beginning of the film. He finally passes the sacraments to the young Black man who shot him with the words, “The peace of Christ.”

This final scene has much to teach the Christian community about the meaning of the Lord’s Supper and, perhaps, even more about the possibilities of reconciliation. Those from diverse backgrounds and different ethnicities sit together. Those who were at one time enemies share a common meal. Those who look and speak differently from one another find commonality in their shared love for Christ. It is the eschatalogical vision glimpsed “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10).

Suggested Actions

As a minister who has spent the last twenty-five years preaching to predominantly white congregations in Churches of Christ, I feel as if I am the least qualified person to speak on these issues. As my awareness has risen, however, I am becoming more firm in my own commitment, at least, not to be a part of the problem. My sincere desire, rather, is to be a greater voice towards solutions. The following ideas are offered as a starting point for congregations to begin the conversation as to how they might more fully embody the mission of God in bringing believers of all ethnicities together around the Table of the Lord.

• Arrange a joint worship service between two or more congregations of diverse racial makeup in the community and make the Lord’s Supper the focal point. Lay out a theology as to how the Table facilitates reconciliation.
• During the Communion devotion, challenge members of the congregation to think of relationships in their life that need to be mended, and then challenge them to “go and be reconciled.”
• Make the Lord’s Supper the central focus of a worship service and use the sermon to teach on one of the various theological opportunities discussed here.
• Invite congregants to look at the person next to them as they partake of the sacraments and speak a word of blessing or an observation of something godly that is appreciated in the other.
• Practice the Lord’s Supper at a time outside of the regularly scheduled corporate worship, perhaps in a devotional setting in someone’s home. Allow the different setting to establish a fresh atmosphere for the building up of the community.
• Use the communion devotion as a time for corporate confession. Acknowledge the racist behaviors of the past, even of past generations, in the congregation and offer words of repentance prior to partaking of the Supper together.

“Lord, in sharing this sacrament may we receive your forgiveness and be brought together in unity and peace.”45

Jim Black has served as the preaching minister for the Washington Street Church of Christ in Fayetteville, TN, since 2001. He is also an adjunct faculty member and director of missions at Riverside Christian Academy. He holds a BA and MDiv from Lipscomb University and is currently pursuing a DMin in Transformational Leadership at Harding School of Theology. Originally from Chattanooga, TN, he and his wife, Celeste, have four boys, Andy, David, Michael and Daniel.

This article explores two case studies of church formation, continuity, and multiplication among Australian Church Planting Movement (CPM) practitioners. Factors that positively influence group formation include clarity of vision, prayerfulness, access to experienced mentors, role modeling, teamwork, and strategically appending church to family mealtimes. More research is needed to evaluate whether improved teaching of biblical models of church and providing periodic larger gatherings may effectively prevent the attrition of urban CPM churches.

As of June 2020, there are at least 1000 multiplying movements of small reproducing churches world-wide. Each of these movements has multiple generations of churches that have planted churches.1 Such movements are often referred to as Church Planting Movements (CPMs) or Disciple Making Movements (DMM). In one of the best-known examples, a CPM pioneered by Ying and Grace Kai, more than 1.7 million people were baptised and 150,000 churches started in the years between 2001 and 2011.2 As mission-minded Australians hear of these results, a growing number have begun to implement CPM/DMM practices within their mission work. Teams from Pioneers, Praxeis, Power to Change, Move, Oikos, and the Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Crosslink denominations have workers applying CPM/DMM principles in Australia. Discussion among Australian workers suggest that while there are positive signs of improvement in mission effectiveness, church formation and multiplication among these ministries is not as effective as hoped. This article explores two of the most effective instances of church formation and multiplication located among CPM and DMM practitioners in Australia.

