developing an ephesus catalytic partnership as a new … dmin project on ephesus tea… · ephesus...

DEVELOPING AN EPHESUS CATALYTIC PARTNERSHIP

AS A NEW WAY TO PLANT REPRODUCING

CHURCHES IN MEGAMETRO, USA

AND BEYOND

by

D. E. Heidenreich

B.A., University of Cincinnati, 1988

M.A.R., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1994

M.Div.(equivalency), Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2008

A MAJOR PROJECT

Submitted to the faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Ministry

in Missiology

at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, IL

March 2017

ii

Copyright © 2017 by D. E. Heidenreich

All rights reserved

iii

Accepted:

Project Mentor

Second Reader

Program Director

iv

ABSTRACT

MegaMetro (pseudonym) is a major metropolitan area in the United States, a world-class

city where commerce, education and tourism flourish. It is also home to several historic and

renowned Christian ministries. At the same time, however, MegaMetro is home to a dispersed

and diverse group of an estimated 500,000 Muslims of which the church has largely left

unengaged. In fact, there is no Muslim background believer church in the area. While many other

cities in the United States have Iranian churches, MegaMetro has none.

Meanwhile, exciting reports of Church Planting Movements (CPMs) have sprung up

around the world, especially among Muslim populations. Missionaries and other believers active

in some of these movements have formed Ephesus Teams as multi-organizational, collaborative

partnerships to create synergy and maintain momentum.

This project was initiated as an investigative study to learn more about these Ephesus

Teams and to apply the learning to MegaMetro. The research done was qualitative, through the

use of Interview Protocols. Six Ephesus Teams were studied through in-depth interviews with

eleven key leaders. At the same time, a study was also made of workers ministering among

Muslims in MegaMetro through thirteen face-to-face interviews.

The research found that while the Ephesus Teams are seeing significant fruit in several

difficult places around the world, workers in MegaMetro are largely frustrated. The project

concludes with a strategic plan which seeks to implement some of the best practices of the

Ephesus Teams into the context of Muslim ministry in MegaMetro.

This project is dedicated to those many faithful servants

who have partnered broadly and worked diligently

to catalyze Church Planting Movements in

areas once considered impossible.

And also to those who want

to partner to see similar

things happen in

MegaMetro and

beyond

vi

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... xii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... xv

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT ........................................................................ 1

Understanding an Age-Old Challenge; Embracing a New Era ............................... 1

The Research Focus ................................................................................................. 5

Relationship to the Ministry of the Writer ............................................................... 6

Scope and Limitations.............................................................................................. 8

Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................... 9

Methodology ............................................................................................................ 10

2. THE PROJECT IN BIBLICAL AND MISSIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

AND LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 13

Church Planting Movements in Contemporary Literature....................................... 13

Church Planting Movements Defined .......................................................... 14

Lessons Learned from Church Planting Movements ................................... 15

Overview of the History of Muslim Evangelism ......................................... 17

Concerns about Church Planting Movements.............................................. 26

Disciple Making Movements as a Strategy Leading to

Church Planting Movements........................................................................ 28

Disciple Making as the Biblical Priority .................................................................. 30

What is a Disciple? ...................................................................................... 30

Realigning Our Priority from Conversion to Disciple-Making ................... 31

vii

Considering How Jesus Made Disciples ...................................................... 33

Elements of New Testament Disciple Making ............................................ 35

1. Holistic ....................................................................................... 35

2. Open and Public ......................................................................... 36

3. Obedience Oriented ................................................................... 37

4. Group Oriented .......................................................................... 38

5. Process Oriented ........................................................................ 39

6. Fruit Oriented ............................................................................. 42

Biblical Discipleship Leads to Church Planting .......................................... 44

The Twelve as the Embryonic First Church .................................... 45

Paul’s Priority on Church Planting as the Vehicle........................... 46

Disciple Making as the Leading Edge, Not Church Planting .......... 48

Church Planting Through Partnership ..................................................................... 49

Paul’s Focus on Obedience, Not Forms ....................................................... 51

De-culturization clears the Way ................................................................... 54

The Discovery Group ................................................................................... 54

Beyond Debate into Unity in Church Planting ............................................ 59

A New Emphasis on Inter-Organizational Collaboration ............................ 60

Starfish Thinking for Ministry ..................................................................... 62

Conclusion and Application to MegaMetro’s Muslim Populations ........................ 65

3. THE PROJECT NARRATIVE AND FIELD WORK................................................... 68

Research Design – Steps in Conducting the Research............................................. 68

Rationale for Research Design................................................................................. 69

Informant Selection and Criteria .............................................................................. 70

viii

Data Collection, Recording and Analysis ................................................................ 71

