The Only Way to Disciple Whole Nations:

We have come to the tenth year of the Third Millennium, which is almost 2,000 years since our Lord Jesus gave His Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations” (Mt. 28:19-20). With His full authority over heaven and earth (v.18), and with his promise to build His church without hindrance from the powers of hell (16:18), why has His church failed to finish the job? Why is one-third of the world’s populations still largely unreached? May I humbly venture to suggest a possibility: the church has failed to faithfully move in His wisdom! The challenge before us is to think, plan and work strategically under the guidance of the Holy Spirit!

For the past two millennia, the church has been working on a self-defeating (or counter-productive) strategy, thereby disabling herself to mobilize the whole church to reach the whole world. The early church was doing quite well, until Constantine made the church shift into the slow-paced mode of operation. If we continue this slow expansion, we will not be able to evangelize the world in another 1,000 years! Since AD 313, when Christianity became a state religion, the church has become dependent on “full-time missionaries” to reach the nations! It’s no longer the whole church, but only a few “called ones” who answer the Great Commission to be witnesses for Christ to the ends of the earth!

A. What? CPM: The alternative mission strategy

Instead, the church should have remained under a “total mobilization” mode to realize “church planting movements (CPM).” In the early church, cross-cultural (and local) missions had been done by almost all believers (Ac.8:1,4;11:19-21). Simple believers who scattered due to persecution in Jerusalem just used their homes to reach their neighbors and disciple them for Christ. As the saying goes, “Everyone with Christ is a missionary, and everyone without Christ is a mission-field.”

In CPM, cross-cultural missions happen “naturally” through all believers (so-called “lay-people”) making disciples of other (newer and/or younger) believers, and also being encouraged to migrate, work or study among the unreached as “tentmakers” (i.e. Christians using their vocations to go among the unreached to be models and witnesses for Christ). Like the Apostle Paul, these “bi-vocationals” would not only be supporting themselves, but also subsidizing their co-workers and even helping the poor (Acts 20:34-35)!

Or better, global missions will be mainly through sending our leading disciple-makers to train Christians near the major unreached peoples to do this “natural” church multiplication strategy, now known in missionary and missiological circles as “church planting movement (CPM).” They will aim to disciple just a few (perhaps a dozen, like what our Lord Jesus did in His earthly ministry) “faithful people who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim.2:2). To go cross-cultural, these disciplers just have to focus on a few contacts who are bi-lingual or bi-cultural; and these disciples will be able, usually within a few months’ time, to make new disciples among their compatriots through the “natural” webs of relationships (esp. kin and friends) – almost always with greater effectively, more cultural sensitivity and faster “multiplier effect.”

To clarify the concept of CPM, let us look at the author’s two favorite models called: “P.O.U.C.H.” and “T4T.”

P.O.U.C.H. Model. One of the first prominent CPMs was done by an American tentmaker in China. After a few weeks in China, he sought God’s guidance for the fastest way to evangelize his target people. He thought of one strategy: win one convert to Christ each day. But he calculated that even if he faithfully did this, he would hardly make a dent among his people-group of 6 million souls! He was 25 years old, so if he retired at 65, he had 40 years to make 365 converts per year, which totals only less than 15,000. So at the end of 40 years of faithful ministry, there will be 5,985,000 still unreached!

Then he thought of a second strategy: together with his Chinese Christian friends, they will form 20 church planting teams, each planting one church per year. With a church for every 1,200 people in the region, he needed to plant at least 5,000 churches. How many years will it take to plant 5,000 churches, if 20 are planted per year? 250 years! By then, at least 8 generations would have died, and the population would have increased to 60 million or more!

It’s good that he knew of the explosive growth in the house church networks in China. So he though of a third strategy: rapid church multiplication through planting reproducible churches! That means, each church should be able to plant another church within one year. The estimated result? He can plant 5,000 churches within 13.25 years only! Achievable! The key is to plant reproducible churches. When he implemented this strategy with his Chinese friends, they had 55,000 believers (from an original group of about 60) meeting in about 4,000 cells or house churches within 3 years! He left them very soon, in order to repeat the same process elsewhere. He has been training other missionaries to do CPMs since then.

He has come up with 5 characteristics of “reproducible churches,” with the acronym”P.O.U.C.H.” These are: (1) Participative group meetings – the leader is a facilitator of discussion around God’s Word, instead of a lecturer or preacher; (2) Obedience – the goal of meetings is to make disciples, to teach them to obey God’s word; (3) Unpaid lay leaders (read: tentmakers!) – they found out that the most effective leaders were housewives who hardly finished Grade 3! (4) Cells or small groups – Maximum size is 15 adults; before reaching that number, the house church must start another house church; and (5) Houses or venues that do not require rent or lot purchase. With almost no “overhead costs,” believers can start new churches among their friends and contacts through “natural relationships” and simple witnessing for Christ in their hometowns and in their friends’ facilities!

T4T Model. Another model may be the fastest CPM in the world today: T4T or “Training for Trainers,” was devised by a Chinese-American who went to China as a “tentmaker-missionary,” as an English teacher. He was approached by thirty (30) believers who wanted him to teach them how to evangelize in the city. He taught them more than what they asked for. He discipled them to become witnesses and disciple-makers for Christ – in a quite amazing way! Within six (6) months, they had more than 4,000 baptized members in 327 house-churches; in 12 months, more than 12,000 baptized members in 908 house-churches; in 18 months, about 53,420 in 3,535 house-churches; and in 24 months, 104,542 in 9,320 house-churches! Now, that’s explosive, exponential growth! Real rapid church multiplication!

