NewChurchLife

Comment from Matt
Time December 10, 2006 at 4:47 am

Hi Peter,

Just discovered your blogsite today. I was so excited when I started reading the stories and what’s happening around the place. In fact I was so surprised that so much was going on. I don’t expect this comment to be posted because of what I’ll say next. I had heard a little about you whilst I was living Poland. I went there in 1989 to study Polish and ended up living there for 10 years. I studied at the polish Adventist seminary. Without going into to much detail, following Jesus lead me into a lot of personal evangelism and discipleship.

I had witnessed to many young folk (at the high school I was teaching at) at birthday parties etc, when a couple of the folk wanted to visit my church. I stepped away for a moment when one of the saint’s was giving them a lecture on dress codes. As you could expect, they never returned to church again. The next day I was complaining to God about it. Something like “what’s the point, bringing people to church and they get beat up before making it throught the door etc!” God brought the illustration of the wine and the wineskins to mind and God gave it fresh application (Mt 9:17). The old wine skins (churches) would burst with the new wine (new believers) that was so different from old wine (existing members). God made it clear: ‘start new churches’ (new wine skins) to accomandate for the new folk that was so different from the heavily sedated members in the existing churches . I asked Him “How?” He said “He would show me”.

Hence, from that time (1991) my passion and vision has been for church planting. Unfortunatley, when I approached leaders (in Poland after completing seminary there in 1994) and upon arriving in Australia (1999 – greater Sydney conference), they didn’t respond, I might say, too positively. Even when I offered to plant a church for nothing! (At least initailly untill the plant got off the ground).

i picked up work as a youth pastor in Warburton Victoria for a year and was offered an interniship from Daryl Croft at the time but chose to move to Queensland. After speaking with the president here and sending in my resume, they have never contacted me so have gone about low-key ministry doing what I would normally do anyway (witnessing one-one-, discipling folk, looking for potential leaders amongst the young and investing time with them with practical training in various areas ect).

It was between 1991-1998 that the Lord showed primarily in three ways, how I should go about church planting.
1. The Scriptures – mainly in the gospels, Jesus the Leader, the master discipler – how he recruited, trained, monitered, nurtured and released disciples into leadership (to recieve His life, carry on His mission and ministry).
2. Putting into practice what I read and learning to be obedient the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
3. Advice from others that had been down the track. I had spoken with several pastors whilst in the U.S. in 1993 and 1994 how thy had planted their churches during the summer months whilst visiting churches in the Chicago district.

There were a number of key areas that God made me more aware over that time in terms of church planting. Some of the ideas I had at the time were so radical, some of my friends thought I was nuts (maybe I am). But God gave me a vision for a local church with none of the traditional offices (elders, decons etc) built on a whole new structure – ie. small groups where all mission activities are sparked by the Holy spirit and lead out by home group leaders.
The crux of it all being – Disciples being discipled to make disciples (continuing the mission of Jesus) , which can only be accomplished by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit so that we, (the believers) can continue the ministry of Jesus in the 21st century. On the larger scale – churches, planting churches that will plant more churches. (I was inspired earlier this year to write the course of events from growing up in the church to when God got me, and how God lead me to certain understandings re ministry, mission and church planting in more detail if you are interested in a 10 page read).
I have since found out that this style of church now exists in the U.S. amongsts Adventists called ‘cell churches’…

That may give you some info about me at least for the moment and would like to hear from you. Last time I saw your name was president of the Trans-European Division. Has that altered?

Thanks Peter, for a great website!

Matt

Comment from peter
Time December 10, 2006 at 4:57 am

Hello Matt, It is good to hear from you. I was first in Poland in 1991 – and have been there many times since. Thanks for sharing your story – and your commitment to “planting churches that plant more churches.” I would be very interested in your 10 page journey. I am off to Sydney this morning (for a church planting committee tomorrow) – but will be in touch. You would have also been interested in checking out the post “Is there a Church in the House?” Regards, Peter

Comment from Matt
Time December 12, 2006 at 3:35 pm

Hi Peter,

I have been reading through church planting news…Wow! There are some really committed folk out there. It’s inspiring to hear people’s stories on an arena very near and dear to my heart. I haven’t come across ‘Is there a church in the house” yet. Let us know how to get the 10 page “Church planting journey’ to you.

Blessings
Matt

Comment from peter
Time December 19, 2006 at 5:03 pm

Hello Matt, Just a note on your Dec 10 comment. I was never president of the Trans-European Division. I served there as Ministerial Secretary – which involved resourcing pastors, visiting leaders and pastors, working with the Education Department to provide educational programs for pastors in the field and in the seminaries; and as the Global Mission Coordinator – which is the church planting ‘department’ of the world church. I conducted a number of public evangelism programs in Poland – as well as church planting schools. I am now planting a church in Melbourne, Australia – and network with many church planters and leaders of planting movements. Blessings. Peter

Comment from Tony & Jean Mackenzie
Time April 23, 2009 at 1:03 am

Matt we are so thrilled to read your about you short trip and am allready inspired. We would love a copy of Church Planting journey Please. God Bless.