Description of Research Execution .......................................................................... 73

4. REPORT OF RESEARCH FINDINGS......................................................................... 78

Overview of Ephesus Vision and Team Naming ..................................................... 78

Ephesus Team Descriptions and Findings ............................................................... 80

The NAME Ephesus Team .......................................................................... 80

The East Indonesia Network ........................................................................ 84

The Kansas City Ephesus Team .................................................................. 86

The Ethiopia Transformational DMM Team ............................................... 90

The India Ephesus Hub ................................................................................ 93

The Levant Ephesus Team ........................................................................... 100

MegaMetro Ministry Workers’ Findings ................................................................. 103

Input and Advice Given for the MegaMetro Ephesus Partnership .......................... 109

1. Pray ........................................................................................................ 110

2. Cast Vision to Others ............................................................................. 112

3. Have a Clear Strategy ............................................................................ 113

4. Train, Train, Train … Then Coach ........................................................ 115

5. Do Social Ministry and Loving Acts of Service

to Gain Access to Muslim Communities ............................................... 118

6. Additional Pieces of Input ..................................................................... 120

5. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR AN EPHESUS CATALYTIC

PARTNERSHIP IN MEGAMETRO, U.S.A. ................................................................ 122

Introduction and Overview ...................................................................................... 122

Key Ideas and Main Pillars of a Strategic Plan ........................................................ 124

Specific Activities Required to Facilitate the Above Pillars ................................... 126

ix

Pillar 1: Pray Boldly..................................................................................... 126

Wisdom from Current Practitioners on Ephesus Teams .................. 126

Notes from MegaMetro Research .................................................... 126

Plan of Action .................................................................................. 126

Pillar 2: Cast Vision ..................................................................................... 128



Plan of Action .................................................................................. 128

Pillar 3: Train Believers ............................................................................... 131



Plan of Action .................................................................................. 132

Pillar 4: Build Partnership ............................................................................ 133



Plan of Action .................................................................................. 133

Pillar 5: Reach Out to Muslims .................................................................... 135



Plan of Action .................................................................................. 136

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 140

APPENDIX

1. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL USED WITH EPHESUS TEAM LEADERS ................... 142

2. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL USED WITH MEGAMETRO WORKERS ..................... 143

x

3. INFORMED CONSENT LETTER FOR EPHESUS TEAM LEADERS ..................... 144

4. INFORMED CONSENT LETTER FOR WORKERS IN MEGAMETRO .................. 145

5. OUTLINE OF DMM FIRST STEPS TRAINING CURRICULUM ............................. 146

Session 1: God is the Author of CPMs. Prayer for the

Messengers and for Movements .............................................................................. 146

Session 2: God Draws and Teaches ......................................................................... 147

Session 3: The Greatest Commandment – Love and Obey ..................................... 147

Session 4: The Great Commission ........................................................................... 148

Session 5: Becoming Like Jesus .............................................................................. 148

Session 6: Becoming Like Those You Want to Reach ............................................ 149

Session 7: A Strategy Jesus Used to Reach the Lost ............................................... 149

Session 8: Finding Households of Peace ................................................................. 150

Session 9: Starting Discovery Groups ..................................................................... 150

Session 10: Principles of Multiplying Disciples ...................................................... 151

Session 11: What is the Church? ............................................................................. 151

Session 12: Plan and Implement .............................................................................. 152

6. DMM CRITICAL ELEMENTS .................................................................................... 153

God ........................................................................................................................... 153

Vision ....................................................................................................................... 153

Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 153

Evangelism ............................................................................................................... 153

Discipleship.............................................................................................................. 154

Churches .................................................................................................................. 154

Leaders ..................................................................................................................... 154

xi

Plan and Evaluate ..................................................................................................... 155

7. PERSONAL ACTION PLAN, SPRING 2017 – SPRING 2018 ................................... 156

Personal Plan for Implementation Based on Five Pillars

of Ephesus Strategy.................................................................................................. 156

REFERENCE LIST ................................................................................................................... 162

xii

TABLES

Table Page

1. Ephesus Team Vision Statements .................................................................................. 112

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have been encouraging and helpful in the development of this project. Like

an Ephesus Team, this was a true collaboration.

First, I would like to express my highest appreciation to Dr. Stan Parks and Mr. David L.

Watson for mentoring me in Disciple Making Movements (DMM). Without their

encouragement, training and correction, I would still be stuck in the swamps of Asia.

Next, I would like to express thanks to all the people who were willing to give of their

time for interviews, both from the six Ephesus Teams in ministry around the world and also the

thirteen workers currently laboring in MegaMetro. For the sake of the security of your ministries,

I will not list your names and locations, but your service is very much appreciated. Thank you

for sharing your time, vision, and passions with me. Thank you even more, for considering me a

partner and colleague in God’s work.