How did they do this? They believed that there are only two (2) kinds of people on earth: non-Christians who need to be evangelized, and Christians who need to be trained to do evangelism. They also believed that they should “train every Christian, but disciple only doers of the Word.”

Using the participative approach in a workshop, the tentmaker asked these 30 factory workers why they were not sharing the gospel. They replied that they had four (4) problems: They did not know (1) what to say, (2) who to say it to, (3) why should they do it, and (4) what to do if their contact says “yes”! The answer to these hindrances to witnessing became their action-plan!

What to say? Tell your story! They were all encouraged and guided on how to compose three-minute testimonies, on what Jesus Christ meant for them. Those who wrote long testimonies were told to cut them down to just three minutes. And all had to memorize these word-for-word, otherwise they were not allowed to leave the room!

Who to say it to? Five people only, esp. those who will most probably believe their testimony. They each made a list of five family members, friends, work-mates or neighbors!

Why should they do it? What better motivation than group accountability! That’s to report what they have done in a weekly meeting. In short, in their house-church meeting! Those who failed to witness were encouraged by the rest; and some proved to be “super-spreaders,” very effective witnesses for Jesus!

What to do if their contacts say “yes” to Jesus? Just give them six (6) lessons: (1) assurance of salvation, (2) prayer, (3) daily devotion, (4) body-life in the church, (5) understanding God and His will, and (6) witnessing, which means learning to share their (memorized) testimonies to at least five people close to them! All subsequent meetings are simply for Bible sharing or Bible reflection in their small groups.

Those who responded to their witness (and most did! any reason they won’t?) formed new house-churches in the homes (or work-places) of the ones who brought them to Christ! These two models of CPM may be modified by anyone who wants to multiply disciples and churches in their neighborhood or workplace.

B. Why? Back to Basics: Biblical missiology

The CPM mission strategy follows that of Jesus, Paul and the early church in the New Testament (NT). It is based on a simple doctrine (“priesthood of all believers”) and a simple practice (“making disciples”) in a simple structure (“house churches”). We have inherited quite a complex Christianity filled with man-made traditions, so that it has become harder for us to practice “basic Christianity” (prayer, Bible study, fellowship and witnessing) in “basic Christian Communities” (small groups, called “house-churches” in the NT). So we think that missions can be done only by experts to plant (actually, to transplant) our (traditional/denominational) local church to other lands/cultures.

But in the NT mission paradigm, every Christian is expected to become a disciple-maker (a spiritually mature reproducing believer). After all, the NT teaches that every believer is a prophet, priest and king (servant-leader) in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only and unique Second Moses, High Priest and Royal Messiah (with no mediators in between). It is “upon all flesh” that the Spirit is poured out at Pentecost, so we all (not just professional evangelists) can declare God’s words and works to the nations (Ac. 2:17-18; 1 Pet.3:15). It is the “entire people of God” that functions as a priesthood (1 Pet 2:9-10; Rev. 1:6 etc), so that we all (not just ordained pastors and priests) can intercede for people and offer sacrifices of praise and obedience to God (Heb.13:15-16; Rom. 12:1-8). And it is the “whole body of Christ” that reigns with Christ in the heavenlies (Eph. 2:6-7), so that we all (not just “full-time” church workers) can work for the transformation of cultures and structures through the use of our spiritual gifts in loving service to all humankind (Mt. 5:13-16; 2 Cor. 10:3-5).

CPM was actually the original strategy that our Lord Jesus used when He was on earth: to win the world, he just used this simple disciple-making strategy: He called 12 ordinary people (mostly rural folks!) After discipling them for a while (Mk. 3:13-15), he sent them out two by two (that’s 6 pairs) to make 12 disciples themselves (Matt. 9:35-10:16). When he sent his disciples out the second time, he didn’t send out the 12, but the “72 others” (Lk. 10:1,17). These “72 others” were sent out two by two: that’s 36 pairs going forth to make 12 new disciples each, thereby making 432 new disciples in all! 1 Corinthians 15:6 mentions that after the resurrection, our Lord appeared to more than 500 (432 + 72) brethren! If these 500 paired up, that’s 250 making 12 new disciples each. Then they would be able to disciple exactly 3,000 new converts! And that’s exactly what happened on the birthday of the church at Pentecost: all converts were baptized immediately, since the apostles knew they would all be followed up and disciples in at least 250 house churches in Jerusalem (“from house to house”, cf. Acts 2:41-47). No wonder their numbers increased DAILY!

Jesus’ CPM model was of rural Jews multiplying disciples among Jews without creating another organized religious system parallel or counter to the synagogue (of early Judaism). He did not intend to found a new religion, but his movement later on became an institution (Bosch 1991: 50-51). He even had “secret believers” in Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, and perhaps through them, Gamaliel – doing CPM in the Sanhedrin (the highest governing body of the Jews then).

The apostles and the early Christians followed the same pattern, too. They reached out to their compatriots as Jews to Jews within the Temple and synagogue structures of Jewish society, and just met “from house to house,” evangelizing and discipling a few households at a time. Within a few years of such CPM, they had literally turned the Roman Empire upside down (Ac. 17:6 KJV). They did not create a clergy class, nor construct (or even rent) a religious building nor hold regular religious services, except to break bread weekly in their homes.^[i] It was the teaching and practice of the apostle Paul (perhaps the best model of a cross-cultural missionary) not to plant a growing “local church,” but an indigenous disciple-making movement in house churches that are formed by converts who did not have to be dislocated from their homes and communities (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23).