These two case studies are drawn from a wider study undertaken to investigate church formation and multiplication among Australian CPM/DMM practitioners. Their greater effectiveness was demonstrated by having more conversions and more generations3 of churches (or groups) than other ministries that were reviewed. It is hoped that providing the experiences of these two effective practitioners will prove helpful to others who are seeking to implement similar strategies. Within the sample interviewed both of these superior cases happened to be CPM practitioners rather than DMM practitioners.4

The scope of this paper covers, first, a brief precis of CPM and DMM strategies. This is followed by a description of the research rationale, design, and methodology from which these two most effective cases are drawn. The two cases are presented, and, finally, conclusions are drawn and suggestions for further investigation made.

What is a CPM/DMM?

A CPM/DMM is a movement in which numbers of new disciples are coming to faith in Christ and forming churches in a consistent and sometimes rapid manner. David Watson, whose work has extensively influenced this ministry in Australia, offers a definition of CPM: “An indigenously led Gospel planting and obedience-based discipleship process that resulted in a minimum of 100 new locally initiated and led churches . . . within three years.”5

Churches in this DMM/CPM model usually meet in homes, cafés, and parks—spaces other than church buildings—propagate along relational lines, are led by lay believers, and may range in average membership size from 11.5 to 85 believers.6 The CPM/DMM model of church multiplication does not focus activity around a large weekly meeting or key leader but caters to those who are not yet in church and meets in their “place” and with their relational network.

Significantly, churches in these movements are encouraged to start new churches, who are in turn empowered to start new churches. Each new church is considered the next generation from the previous one. Thus, from an original small church multiple generations of churches may be spawned. These smaller groups may meet as a larger group periodically depending on need and issues such as safety.

The two methods, DMM and CPM, have much in common: both encourage wide gospel sowing, a deep commitment to prayer, and new believers empowered to share with friends and family immediately and form new churches. Both use inductive Bible reading strategies with a high value on obedience. The DMM model tends to avoid “gospel presentations” and, instead, practitioners focus on praying for people’s needs and sharing Bible stories. These activities are used to find a person who is open to the gospel, spiritually hungry, and willing to share what they are learning with their friendship group. A discovery group is usually then formed around this leader. The DMM worker may not attend the group, but coach the leader who is still exploring the gospel how to facilitate the discovery group with their friends and family. The friendship group then has an opportunity to discover the gospel as a community with the Bible as the authority. The DMM worker provides the new leader with a selection of biblical texts to study. CPM practitioners, however, tend to use gospel presentations and start groups among people who have already made a commitment to Christ. These new converts learn how to lead a meeting and are coached to start their own meeting with their friends at another time in the week. Having said this, within Australia workers are often eclectic and borrow tactics from one another so that CPM practitioners often borrow from the DMM stream and vice versa.

The identification of a group as “church” varies among CPM/DMM practitioners interviewed in this study. Some practitioners begin calling the first meeting with a person who is moving toward Christ “church” in order to make the concept of church less daunting. Others would call such meetings a “Discovery Group” or just a “group” and transition to identifying as “church” once a significant portion of members have been baptised. Most CPM/DMM practitioners consider Acts 2:36–47 to define and identify normal functions of a healthy church.

A simple definition of church from the DMM stream is: “A group of baptised believers in the Lord Jesus Christ who meet regularly to worship, nurture one another (feed and grow one another), and fellowship (practice the “one another” statements of the Bible), and depart these gatherings endeavouring to obey all the commands of Christ in order to transform individuals, families, and communities.”7

In summary both CPM and DMM models seek to win new disciples who are empowered to share their faith and disciple others to follow Jesus. All believers are encouraged to instigate the start of new groups and churches that are encouraged to multiply. As such both models align with the scope of this investigation.

Rationale for Research

The research project that uncovered the two case studies described in this paper was spawned from awareness of many ministries, from nine organisations, who are applying significant portions of the CPM/DMM paradigm. Positive results have been noted from the adoption of these principles such as the deployment of more CPM/DMM trainers and an increased number of baptisms. However, most practitioners also report limited success in group or church formation, continuity, and multiplication.