I would also like to thank Mr. L.D. Waterman for his excellent input with both content

and copy editing. Truly, a writer is only as good as his editor. It is even better when your editor

is a friend (Prov 27:6).

The staff of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS), both faculty and administration,

have been superb. Since studying at the Master’s level at TEDS, I have never been disappointed

either in the scholarship or genuine biblical godliness of my professors. It was truly an honor and

privilege to be able to attend classes again at the Professional Doctoral level, and to sit at the feet

of these men and women of God. You have enriched my life and encouraged my soul. In

particular, I would like to thank Dr. Craig Ott and Dr. David Seiver, my First and Second

xiv

Readers. Also, I would like to thank Dr. Marty Crain, who greatly encouraged me during the

Research Methods course, and Dr. Bill Donahue who helped me transition and finish this project.

Finally, I am truly thankful to God for my supporting churches and partners, my mission

organization, PIONEERS, and most of all, my family who allowed me the grace and flexibility

to complete this project. My wife, Rebecca, is my greatest colleague, partner and encourager:

without your enthusiasm for this project and the overall mission that we share together I could

not have finished.

My prayer is that God will bless and reward each of you for the blessing you have been in

my life. I give thanks to God for each of you and for your with me in the gospel (Phil

1:5).

xv

ABBREVIATIONS

BMB Believer in Christ from a Muslim Background

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CLC Community Learning Center (in India)

COMMA Coalition of Ministries among Muslims in North America

CPM Church Planting Movement

DMM Disciple Making Movement

ESL English as a Second Language

DG Discovery Groups

ICS Intercultural Studies

IM Insider Movement

M-A-W-L Model-Assist-Watch-Leave

MAWLS Model, Assist, Watch, Leave, Stay in touch

MBB Muslim Background Believer (BMB is the preferred term today)

NAME North Africa-Middle East

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

PMI Pueblos Musulmanes Internacional

PoP Person of Peace

TEAM The Evangelical Alliance Mission

TEDS Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

T4T Training for Trainers

UPG Unreached People Group

xvi

UUPG Unengaged Unreached People Group

WIGTake What’s It Gonna Take?

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT

The purpose of this project is to create a strategic plan for the development of an

“Ephesus Catalytic Partnership” in order to engage, reach and plant churches among Muslims

living in the greater “MegaMetro” city.1 The partnership envisioned will not be limited to one

organization or denominational team, but be a collaboration of like-minded individuals who

share the vision of reaching the nearly half-million Muslims of MegaMetro through the strategy

of Disciple-Making Movements (DMM) with the end goal of catalyzing Church Planting

Movements (CPMs). The research done for this project studied six Ephesus Teams currently

ministering around the world as well as thirteen workers involved in ongoing ministry to

Muslims2 in MegaMetro.

Understanding an Age-Old Challenge;

Embracing a New Era

Islam has been a growing, direct challenge to Christianity ever since Muhammad ibn

Abdullah began preaching in AD 610. Its humble beginning as the religion of a poet-preacher

soon gave way to a militaristic theocracy. During the period of the “rightly guided Caliphs” (AD

610-661) and afterwards until AD 732, Islamic armies rampaged large swathes of formerly

Christian lands in the Near East/Middle East and North Africa, demanding that residents submit

1 MegaMetro is a pseudonym for a major metropolitan area in the United States. I am not

using the real name in order to protect the ministry and identity of key informants, and because

the principles and ideas enunciated in this project are not necessarily place-specific.

2 Many interviews were confidential. The names of the interviewees and specific

interview dates are withheld by mutual agreement to protect the individuals and their ministries.

2

to Islam or fight. Yet the pace was unsustainable. Islamic armies suffered losses in five major

battles between AD 728-732, including the famous battle at Tours, France where westward

expansion was stopped by Charles “The Hammer” Martel (October 11, 732). Yet, during the

Medieval Period, Islamic religion and culture continued to deepen and flourish. Other territories

were added, most notably in Central Asia and Western Africa, and Islam eventually experienced

a Golden Age between the eighth and thirteenth centuries. However, when the final Islamic

caliphate ended at the collapse of Turkish Ottoman Empire on March 3, 1924, Muslims around

the world were bewildered and confused. Western powers seemed to have won the day with most

of the Muslim world finding itself colonized by the “Christian West.” A theological, even

existential crisis among Muslims ensued (Lewis 2005). Nevertheless, a new spirit of Islamic

renaissance blew through the Muslim world beginning in the late eighteenth century and

continuing until today through the rise of political pan-Islamism and through various and

powerful means of da’wa and jihad. Today the faith of Islam claims over 1.6 billion souls and

Muslims are found in nearly every country of the world. The United States of America is no

exception.