This NT practice actually grows out of the spirituality of Old Testament (OT) Israel, which shows God’s design and structure for a reached, discipled or transformed people: (1) There were no local shrines or temples in each village or town.

(2) There were no weekly Sabbath worship services (synagogues came later in 200 B.C. for teaching Diaspora Jews).^[ii]

(3) There we no weekly nor monthly collection of tithes and offerings.^[iii]

(4) There were no “full-time” clergy (the levitical priests were provided not just with cities, but also with pasturelands: Josh. 21).^[iv]

(5) The OT Jews were required to celebrate communally as a people in the national Temple (note: God’s original design was a portable and transportable Tabernacle) only three times a year: Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles (Dt. 16:16). And

(6) The actual teaching and obedience of the “way of God’s righteousness” was in the homes (Dt. 6:1-11)!

Biblical Christianity is therefore supposed to be structured as a network of simple churches (usually called “house churches”). It is not “churchless Christianity” nor “religionless Christianity (cf. IBMR Editorial 2005; Tennent 2005),” but “simple Christianity.” Its mission is to reproduce simple groups of Christ-worshippers without elaborate religiosity. Thus the mission statement of the Philippine house church movement is: “to multiply God’s church throughout the world, one household at a time.” This seeks to fulfill God’s covenants with Abraham that through him every family on earth will be blessed (Gen. 12:3, cf. Gal. 3:14, 29), and with Israel that she will be a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6, cf. 1 Pet. 2:9-10).

C. Why? Church History: Christendom Has Failed

Unless church leaders and missionaries who have been ministering in non-Christian-majority contexts shift paradigms of church and ministry, they will remain ineffective, even if they seem to be winning a number of converts at a time. In the milieu of rapid population increase and growing mission activities of other religions, esp. among the poor, we need to adopt a more effective approach, otherwise millions of non-Christians will continue to die and go to eternal destruction by the millions each year!

Global Christianity (including Evangelicalism) has unwittingly fallen into a trap, which is historically known as “the Babylonian captivity of the church,” that constitutes the Christendom paradigm of church and also often called “western shape” which most third world churches have adopted. Thinking that this will result in better church growth, Christian leaders have been promoting “the local church is the base for ministry and/or world evangelization.” By “local church” is meant a congregation that seeks to have a full-time pastor (and a pastoral staff as it grows bigger) and her own sanctuary (ideally bought and owned rather than rented), in order to attract and maintain an ever-increasing attendance in her weekly Sunday worship services.

Though this looks appealing (and not many have seriously questioned this tradition), it has been a self-defeating (and historically, quite self-destructive) trap: for the maintenance mode of local churches have almost always killed (often sooner than later) the mission mode of the (whole) church! A lot of Christian resources become absorbed into the maintenance of church activities (e.g., evangelistic rallies, Sunday Schools, youth camps, mission conferences, building projects, etc. etc.) for nominal believers who offer to God (often hypocritically!) what are conveniently “extras” from the “abundant blessings” that He provides in their middle class “comfort zones”! Usually only a pittance (ever calculated the percentage of church budgets that really go into missions?) are actually spent to help reach out to non-church members! In secular terms, this is NOT cost-effective! Or in spiritual terms, it is poor stewardship! Why?

May I suggest that there are at least three ways by which local church structures become hindrances to church growth: they stunt quality growth, quantity growth and long-term growth!

1. They hinder quality growth. In spite the zeal and fervency affirmed in the songs, prayers and sermons of worship services, they actually nurture nominalism (or worse, hypocrisy)! Disciples are made in small groups, not big meetings. Yet most (if not all) local churches would emphasize congregational assemblies rather than cell groups. The best proof is: where do they look to count their weekly church attendance? Such emphasis is perhaps inevitable, because of the hierarchical (perhaps undeniably elitist) and clerical model of church in the minds of most Christians nowadays and ever since the Edict of Milan (in AD 313 when Constantine enforced Christianity in the Roman Empire) when the bishops introduced the diocesan and parish structures to the church!

Thereby almost inevitably, most church activities (including the central “Sunday worship services”) have helped keep Christians immature spiritually. They are kept perennially as “spiritual babies” who are dependent on pastors, church buildings and church programs to “feel spiritual” or even just to “be in God’s presence.” Almost all “lay-people,” even after 40-50 years in faith, would still need to be visited or counseled or prayed for/blessed (by “pastors” usually), still self-centered, and needing to be served (instead of being equipped to minister to others, cf. Eph. 4:11-16). A majority would hesitate to lead in public prayers or to do personal evangelism! Instead of spiritual empowerment, they experience spiritual disempowerment! In short, local churches normally produce “nominal (or baby) Christians,” not “committed disciples”!

2. They hinder quantity growth. Moreover, local churches stunt the amount and the rate of numerical increase of the church! We have mentioned above how they waste a lot of resources in maintenance, mostly on more costly ways to keep the members happy, if not “spoiled.” In fact, to attract more people to Christ, they create more “come structures” (read: church programs that almost always has to border on entertainment; how else are they going to be seeker-friendly, given the competition “out there” in the world?), rather than more “go structures” (read: more secular-looking programs NOT held in church buildings)!^[v]

And instead of “total church mobilization” to evangelize their community and the ends of the earth, local churches elicit low commitment from their members (besides weekly church attendance and giving their offerings), hence the need to constantly cajole people to be more active in church. Meanwhile, they enhance the role of “full-timers” (pastors and missionaries) to be the key players in doing evangelism and missions! “Reaching out to the lost” becomes the job of specialists, and not of the whole body! No wonder the rate of growth of local churches decreases as they increase (often slowly) in size! How tragic! Should we not be longing for a more “spontaneous expansion of the church” involving the whole church to reach the whole world? Hardly any local church has been able to sustain rapid quantity church growth for ten years – with the only exception that they were able to institutionalize a strong cell multiplication program whereby every member is encouraged (or required!) to be a member of a small group. Yet how many have been able to maintain and sustain such structure beyond twenty years?

