ARC Apology

An ARC Apology

Dear Friends,

What you are reading is the beginning of a process of reflection about a global movement that we hope will transform the Church and unleash vision, energy and resources for reaching all the cultures of the world with the Gospel. We want you to join in the conversation that this document begins. Over the next months and years we want the best of our reflection to find its way into our foundational documents.

A great deal of thought and time has gone into creating this manifesto, this apologia for the movement. But we recognize that it is only the beginning. We are sure that there is much more to be said (several sections are obviously incomplete). We are also sure that some of what has been said will need clarification, expansion or revision. Therefore, we offer this to you with open hands, open hearts and open minds. We are excited about the process of describing the DNA of this movement as well as documenting its growth.

May the Lord do a new thing among us all……

In Him,

"Bishop Timothy"

10/06/05

Throughout history, the Spirit has inspired creative ways of expressing and re-expressing the key dynamics of the Church in various forms within diverse cultural contexts. As Christendom collapses, Western Culture is undergoing fundamental change. This change necessitates a re-expressing of the Church. The movement we envision has the potential of bringing healing to a Church that is fragmented in its relationships, professionalized in its leadership, anemic in its spiritual life, abstract and simplistic in its theological reflection and ineffective in its mission by discovering vibrant new forms of community, leadership development, worship, prayer, and mission. We recognize that one could find shining exceptions for each malaise of church life. But we know by experience that the churches formed during this long but waning season of Christendom struggle especially with these particular diseases. We believe, therefore, that much of the Church throughout the world is in need of a renewing movement.

Furthermore, Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist cultures challenge models of Church that formed within a European context. This movement has the potential of penetrating cultures of the world that have been traditionally hostile to the Gospel. By incarnating God’s love, translating the Gospel (verbally and culturally), and contextualizing both discipleship and leadership into these cultures, this global movement could catalyze thousands of other movements with the same essential DNA but with a wide variety of cultural expressions.

We dream of a global movement that will breathe life into the Church and reach peoples and cultures that have been resistant to European Christianity. We dream of a movement that will embrace with equal passion mission and order, evangelism and discipleship, reaching the lost and maturing the reached.

In order to reach its potential this movement will need biblical vision, theological reflection, historical perspective, paradigm transformation and practical expression. Recognizing that these topics could evoke whole books, let’s look at each of them in summary form.

Biblical Vision:

The Old Testament:

The biblical roots for this dream of a movement that reaches the world through a community of people in relationship with God run deep in both the Old and New Testaments. Mission is the heart of the Scriptures. As the rebellion begun by Adam and Eve becomes climactic in the Tower of Babel, God prepares the way for a movement that will change the face of the earth. He confuses the languages (thus creating linguistically and culturally distinct people groups) and calls Abram (and his descendents) to be a special conduit of blessing to all these peoples (Genesis 12:1-3). After leading His people out of slavery in Egypt, God constitutes this people as “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:5,6) – a kingdom to represent God to the nations and to provide a model for them. Embedded in the worship of this “holy nation” was a clear call to the peoples:

Sing to the LORD a new song;

Sing to the LORD, all the earth.

Sing to the LORD, praise his name;

Proclaim his salvation day after day.

Declare his glory among the nations,

his marvelous deeds among all peoples. (Psalm 96:1-3)

As Solomon dedicates the Temple, the focal point of worship for God’s people, he prays that God would hear the prayers of His people in all manner of contexts. He then asks this:

As for the foreigner who does not belong to your people Israel but has come from a distant land because of your great name and your mighty hand and your outstretched arm – when he comes and prays toward this temple, then hear from heaven, your dwelling place, and do whatever the foreigner asks of you, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your own people Israel, and may know that this house I have built bears your Name. (2 Chronicles 6:32,33)

Israel fails to catalyze this movement of God’s blessing among all the peoples of the earth, choosing instead to be a nation like the other nations (1 Samuel 8), and ends up in exile in Babylon for 70 years. At the end of that time, God speaks to Isaiah and reconstitutes Israel:

It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth. (Isaiah 49:6)

One of the last of the Old Testament saints (and one of the first to recognize Jesus as the Messiah), Simeon, expresses this same vision several hundred years after Isaiah:

Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel. (Luke 2:29-32)

The Gospels:

The same emphasis on this global movement permeates each of the Gospels. As Jesus trains the next generation of leaders of this movement, the Apostles, he wanders freely in and out of Gentile territory touching the lives of Samaritans, Romans and Phoenicians. Though He has been called to “the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 15:24), He leads the Apostles into contact with Gentiles on a regular basis. A careful study of each Gospel reveals this passion for the nations. Take the Gospel of Matthew as an example. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19,20) is the culmination of its plot, not a surprise twist at the end. Matthew tells us that Jesus has Gentile blood in His lineage (Matthew 1:1-16). In his gospel the first ones to worship Jesus are Gentile astrologers (Matthew 2:1-12). He heals a centurion’s servant and commends the centurion as a model of faith (Matthew 8:5-13). Likewise, He heals the daughter of Canaanite/Phoenician woman and celebrates her faith (Matthew 15:21-28). Sometimes Matthew is subtle in his pointing towards the nations. For example, he includes Gentile women in Jesus’ genealogy. He points to the inclusion of the nations by alluding to Daniel’s prophecy in the parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31,32; cf. Daniel 4:20-22). As Jesus cleanses the Temple (Matthew 21:12,13), He partially quotes (as a good Rabbi would) from Isaiah 56:7, “My house shall be a house of prayer,” leaving it to His hearers to finish the quote, “for all nations.” Matthew weaves the Gentiles through the whole story of Jesus’ ministry because he understands God’s heart for the nations.

Acts and Epistles:

Though each Gospel expresses this theme of God’s heart for the nations, it is in Acts and the Epistles where the movement explodes onto the scene and where we see its dynamics most clearly revealed. We see Acts 1:8 as the summary verse for the entire book; a verse that introduces three key elements of the Jesus movement, community, power and mission. “But you [all] will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

· Community

The individualistic cultures of the West have a significant blind spot regarding community in the Scripture. We assume that every “you” refers to an individual. But the New Testament writers almost always speak in the plural. So it is for Acts 1:8. Jesus assumes that the mission of the Church will be accomplished by the community of the Church. We see this focus on community most clearly in the early days of the movement. Luke tells us that those who were first to follow Jesus:

“devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer…. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.” (2:42-47).

The early disciples met daily, prayed and worshipped together, shared their resources, and listened to the apostles’ teaching. All this impressed the people around them! To see this level of commitment to each other made those who saw it take notice. This community overcame persecution (3,4, 8), received discipline (5), worked through conflict (6), multiplied in size by proclaiming the Gospel and (6:7). Shining in all of these activities is their radiant devotion to the fellowship (2:42).

This same emphasis on community permeates the Epistles. Repeatedly Paul, Peter and John write to churches throughout Asia Minor and Greece to exhort them to an ever deepening demonstration of community, to tangible expression of practical unity (see Romans 12-15; 1 Corinthians 1-3, 12-14; Ephesians 2, 4-6; Philippians 1-4; Philemon; 1 Peter 2; 1 John 3 – to mention a few). Community is an essential element of the movement that we envision.

· Power

God’s power forms this radiant community and together they continually display His power. The experience of Pentecost –rushing wind, tongues of flame, speaking in tongues, powerful preaching – transforms a gathering of disheartened disciples into a band of bold apostles. As in the ministry of Jesus, miracle and preaching (show and tell) go together. In the face of persecution this is the prayer of the Church, “Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus” (Acts 4:29, 30). Is it any wonder that God responds powerfully to that prayer? “After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly” (Acts 4:31).

Miraculous signs and wonders were a natural part of the kingdom of God breaking into new areas (Acts 13:9-12; 14:3; 16:25-30; 19:1-12; 28:1-10; Romans 15:19) and seem to be an assumed aspect of on-going life in the Church (1 Corinthians 12-14; James 5:13-18). We have seen how the Church gathered to pray and, as we have seen, they prayed for manifestations of God’s power.