The research project was designed to investigate the state of CPM/DMM development in Australia with a focused interest on church formation, continuity, and multiplication. The specific question under investigation was: What are the factors (helps and hindrances) which influence the formation, continuity, and multiplication of churches among CPM and DMM practitioners in Australia?

Research Design

The research project employed a Grounded Theory methodology. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data from Australian CPM/DMM practitioners. The interview data was analyzed to identify reported factors that enhanced successful group/church formation and multiplication. Further analysis included coding of the transcripts followed by a review of themes and links within the data sets. Frequency counting of similar factors was employed to highlight consistencies within narratives. Interviewees also provided information about the number and generations of groups that had developed through their work. The groups developed by each practitioner were mapped visually to clarify patterns of group multiplication, number of generations, and group size.

Data Collection

Those interviewed in this investigation come from the following organizations:

• Sydney Anglican (2)
• Church of Christ (1)
• Power to Change (2)
• Baptist (3)
• Crosslink Christian Network (2)
• Independent (1)
• Salvation Army (1)
• Praxeis (5)

All interviewees were legacy Christians (i.e., from traditional church backgrounds) who have received CPM/DMM training and were applying these models within their relation networks, local communities, or across a region of Australia. Some are leaders of existing traditional congregations and have sought to find a subset of people willing to attempt a CPM paradigm from within their congregation. Of the seventeen participants interviewed, twelve are working with or have worked with a model that approximates the CPM model and five with a DMM model. The qualitative data provided by interviewees is based on self-report. As such the interview probed participant’s insight and self-awareness regarding the success and failures of both their own work and that of their team.

Sampling Method

The sample method was a “stratified purposeful” sample to “illustrate a subgroup and to facilitate comparison.” Further, cases that manifest an “intensity” of data through greater effectiveness of CPM outcomes (more generational churches), function as “critical” cases to be mined for attributes that lead to successful outcomes. A “snowballing or chain” approach was used to expand the interviewee cohort by enquiring during each interview of other successful CPM workers who could contribute to the insights within this study. There was also an aspect of “convenience” to this sample given the unavailability for interview of some groups and individuals.8

The two case studies reported below were the most successful ministries found during the investigation.

CPM Case Study 1: Ed – Urban Australia

Ed has been working with a CPM paradigm for around nine years—the longest of any practitioner interviewed.

Ed has responsibilities for church networks in southeastern Australia that also extend offshore. During 2017, upwards of 50 home-based family churches formed from Ed’s training and his family’s “Person of Peace” (POP) searches. POP is a term drawn from Luke 10:1–12 to describe a person who accepts the messenger, message, and mission by sharing what they know immediately so that many have a chance to meet Jesus. It is Ed’s custom to annually release church networks or hubs so that they take responsibility for the downstream churches and groups. These hubs are expected to coordinate their own quarterly support training and leadership development events after the first year or so of supervision by Ed.

Target Group

Ed defines his target group as anyone who is responsive to the gospel. This ranges from immigrants (Sudanese, Nepalese, Chileans, and Persians were identified) to upper class and lower-class Anglo Australians across Victoria and Tasmania. Ed’s local township of approximately 6000 people is three hours drive from the state capital. It is predominantly populated by blue-collar workers and long-term, multigenerationally unemployed persons. Among this latter group there are significant instances of drug addiction.

Definition of Church

As with many CPM practitioners, the model of church found in Acts 2:36–47 functions as a definition of church for Ed and his team. However, Ed calls all his groups “church” from the first meeting and uses “church health”9 criteria to assist them grow toward church maturity.

Groups and Churches

Ed provided a network diagram detailing churches formed between January 2017 and October 2017 by Ed and his team within Australia. For reasons of confidentiality, Ed was unable to release information about church networks created in previous years.

The size of churches started in 2017 is small, with an average of 2.6 persons per church. The largest group is 12 people. The groups are small as they are new. Ed does not seek to combine disparate friendship networks in order to consolidate and create larger churches. He has found that this does not work. Instead he seeks to build the groups’ size from the convert’s oikos (extended family/friendship network). Larger churches form among recent immigrant Australians where more extensive households and friendship circles exist. For Anglo Australians, the church size is often smaller due to smaller household or friendship network.