3. They hinder long-term growth. And worst, local churches are structured in such a way that future growth (in quality and quantity), if any, will be stunted! The emphasis on big assemblies, magnificent buildings and super-gifted “full-timers” seems to fit into the less democratic (or more authoritarian) societies in Asia. But in the long term, this breeds the “superstar complex” in the church leaders and “hero (bordering on demi-god, as in Korea) worship” among the members. Tragically, in the long term this results in the appointment or election of “lay leaders” (often called “trustees,” “elders” or “deacons”) who are chosen on the basis of their popularity – often due to their giftedness in public speaking (or singing) and/or in political savvy, including the use of wealth for self-promotion (perhaps often unintentionally). The almost inevitable rise of such populist leaders, especially as the church grows richer and becomes middle- or upper-class (known as “redemptive lift”), usually results in the degeneration of the quality of church Leadership – often sooner than later. Normally the second generation of local church leaders (both clergy and lay) would be good bureaucrats (knowledgeable in maintenance management) rather than good entrepreneurs (who can provide visionary and creative Leadership).

But more tragic, their concept of spirituality also often degenerates into “spiritual showmanship” (usually on stage, something which our Lord Jesus clearly denounced in Mt. 6:1-18), thereby placing non-functioning people (who are not doing actual disciple-making) in positions of authority, while the functioning ones (who are doing actual disciple-making) are busy taking care of the flock, often in their silent ways (even shying away from accepting administrative roles that entail a series of committee meetings). Thus, local churches produce spiritually immature (perhaps often quite hypocritical) leaders who hardly contribute to quality or quantitative church growth at all!

So, are we destined to have local churches that gradually become less and less effective in evangelism, discipleship and missions? Not necessarily, but it comes at great cost to our present Christendom structures. Are we willing to shift to a more decentralized (less hierarchical and less clerical) paradigm of church? That is, to transform our local churches into house-church networks, where “small group meetings increase, while big assemblies decrease”? The challenge is to work for the multiplication of more small churches (each self-governing, self-supporting, self-propagating and self-theologizing) rather than for the addition of more mega-churches. The key is to remember: “disciples are made in small groups, not in big meetings.”

The secret to maintain a long-standing revived state of the church is to keep strong small group structures, just as it stretched for a few dozen years at least four (4) times in Western church history: in the Pietist movement among Lutherans (ecclesiola in ecclesia), the Puritan movement in Great Britain (“conventicles”), Moravian community in Hernnhut (with its cells called “choirs”), and the Wesleyan Awakening (with its cells called “classes”). However, in all of these cases, gradually “small group meetings decreased, while big worship services increased,” hence we see the empty cathedrals in Europe today. This is due, in my view, mainly to human weakness, as usual. Attendance in big meetings (where one can remain anonymous) require less commitment than participation in small groups (where one can hardly hide any secrets)! We tend towards “cheap grace” rather than “costly discipleship.” (Hence, under normal instances, mega-churches will grow at the expense and loss of small churches!)

Of course, there is a place for church leaders who will serve more or less “full-time.” But they are to serve as equippers (read: teachers and trainers), not to monopolize the ministry, but to empower all the saints to do the ministry so that the whole church may be built up (Eph. 4:11-13). The ministry is therefore that of “making disciples,” training a group of “faithful people” who will be able to disciple others also (2 Tim.2:2). The role of these “tried and tested” disciple-makers is to model how to facilitate and coordinate the partnership of the house churches, as well as monitor and help enhance their qualitative growth.

Thus, the ultimate challenge is: Are local churches willing to die, so that house churches and CPMs can be born and flourish? Then and only then will there be the possibility of all converts growing into mature Christians who can be disciple-makers, and be sent elsewhere as tentmakers to make more disciples. And church leaders will only be those who are true servants with proven pastoral gifts. Thereby, the whole church will be empowered to reach the whole world in the fastest way possible through the CPM or rapid disciple-making strategy done by (hardly visible) house-church networks!

D. How? Effective implementation of CPM

CPM requires that every Christian should belong to a “disciple-making group” (not more than 15 members, lest the group loses the informal and intimate sharing of its body life) where s/he can participate actively and meaningfully, starting with one’s family. In this cell, s/he discovers her/his calling as s/he uses her/his spiritual gifts to serve and edify others in faith, hope and love (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:24). Note that Christian ministry is repeatedly described as done to “one another” in mutual service and submission – 1 Th. 5:12-22; Mt. 18:15-20; Js. 5:16, etc). S/he is thereby empowered and sent by the Spirit through such body life to go into the world (far or near) to be salt and light, making disciples wherever s/he goes!

