Relationship of Modality to Sodality in Church Planting

[Don Davis]

Written by Bob EngelHi Bryan,

What you wrote clearly communicated the Biblical response to the original question posed in the forum. The Apostle Paul taught his converts after baptism and not before. Or, if there was some teaching, we are not sure of what that entailed. It seems as though very little knowledge of Christian truth was required. What was necessary was repentance and profession of faith.

Personally, I see a difference with the Ancient Church(modality) and the Apostolic/missionary(sodality) call. The Ancient Church (modality) did and must set up their own standards for entry into the Body of Christ. Through a variety of circumstance - infiltration of "wolves" among the flock, persecution, culture, etc - the Ancient Church, in time and history, felt it a necessity to have a long training process before baptism and entry into the Family of God. And might I add, not wrong. This allows the Church to be Church in it's culture and in time as we can attest to this fact in our present day.

The Apostolic/Missionary Band (sodality) has great freedom and without the loss of a strong conviction for foundations. It is foundational that we baptize, which none of us deny. But as apostolic people, we plant the church (modality), and let them take the foundation (this case baptism but could be Lords supper, children's ministry, taking care of needs, etc) and form structure around the foundation according to culture, history, outside and inside dynamics. The Church is "built upon" the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. We lay the foundation and the Church (modality) builds upon it. That seems to me what Paul fought for (Acts 15).

The question again for us, in my opinion, is, are we going to function as a Modality or as a Sodality? Can we function as both? Maybe so. Our sodalities that are sent out from us, though, should be "rock solid" in their conviction of baptism as a must for converts but simple in their application so that the receiving culture can take the foundation (in this case baptism) and form their structures and requirements around it. To me that is apostolic. It is missiionary.

"..not of those who shrink back..." Hebrews 10:39

Bob

This quote from Bob Engel, raises a question that ought to be thoroughly discussed on a TUMI forum. Bob poses the question regarding World Impact's urban church planters: " . . . are we going to function as a Modality or as a Sodality? Can we function as both?" For those who make not be aware of these terms, Ralph Winter of the US Center for World Mission articulated in an article sometime ago the various dimensions of Church that operate together in missions. Modality refers to the planted, gathered church in assembly, where believers worship, fellowship, exercise their gifts and share the Good News in the context of their lives and community.

Correspondingly, sodality was Winter's term for the apostolic band of the Apostles, and their historical legacies, religious missionary orders and missionaries appointed to go to specific places, peoples, and nations in order to advance the Gospel across cultures. The Jesuits would be a historically verifiable Catholic order, World Impact functions as a religious missionary order sending teams into specific neighborhoods where no church exists to plant churches where Christ is glorified, worshiped, and obeyed.

This question is critical for us today, given the remarkably privatized and fragmented spirituality that exists in no small part to hyper-Protestant sectarianism. With tens of thousands of Protestant church organizations claiming unique and autonomous status in terms of church authority, it is confusing to discover what particular authority or tradition a sodality may represent. Add to that the complexity and difficulty of many missional movements to trace their origins historically to the apostolic tradition, it gets even harder to discern who really represents what the apostles (with a capital "A") taught, did, and believed.

This is an important question for urban missions, and urban church planting in particular, so let's dialogue about the relationship of modality to sodality, and explore the implications of it for cross-cultural urban missions today.

Don

[Andrew Lee]

The issues of Modality and Sodality are still somewhat new to me, so I have more questions than comments. But hopefully, the answers will help me chew on this issue more.

One question that comes to mind is, are sodalities only used in cross-cultural ministry? From my understanding of Ralph Winter's definition, the local church in Acts (modalities) were the Christian synagogues led by converted Jews. The missionary bands (sodalities) were mainly formed to reach the gentiles allowing some freedom from the traditions of the modalities (i.e. circumcision). If this is true, is this the only application (cross-cultural) of modality/sodality today?

I think about the thread that Don Davis posted earlier, "Is a Mother Church Viable in the City?". If this is possible, would a sodality even be a part of this equation, or is the Mother Church (modality) simply planting other modality churches if those churches are within the same culture as the Mother Church within the city?