Ed reports that the networks that develop from this work typically extend for three to five generations or more; frequently they then become absorbed into a local traditional church.

Ed considers church size a secondary and perhaps irrelevant factor to church longevity. He identifies the primary factor as Holy Spirit inspired koinonia (fellowship). Ed also encourages regular celebration of the Lord’s Supper over meals; this occurs daily or weekly in some families. The existing family structure and the high frequency of communion may be instrumental to group cohesion and capacity to multiply generationally.

Obstacles Overcome

Ed has overcome a number of significant obstacles in order to form churches. When asked how progress has been achieved through the network, Ed immediately points out that “you can’t do anything without the Holy Spirit.”

Ed has a deep investment in personal prayer with tens of daily alarms on his phone that trigger prayer for those whom he disciples and coaches. A prayer alarm on Ed’s phone would normally indicate that he has asked the person he is praying for: “What time of the day do you have your quiet time?” He has then committed to pray for them at that time. This question helps engender a culture of daily prayer within the network. Ed also prays fervently for people he is reaching out to.

Prayer is also a significant attribute within their networks. SMS and email are used to communicate live prayer requests around significant issues relating to gospel sharing and protection for emerging and new believers. Ed says that for those exploring faith “on the cusp of salvation”: “you are their protection—you have to pray for them.”

Ed does not consider himself a natural evangelist. However, having been mentored by and observed a number of “exceptional evangelists,” Ed steps out knowing he has a repertoire of skills that he can bring to this task. Ed also acknowledges deep work that God has wrought within him whereby he is always willing to share the gospel when called by God to speak: “who am I to not speak if God calls me to.”

Ed and his wife Sarah have had to persevere through considerable personal and family illness. Ed shared that engaging in CPM work over nine years has coincided with the worst period of ill health in his life. Further, inconveniences such as sudden car breakdowns while engaging in mission have alerted Ed to the opposition faced by a worker who seeks to “extend the kingdom of God.” Ed’s theological background is conservative evangelical, but the reality of the interference over the years has created an awareness of the need to prayerfully “armor up” against demonic opposition. They explain that through persevering God has changed their attitudes (e.g., more loving, humble), practices (simplifying and culturally honing methods, increasing prayerfulness), and the workers’ capacity to see the world (groups and families not just individuals). Character pruning and character development appear to be a function of perseverance.

After persevering from 2009 to 2012/13, Ed experienced a significant increase in effectiveness in bringing people to salvation and church multiplication. For example, before 2013 Ed’s team would be able to start 10–15 churches per annum, but during 2017 upward of 50 oikos-based churches were started. Ed nominated two contributing factors. The first factor is: “being genuinely loving and interested in people when doing POP searches—you need to be genuine.” Ed says that if a person is not interested in the gospel, his attitude to them does not change, nor does he end the conversation immediately but continues to interact with the person. Ed considers that a POP search is an opportunity to “love people.” Ed shared instances of noticing the needs and interests of people as he moves around the community. Ed may help people by helping pack away a stall at the market, buying a person a coffee or purchasing a chili plant for an aged immigrant. These relevant and genuine acts of kindness often open a door for Ed to share his relationship with Jesus.

The second factor is “sharing with people upfront the requirements of discipleship” and not adding these on at a later stage—even if it is added only within hours or days. Ed now explains to a prospective disciple that to say “yes” to Jesus means that a person turns from sin and follows Jesus as Lord. The discipleship actions of obedience, baptism, and sharing gospel are now “upfront” and integral components of Ed’s initial gospel presentation.