To become a disciple-maker, every Christian just needs to learn two basic skills: “friendship evangelism” and “leading small groups.” (A) Each learns how to share the gospel and their personal testimony after making a friendly approach to their non-Christian relatives, friends, colleagues and even strangers. At each instance of their life, they should be praying for a few non-believers among their contacts, and focus evangelistically on one or two of them at a time. Converts and potential converts are then brought to her/his cell, or better, encouraged to start an evangelistic cell at their convenient place and time. (B) And then it becomes necessary to also learn how to lead small group discussions where one can facilitate a meeting where all members can participate in setting the group’s agenda and in seeking the proper interpretation and application of God’s Word for the issues relevant to their personal lives and social contexts.

An excellent model of this mission paradigm is that of ”Prayer Evangelism:” the goal is to equip “every Christian to be a minister/missionary,” and mobilize “every Christian home to be a church.” They are trained to bless, befriend, serve, evangelize and then disciple their neighbors one by one in their house (as a “lighthouse” of prayer and evangelism). This model is now being used cross-denominationally in many parts of the world, esp. in Singapore and U.S.A.

Each house-church should be given freedom to manage their body-life (as prescribed in Ac. 2:42), according to their unique combinations of spiritual gifts. They should be able to collect and use their own funds for their own ministries (including about 10% for the support of the pastor and/or the “elders’ council” in which their “servant-leaders” belong), as well as their own missions. Preferably at least 50% of their common fund” should be used to subsidize their own outreaches to non-Christians locally and internationally.

How then can church leaders and missionaries in the 10/40 Window shift into the CPM paradigm? Most of them are marginalized if not isolated from their local communities and look “foreign” to their own peoples.^[vi]

Transforming Existing Churches. Churches can be transformed from centralized Christendom (traditional local churches) to decentralized house-church structures. Although, by God’s grace, it is possible to skip some steps, it seems best to work out a 3-5 year plan to take one’s church through the transformation process so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts and splits (cf. Southerland 1999). It may be best to transition first into a “mega-church” (church with cells) to a “cell church” (church of cells) and finally to “house church” (church is cells) (Zdero 2004: 110-118).

First of all, the church Leadership must make a policy that membership in their church entails the commitment to be a faithful participant in a small group (maximum of 15 members in cities, and 20 in villages). If they are alone or just a few, they can start by forming a cell and multiply from there. Start like Jesus, who began with 12 disciples. Alongside this decision, training sessions for cell leaders should be scheduled. After the initial orientation and training on the basics of leading cells, the cell leaders (and their assistants) should meet at least monthly for fellowship and mutual learning. Each cell leader should know who is his/her coordinator who is facilitating their cell leaders’ meetings and monitoring their ministry. And to ensure cell growth, all cell members must be trained to do “friendship evangelism.” If they have no more non-Christian relatives and friends, they should learn how to make friends with their neighbors and work/schoolmates to win them for Christ.

Then the church is ready to become a “cell church” (“church of cells” model). They should work towards turning all church activities into cells: prayer meetings into “prayer cells,” youth fellowship into “youth cells,” Sunday School classes into “children’s cells,” choirs into “singing groups,” etc. They can start training and delegating the administration of the sacraments/ordinances to the cell leaders; after all, they are truly the “pastors” of their cells.

And finally, they are ready to become a “house church network,” where each cell is a church indeed – self-governing (with its own leaders), self-supporting (with its own budget), self-propagating (with its own missions program) and self-theologizing (with its own doctrinal beliefs)!^[vii] Each cell can collect and spend their own funds (so-called “tithes and offerings”), giving at least 10% for the support of their “favorite” leader/minister/missionary; they should aim to allocate at least 50% for ministry beyond their in-group. The Sunday service becomes cell meetings, perhaps alongside (ministerial or practical) training workshops or open forums as needed by the network. And better, slowly lessen “celebrations” from weekly to monthly to quarterly (or even just 3 times a year, as was instituted in the Torah for O.T. Israel). The church building can be transformed into a multi-purpose ministry center to serve the needs in the community. If they don’t have a building, there is really no need to have one. Whenever they need a large space for big gatherings, they can resourcefully find free or rented facilities for their purposes.

By this time the church will have become a “community church,” with direct attachment, ministry and witness in her (even if it were largely non-Christian) neighborhood. The cells will be sending their members to serve in the community and to form partnerships with other Christians in their community, perhaps starting with a monthly prayer meeting and forming a “local leaders” (or ministerial) fellowship.”^[viii] They will be teaching and submitting to one another, learning to work as fellow servant-leaders with those who share common convictions on the essential doctrines, and allowing (and delighting) in the diversity of views on non-essential ones. Welcome to post-denominational Christianity!

Then they should have formed the habit of counting church membership, not according to how many attend Sunday worship services, but according to those who participate regularly in the cell meetings! What a good way to really count true “disciples of Christ” and to clear our church rolls (and David Barrett’s annual statistics on global Christianity) of “nominal Christians”!

And what’s the curriculum for each house church? Simply, LIFE as it comes! The agenda is set by the members as they share their concerns (read: prayer requests): actual needs and interests are discerned, and thereby opened for discussion, aiming at their mutual edification (cf. 1 Cor. 14:26-33). As they follow the NT teaching to serve one another with their spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:3-8), exhort one another (Heb. 10:24), teach one another, even confess sins to one another (Js. 5:16), as they share insights into what the Bible teaches, they will find concrete applications to obey God’s word in their own context/life-situation. If they feel that they have not resolved the issues (doctrinal or practical) adequately, they can assign someone (usually the cell leader) to research (most probably to ask his mentor or co-coordinators) and report in their next meeting, or they can invite an expert to share (and be ready to give him a generous honorarium, of course!).