I've also heard of the modality/sodality relationship explained through the "church/para church" model. Congregational churches would be seen as the modality and any para church organization such as Promise Keepers, InterVarsity, Navigators, etc... would be sodalities in that they are not the church, but rather comes alongside (para) the local church to support them. I can see some freedom that the para church (sodality?) may have from the local congregation, but I strongly feel that any ministry done through that para church should ultimately result in supporting the local church. I would even go further to say that any para church organization, although greatly beneficial and valuable in its own right, only existed because the local church failed to minister in those areas that the para church ministry is focusing on. In other words, Bill McCarthy started Promise Keepers perhaps because the church failed to raise up godly men to lead their families and churches. The same can be said for the Navigators (focus on discipleship and Scripture memory) as well as InterVarsity and Campus Crusade for Christ. With this line of thinking, should what do we do in the city since most of these well known para church ministries are not urban related?

If all of this is true (making a lot of assumptions here), should all sodalities eventually lead to a modality (local church)? Or should all sodalities be replaced by a modality? Where would a new believer find their identity (sodality or modality)? Does it matter?

In the context of urban ministry, would a sodality only exist if an "outside" organization such as World Impact, plant a church? From then on, only modalities would birth from the planted church, correct?

My limited understanding of this leads me to generalize that a sodality exists because some tradition or format from the modality prevented some people group from hearing the gospel and knowing Christ. Using the early church as an example, Paul's missionary band (sodality) excluded the need for circumcision as a requirement for Antioch (modality).

Going down this path, theoretically, it would seem that the more sodalities there are, the "farther" away in tradition and culture from the original modality congregations the new congregations would become. That churches would evolve, via sodalities that are formed, to create more culturally conducive modalities. Am I correct in this interpretation?

If so, I guess the ultimate question is whether this is a good thing? I recall reading a thought from Erwin McManus who said, (paraphrasing here), that a local church should affect it's surrounding community and that the surrounding community should affect the local church. I would go further and say that the truth is that both can influence the other in both positive and negative ways, not just positive. So then, how do we determine what freedoms any churches or groups (sodalities) have in reaching the needs of the local community without being too "churchy" in their mind while also maintaining a high standard of tradition and "DNA" from the parent modality church?

Again, this is a new line of thought for me so perhaps I'm way off base on the point of this discussion and topic. Please feel free to correct, comment, etc.... my thoughts and points.

In an interesting side note that may pertain to this. I recently had lunch with a man who is in charge of the mercy ministry at a well known Presbyterian church in the heart of Philadelphia. This Presbyterian church is well known for it's reformed theology along with very well educated and traditionally rooted congregation (about 90% have at least a bachelor's degree, 50-60% have at least 1 graduate degree, many with multiple graduate degrees) and is located in a section of Philadelphia surrounded by row homes who's value ranges from $500,000 to $2 million. This man, however started ministering to the local homeless, homosexual, HIV infected and cross-dressing communities surrounding the church's location in Center City Philadelphia. He shared how at first, it seemed like "every dagger in the church was pointed at him", but now he is empowering the congregates of the church to join him in this important mercy mission. Granted it took him many years to get to this point (25 or so years). All of this to say, when I visited the church a few years ago, I was struck back by the high level of focus on reformed Presbyterian tradition (I felt like I was in a New England Ivy League University) along with the number of homeless and poor sitting in the front pews during the service. I find this dichotomy as perhaps an interesting clash between tradition and freedom.

[Don Allsman]

Two responses. First, for Andrew (and others joining in), I suggest you go back re-read Winter's article and other supporting discussion found in World Impact's Missionary Orientation Tranining Course (MOTC). It will bring you back up to speed on the terminology of modality and sodality. Then you can re-enter this discussion afresh. Rather than respond to all your questions, I think it's more efficient for you to read that material first.

