Zero-Sum Economics and Church Planting
I’ve visited sub-Saharan Africa a few times and have started to get a handle on the grassroots economic theory that dominates the local villages: zero-sum economics. In brief, traditional African culture understands that there is a fixed amount of wealth available at all times, so if one villager becomes wealthy, he necessarily does so at the expense of others, who conversely become poor. In such a model, a man who works hard, earns money, and starts socking that money away in a bank account is immoral, because by “hoarding” this money, he is denying his neighbors the opportunity to prosper or even to survive.
The effects of this economic theory are manifold. Some of these are not entirely bad—the Africans I met tended to be relational, communitarian, less penurious than the average American, and even quite generous (of course they expected the same from me, so this wasn’t pure altruism, but there is a certain civility in African society that is rather pleasant). Still, the problems with this theory were glaring. People still hoarded, but deceitfully and hypocritically; envy often outpaced magnanimity. But the most obvious problem of zero-sum economics was that, absent the idea of wealth creation, almost all incentive for steady work, planning, investment, and advancement disappear. After all, if I may keep only my little sliver of pie, what reason do I have to earn more?
As Americans (and especially those of us of the Republican persuasion), we tend to have the opposite problem. We tend to see all wealth as created, and suppress the uncomfortable thought that my wealth might possibly contribute to the hardship of someone else…except when it comes to church planting. Here, zero-sum economics often flourishes. If a new church plant appears near the perimeter of an established church’s “turf,” worry sets in—worry that the new church will lure away members from the existing church and prosper at its expense. After all, there are only so many Christians to go around, so a new church means fewer Christians for all of the existing churches. And while no one would ever actually say this, a mindset begins to emerge that it’s actually better to eliminate churches than it is to plant them; after all, when a church dies, this means more ‘wealth’ to distribute among the surviving churches.
But here’s the problem. It denies the possibility of the creation of ‘wealth’—in this case the creation of new believers—and removes all incentive to work hard at evangelism, invest in discipleship, and advance the cause of Christ. Sure, the surviving churches often have a wonderful sense of community and belonging, but without ‘wealth’ creation, the community will never truly prosper.
I grant, of course, that some new church planters hold to a zero-sum economic theory too—they plant churches fully intending to populate them with stolen sheep rather than with new sheep, suppressing and eliminating competition as their primary means of church growth. This is a problem that I recognize to be fully as serious as the previous. But in both situations, the solution is not to stop planting churches; instead, the solution is for all parties to recognize that the primary means to the establishment and growth of churches is by the creation and cultivation of new believers through the hard work of evangelism.
Mark,
I wonder if we couldn’t get closer to the NT practice of church planting by switching the zero-sum theory from the creation of new believers to obedience to Scripture. After all, the elect will all arrive in heaven regardless of the good or bad efforts of human church planters.
And I can’t help but wonder if African society responds to schism with more revulsion than westerners like us feel.
Obedience to Scripture, not numbers, should drive our church planting efforts. So we should ask the question, is planting more churches where the body of Christ already exists a Christ-honoring way to make possible “the creation of new believers?” (as you say). Maybe I’ve misunderstood you, and if so, I apologize in advance. But it seems you assume it does.
If so, may I submit for your consideration a flies-in-the-face-of human-perception truth? There is no precept or example in the NT for planting a church where the body of Christ already exists, and there is an overwhelming amount of theology in the NT to condemn the practice.
If your comm box takes URLs, I’ve written on it here: http://www.churchsonefoundation.com/planting-schism/.
Thanks.
Ted,
I read your extended blog with some interest and am afraid that I’m not quite where you are. While there is admittedly question about how the church in Jerusalem functioned with 5000 members (did they all meet together weekly? did they fragment into multiple assemblies connected to a mother church hub? did they have multiple independent assemblies that were collectively known as “the church”? etc.), there is no consensus. The options are many and long in dispute, and I doubt we’ll resolve it here in this interchange.
I am convinced, though, the congregational polity as described in the Scriptures puts at least some limits on church size. Communion, baptism, reception of members, discipline, reception of elders and other messengers by the whole church, etc., means that individual local churches cannot be infinitely expansive.
Here in the Detroit Metro area we have scores, yea hundreds of at least minimally Gospel-preaching churches in a densely populated area, with an enormous collective membership that surely exceeds 100,000. Many of us cooperate with each other amicably, but the logistics of a single local church of Detroit (at least as practiced in the NT) make such an idea ludicrous (not to mention impossible with existing denominational entrenchments that, frankly, the NT really doesn’t address).
And so when by God’s grace our church has been blessed with multiplied members, many of whom drive some distance to our church, we have planted new churches at the edges of our “service area”–several in fact. And we’ve contributed members to several other plants that others have initiated on the edges of our “service area” as well. Right now we are making a big push to re-seed the inner city with the Gospel and plant new churches there. This seems to be a fairly demonstrable NT pattern. We aren’t trying to “compete” with existing churches and we try to be deliberate so as not to build new churches at the expense of healthy existing ones.