How then will each “full-timer” be supported? Well, there’s really no need for “full-timers” until there are about 500 members meeting in 30-40 house churches! Anyway, technically one house church can support a “full-time” minister (pastor-coordinator of about 6 co-coordinators, each serving 5 or 6 house churches) or a missionary (preferably in pairs, sent to plant house church networks elsewhere) through their regular tithes and offerings! Jesus and the Twelve had their own “common purse” and were supported by just one small group of women (Lk. 8:1-3)! Once Christians learn to relate to one another in love, and “pastors” do serve their “little flock,” their disciples will naturally provide for their family’s needs and their ministry expenses. (Remember also that their collections will no longer be used for church paraphernalia and building maintenance).

Pioneering at the Frontiers. But perhaps it is even better to start from scratch: to pioneer a CPM in virgin territory among a truly unreached people group where no known Christian or church exists. The key to this approach is to be as low profile as possible. Until the converted become a majority, they must not be de-culturized from their social and religious communities. And even if they become the majority, they must avoid establishing elaborate structures for religious purposes.

In fact, all cultural artifacts, affairs and structures in non-Christian societies can be sanctified and transformed, for all things belong mainly to God; and those that have become sinful and evil can be redeemed through prayer and the Word (cf. 1 Tim. 4:3-5). Even almost all religious beliefs and practices can also be redeemed and transformed into Christ-centered and Christ-ward worship!^[ix] What makes them biblically “Christian” is the heart or motive, almost always regardless of the forms. What counts is that these activities and rituals are led by those who have been and are being nurtured or discipled in the low profile cells or house churches, which almost always are informal and therefore do not require formal and elaborate rituals. Actually missionaries and new converts may create new organizations and programs, but these should be community-based (not church-based) structures that cater to the real needs and aspirations of the people.

Keeping the faith simple, to just change allegiance from their god (or no-god) to Jesus, is essential to CPMs. The essence of the Christian faith lies not in a philosophy or an ethic but in a Person. Thus any religious or cultural artifact, belief or value must be evaluated in light of God’s revelation of the historical Jesus revealed in the four (not one) gospels! Aiming just at eliciting simple faith in Christ makes evangelism quite easy, thus ensuring rapid multiplication of converts.^[x] It makes possible the easy passing on by word of mouth (even gossiping!) of the Jesus story within a community, as is recognized in all CPMs (Garrison 2004: 209-210)! Each person and household can be discipled as “insiders” in their own contexts (cf. Petersen & Swamy 2003).

Historically we can also read the conversion of Armenia, the European peoples and other Christian-majority lands like Latin America, the Philippines, northeast India (Mizos, Nagas, Karens) as different forms of CPMs! The missionaries were able to win the top leaders of their societies, so that these indigenous leaders influenced, if not coerced, their constituencies as a people to join them in the faith. The days of those “top-down” approach to mass conversions is almost gone. The challenge of doing CPM today is to catalyze “bottom up” mass conversions following the pattern of Jesus and the early church, as China’s Back to Jerusalem and the Philippines’ missionary movements are trying to do: mainly through “friendship evangelism” with “an army of ants, worms and termites (and not elephants)” (cf. Hattaway 2003: 90-94).

Yet to achieve community or mass conversions, missionaries must aim at winning the leaders, especially the top two or three. This may be done through the community development approach: one must get “immersed” or “integrated” (better: “incarnated”) in the community while befriending and serving the people, hence gaining the attention and friendship of the local leaders, including the religious leader(s); yes, even Buddhist monks, Muslim imams, Hindu priests and Communist generals!

Hence the ideal missionaries should be “tentmakers,” Christian professionals or businessmen, or skilled workers who have “secular” skills to serve and earn a livelihood in the community. Their witness to Christ will not be viewed as the expansion of a religious movement.^[xi] Community service by ordinary “lay Christians” not only helps Christianity gain a good reputation among a people group, it also helps gain the trust and respect of community leaders, thereby opening the opportunity for the conversion of these leaders and eventually the whole community as these influential converts protect, if not encourage the “house to house” multiplication of disciples in their midst (cf. Lim 2004).

E. How? Practical Steps for CPM

There are practical steps by which any believer can be effective in catalyzing CPMs across the nations. Our Lord Jesus trained his twelve apostles to do this “master plan for world evangelization,” and they did it (Lk.9, 10)! The Apostle Paul did it, and in eight years he testified that he had no more people to evangelize in the northern Mediterranean area (Rom. 15:18-20, cf. Ac.19:1-10)!

Doing CPM consists of seven (7) simple steps, all of which can be done in 6-10 months by beginners, and less than one (1) month by experts.

1. Make a second home. When they arrive in any new place, they should quietly settle down in such a way that people they will invite later will feel comfortable to visit their new home. This includes: loving the people, learning the language, appreciating the culture and religion, and following their cultural customs as much as possible (1 Cor.9:19-23)! They should never criticize their host culture (esp. politics and religion) in front of them, even in private.

2. Make friends. They must aim to make 2-6 “best friends.” They start by being approachable and sociable. They must be good conversationalists by being good listeners. They must spend much time with their new friends, making most of their interests their own, too. They must give gifts in special occasions, be hospitable and invite their friends to eat, cook or even sleep overnight at their place. Above all, they should help their friends in their time of need!

3. Make friends with leaders. They must try to make 1-2 leaders to be their friends, too. Upon arrival, they should visit key leaders and give them a gift or at least offer to help in community affairs. They must do their jobs well, as excellently as possible, and give extra free service sometimes. They should participate in community activities, volunteer as member or officer in working or planning committees, and share any suggestion for improvement with their leader-friends, and proceed only with their approval.