· Mission

While community and power are crucial to the story of the movement, it is mission that is Luke’s focus. “You will be my witnesses.” It is the progress of this witness that Luke traces as it moves from Jerusalem (Acts 1-7) to Judea and Samaria (Acts 8) to the ends of the earth (Acts 9-28). As the gospel witness progresses it enfolds Jews, Gentile God-fearers and Gentile pagans, drawing into its circle Temple priests and pagan magicians (see Acts 6:7 and 19:17-20). Likewise, in the early summaries (Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-36; 5:12-16, 41-42; 6:7) Luke consistently emphasizes the proclamation of the Gospel and the growth of the Church. We see throughout the book Spirit-led, spontaneous multiplication of the Church.

The Book of Acts also gives glimpses of how the early church ordered its life as a community.

· Apostolic Bands and Sending Churches: Missional and Local Leadership

While the leadership structures in the New Testament are fluid as they emerge, two structures predominate: the sending church (or “mother church”) and the apostolic band. The Church in Antioch, at the instruction of the Holy Spirit, set apart Paul and Barnabas as leaders of a church-planting team. This missionary team has authority to set travel plans, to preach, to gather congregations, to address the issues those congregations are facing, and to appoint leaders for the emerging congregations. The leaders of this band, Paul and Barnabas, also join the other leaders of the Church in Jerusalem when controversy over the Gentiles threatens to divide the movement into two parallel “jurisdictions.”

At the same time that Paul’s band is planting churches, these new congregations take responsibility for their own support, for discerning God’s leading, for discipling new believers and planting other congregations. Paul leaves them with that responsibility, checking in on occasion to teach and exhort but never to control or dominate.

In the emerging Church there seems to have been a healthy balance/tension between apostolic and local leadership.

· Apostolic Ministry

One unique aspect of this early community was the role and authority of the Apostles. Their original call is instructive.

Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. He appointed twelve – designating them apostles – that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons” (Mark 3:14,15).

As a good Rabbi Jesus calls to himself those to whom he is going to pass along his teaching. But instead of designating them “students” or “disciples” (though they were certainly that), he designates them apostles (“sent ones”). Mission is foundational to apostolic ministry. Whatever they are to learn from being with Jesus is meant to be passed along.

It is important to note that Jesus called twelve to himself. The Apostles were from the beginning a community. When they are sent out, they are sent out in community. Later, when the Church must decide about the Gentiles, they gather in community. Apostolic leadership was always meant to be communal.

Paul points to the foundational characteristic of apostolic ministry in Ephesians 2:19,20:

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

The Apostles were stewards of a call (see Romans 15:15,16; Ephesians 3:1-13) and of a tradition (2 Tim. 1:14; 2:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Theological Reflection

The biblical material raises a number of questions that require further reflection theologically and historically. What is the nature of apostolic leadership and how is it offered today? Are bishops modern apostles? Are they essential to the Church? What is the relationship between local leadership and apostolic leadership? What is the relationship between sending churches like Antioch and the teams that they send? How do the various ways that “church” expresses itself (two or three gathered, home groups, congregations, the church in a city, the church universal) relate to each other? Does each expression have a different kind of leadership? Can we see a model of submission (i.e. authority/hierarchy) and mutuality in the Trinity that guides how we think about the life of the Church? Let’s look at each of these in turn.

The Apostles of the New Testament seem to have had two basic functions: mission and oversight. The word “apostle” (apostoloV, apostolos) means “sent one,” having at its heart the idea of mission. Jesus appointed the Twelve “that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons” (Mark 3:14, 15). This ministry of preaching and healing came to full bloom after Pentecost (see Acts 2:42-47; 3:1-26; 4:29-33; 5:12-16). One could argue that this is the essential ministry of apostles. When faced with the crisis of neglected widows (Acts 6:1-7), the apostles refused to shift their focus from the ministry of the word, even though the need of the widows was valid and required Spirit-led leadership. This same focus on mission continues throughout the Book of Acts as the spotlight moves from Jerusalem to Antioch to Asia to Greece and, finally, to Rome. Paul and his apostolic band travel throughout the Empire planting and nurturing churches in major metropolitan centers (presuming that through these centers the rest of the region will be reached – see Romans 15:17-25).