These two shifts resulted in an improvement in receptivity to the gospel and, consequently, church multiplication among ethnic groups, the unemployed, and drug effected people. Ed has not seen much response from Middle Australia or from teens. Recently Ed has added the Three Circle’s gospel explanation tool (created by Jimmy Scroggins) and another tool called Lordship Circles to his evangelism technique and experienced a significant increase in effectiveness.10

Ed considers that starting the gospel presentation with brokenness—“the world is broken and so are we,” a facet of the Three Circles presentation—resonates well with Australians. The gospel presentation therefore begins on common ground. The Lordship Circles clarify obedience and the yielding of all aspects of life to Jesus. The use of these two visual tools appears to bring clarity to the gospel and understanding of the commitment required to the new disciple.

Ed has also made these gospel tools, their church meeting process, and Bible story sets available via two paper bookmarks. These bookmarks have ensured that an effective meeting process and Bible content are readily available and transferable to anyone connected to this network. With minimal training, a new believer can easily use the bookmarks to share the gospel and start their own group.

When Ed is talking to an individual, he has in mind the connected oikos of this person. This network mindset orients Ed’s specific approach. The mandate of reaching each person’s oikos with the gospel is specifically taught, modeled, and also caught as culture.

If a person commits to Christ, Ed coaches them to immediately share something of their encounter with God with friends and family. Often a question like “Who needs to hear what Jesus has done for you?” is asked to help clarify who the new believer ought to share with first. Ed listens to their story in preparation for their sharing with friends and may give some guidance if their theology is not orthodox. However, Ed considers it more important that the new follower “shares something—opens their mouth” even if it is not perfectly sound. Ed will work on honing correct theology over the coming weeks with the new disciple.

Ed has found that Bible stories of lostness (e.g., Luke 15, 16:19–31) create the theological framework for new believers to understand that those without Christ are lost. However, Ed has also learned that unless the stories are grounded and applied directly to those that the new believer loves and cares about, the new believer is unlikely to take responsibility for sharing the gospel in their oikos. Ed helps the new believer to consider their relational world and to see the state of their relatives before God. He coaches them to share something of their encounter with God with others immediately. All disciples in this network are encouraged to take responsibility for their lost friends and family in this same way. When considering who needs to hear the story, Ed does not allow a general or nonspecific answer such as “everybody.” People in their network are expected to pray, think, and share a name or names and find a strategy to act on this intent to share. In this way the gospel is “paid forward” in friendship groups.

Ed has a number of Bible stories he reads with enquirers, referred to as “The Stories of Hope.” Ed selects the story based on what he believes the enquirer needs to hear, rather than just reading the next story in the list. He uses an inductive Bible reading process using three questions following the acronym SOS: What does the passage Say, how do I/we Obey, who can I Share this with? Ed varies the gospel presentations because he has found that people respond more positively to different presentations of the gospel in the same way that people have different love languages.11 As a rule of thumb, Ed has found that after three such discovery group meetings that involve SOS on a passage, a testimony, and a gospel presentation, a person who is earnestly wanting to know God is normally ready to commit to Jesus as Lord. If the person responds, then baptism and discipleship follows. If not, Ed suggests the enquirer read a Gospel on their own and call him for the next lesson once they have completed the task. This tests the level of interest of the enquirer and saves Ed from pursuing people who are not responsive to the gospel.

Once a person responds positively and wishes to get baptised, Ed asks them where they would like to get baptized and who they would like to attend. He will also make a plan to meet with them to begin discipleship often in the location that they first met.

Ed reports that one significant obstacle is a “gatekeeper,” a person who is hostile to the gospel or gospel worker within an oikos group. Gatekeepers can block the worker or the gospel from the enquirer and their network. Ed identified gatekeepers as both an obstacle he has overcome and also as a live barrier in some situations. Ed said that getting around gatekeepers requires “prayer, prayer and more prayer.” Ed reported a willingness to both pray hard and engage with the gatekeeper if prudent, in order to create openings for the gospel. Ed would, however, primarily read passages of Scripture with the new believer that yielded a biblical strategy on how to respond to family who may be hostile to the gospel (e.g., 1 Peter 3, 1 Corinthians 7). This process provides a supportive framework for the new believer but leaves them appropriately responsible for their situation.