Comment from Matt Britten
Time October 3, 2009 at 5:38 am

Hi Tony and Jean,

So sorry for missing your comments. Just to let you know, the 10 page account is about God’s leading and training and a certain approach to church planting that I’m hoping to fully implement when I get the green light. So the material has plenty of stories about small groups, discipleship and Kingdom stuff. I would be happy to send you a copy of my journey if you are still interested. So, let me know and we’ll work out how.
Matt

Comment from Matt Ziemer
Time January 13, 2011 at 4:29 am

New Wineskins for the New Wine
By Kendall Schmitke

Nearly 2000 years ago Jesus Christ poured the foundation of a Church that he declared would overcome the very gates of hell. But the Church’s history reveals that it has not always lived up to its high calling. At times and in places it has been the vessel of transformation, declaring God’s reign with power and potency. But at others it has seemed ineffective and incapable of even holding ground. It seems that the much-needed revivals of history came with fresh winds of change. The Church re-invented itself in the fires of the Reformation and on the heels of the great evangelists. And we in North America may be due.
Quite frankly, Quesnel’s churches are not even keeping up with the birthrate never-mind transforming our culture. We are having few victories and much restlessness. Mostly we trade sheep. There are many disenfranchised and frustrated believers among us who don’t even bother with church anymore. Yes, we are due. We are desperately in need of a revival that will sweep through this town leaving a thriving, pulsating church in its wake. I don’t believe that the Church as it stands in Quesnel today is going to usher in such a movement. It is an old wineskin that can not contain new wine.
I believe that Quesnel is ripe for a Church movement akin to the Church we read about in the book of Acts. Now there was a Church of power, excitement and fertility. What if we could return? What if we could see our city saturated with house churches meeting in every sector, the Church released from mortgages and salaries, every member empowered and involved and truly cared for. What if we could see a Church Without Walls? This is not a new idea. It is more like the grass-roots Church before organization. It is clusters of people meeting together for teaching, fellowship, worship, empowerment, the sacraments, etc. It meets in houses instead of official church buildings and has leadership but not staff. It is dedicated to fostering intimate personal relationships, accountability and involvement of every individual. In essence, the Church Without Walls devotes itself solely to what most churches are straining to develop in small group ministries. I believe it is exactly the wineskin we’re looking for!
There are several base concepts that Church Without Walls is built upon. First, the Church should be about deep relationships. By deep I mean transparent, caring, engaging relationships. Churches Without Walls would cultivate relationships that are personal and intimate. Because the group is smaller there is less opportunity for mask-wearing and for hurting people slipping through the cracks. So if you tell someone in your church that you are fine when you’re not, they know you are lying. You will have developed the relationship to the point where you can be vulnerable and honest. You can share your hurts, concerns and fears and find compassion and comfort. You can ask questions without fear of rejection, and these people are interested in helping you because they have loved you. Larger groups are simply not able to create this environment. Ironically the larger the group, the lonelier and more isolated each individual is. Therefore, many large churches put huge amounts of energy into developing small group ministries because they know how important true relationship building is for the Church. Churches Without Walls would cultivate deep relationships naturally.
Second, the Church should be about empowering and releasing. Churches Without Walls require a vast amount of low-level leadership and involvement from everyone. The environment is very suited to raising leaders, providing opportunities for service and developing spiritual gifts in intimacy. In a small group everyone pitches in. Spiritual gifts are easily identified and fostered in an atmosphere of love and relationship. And as the group grows, new leaders have been homegrown and are given opportunity to stretch their wings. In the traditional church, the gap between professionals and pew-warmers is massive. Usually over eighty percent of the people are not involved in ministry, and they are intimidated by comparisons with highly trained staff. Instead of empowering the people, staff members usually end up doing the work for the people thereby quenching any flicker of opportunity. Elton Trueblood wrote, “There is no real chance of victory in a campaign if ninety percent of the soldiers are untrained and uninvolved, but that is exactly where we stand now.” The Body as we see it in our churches is emaciated and highly dependent on a few, but Churches Without Walls would be highly effective at involving and exercising each part.
Third, the Church should be about multiplication. The purpose of the Church is to duplicate itself and spread through every nation. The form it takes must be easily reproducible. The traditional church is not wired for multiplication but for growth. It is designed to get bigger, require more space and staff, and eventually to resign itself to maintenance mode. As my American friend says, the church can’t give itself to its real work because it has to “feed the monkey.” The bigger the budget, the bigger the monkey. In my church we brag about giving eighteen percent of our budget to missions, but the rest goes to feed our fat monkey. We can only dream of being able to plant another church, and this is a time of financial growth and freedom of religion. If a church finds itself in a large city with high property prices or in the midst of persecution then it will find buildings and staffing prohibitive. Churches Without Walls would find themselves free from the obligations of mortgages and salaries, and ready to give more readily to serving others, supporting missions and multiplying.