The oversight function of apostolic ministry has several aspects. First, we see the ministry of discernment in Acts 15 when the emergence of a Gentile people movement challenges the assumptions of Jewish believers. The Apostles (along with leaders from all of the churches) are called on to discern the work of the Spirit by testing the experience of the Church against the Scriptures and the teaching of Jesus. This ministry of discernment is crucial for the Church. Without it we are “blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming” (Ephesians 4:14).

Secondly, leadership development occurs as the apostles entrust “the good deposit” (2 Timothy 1:14) and teach “the tradition” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) to other “reliable men [and women] who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Timothy 2:2). It is possession of this tradition that makes “God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth

(1 Timothy 3:15). The apostles are uniquely responsible for making sure that the Church receives, through appointed leaders, what they themselves have received (see 1 Corinthians 15:3): the Gospel of Jesus, the news of the resurrection, the pattern of believing and living that is in Him. Paul, therefore, leaves Titus in Crete to appoint these local leaders (always plural in the New Testament) who will teach, model, and bring order (Titus 1:5ff.).

Thirdly, the Apostles (and apostolic leaders like Timothy and Titus) are responsible for disciplining the Church in light of “the tradition”.

What then is the relationship between these local leaders of congregations (episkopoi, “overseers” and presbuteroi, “elders”) and the itinerant apostolic teams? We see the following principles in Acts and the Epistles:

There was a “mother church” role of discerning and blessing what God was doing. This included, of course, evaluating whether God was doing something (as in the cases of the Gentile Cornelius and his family coming to faith and being baptized without circumcision and of the Gentile congregation emerging in Antioch). This would seem to imply a role in “blessing” or correcting the doctrine and practice of the emerging churches, but not the exercise of day to day authority. This brings us to the next principle.
There was a field based “authority” entrusted to the leaders in the “field”. We saw this already with Barnabas and Antioch in Acts 11. The same is true of the team in Acts 13 and 14, as Paul and Barnabas plant churches and appoint elders in every town without any recourse to either Antioch or Jerusalem for approval. They had the authority and they exercised it. The same seems to be true in the ministry of Priscilla and Aquila as they ministered to Apollos and then were involved in sending him on to another place of ministry. They had the authority and they exercised it. The Pastoral Epistles record Paul’s authorization to Timothy and Titus to act in the appointment of leaders. Paul clearly “entrusts” them with this authority and while he spells out clear guidelines for HOW to select such leaders he does not even suggest who those leaders ought to be (though he had spent three years in Ephesus and would have known all the key players and potential elders and overseers!).
There was a mutual accountability between “mother church” and “mission band”. Paul IS in some way sent by the Antioch church, and was in some sense “approved” by the Jerusalem leadership. But he felt clearly within his rights to rebuke Peter and Barnabas in Antioch (Galatians 2) and one can only assume that his visits back to Antioch were not visits aimed at seeking the Antioch leadership’s approval on his work. It is more likely the fact that he remained in some sense THEIR “authority” and would not have hesitated to correct them. And yet, Paul goes to Jerusalem, probably several times, to seek the blessing and “right hand of fellowship” from the apostles and elders there (if F.F. Bruce’s accounts of Acts 15 and Galatians 2 are correct). So, the mission teams led by Paul and sent by Antioch, or led by Peter and sent by Jerusalem (and 1 Peter 1:1ff gives us a glimpse of the scope of Peter’s mission), exercised a mutual accountability with the “mother churches”. Neither was independent of the other.
There was interdependence among the emerging churches. Just a few examples should suffice to demonstrate this principle. The church in Jerusalem sent prophets to Antioch to minister (end of Acts 11). Antioch sent money back to Jerusalem to minister to the saints there. Philippi supported Paul’s ministry as he planted other churches. (2 Corinthians 8-9) Peter visited Antioch. Paul recruited new members of his “band” from Jerusalem, Antioch, Derbe, Ephesus, indeed, from almost everywhere he went. Paul SENT members of his “band” to almost everywhere else. There was a remarkable “flow” of leadership from and into and among the emerging churches and “mother churches” (Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Thessalonica and likely several others).