4. Make converts. When opportunity arises (and there will be plenty), they should be ready to share Jesus with these friends (1 Pet.3:15). According to their need or concern, they can share their testimony with them: how Jesus works in their life. Then they can share about the life and teachings of Jesus that are relevant for them (each one may need a different emphasis). Once they are sure that the friends truly want to follow Jesus as their leader, helper, forgiver and/or guide, they can invite them to be baptized; and when they freely consent, they can baptize them in private! The key is to be sure that the friends have changed their allegiance from idols (religious or material) to Jesus! (If trained, they can opt to wait until the time is ripe for the converts’ whole family or whole community to be converted and baptized!)

5. Make disciples. They then must disciple the 2-6 converts in one-on-one and small group discipling relationships. The more times they spend together right after their conversions, the better. There is no need to use any materials; they just urge the new believers to read the Bible in the language(s) they understand, and discuss their questions and insights with them. They must trust the Holy Spirit to speak to them through the Word, and they will have the wisdom to guide them to learn from the Bible (cf. Acts 20:28-32). For Bible reflection sessions, they just choose a short passage and ask, “What lesson or insight do you get out of this text?” and “How do we apply what we have learned?” The goal is to bring each one to spiritual maturity in Christ-likeness (Col.1:28-29), which is to live a life of obedience to God – a life full of agape-love/grace (out of sinful self-centeredness to sacrificial service for others, esp. the poor, cf. Matt.22:37-39; 25:31-46; Gal.6:1-10).

6. Make disciple-makers. As they are discipling their new converts, they should encourage the latter to make their own converts and disciples from among their own friends, relatives and neighbors, a few individuals or groups at a time. Their disciples can start discipling their own disciples by just following what they have been doing with them. The new disciplers just have to be a couple of steps ahead of their disciples! They should lead their own group and not bring their disciples to the tentmaker’s group. It’s best that they do not even visit their disciples’ groups. After all, they will be growing spiritually faster as they lead their group in our life-based interactive mutual learning model of discipling!

7. Make a planned exit. To disciple is to Model, Assist, Watch and Leave (M.A.W.L.)! This is actually step no. 1, as one enters a community: to plan to exit as soon as possible, so that our disciples “graduate” to be our equals – disciple-makers and servant-leaders in their own right! The discipler’s role is just to be a mentor, guide or coach for a while, and then stop meeting them regularly and tell them, “Greater works you will do without me,” just like what Jesus told his disciples when he was about to leave them (Jn.14:12). They must not be surprised when their disciples (esp. the leader-types) do better (contextual) witness and multiplication than them! Of course, they can keep in touch with them, as Paul did with his disciples. Then God can send them to another unreached area, so that they can repeat the same process there!

In CPM, we also emphasize that in order to become a “people movement,” believers must be equipped to multiply simple biblical Christianity -- contextualized, holistic and transformational “indigenous churches” that are truly replicable: self-governing, self-supporting, self-propagating and self-theologizing. They will be planting “churches” that will be copied by future generations of Christians, so they should avoid transplanting denominational churches (= complex Christianity) which are often non-contextual (= foreign-looking), hence have almost always produced marginal Christians who are separated from their communities -- despised and rejected by their family and friends, not because of the Gospel but because of their extra-biblical forms.

So, it is best for them to not encourage their disciples to attend an international fellowship or denominational church nearby, if there is any, perhaps except in special occasions. They should just focus on making disciples and multiplying “simple churches,” for where two or three believers are gathered prayerfully, there is the church (Matt. 18:19-20)! They should encourage their disciples to just “gossip Jesus” and form small “disciple-making groups” among their friends and kin in their neighborhoods and work-places. They are to just do this spiritual “network marketing” of the Gospel from city to city – till the whole world knows and obeys Jesus!

Conclusion

The wonderful thing about the CPM strategy is that it is persecution-proof. In fact, it thrives under persecution! This is especially significant since most, if not all, unreached people groups (mainly Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Communist or animist) are warily (and often violently) opposed to any attempt to do overt evangelism among them! This low-key strategy may be the best, if not the only way to evangelize the vast unevangelized peoples of Asia!

Thank God that in these last twenty years, the churches in China, Vietnam, and Cuba have somehow learned to survive and even thrive under great duress with this paradigm. And most recently, also the churches in the Indian sub-continent, Cambodia and Sri Lanka (that I clearly know of). There are more and more churches and mission groups that have started to adopt this model of missions, too.

They all have proven that CPM is even also poverty-proof: tribal, rural and urban poor churches can multiply this way without the need for external financial help! They have learned to KISS (“keep it simple and small”) and MULTIPLY! Hence, the “Back to Jerusalem” movement of the house churches in China can optimistically plan to send 100,000 missionaries (mostly micro-entrepreneurs) among the unreached peoples. And the “tentmaker movement” of the Philippine churches can plan to train and send 200,000 effective missionaries (mostly skilled workers and professionals) by 2010 -- and 1,000,000 by 2020!

So, can we transform churches to use this best strategy of missions? Actually several Evangelical groups in Asia have been moving in this direction already! If all of us, go full blast on this, we can surely “finish the Great Commission in our generation” at last! Let’s stop maintaining “complex Christianity” (which can hardly reproduce in five years) and start spreading “simple Christianity” (which can easily multiply 2 or 3 times every year!) Let’s promote CPM through mobilization of our “laity” as local disciple-makers and global tentmakers. Let’s challenge the whole church to take the whole gospel to the whole world – quickest – “and then the end will come” (cf. Mt.24:14). Maranatha!

