We Reproduce After Kind

[Don Davis]

For over 30 years I have been a part of an interdenominational missions organization whose chief values includes that who we are is more important than what we do. After all these years, I affirm this more than ever. For all of us involved in urban missions and ministry, it is important to remember that after a disciple has been fully trained, they will become necessarily just like us (cf. Luke 6.40).

One of my deep concerns about church planting today is that it seems to be filled with technical language about methods, techniques, models, and approaches, and only secondarily about depth, spirituality, and power. From the beginning, religious missionary orders (e.g., among Catholics, the Jesuits, among evangelicals, Wycliffe missionaries or World Impact, the group which the parent organization of TUMI) have banded together to go across cultures and classes to testify of the Good News of God in Christ Jesus. Typically, these bands of apostolic missionaries went, evangelized, and planted churches in sync with the tradition from which they came and which they practiced.

Today, with so many evangelicals being either loosely or not at all connected to a tradition of any sort, it is unclear who is being represented in missionary activity. Granted, there is only one faith, one hope, and one calling to which we were called (cf. Eph. 4.1-6). Denominations and traditions are not separate churches but expressions of the one true Great Tradition, grounded on the apsotolic faith. RMOs have historically existed for the sake of missions, a noble task which guides and shapes every part of any RMOs identity. However, classically, RMOs represent a distinctive tradition of spirituality that takes seriously its anchored faith.

In other words, monastic orders are grounded in a tradition, that is, they vary based on the tradition or church community which authorizes and empowers their missional activity: they are, for instance, Anglican, Catholic, Episcopal, etc. The members of the order receive their full identity and shared spirituality from their tradition, and literally their missional aim is to reproduce churches after their own kind. Anglican evangelistic monastic orders plant Anglican churches, even as Southern Baptist missionaries plant churches of their kind. (By the way, this is a critical insight from virtually all the data about robust church planting movements today; the most dynamic movements do not simply leave unanswered and undefined the spirituality of their churches. Rather, they plant churches of a distinct type. This is especially true in Protestant missions in the movements having great success today: Southern Baptists, Church of God in Christ, Assemblies of God, etc.).

I am concerned today about the idea that tradition or spiritual identity do not matter. Spirituality that we share is not a footnote on our urban missionary, social justice seeking page. Instead, we reproduce spiritually after our kind, according to our own conviction and practice. However deep (or shallow) we may be, to that extent will we reproduce spiritual children and kin.

This statement, at first glance, seems self-evident. Will any valid church planting organization allow its newly planted churches to reopen questions of the canon, i.e., which books of the Bible represent the Word of God, or redefine the nature of God, or cancel out the ideas of hell, or spiritualize the meaning of the resurrection? I am a great advocate for freedom in Christ, and wholeheartedly endorse our ministry's understanding of the necessity for urban Christians to express their faith in cultural ways consistent with their norms. But, this is not an open-ended freedom that does not demand that they follow our same practices--worshiping the Father in the name of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit, obeying the preached and taught Word, being baptized in response to saving faith in Christ, affirmation of the historic orthodox faith, acceptance of the apostolic tradition in the canon of Scripture, etc.

If we fail to articulate a clearly defined "bottom line" historic orthodox faith, practice, spirituality, and worship, I fear we may actually contribute to schism, heresy, sectarianism, and fragmentation in the cities. TUMI is deliberately interdenominational in focus, with members from various traditions coming together for the common mission. We are neither non-denominational nor adenominational (against traditions perse). Ultimately, the real discussion comes down to what we consider "basic," community.

For my money, given my own understanding of Scripture and tradition, I think that evangelicals today are far too thin in their understanding of what spirituality it is we are to reproduce. Every church we plant, regardless of our tradition, ought to share our fundamental allegiance to Christ, the Kingdom, the Church, and the poor, and embrace the historic orthodox faith as defended for centuries in the Nicene Creed as defended in other ecumenical councils of the Church. If we love the city we won't peddle faith for the sake of greed, nor testify to a spiritual vision unworthy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Whatever we be sellin', we ought to be usin' ourselves.

Let's be extremely careful that we do not drive a wedge between the kind of churches we are seeking to plant and the kind of church we actually are. The difference should never be what we are in essence but only in terms of culture and calling. God has called us to plant churches in the city, and we must go to those who have never heard of the Lord and to plant churches which come to embrace the same hope we do, who eat at the same table, who are washed in the same baptismal water, who feed at the same spiritual feast, and embrace the same spiritual gifts, and support the same spiritual mission.

Every tradition in love with Jesus has sent laborers to those who haven't heard to plant churches which embrace the same life and hope they have in Christ. Truly, all authentic spiritual reproduction is reproduction after kind, and all the biblical principles of sowing and reaping assume that, too.

[Andrew Lee]

This is a great topic and discussion. I am very challenged by your insights, Don. Thanks.

This is also a very challenging topic for me due to my upbringing and experiences (more on that later). I've recently lived by the thought that every Christian needs to distinguish whether what they do is because of Biblical truth or traditions based on their culture and denomination. I've lived by the rule, "Truth can never be compromised, but Traditions can".

I think the best way for me to express my thoughts (and my questions on this) is to explain my experiences.

From when I first accepted the Lord, I grew up in a 1st Generation Immigrant (C1) Korean (Presbyterian) Church. The church thrived in the Greater Philadelphia area. As the church grew, the children of the C1 generation (C2 and C3) desired their own service in English that meets the issues they deal with rather than the issues discussed dealing with C1 immigrant Koreans.

As this English speaking generation grew and formed their own identity, some cultural and traditional ideals clashed creating tension between the 2 "congregations" meeting in the same building as one church.