Admittedly, House Churches have met with criticism within Christian circles. I would like to address two of these potential flaws. First, the House Church is thought to be susceptible to heresy. This is a very real threat. Each House Church carries it’s own authority and although it is encouraged to enter accountability relationships there is always the possibility of rogue leaders taking people astray. The risk of heresy is there, but I don’t believe that hierarchies and denominations are the answer either. A brief glance at Church history reveals that the traditional church is also vulnerable to heresy, and not only that, but when the Church leaders held the most power it was most susceptible! Roman Catholicism led most quickly away from Scripture when the power lay in the hands of a few. Today the oldest evangelical denominations are quickest to legitimize homosexuality in direct contradiction of Scripture. Doctrinal safety will not be found in men or institutions. Instead I believe that doctrinal integrity depends on commitment to the authority of Scripture, the seeking of the Holy Spirit and relational accountability. As each Church Without Walls submits to Christ and commits itself to accountability relationships with one another they will find true doctrinal unity and security.
The second criticism that the House Churches face has to do with its fragility. John Stackhouse Jr. says that the House Church movement is subject to breakdown because it “doesn’t have any other kind of sociological structure to sustain it when people get grumpy or leadership gets weak.” He goes on to say that, “One of the positive things to say about the traditional congregation is that it will outlast you and will outlast your interest or lack of same.” Although I understand his sentiment, I can’t help but wonder if there has been a confusion of priorities. Remember that the Church is in the business of building people, not monuments. What good is it if we build a structure that outlasts its people? The Church is the people! Someone has suggested that we should scrap every denomination every one hundred years. I agree because I don’t think that rigidity is a good substitute for fragility. Instead, maybe fragility is a good thing. Maybe it will serve to keep the Church fresh. If we approach each group of people as a portion of the Church rather than as an organization then when a church moves, changes focus or even splits, it has not died but evolved. The key then is not keeping something alive, but seeing it change for the good.
As I stated earlier, I don’t believe House Churches to be a new thing but to be a return to the Church that Paul and the apostles knew. The New Testament tells us that the Church of that day did gather corporately, but that it met in houses (Acts 2:46; 5:42; 8:3; 20:20). Paul wrote to the churches that met in the homes of Aquila and Priscilla (I Cor 16:19), Apphia and Archipus (Phil 1:2-3) and Nympha (Col 4:15). These meetings in the different houses included all of the ordinances and practices that we expect to find in today’s church buildings. In these gatherings the elders collected money to be used in supporting the needy (I Cor 16:1-2) and supporting missionaries (Ac 18:1-5; I Cor 9:3-15; II Cor 11:7-9; Ph 4:15-19). The believers celebrated communion (Ac 2:46; 20:7), performed baptisms (Ac 2:41; 8:12; 16:33), and received teaching (Ac 2:42; 11:26; 15:35; 18:5). Paul and the other leaders multiplied themselves by appointing elders of the local house churches before they left so that the groups could be self-governing (Ac 14:23; 20:28; II Tim 2:2; Tit 1:5). Paul still hoped and trusted that they would submit to him in his letters and visits but the authority lay with the local elders. This may sound dangerous but Paul also encouraged the leaders to protect themselves by entering accountability relationships (Rom 16:17; I Tim 6:3-5; II Tim 1:13, Tit 1:9). It is very interesting to me that Paul did not plant churches that would stay under his thumb. Instead he trusted God with His Church and released them into the hands of their local elders. How many times do we see that happen today?
This brings me to what I think is the most important Biblical principle supporting House Churches. They do not give authority, fame or fortune to men, but glorify God and rely solely on Him. Essentially, the Church must surrender its goal of personal grandeur and sacrificially serve the interests of others before itself. John had a lot to say about this principle in Christ’s life. In I John 3:16-18 he encouraged believers to lay down their lives for others as Christ had laid down his life for us, and warned against loving people in word but not in deed. In John 15:12-17 he again called us to love each other as we were loved by Him, and he promised that as we did we would go and bear fruit that would last! He drives the point home with a quote from Jesus’ own lips. Speaking of his coming death Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.” (John 12:24 NIV) If we want to see God’s Church built we had better be operating along Kingdom principles and within the Kingdom economy! God blesses sacrifice, not selfishness. How much more should the Church reflect Christ’s own life of sacrifice and submission to God’s will over its own?