When asked about getting people together in the same location for a church meeting, a key issue under review in this study, Ed said: “This is not a problem as we work with the oikos; there really isn’t any trouble in getting people together.”

Ed enquired about the usual times that the oikos group is already congregating and meets with them at this time. This often turns out to be at mealtimes. Church and the Lord’s Supper in Ed’s network, therefore, become a regular extension of or integral part of a family meal.

Ed discusses forming a group around Christ and church cohesion: “They have to have a real commitment to Christ. Not just lip service. They have to be taught to feed themselves.”

In order to help people feed themselves spiritually, Ed does not answer questions directly wherever possible. Ed sends groups to the Bible to find the answers that they are looking for so that they become dependent on Scripture and the Holy Spirit rather than on Ed for knowledge. He is unwavering in this approach, suggesting it sets the DNA of the churches in this network, encourages an encounter with God through the Bible, and promotes ownership of the mission task within the new church.

Ed begins to call a group “church” from the first meeting even when the members would be considered to be enquirers. This is in response to his discovery that changing the name of a group to “church” after it had been meeting for a while created a stumbling block to the group owning the identity of being church and its associated responsibilities.

However, simply calling a group a “church” does not make the group a healthy church. Ed also monitors the group activities as a sign of the health of the church, based largely on the Acts 2:36–47 model. Ed introduces the group to Bible passages that expand the nascent churches’ theological and practical understanding of how they ought to be functioning as a church. The passages can then be passed to downstream churches.

Ed teaches new believers to share the Lord’s Supper regularly—perhaps daily. This ensures regular encounter with grace and the cross contributing much to church identity and group cohesion. Often, the Lord’s Supper is celebrated with whatever is at hand during the meal (coffee and chips); this means this meal is easy to integrate into life.

Current Challenges to Growth

Ed identifies network stability and sustainability beyond three to six generations (where each church in turn starts a church that starts a church, and so on) among Australian converts as an obstacle to CPM growth. Ed identifies two means by which these groups either disappear or stop reproducing. The first is that the network is absorbed into a traditional church. Someone in the network begins to feel that the CPM model or experience is inadequate in some way and then moves a house church or perhaps even a group of house churches under the auspices of a traditional church. Ed observes that this almost always changes the focus of the network from going to the lost to an attractional paradigm where the large meeting dominates church life. Ed observes the missional activity is normally greatly diminished once this transition occurs.

The second is through the church or network of churches choosing to adopt a church paradigm similar to the attractional church model and subsequently acquire land and build a building. This has encumbered this section of the network with additional organizational responsibilities and resulted once again in the development of a traditional attractional paradigm with an attendant drop in gospel sharing and growth.

Summary

• We observe the following positive salient features in this movement:
• A prayerful disposition and strategies for motivating prayer within the network
• Access to and the involvement of quality mentors
• Perseverance
• Simple transferrable tools (e.g., bookmarks)
• Improvisation and adaption of various gospel sharing tools
• Regular and competent gospel sharing and POP searches by Ed
• Oikos-based gospel sharing and church formation
• Church cohesion appears enhanced by Christ-centered fellowship, regular sharing of the Lord’s Supper, and shared partnership in mission.

CPM Case Study 2: Dean and Rachel—University Campus

Dean is a full-time worker in a university where he applies CPM principles to student ministry. Dean and Rachel (husband and wife) have been working in this capacity for approximately 20 years and began to implement the CPM process around 2011/2012. Dean works with a team of 11 full-time mission workers on campus. Each of these workers is involved in befriending students and sharing the gospel with them on campus and seeking to start and run a Discovery Bible Study (DBS) with enquirers.

The CPM paradigm adopted by this team utilizes materials from various organisations. Campus evangelism is implemented with Power to Change tools such as “Knowing God Personally” or the bilingual tract featuring Chinese and English text of “The Four Spiritual Laws.” Those wanting to know more are introduced to Bible story sets such as “7 Stories of Hope”—a set of New Testament passages that introduce Jesus and the cross using Ying Kai’s Three Thirds meeting process.12 This team has discipling materials for new believers and for the development of leaders. The curriculum is often delivered via a discovery-based Three Thirds process.