5. Finally, there was a focus upon furthering movements to Jesus in new areas and among new cultures. The concern of the entrusting of authority to the missionary bands, the mutual accountability, and the interdependence among the churches and bands was clearly to see the expansion of the movement in ever wider circles. Paul’s heartfelt desire expressed in Romans 15 could well sum up the passion of this focus: to proclaim Jesus where He had not been proclaimed.

It is also interesting to note that the word “church” describes several different kinds of communities: house churches, the whole community of believers in a city, all believers everywhere. These various expressions (fractals) of “Church” shared the same basic DNA of community, power and mission.

Historical Perspective

The greatest danger to any movement is its success in a particular context. From the time of the Apostles to the time of Constantine, the Jesus Movement went from being a renewal movement within Judaism to a missionary movement targeting and led by Gentiles. From Acts 11 onwards the movement becomes thoroughly enculturated. The New Testament is written in common Greek. The early apologists used the rhetorical conventions of the day and appealed to well-known philosophers (see Acts 17:16-34 for a New Testament example of this strategy). It was perfectly natural, therefore, that the leadership structures of the Church should become more and more Roman as the movement matured in Roman culture. While recognizing the presence of many “peoples” in the Empire, Rome organized itself juridically, geographically and hierarchically. Interestingly, as the role of the bishop emerges, it shifts from a collegial and missional focus to a juridical one expressed geographically and hierarchically. The “apostle” (apostoloV, “sent one”) is overshadowed by the “overseer” (episkopoV, “bishop”). Instead of keeping the two aspects of apostolic ministry in balance or in tension, oversight overwhelmed mission.

Other models existed. Coming from the Island of Iona a Celtic mission movement emerged that saw the role of bishop in missional terms. He was the leader of an apostolic, pioneer church-planting band. Along with a community of monks and families, the bishop would take the Good News (in the form of a Christian community) to an unreached people group. This community would incarnate the presence of Jesus while learning the language and culture. Eventually, the Gospel would take root in the new culture. Part of the original apostolic band would stay behind to disciple these new believers. At the same time, the bishop would take new monks and families from the newly reached culture, combine them with part of the original band and form a new apostolic band to reach the next unreached people group. This pattern took the Gospel from coast of Ireland all the way to the northern reaches of Italy. (It should be noted that Celtic Christianity was as contextualized as Roman Christianity. At times the warring tribes found their ties as followers of Christ to be less powerful than their animosity as members of their tribes.)

But there was a problem brewing. The dominant cultural model was not Celtic but Roman. In 597, Gregory, the Great, sent Augustine to Canterbury to bring order to the emerging movement in England. 67 years later the Roman model and the Celtic model clashed at the Synod of Whitby. The decision to follow Rome and its ways had a dramatic effect on the course of the Christian movement. Rome’s Christendom pattern became “the pattern” for hundreds of years to come. Even during the Reformation everyone assumed the need for geographical, hierarchical, juridical leadership. It is interesting to note that while the Roman Catholic church was sending missionaries to the ends of the earth in the 16^th century, the Reformers were arguing about the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. There won’t be a protestant mission movement for almost two hundred more years.

While the Roman hierarchical-geographical-juridical model became the dominant form of organization, the collegial-missional model still found occasional expression.

