I Think A Clarification is Needed - Re: Mark Driscoll 'We are a Movement' Bootcamp Message

What follows is thoughts based on Mark Driscoll's talk that you can find here.

First let me say that I have nothing against Mark Driscoll. I have advocated, both on this blog and on other's, that before his own master a servant stands or falls. That master is not the blogosphere, nor the court of public opinion, but the true and living God. He is Mark Driscoll's Master and it's to Him that we all will give account for our ministries. God is using Mark and I continue to pray for him.

Second let me say that I am a Calvary Chapel pastor and church planter and I've been one for 8 years now. What will follow is not some sort of sour grapes, as I'm not sour as all. I am writing a clarification because I think one is necessary. Mark didn't ask me to write one. I am taking it upon myself to write it because I think it is important for perspectives to be clarified.

In the body of Mark's discussion on how Acts 29 is a movement, he addresses other church planting movements and he inevitably comes to Calvary Chapel (and the Pentacostal CC offshoot, Vineyard). First I applaud him for that. The reason that I do is because as I hang in denominational circles as I do, and read many books by denominational/seminary professors on church planting, I'm shocked that people aren't talking about Calvary more. 1300 churches in 40 years is a movement indeed. It is great disservice to the greater body of Christ to not at least acknowledge the organic church planting movement of Calvary Chapel in this generation. So I applaud him for making mention of his semi-pelagian brothers.

But as he discusses both Calvary and Vineyard (and I'm going to leave off his slanted takes on Calvary and Lonnie Frisbee that he got from David DiSabbatino and his leanings) he keeps emphasizing that what Calvary did in 30 years, we'll have done in 5 years. What Vineyard did in 20 years we'll have done in 3. Now I realize that at an Acts 29 Bootcamp they want to show their guys (or potential guys) that they are a part of something big. And they are. All conferences are like that. The body of Christ is like that. There is little doubt that Acts 29 is going to be a force in evangelicalism in the 21st century. But Mark's characterization is not a good analogy. Here's why-

1) Acts 29 wants to be a movement, Calvary Chapel did not

The goal of Acts 29 was to facilitate church planting. Calvary Chapel was simply a church pastored by a guy who God chose to use. Chuck Smith never sought to 'facilitate' church planters (and much to my dismay the movement shys away from any centralized facilitating or helping of church planters)

2) Acts 29 is a parachurch organization, Calvary Chapel is a church.

Acts 29 exists outside of any specific church. It helps churches facilitate church planters (in a sense). The Calvary Chapel movement was and is an organic movement that is church based.

3) Acts 29 pools potential candidates from any where they want to, Calvary Chapel church planters are raised up from within local Calvaries and sent out from local churches not a sending organization..

This for me, is where the analogy really breaks down. And where it is much easier for Acts 29 to proliferate churches. Any one can come to an Acts 29 Bootcamp. There are guys from Baptist, Presbyterian, Calvary Chapel, AOG, anything backgrounds can go. I know guys who get out of seminary, want to plant a church, know that Acts 29 funds planters, and affiliates. In a sense, Acts 29 is a clearing house for men who are predominately already trained by other churches, educational organizations, and missions groups. Calvary Chapel is nothing like this. All ordained Calvary Chapel pastors were raised up within a local church's ministry (notwithstanding that many come from other backgrounds). It's not a clearing house, but a disciple making movement. This takes time. Others have taken the time to raise up the Acts 29 guys (and they through Bootcamps and mentoring get to put the finishing touches on a guy). The best analogy for sizing up Calvary would be more of the Sovereign Grace Movement as it is church based like Calvary. CJ Mahaney is a great teacher and has a similar vision to what Calvary has done (except from a Reformed perspective). But the Acts 29 compared to Calvary example doesn't have any legs.

4) Acts 29 fully funds church planters (and expects church plants to tithe into Acts 29 to keep it going) and as we well know Calvary Chapels do not.

There is really nothing to say more about this point.

For Mark to make the comparison with Calvary (and it be an honest one) it would have to be something like this. Mark how many church planters did you send out from Mars Hill Church in Seattle? How many did they send out? How many did they send out? Do your numbers rival that? It is an interesting question. How many guys has Driscoll sent out from Mars Hill proper? He's been there for over 10 years now. Because in comparing to Calvary, Chuck Smith has sent out literally 100s of guys from Calvary Costa Mesa proper to start churches. Jon Courson was sent out from Costa Mesa and sent out some 50 guys from Applegate. It's easier to have a mega church when you don't send your leaders out to start other churches but simple multiply campuses.

So I think that for Mark and Acts 29, it is better to assess yourselves against say that North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. They are doing the same thing. Pooling together potential talent from all over the place, assessing them, coaching/mentoring them, and sending them out. I'm sure either way Acts 29 is going to look good by numerical comparison. But the real test will be the fruit in 15 years, not in 3. My prayer would be that the fruit would be golden. But only time will tell. Flash in the pans happen all the time, let's pray that Acts 29 isn't one of them (and Mark Driscoll for that matter).

On a final thought, I have always advocated that within Calvary there would be a Church Planting Conference. Not in the Acts 29 sense where a guy comes and later he applies, is assessed, coached and sent. But in the Calvary sense. There is really no reason that Calvary's won't continue to proliferate around the globe. If Driscoll was right and it took 30 years to get to 500, then it took another 10 years to bring 700 more! So if Calvary's are going to continue to plant churches, why not give these potential church planters (and sending churches) a conference where they can come and get built up, encouraged, and some proper tools. Most often theses guys are sent out and they don't have a clue about anything other than the Bible. Granted, the Bible is what we need to know, but there is not chapter on how to be 501c3 determined or 4 John on Articles of Incorporation. Why can't we have a church planting conference so that folks within Calvary's who are considering stepping on out can get equipped for that specific task. Have Pastor Chuck share as he is the founder of the movement and he'll no doubt teach us to teach the Word (amen!). Have Roger Wing share on church planting administration. Have someone like Britt Merick share about starting churches in cities. And get some guys who have planted churches recently (and not we broke off 1000 people from a mega church and now in 5 years we have 5000 or someone who is young but took over a megachurch, or someone who God bless them planted a church in the middle of a revival and has no idea what it is like to work for the first 10 people, 50 people, 100 people) to share about 'doing bivocational ministry', or 'the church planter and keeping the first church of your home', or '10 things I wished someone told me about church planting before I did it', or 'ideas for your launch' or whatever. Either way we are going to keep planting churches as individual churches will continue to raise up leaders and send them out. But it is wise, Biblical (and not denominational) to equip the saints for the work of the ministry!

Just my thoughts