The university ministry also connects publicly with students through a large weekly meeting in addition to holding many weekly small group meetings. Student leaders also have regular team support meetings where Christ-like character, prayer, vision, and skills are imparted and practiced.

Target Group

Overseas students numbering 20,000 who attend the university campus are the main target group of this ministry team. These students are predominantly of Chinese origin.

Definition of Church

Dean’s group accepts the description of church in Acts 2 adopted by CPM practitioners as their model of church. Prior to exposure to CPM paradigms, their organization had not formed a church among students and had left baptism and sharing the Lord’s Supper to the local churches that they anticipated the students would attend. This model changed during 2017, and the team now feels free to form churches on campus and include baptism and the Lord’s Supper within their practice.

Groups and Churches

There has been a consistent increase in professions of faith (although not baptisms) over recent years. Before 2014, Dean reports that ten to twenty professions of faith per annum was normal for their ministry. When the CPM paradigm and training began influencing the ministry, professions of faith rose to thirty, sixty, and then ninety-seven in the years 2014, 2015, and 2016 respectively. Many of those sharing and leading others to Jesus were students or new believers rather than staff members. This ministry recorded a growth from 18 groups in May 2017 to 50 groups by October 2017, comprising seven G0 (Generation Zero) or training groups, forty G1, two G2, and one G3 group.13 The large number of first-generation groups is consistent with the transience of the university population as well as the fact that between January and October 2017, sixty-four new professions of faith were recorded among the students.

Ministry Features and Obstacles Overcome

Dean reports that training processes have adjusted significantly over the past four years. He considers a number of factors have contributed to the more dramatic growth in disciple making.

Dean emphasized that the leadership team needed to “get the DNA right so that people understand the inductive Bible study process” in contrast to a preaching ministry model that appears to detract from student initiative. He continually reiterates a CPM vision that each student is a disciple multiplier and is empowered to start their own group if at all possible. Ensuring understanding of the CPM model of the ministry was found to be important during the transition phase of this ministry. This was facilitated by the ministry team regularly meeting for prayer, vision casting, coaching, and encouraging.

The training of new believers to immediately engage with friends, share the gospel, and begin DBSs has been effective. New believers were noted to be sharing faith within a few weeks on campus—much faster than the previous model.

Student peers who share the gospel and lead groups early in their faith journey are powerful role models. Such students set a precedent for others to observe and follow. Given the constant recasting of vision around sharing and student-led groups, and the availability of readily visible role models on the campus (only one of the fifty groups meet off campus), it is not difficult to envisage how the ministry’s DNA has changed to foster group formation and multiplication.

Further, the formation of groups among students is also part of most campus courses where small group tutorial attendance is required. Students are therefore accustomed to meeting in small groups and discussing ideas. The DBS model aligns with this existing campus meeting pattern.

This ministry is supported by a weekly large public gathering open to the campus. This meeting was being attended by up to 185 students in late 2017. The meeting format includes worship, vision, testimonies, and teaching. It provides a connection point to the wider student body where enquirers can come and encounter friends and the message of the gospel.

Dean and Rachel convey a very warm pastoral interest in students. Rachel speaks Thai fluently, which supports efforts to connect with international students. Dean unfailingly points to God as the source of the growth in ministry effectiveness.

Current Challenges to Growth

Historically, this ministry did not baptize those who made professions of faith. Dean’s organization has recently restructured and begun to empower students to conduct baptisms, share the Lord’s Supper, and form churches.

Dean and team have previously noticed a deterioration of discipleship behaviours (sharing the gospel and leading groups) once students leave the university. Dean suspects that by empowering students to make disciples and form and lead church while at university, these behaviours will have a greater likelihood of continuing as their lives extend beyond university. It may also prove necessary to have ongoing contact via online or remote support and coaching systems to help transition the graduates into discipleship and church planting beyond the campus.