Of course, in our attempts to saturate our metropolitan area with churches that can be called “local” by their respective members, minor overlap of “service areas” for the various churches occasionally occurs. But the pool of unreached people here in Detroit is so vast that so long as the churches are aggressively and intentionally evangelistic, proximity is not a curse but a blessing. But in instances where those proximate churches stop being evangelistic and start seeing church membership in zero-sum terms, problems begin to emerge.
Thanks, Mark, for reading some of my article on planting schism. And thank you for the favor of your feedback.
A couple of my own in return.
The Holy Spirit never refers to the churches of Jerusalem, and mentions the whole of it in some form of meeting repeatedly (Acts 2:46, Acts 5:11-12, Acts 15:22). Compare this to Acts 15:41.
The Holy Spirit does mention sub-groups of the one church meeting in houses, but those sub-groups are not churches, any more than than home groups in your church are churches – Acts 8:1-3. The counter-arguments you offer (“did they…? did they…?”) are from silence. Nothing in the text suggests them as considerations. They come from us, not the text.
True, there there is no consensus on the matter, but that doesn’t make the Scripture any less clear. The text is sufficient as it stands written, whether we believe it or not.
If this were some obscure matter, then it would be easy to pass off as odd – or as you do – ludicrous. But as men given to Scripture, it ought to be our desire to emphasize those practices (and doctrines) that are clearly taught in in Scripture in both precept and example, and not to emphasize those practices (and doctrines) not clearly taught in precept and example, no matter how odd or ludicrous they may at first appear. If you are not familiar with the role of precept and example in hermeneutics, may I suggest you read this article: http://www.churchsonefoundation.com/precept-and-example/.
As I mentioned in my first post, there is no NT precept or example of planting a church where the body of Christ already exists, and there are many NT passages against it. Yet you are advancing and defending something you have no word from God on in either precept or example. Snake handlers can point to the added text of Mark 16:18 and even Acts 28:5 to build their presumption upon. You don’t even have that.
It isn’t difficult to find men willing to advance their own church ministry and agenda. It comes natural to our flesh. Paul had enough of them in Rome but none he could send to Philippi, for they all sought after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus.
What is difficult is finding men who love Christ and His body in Detroit.
Briefly, Ted, I’m not convinced that 1 Cor 1:10-13 is applicable in this context. Paul appears to be speaking of a division within a single body of believers who are making a (false) distinction among themselves (of Apollos, of Paul, etc.) when they should have been united because they were all “of Christ”. This is a different situation from a single church that is unified in doctrine/belief deciding to send out members from itself for the purpose of evangelism. If I have misunderstood your use of the passage, I apologize, but it does not appear to support your opposition to Dr. Snoeberger’s point.
You’re right. In the NT we see members of a congregation being sent out for the purpose of evangelism/church planting, but in a region where there is no body of Christ yet (3 John 7-10). The practice I’m challenging Mark to defend is schism – planting a distinct and new church where the body of Christ already exists. In the NT times there was always, and only, one church in a city. Any others were the result of schism or heresy
Consider reading my article, Planting Schism (http://www.churchsonefoundation.com/planting-schism/).
In 1 Cor. 11:18-19 Paul shows the apostolic distinction between the two terms schism and heresy. Schisms can be fixed, but heresies must take place.
We see the evidence of heretical churches in passages such as Phil. 3:18-19, 1 Tim. 1:20, 2 Tim. 2:17-18, Rom. 16:17-18, and heretical church leaders who are dismissed from the faith in Titus 3:10-11. We see the evidence of schismed churches on Crete (Titus 1:5-16), and we see the evidence of Paul preventing there being more than one church in the local body of Christ in Corinth here: Acts 18:10, 1 Cor. 1:2, 1:10-13, 1:18-31, 3:6-8, 3:16-17, 10:16-17, 11:17-34, 12:24-27, 14:23, Rom. 16;23.
The many texts in 1 Corinthians on the body make no sense if there is more than one church in that city.
Ted,
It is interesting that you accuse Dr. Snoeberger of building an argument based on Scripture’s silence, yet you are doing the same thing. You say, “In the NT times there was always, and only, one church in a city. Any others were the result of schism or heresy.” Yet this is nothing more than an argument from silence. I don’t recall Scriptures which state the presence of only one local church in every city in the Roman empire in which the gospel was preached. You can assume that to be the case if you like, just don’t throw out someone else’s argument from silence while making your own.
As far as the church at Corinth is concerned, what do you think you have proved by the Scriptures you cite? The example of one city and one church does not make a case for a binding doctrine on all future cities and churches. So what if there was only one church in Corinth when Paul wrote his letters? Your point that there ought only be one local church in every city (a term which requires some definition if your position is to be understood, btw) does not follow.
With respect to Titus 1, Paul speaks of disruption within the households of the churches on Crete because of greedy false teachers, but what does that have to do with your assertion concerning a Biblical requirement of one church per city?