Paradigm Transformation

As we have seen above the Spirit-inspired movements throughout history, though contextualized in a variety of cultures, take a certain shape. They are apostolic, reformed and catholic. By “apostolic” we are not referring to what many in Anglican circles mean: apostolic orders (i.e., polity and bishops). We are referring to church planters and leaders serving in teams focused on the multiplication of churches and the building up of those churches to participate in the ongoing expansion of the church through the sending of other apostolic teams. The role and function of such apostolic teams can be gleaned from Acts 14:21-28 where Paul and his team evangelize a new area, make disciples of many, strengthen and encourage the disciples in the faith, appoint elders for the new churches and, finally, connect these emerging churches to the wider church. Therefore, the role and function of bishops needs to be transformed from the current focus on administrative and pastoral duties to the leadership of church planting teams and to the authorizing of new leaders to evangelize, to plant church and to appoint new leaders for new and non-geographical movements among cultures not yet reached by the Church.

The movement we have in mind is committed to the principle of reform: the Church needs the reform and renewal available to them through the Word and the Spirit of God. This principle was captured very well by early Anglicanism. The Anglican Reformation developed a prayer book tradition and lectionary system (i.e., Bible reading plan) that encouraged the discipleship of all believers through a process rooted in reading large sections of scripture in the context of daily prayer. We desire to continue to be a part of a movement of churches that embraces this vision of discipleship and formation, a vision that fosters both personal and corporate renewal and reformation under the Word through the power of the Holy Spirit. It also developed pattern of communal worship that was a new blend of ancient tradition and cultural “vernacular”. We desire to be part of a movement that continues this heritage of creative use of ancient elements in modern forms of art, music, dance, and communication. Furthermore, the early Anglican form of the movement developed expressions of its theology that were rooted in worship as well as in creeds. This is a very healthy element and reminds us of Paul’s letters, in which he discusses deep theology in the language of praise and worship (Ephesians 1 through 3 for example is an extended prayer of worship). Praying and believing are woven together inextricably.

“Catholic,” like “apostolic,” is also open to misinterpretation. But it emphasizes an intentional connection to the Body of Christ in all its expressions: the local congregation, the network of congregations in a city, the diocese, the province, the Communion. This connection needs to have geographical, cultural, historical, and denominational breadth. We need to be a visible part of a living organism, the Body of Christ, which includes believers in many nations, from many languages, in the past and in the future as well as the present.

Here again the role of the bishop comes into play. The role of the bishop has its foundations in scripture and early tradition. This does not mean, however, that bishops (as currently found in all of the churches) are of the essence of the church. That is, there can be and are healthy churches that have no bishops (though every polity develops some form through which the function of oversight takes place). Having bishops in a denomination’s polity does not guarantee doctrinal purity. Nor do bishops guarantee apostolic power for ministry. There are plenty of examples of churches that have no bishops that are doctrinally, morally, and spiritually far more powerful than, for example, the Episcopal Church (and other Anglican churches). We do believe that the original function of New Testament apostolic ministry, which after the New Testament period came, over time, to be vested in the role and office of bishops is a necessary role: to plant churches, to ordain leaders, to guard and teach the faith, and to discipline doctrinal and moral error.

In the last several generations of the history of the Episcopal Church in the USA it would be safe to argue that only ONE of those functions has received adequate attention. Our bishops do ordain leaders (though they often take little care to ensure that the “good deposit” has been passed down). However, the apostolic function of leading the charge for church planting has been almost completely ignored except in rare exceptions. The same can be said for teaching and guarding the faith as delivered to the saints. As for the apostolic function of the exercise of discipline, suffice it to say that if ECUSA’s leadership had in fact fulfilled this function we would not find ourselves in the position of outsiders with respect to the Anglican Communion. Therefore, we believe that a new apostolic movement needs to connect to the global, universal, “catholic” Body of Christ as symbolized not only in faith and practice but also in a transformed (that is, restored) role of bishops.

While the movement we have in mind will be apostolic, reformed and catholic in all its expressions, we also believe that each expression will be contextualized within its culture. These contextualized movements within the movement will be self-propagating, self-governing, self-supporting and self-theologizing.

Practical Expressions

It is not enough merely to outline how we think things “ought to be”. We also want to outline a very specific attempt to embody these insights and principles into a real and living expression of an apostolic, reformed, and catholic movement. We are preparing to launch such a movement and seek to build upon these core principles.