Second, in my last post, I started to mention San Diego and got off track. My read on the SD church plant is that we are too hesitant to proclaim that our sodality is actually a modality in time and space. We will say we "are planting a church" or "starting a ministry" but we are somehow reluctant to flatly announce "we are the New Heights Church and we are inviting you to join us." This lack of clarity of identity causes new/potential converts confusion about what they are "signing up for." They might gravitate to our Bible studies, come to our activities, even be baptized, but all the while somewhat confused about what they are doing.

I suggested to the SD team that they be clear about 1) the name of their church 2) that the church is already there and is only adding members 3) that they are inviting people to join that specific church. Once that confusion is cleared up, a sodality can then boldly invite people into the life of a church is that is really there (not just a virtual/theoretical future entity).

A sodality should always be the core of a modality that is simply growing in numbers. This is where I agree with Don Davis that a thick line between sodality and modality can often muddy the waters and make our missionaries hesitant. A sodality in Phillipi is the church in Phillipi that can add Lydia and the jailer to its numbers.

Then the sodality goes to Thessolonica to be the modality in Thessolonica, leaving the modality in Phillipi behind.

Looking forward to ya'll's response.

[Jason Phelps]

A sodality should always be the core of a modality that is simply growing in numbers. This is where I agree with Don Davis that a thick line between sodality and modality can often muddy the waters and make our missionaries hesitant. A sodality in Phillipi is the church in Phillipi that can add Lydia and the jailer to its numbers.

Then the sodality goes to Thessolonica to be the modality in Thessolonica, leaving the modality in Phillipi behind.

This brings up a couple of questions:

First, if the core represents the leadership, which is made up of a sodality, and the numbers (I understood this as members/regular attenders) are the modality, then how could the sodality ever leave? My first attempt at reconciling this is with W.I. philosophy of reproduction, just follow our P.L.A.N.T. model. In other words, the sodality simply reproduces itself inside the modality so that when it leaves it leaves a core behind. However, from what I've gathered from some of our Church planters; this has not been very effective. The problem is the core - how can you build around a core that's expected to leave?

Second, if you belong to a sodality are you called to Church leadership?

We need a working definition for sodality, if we (W.I.) are claiming to be one. Winter's article draws the line at the '2nd level commitment' that is made by members, "a sodality is a structured fellowship in which membership involves an adult second decision beyond modality membership, and is limited by either age or sex or marital status." The Two Structures of God's Redemptive Mission. found in M.O.T.C, M5.

Defining the '2nd level of commitment' is vital because it is the line between the modality and sodality. And might not need to be thick, but it needs to be clear.

If the '2nd level of commitment' is the core of the modality, from Rev. Allsman's post, which I understood as the leadership within the church, then W.I. is about the business of becoming leaders for the church, and training leaders for the church. This fits into the model of select group functioning within a church - particularly one that is involved in a church planting movement.

Is this correct? Is this a proper understanding of 'core of the modality'?

Anther way to look at this, and answer the first question is, a sodality is the selective agent's of the church (modality) that deploys out, not to become the core, but to teach a core. What I've been challenged with now, is that a strong identity, coupled with connectivity (of the churches) and contextualization is the way to rapidly multiply churches. However, the core of the church would be the shared spirituality and identity that is of a particular culture, not the sodality. The sodality are the front-line providers of the core. This allows a sodality to leave, and leave the core behind.

[Don Davis]

One of the difficulties I see in wrestling with these issues is that we speak as if the sodality (apostolic band, church planters, missionary community) is a different species than the church gathered. It is better in my mind to see a sodality as a form of the church scattered, not a different church or unchurch or a-church, or supra-church. Paul and Peter counted themselves as fellow heirs and elders of the church; they were apostles, definitely, with a unique experience of seeing our Lord firsthand and a unique call as heralds of the risen Christ for the church through the ages. Yet, they acted, wrote, and lived as brothers and fellow citizens of the life to come.