I long to see Quesnel transformed by the Church, and I am convinced that Church Without Walls would make a capable vehicle for several reasons. First, a House Church network can saturate the city and surrounding areas with effective churches. Rather than having a few centralized places of worship which people must travel to, the church comes to them. This is ideal for the many who don’t have means of transportation, or who live in remote places where trips to town are prohibitive. In times of persecution it allows the Church to continue its work underground. It also allows many types of different meeting times and places to be viable. For instance, the Church could meet during lunch breaks in office buildings, for breakfast in an apartment complex, or for an outdoor summer service in someone’s backyard. Essentially it multiplies the opportunities for many types of people to gather.
Secondly, a House Church network frees the group from obligations that eat up precious ministry resources. The most obvious is the relief from financial obligations that pull us away from our visions and into maintenance mode. Instead money can be put towards missions and outreach in the community. But finances aren’t the only resource heavily taxed in the traditional church. There is also far less planning and administration for the leaders in the House Church, freeing them for the works of teaching and shepherding. There are fewer programs to keep running so the dutiful servants are able to keep fresh and serve with passion and fervor as the Spirit leads. As issues arise in an individuals life in the House Church others do not find themselves already taxed to exhaustion.
Thirdly, the House Church network is intergenerational. It involves each person from children to seniors in the work of the church together! We all know that it takes a village to raise a child, and the House Church has cross-generational interaction built right into its structure. In the traditional church we are quick to divide people into age or special interest groups. The teens can’t relate to the seniors, the families can’t relate to the singles. We seem to think that the solution is in providing a ministry suited to each demographic. I disagree! Instead, the House Church fosters understanding and appreciation of all types and ages of people. I believe that many of our worship wars in the traditional church have less to do with musical styles than they do with respect and acceptance. The different generations haven’t learned to live together because we haven’t expected them to interrelate! As someone once said, the best way to keep two kids from fighting is to handcuff them together. The House Church handcuffs different people together in intimate relationships thereby bridging the generational gaps.
Fourth, the House Church reaches those who are distrustful of institutions. Many people today have had a sour experience with a church in the past. They are slow to trust formal churches again. Others have picked up their ideas about the Church from the media and from their friend’s horror stories. Sometimes it seems that even personal invitations are intimidating simply because of the building. Not only that, but our people are afraid to invite their friends for fear of rejection. They instinctively know that the traditional church has little in common with their friends lives. The House Church provides a safe, familiar and comfortable environment for the church to meet in and to invite their friends to. Its meetings are characterized by acceptance and committed relationships, both things that the world values. People with little or no church background will not find this meeting so bizarre, and those who have not fit into the traditional church can find a home there.
Fifth, House Churches operate along existing relational networks. Each member of the house church is committed to reaching out personally to unsaved friends and coworkers. There is no other option. And as each church multiplies, it comes into contact with more and more un-churched people. Although there is talk in the traditional church of friendship evangelism, it is inclined towards more impersonal methods. It tends to favor safe things like Yellow Page advertising, posted service times, flyers, radio announcements and telephone message systems. It plants a flag and tries to make people aware of its existence. The House Church instead operates more naturally along relational lines because it is not program (or even purpose) driven, but relationship driven.
Finally, one great benefit of the House Church is that it empowers and involves all of its members. In the smaller groups everyone plays a part and the Body is flexing and working efficiently. There is no eighty/twenty rule, where twenty percent of the people do eighty percent of the work. Instead there is a high demand for ministry and a mutual dependence on each of the other members. There is far less of an expectation on certain leaders to carry out the work of the ministry, and instead each person recognizes their responsibility to be exercising their gifts. Leadership potential is quickly spotted, trained and released. Spiritual gifts are discerned and exercised. The cracks through which people might fall are squeezed tight and the Church becomes a well-oiled machine with all of its parts operating at peak efficiency.
We are due for a revival, for new wine to come and for a new patch to be sewn. Along with the old wineskins which have served and continue to serve their purpose, we need new wineskins, flexible and fresh to usher in a new era of Church movement. We need a method of doing church that can reach the rest of our city’s lost people. The Church will continue to take many forms but in Quesnel I am convinced that our current church structures will not suffice, and a House Church movement may be just the wineskin we have all been praying for.

Comment from Matt
Time February 8, 2011 at 2:06 am

Matt Ziemer, great post! If you happen to read this, get back to us to let us know what neck of the woods you live in. The article mentions Quesnel, Canada? Is that your city or just the author’s? Let us know what you do and how you are involved with church and or ministry.