One such issue would be the C1 Korean generation of praying every morning at 5:30 am before heading to work. Many 1st Generation Koreans grew up with the discipline of getting up early in the morning at dawn, and praying before they start their day. A time set aside for the Lord without an excuse of not having enough time. I personally love this tradition and found a certain strength in starting the day off in prayer together as a church community.

However, the English speaking (C2 and C3) congregation did not see the difference in praying at 5:30 am as let's say 7 pm at night. The point is that they prayed regardless of when.

The C1 generation would see this as laziness and a lack of spirituality, whereas the C2 and C3 generation would see it as the C1 generation not understanding the culture and issues in America today.

However, in doing so, the C2 and C3 culture is "breaking tradition" from the C1 congregation. Is this a good thing? How do we determine what is freedom from culture verses turning away from the spirituality of a great tradition (in the Korean sense)?

For perhaps another topic, but this was interesting because the C1 congregation had a vision for the C2 and C3 to reach the non-Asian population surrounding the church since the C2/C3 generation could speak English and understand the culture. However, the C1 congregation desired the C2/C3 congregation to do this with the traditions of the C1 culture. I personally struggled with this because I found it difficult to believe that a minority C1 culture can set the path for a multicultural church in America. It's one thing if this were to take place in Korea where it's the majority culture.

Anyway, I don't want to make this a discussion of the Korean American church because I understand that this is not an issue of urban ministry, but how does it play out with me personally? Having grown up in in a C2 Korean-American tradition and understanding both views, how do I plant culturally conducive urban churches in the city where the cultures are mainly African-American and Spanish Speaking? I wouldn't think that I should reproduce the traditions of my culture and ethnicity in Chester (i.e. not necessarily suggest our church plant to get up at 5:30 am every morning to pray). Would our "culture" of the church plant staff determine the traditions and cultures to emulate and reproduce? Is part of being a missionary to leave not only the culture, but the traditions of the culture we were raised up in?

I would appreciate your insights and thoughts on this. God bless.

[Don Davis]

Interesting and important reply, Andrew.

I believe that sorting out these issues is the heart and soul of what it means to plant churches that are viable, attractive, and impacting in the city. You cannot have "generic" children; any child you have will certainly carry with it your own DNA, the same genetic code, so to speak, as those who gave birth to it and parent it. The issues you highlight get to the core of what it means to be both faithful to the Great Tradition of the faith, as well as embracing the freedom we have in Christ.

I for one believe that we must constantly weigh and evaluate the various practices, doctrines, patterns, structures, and behaviors we embrace and engage in to discern the difference between 1) what is binding and critical on the conscience and will of all Christians everywhere, versus 2) what we prefer in terms of our own corporate practice and conviction.

For instance, while it is not possible, in my judgment, for any viable, legitimate church planting effort to ignore the necessity of prayer and supplication as a desired discipline of authentic, growing assemblies of Christ. Yet, when, how, and under what circumstances these churches may elect to express that conviction and obey God's mandate for prayer is open for discussion. That we must pray is certain and clear--it is a ubiquitous command throughout the New Testament.

However, that one church plant be obligated to get up at 5:30 am every morning to pray seems to me, to be more a matter of cultural sensitivity and spiritual freedom. In other words, to elect this expression of prayer seems entirely allowable, even desirable, if the cultural rhythms of rising and sleeping found it conducive and appealing. Of course, to elect to choose another time would be fine as well. That we all, regardless of our culture or tradition, affirm the primacy of prayer to God through Christ is paramount; differences of opinion as to when we pray is an issue of Christian freedom (except, in fact, that the New Testament commands us to "pray without ceasing," which would make all times kosher!)

We are free in Christ; we need not follow a master cultural blueprint as the norm for authentic spirituality. Still, we ought to be informed by the rich history of the centuries of Christians setting aside time (whenever that might be) for a heartfelt, fervent seeking after God. To esteem a day or a time of a day, in my judgment, is a matter of conscience and freedom:

Romans 14:5-9 (ESV) 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. [6] The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. [7] For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. [8] If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.
[9] For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

The biblical understanding of the relationship of Christian freedom is primary here. Paul). Would our "culture" of the church plant staff determine the traditions and cultures to emulate and reproduce? Is part of being a missionary to leave not only the culture, but the traditions of the culture we were raised up in?

What we ought not do, in my judgment, is to expect every single urban church plant among C1s to be saddled with the burden to redefine the Great Tradition all over for itself. Is this what the NT means when it speaks of Christian freedom? No! Even in the name of freedom, this kind of open-ended lack of direction seems both wasteful and unnecessary. In other words, if a tradition of prayer and seeking God which we have practiced for many years, which is informed by clear biblical injunctions, which we have and which is being practiced freely and openly, and for which we find is conducive to the culture we are serving---why would we not counsel, suggest, even exhort others to follow? A freedom that does not have roots in a viable practice of wisdom and refreshment of the Great Tradition seems empty, at best.

This is an artful response; this is not scientific. Being filled with the Holy Spirit, sensitive to culture, committed to Scripture, and convinced of the usefulness of the Great Tradition, let's go forward. Let's share with others the wisdom of our experience, without making our applications of biblical injunctions a new evangelical Law. The answer is not tradition or freedom, but truly tradition and freedom. Both commitment to the apostolic tradition and sensitivity to culture, in light of the teaching of Scripture.

Let's affirm at every turn in every urban church planting effort our commitment to Christ, the Kingdom, the Church, and the poor, and embrace the historic orthodox faith as defended for centuries in the Nicene Creed as defended in other ecumenical councils of the Church. Let's learn from the rich history of the ancient church, a tradition that preceded and has shaped every tradition that has followed it. And let's affirm that freedom that Christ won for the Gentiles, who now in him can express their faith freely without slavish conformity to external rules and standards.

It's not either/or but rather both/and. Let's affirm it all.