The critical issue in these matters, in my mind, is contextualization, that is, once the apostolic band has fulfilled its Gospel ministry, we have a outpost of the Kingdom of God that reflects the Spirit of God present in that culture and people. Outside of this, the various sodalities and modalities will share everything that is fundamental with no difference: we eat from the same table, believe in the same Gospel, obey the same Lord, worship at the same altar, trust in the same Lord, wait for the same hope, serve daily with the same fervor, long for the same return. If we simply emphasize contextualization as the critical issue (which includes tangible things like language, culture, customs, etc.) but does not entail fundamental difference (since there is one hope, one calling, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, and one Lord).

Often the experience and language we use gives the sense that we are ontologically dissimilar; while we ought must be careful not to infringe on a people group's freedom to express this one, undivided faith in their own language and life, we cannot for one minute suppose that we are sharing anything than that which we both cherish and experience, that faith that animates and shapes our lives and gives us hope.

This is why we must find new and better ways to affirm without equivocation that we share the one, common faith and life which we received from the tradition of the apostles and prophets in the Scriptures concerning Jesus, risen from the dead, the offspring of David (2 Tim. 2.8). All valid sodalities, whether ministering in Shanghai or San Francisco, share this one, true, ancient hope. Being a sodality means that we are especially equipped and called to cross barriers of language, class, and culture and make that hope known and plain, and can plant a community within a people group that shares this same hope.

We are reproducing the same thing all over the earth. We are contextualizing it everywhere so people can hear, understand, respond, and serve the same Savior and Lord we do. If we understand this, we will see that Muddy Waters' homespun wisdom applies adroitly here: "You can't give what you ain't got, and you cain't lose what you ain't never had." Sodalities share out of the fullness of what they have received and lived; modalities embrace and embody that which they have received and live out in a people and community.

All that to say, I think Don's and Jason's comments, once filtered through this I've said, make perfect sense. We must not be shy about our spirituality, but unashamedly proclaim and flesh out what you call, Jason, the "core," and what I call the "Great Tradition," that doctrine and practice which all Christians everywhere have embraced and affirmed always in every place.

All church planting is then, reproducing after kind. Sodalities and modalities are branches from the same Tree, the One who alone legitimizes and undergirds both forms of the church.

Don

[Jason Phelps]

I totally agree. Give me your thoughts on this analogy: It's like the Army or Navy - they share core values and a fundamental tradition, that is taught and passed on to any new members. However, there are a select group of individuals, that together make up a select group, with a select mission (e.g. the Navy Seals or Army Rangers). They still fully share in their branch, they still belong to the Navy or Army. But they exist to do a job, that requires specific training or resources, that the larger body doesn't require.

I am in total agreement and a proponent myself, on establishing (or being clear) on the identity -specifically one that is rooted in the Great Tradition. This was never to be something debated. Even in Winter's article the sodality itself continued in the tradition it had already had, and it's mission was contexualization. When I was in Wichita over Christmas, I was able to talk with Scott and listen to his current responsibilities over in Iraq. His group of Marines are training the Iraqi police. My question was, what are you training them to be? His answer was, I guess Marines, because I don't know anything about being a police officer.

I agree: "You can't give what you ain't got, and you cain't lose what you ain't never had." Seems to me that these posts should be placed under the Great Tradition thread. Grace and peace.

[Don Davis]

Great analogy, Jason. The confluence of all of these issues with the Great Tradition shows how vital and energizing that Tradition can be. Sodality and modality are directly related to being grounded in a tradition, and therefore your suggestion that this be moved makes some sense.

Nevertheless, the idea of identity needs its own thorough and continuous string of thinking as it relates to modality and sodality. These categories were meant to be helpful in understanding the nature of missions in Scripture; the apostolic band and the gathered assembly. But to posit that in some way they are fundamentally separate without any interrelationship is neither exegetically nor missionally viable. A member of a sodality is just as you posit; trained in a tradition, representing that tradition in its missional vision and effort. It was not a different species, but a particular expression of that modality's commitment to the Great Commission and its fulfillment.

The fruitful, aggressive movements of church planting in the world today are of a kind, inspired by a particular community's faith and life.

Can you have a valid sodality that is truly independent of any legitimate authority grounded in the Great Tradition?

Don

[Jason Phelps]

Like Christian, Church planting, Mercenaries?