Dean also notes that movement principles and tactics are not part of the mindset of the students who join their team; many come from traditional churches and think about growth in terms of addition rather than multiplication. Accordingly, ongoing training in CPM principles is a priority.

Summary

• We observe the following features in this movement:
• A large meeting provides a gathering point for all students
• Clear growth pathways exist for learning, developing community, and leadership
• Clear vision is articulated and communicated regularly
• Regular prayer meetings are scheduled
• Immediate deployment of new disciples to share faith is practiced
• Empowerment of students to lead
• Team—there is a growing workforce of volunteers and staff
• Committed pastoral care and shepherding by key leaders.

Conclusions

These two CPM case studies inspire hope for mission in the Western world.

Ed’s case study demonstrates that generational disciple making is possible in suburban Australia. Ed’s success in multiplying groups and churches along relational lines through oikos evangelism is instructive. Ed’s experience demonstrates that prayerful, Spirit-responsive perseverance is a key to fruitfulness.

Dean and Rachel are working among a demographic that is noted around the world to be responsive to the gospel: university students, and, more particularly, Chinese university students. The application of CPM tactics and principles in this target group resulted in a significant increase in faith professions and the number of student-led small groups. The fact that relatively new believers are leading groups is a helpful development and demonstrates capacity to multiply leaders and thereby expand this ministry further into the wider student body.

The two case studies highlight key factors that positively influenced group formation: a clarity of vision, prayerfulness, access to experienced mentors, role modelling and teamwork, simple gospel sharing tools, and clear developmental pathways. Ed reported that referring to groups as “church” from inception, teaching obedience to Scripture, and engendering a heartfelt concern for lostness coupled with empowering new believers to immediately share faith with friends and family were also instrumental to church formation and generational multiplication. Extending existing mealtimes to include church activities was a simple way of avoiding the need to find another time to gather people for church.

CPM practitioners can be confident that gospel sharing and house church formation through oikos networks is a viable strategy within Australia. The inner cohesion of these smaller groups appears to be enhanced by Christ-centered fellowship, partnership in outreach, and regular sharing of the Lord’s Supper. The presence of these factors is reported to promote capacity for generational multiplication.

However, in Ed’s case, their networks are frequently losing members to traditional church models. While these people remain in the body, Ed has observed that the transition to the traditional model is almost always coupled with diminished disciple-making activity. It is noted that transfers occur from every church and, as such, some activity of this nature is to be expected. In Ed’s case, these transfers may be helpful in keeping the focus on the missional task among those who remain. Even so, given that 85% of Australians are not involved in church life14 and the implied missional task, the loss of any active worker is of concern. Further enquiry and action research is warranted in four areas. Firstly, it would be instructive to investigate thoroughly the circumstances and motivation for transition to the traditional church paradigm. This enquiry could also seek to verify the missional involvement of those who adopt a traditional model. Secondly, it may be helpful to develop and apply better teaching around the nature and form of church supportive of the CPM paradigm. Thirdly, there is a need for exploring ways to support the church and network leaders through improved ongoing coaching and mentoring systems. Finally, it may be timely to investigate the role of more frequent larger gatherings of a number of CPM churches to provide a sense of belonging within a larger social context. Larger social gatherings are valued by most people and their infrequent occurrence within this network perhaps prompts members to explore other church forms. Providing such gatherings may help maintain vision and group identity and mitigate attrition to similarly sized gatherings in other organizations that do not share the CPM ethos.

David Milne is employed by Crosslink Australia training and coaching believers cross-denominationally in CPM paradigms and tactics. David is working with ministries focused on university campuses, urban communities, and new arrivals to Australia.

Darren Cronshaw is Head of Research and Professor of Missional Leadership with Australian College of Ministries (Sydney College of Divinity), Pastor of AuburnLife Baptist Church, and a Chaplain with the Australian Army (Reserve).