References

Allen, Roland. Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? Eerdmans, 1962.

________. The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church. Eerdmans, 1962.

Banks, Robert & Julia. The Church Comes Home. Albatross Books, 1989.

Barrett, Lois. Building the House Church. Herald Press, 1986.

Bosch, David J. 1991. Transforming Mission. New York: Orbis.

Carlton, R. Bruce. 2000. Amazing Grace: Lessons on Church Planting Movements from

Cambodia. Chennai: Mission Education Books.

Coleman, Robert. The Master Plan of Evangelism. Revell, 1964.

Davis, John R. 1993. Poles Apart? Contextualizing the Gospel. Bangkok: OMF

Publications.

Eims, Leroy. The Lost Art of Disciple Making. NavPress, 1981.

Garrison, David. 2004. Church Planting Movements. Midlothian, VA: WIGTake

Resources.

_______. 2005. “Church Planting Movements Versus Insider Movements: Missiological

Realities versus Mythiological (sic) Speculations.” Unpublished monograph.

Hattaway, Paul. 2003. Back to Jerusalem. Carlisle: Piquant.

Hoefer, Herbert. 2001. Churchless Christianity. Pasadena: Wm. Carey Library.

IBMR Editorial. 2005. “Can There Be Christianity Without Church?” International

Bulletin of Missionary Research 29.4 (October 2005): 169-170.

Kraft, Charles. 1979. Christianity in Cultures. Maryknoll: Orbis.

______. 2005. “Pursuing Faith, Not Religion: The Liberating Quest for

Contextualization,” Mission Frontiers 27.5 (September-October 2005): 9-11.

______ (ed). 2005a. Appropriate Christianity. Pasadena: Wm. Carey Library.

Lim, David. 1987. The Servant Nature of the Church in the Pauline Corpus. Ph.D.

Diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1987.

_______. 1987a. “The Origin, Nature and Organization of the Synagogue,” Studia

Biblica et Theologia 15/1 (April 1987): 23-51.

_______. 2003. “Towards a Radical Contextualization Paradigm in Evangelizing

Buddhists,” Sharing Jesus in the Buddhist World, ed. David Lim & Steve

Spaulding. Pasadena: William Carey Library. Pp. 71-94.

_______. 2004. “Church @the Frontiers: Transformation through Church Planting

Movement and Community Development.” Paper presented at Sealink

Conference (June 2004). Monograph, Quezon City: CMI-Philippines.

_______. 2004a. “Mobilizing Churches for Evangelism and Missions,” Paper presented

to Focus Group #10 of Lausanne Congress 2004; Journal of Asian Mission 6:1

(March 2004): 43-57.

_______. 2008. “Catalyzing ‘Insider Movements’ Among the Unreached.” Journal of

Asian Mission10.1-2 (March-September 2008): 125-145.

McGavran, Donald. 2005. “A People Reborn: Foundational Insights on People

Movements” (“Foreword” to Christian Keysser, A People Reborn (Pasadena:

Wm. Carey Library, 1980), Mission Frontiers 27.5 (September-October 2005):

16-17.

Montgomery, Jim. I’m Gonna Let It Shine! Carey Library, 2001.

Neighbor, Ralph, Jr. Where Do We Go from Here? Touch Publications, 1990.

Patterson, George. 1988. “The Spontaneous Multiplication of Churches,” ed. R. Winter

& S. Hawthorne, Perspectives. Pasadena: Wm. Carey Library. Pp. 601-616.

Petersen, Jim. Church Without Walls. NavPress, 1992.

_______, and Mike Shamy. 2003. The Insider: Bringing the Kingdom of God into

Your Everyday World. Colorado Springs: NavPress.

Richardson, Don. 1981. Eternity in their Hearts. Ventura, CA: Regal.

Seamands, John. 1981. Tell It Well: Communicating the Gospel Across Cultures.

Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press; and Chennai: Mission Educational Books, 2000.

Simson, Wolfgang. 2001. Houses That Change the World. Carlisle: Paternoster.

Smith, Alex. 1993. “Insights for Frontier Missions to Theravada Buddhists,”

International Journal of Frontier Missions 10.3 (July 1993): 125-128.

Snyder, Howard. The Problem of Wineskins. IVP, 1975.

Somaratna, G. P. V. 2006. The Foreignness of the Christian Church in Sri Lanka.

Colombo: Colombo Theological Seminary.

Southerland, Dan. 1999. Transitioning: Leading Your Church Through Change. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan; Mandaluyong: OMF Literature.

Tennent, Timothy. 2005. “The Challenge of Churchless Christianity: An Evangelical

Assessment.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 29.4 (October 2005):

171-177.

Travis, John. 1998. “Must All Muslims Leave Islam to Follow Jesus?” Evangelical

Missions Quarterly 34.4 (1998): 411-415.

_______. 2000. “Messianic Muslim Followers of Isa: A Closer Look at C5 Believers

and Congregations,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17.1 (2000): 53-

59.

_______, & Anna. 2005. “Contextualization Among Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists: A

Focus on Insider Movements,” Mission Frontiers 27.5 (September-October

2005): 12-15.

_______. 2006. “Maximizing the Bible!: Glimpses from our Context.” Mission

Frontiers 28.1(January-February 2006): 21-22.

Zdero, Rad. 2004. The Global House Church Movement. Pasadena: William Carey

Library.