Paul V,
I would agree, Paul, although I thought I made a brief case above for Jerusalem having but one church in my first and second responses to Mark.
Did you read his response? It started off with him expressing doubt about whether we can know how many churches were in Jerusalem, so I know he got the point, even if he is agnostic at this point.
Heres four of the largest ancient cities and some NT references to follow.
Ephesus: Rev. 2:1, Eph. 4:16, Acts 20:17;
Jerusalem – mentioned above: Acts 8:1-3, 15:4;
Corinth: 1 Cor. 1:2, 11:18, 14:23;
Rome: Rom. 1:7, Rom. 16:16.
If you want more, try Rev. 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14.
Then try Phil 4:15, or Rom. 16:1. Check out Col. 4:16, and 1 Thess. 1:1. If you need more, let me know.
Are you wondering, like Mark, if when Jesus (or His apostles) said the word “church” He (they) really meant “churches?” Then look these up: Rev. 2:7, 2:11, 2:17, 2:29, 3:6, 3:13. Or look at these plurals: Gal. 1:2, 1:22, 2 Cor. 11:18, 28.
What do you reckon, that the glorified Christ know the difference between a singular church and multiple churches, or conflates the two? How many churches was Jesus referring to in Mat. 18:17?
Please read http://www.churchsonefoundation.com/jesus-defines-his-church/.
Ted,
You seem to genuinely confuse the use of collective nouns with singular nouns, and I really have no desire to discuss with you the issue of local vs. universal church which impacts several of the texts you reference. My point, if I wasn’t clear enough in my earlier statement, is that references to singular churches in the NT are not an argument for one church per city at any and all future times during the church age. You have failed to make your case, because you have neither precept nor example supporting your prohibition on planting churches in locales where other churches may exist, and you still have not defined just what the extent of such a locale would be. How far from an existing church would one have to go, according to your view, in order to plant a new church without causing schism in the body?
oops. 2 Cor 11:18 s/b 2 Cor. 11:8.
As a person involved in a urban church, I’ll posit this as the metro area to be dealt with.
New York City has five boroughs. These are continuous with five counties. Until the 1898 consolidation, each were independent and ad subsidiary town and village governments. In 1898, they were consolidated into New York City (one city five counties).
So the question becomes, in 1898 should the churches in the consolidated political subdivisions have consolidated their ministries into one. Today, may a church be planted in a borough without one? Or does the fact a church exists in Manhattan require someone from Brooklyn to attend there?
“you still have not defined just what the extent of such a locale would be. How far from an existing church would one have to go, according to your view, in order to plant a new church without causing schism in the body?”
Paul, after being given many NT references to answer your first post’s argument that there is no precept or example in the NT of a ‘single-church in a city theology’ in the NT, an argument you made without asserting any Scriptural proof to the contrary…
…you come back again with a new post to argue against my answer to that post – which was replete with Scripture – with another argument, “singular churches in the NT are not an argument for one church per city at any and all future times during the church age” – again, without any argumentation from Scripture.
You start by asserting, “You seem to genuinely confuse the use of collective nouns with singular nouns” – this, after I gave you singulars and plurals of ecclesia in the same close context and referring to the same churches, many of which were spoken by the glorified Christ (Rev. 2-3).
So its time to have your feet held to the fire. Tell me which of His uses of the singular “church” in the NT are collective, and which of His plurals are singulars. If you can’t (or won’t) do this, what kind of relationship to Scripture are you seeking to justify?
Paul, neither of these accusations arise out of faith but disobedience. Faith doesn’t do, and then go back to see if Scripture prohibits, but faith, desiring to please the Lord, “reads and runs” (Hab. 2:1-4). Disobedience does what it wants, then goes back to Scripture to see if what has been done is strictly prohibited. Then, not finding a specific prohibition, defends itself as justified. Just think of having drama skits during a worship service, or having female elders.
Since the body of Christ only tangibly exists in locales (1 Cor. 12:27) a church planter entering that locale could only be someone seeking to schism the body (1 Cor. 12:25, 1:10). Hence Paul admonition to the church in Rome: “keep an eye on those who cause division.”
http://www.churchsonefoundation.com/precept-and-example/
Ted, while I’m sure Paul can hold his own here, a couple of distinctions between what you say, and what Paul argues.
Elders are explicitly defined as male – the “husband of one wife” – and does not leave room for female leadership in the church. The early church’s single presence in a particular city is not based on a directive, rather it makes sense as the church was just beginning, and spreading itself throughout the world, and there were probably not enough resources to spread itself into different local bodies. As far as the churches in Revelation are concerned, does it not make sense that Jesus was merely referring to the cities’ early churches (and in many cases lamenting their sorry states), not making a command concerning them?
Not sure how drama skits in a worship service are in and of themselves good or bad.
While I agree with the general idea that it is not productive to start another church in an area that is currently well served by a Bible based church, we have yet to see a definition of 1. the parameters for a given body of Christ’s influence, and 2. what the phrase “where the body of Christ already exists” means.