The focus here is to outline a process by which a “mother church” and “mission band” might work in partnership to see new movements to Jesus emerge.

The Mother Church Principle.

In context, this would be the new, non-geographical “ARC Diocese”.

The Field Based Authority Principle.

In our context, this would require that a mission band, or at least some leaders within the band, be consecrated as bishops and entrusted to ordain leaders for the emerging church movements the band plants and establishes. Ideally, this would include the subsequent consecration of new bishops by the band as well.

The Mutual Accountability Principle.

The mother church and the mission band will need to establish clear expectations for relationship, reporting, mutual learning and encouragement, and accountability for goals and progress and doctrine.

The Interdependence Principle.

The mother church, the mission band, and the churches that emerge in new movements will need to find ways to share resources and share leaders.

The Expansion Principle.

The focus of all of this needs to remain upon multiplying churches and new movements in new cultures. Mother churches need t focus on multiplying MOVEMENTS, not just planting more individual churches.

Core Commitments

In addition to the foundational principles listed above, these five commitments express HOW we will live this out.

We are committed to regular, intentional prayer for one another, both when we meet and when we are apart.
We are committed to the “Koinonias” or “Partnerships” of Philippians:
1. Partnership in furthering the Gospel (Phil. 1:5);
2. Partnership as servants who lay down our lives and agendas for each other (Phil. 2:1-11) and minister incarnationally;
3. Partnership in a growing intimacy with Jesus (Phil. 3:10);
4. Partnership in the giving and receiving of our resources of skill, money, people, etc. (Phil. 4:15).
We are committed to training at every level of ministry and church life that is rooted in the inductive study of large sections of scripture (whole books) applied to real situations.
We are committed to the concept of building fully team-based ministries and ministry structures and to modeling team ministry ourselves.
We are committed to the leader/apprentice model of church multiplication.

Faith Affirmations

In these five faith affirmations we seek to balance a concern for orthodoxy and faithfulness to the historic expressions of Christian faith with an honest acceptance of the variety of positions Christians have held with full integrity on some issues.

We affirm the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as inspired by the Holy Spirit and containing all things necessary for salvation and discipleship. We affirm the fact, and rejoice in the reality, that God speaks to His people with clarity and authority in the scriptures.
We affirm the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds as summaries of the main themes of biblical truth. The creeds and confessions of various Christians through the centuries are attempts to express biblical truth in the light of the concerns and questions of their particular historical and cultural contexts, and such theological work needs to continue in every culture and generation.
We affirm and obey the Lord’s commandments to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. We believe that a wide range of interpretations and practices concerning these two rites are valid and can co-exist side by side in this movement.
We affirm that several forms of church polity and structure can be discerned in the scriptures and that no particular polity can lay exclusive claim to being the New Testament model. Particular cultural and social settings may be best served by one form, while in other contexts another form may better communicate and express biblical truth and community life. This movement will structure around the historic episcopate as it has been described elsewhere in this document.
We affirm and expect the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit within and beyond the Body of Christ. The Holy Spirit continues to lead the church into all truth, distribute spiritual gifts as He sees fit regardless of race, age, or gender, and empower the witness of the church in our own Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Our Missional Focus

We are committed to a focus of our mission which we describe as EPIC:

E: The Emerging Culture

The emerging culture is a transitional, increasingly GLOBAL, culture that is influenced by pop-culture, technology, and the passing of modernity. It can be described as tolerant, young, skeptical, and globally minded.

P: Pioneer Movements among the unreached

The unreached are those nations and cultures (ethne) with no viable church.

I: International Cities

International Cities are cities around the world with growing populations of people from other countries of origin.

C: Catalytic Component

It is our commitment that our efforts give priority to ministries and church planting that will result in MULTIPLICATION. We use four “markers” to describe this catalytic component: self-PROPOGATING, self-GOVERNING, self-SUPPORTING, and self-THEOLOGIZING. (The latter refers to the development of solid biblical theology “in culture”, not to the trend in which many seek to “make up” their own theology based upon secular or even anti-Christian sources).

TOP