Christian response to Islam throughout the ages has varied, yet mostly paralleled the

zeitgeist of its age, whether it be polemics, debate, physical warfare or détente (Bosch 2004).

The narrative, as notably enunciated by Huntington (1996), which views the so-called “Christian

West” in constant conflict with other world religions, particularly Islam, has led many Christians

throughout history to view Muslims as an enemy to be defeated rather than victims in need of

salvation. A spate of writing promoting such a view, often resulting in fear and hatred, has

recently been revived largely as a result of global terrorism.

3

However, a new day has dawned. Some point to “9/11” (September 11, 2001) as a

watershed moment waking up the world to the crisis within Islam and evangelicals to the need

for prayer and action. Others note the impact of the convulsion brought on by the Arab Spring

(December 2010) resulting in geo-political and spiritual changes previously unimaginable.

Separately, the mission world has been pulsating with news of Church Planting Movements

(CPMs) since the publication of David Garrison’s book of the same title (Garrison 2004). His

follow-up work, A Wind in the House of Islam (Garrison 2014), highlights the Muslim world in

particular and makes the astonishing claim that sixty-nine new Christ-ward movements have

occurred among Muslims in twenty-nine countries since 2000 (Garrison 2014, 231). In an

interview with Christianity Today Garrison states, “We are living in the midst of the greatest

turning of Muslims to Christ in history” (Borkett-Jones 2015, 1). Garrison’s claims are

corroborated by another well-known CPM practitioner-trainer, David Watson. Watson and his

colleagues at City Team have produced a series of recent books recounting similar movements

among Muslims: Miraculous Movements (Trousdale and Watson 2012), Father Glorified

(Robertson, Watson and Benoit 2013) and Contagious Disciple-Making (Watson and Watson

2014). Surprisingly, David Watson states that Garrison’s number of movements among Muslims

is actually low; he asserts to be tracking over eighty such movements among Muslims today

(David Watson, April 2016, personal conversation).

These exciting developments reflect a possible new day in missions to Muslims and have

brought a bright ray of hope, especially for those ministering in non-Western contexts. Yet many

questions remain, in particular whether these models of multiplicative ministry are healthy, and

if they can be replicated among Muslim diaspora populations in the Western world.

4

United States census data does not track religion, but estimates of Muslims in greater

MegaMetro indicate upwards of 500,000 people, about eighty percent of whom are immigrants

from a great variety of national and ethnic backgrounds (Oksnevad 2016; Executive Director

Ahmed Rehab of the Council for American Islamic Relations, December 2016, personal

conversation).3 However, despite the large number of Muslims, the research done for this project

discovered only minimal gospel engagement in MegaMetro by individuals, churches or mission

organizations, and very limited impact from that engagement. Though the time is ripe for new

approaches, American evangelicals in general appear more interested in political debate and

religious polemics than in engaging Muslims meaningfully with the gospel.4 In fact, my research

did not find a single Believer in Christ from a Muslim Background (BMB) church in greater

MegaMetro and only discovered about twenty Christians earnestly working to change that

reality. As one African pastor in suburban MegaMetro put it, “Evangelicals today tend to fall

into two groups: (1) those who deny there is any problem with Islam and (2) those who just hate

Muslims!” (GD)

Therefore, it is my intent to seize this new day in ministry to Muslims and attempt to

catalyze a new collaborative partnership of Christians to engage Muslims and plant churches

3 The estimates of 500,000 Muslims in MegaMetro may be high. In 2004, Garbi

Schmidt’s research estimated 285,000 Muslims of which 40 percent were African American.

(Schmidt 2004, 10).

4 At the end of 2015, Wheaton College was embroiled in a fractious and very public

debate centered on the identity of the God of Islam versus “the Christian God.” Far from being a

localized event in one suburb of one city, the issue was quickly politicized and aired on national

news, rebounding around the world. Perhaps thousands of discussions and debates were held on

social media, and inter-faith meetings and seminars are still being held months later to bring

resolution. Debates like this seem to make evangelicals even less likely to meaningfully engage

Muslims with the gospel.

5

among them in MegaMetro. This partnership will be modeled after other Ephesus Teams studied

in this research project currently in operation around the world.

The Research Focus

The primary focus of research was a group of six Ephesus Teams currently operating

around the world.5 These teams are inter-organizational, collaborative partnerships, more like

“Starfish organizations”6 (Brafman and Beckstrom 2006) than traditional missionary teams.

Though they are made up of multiple organizations and unaffiliated individuals, these teams see

themselves as collaborative partnerships united by a vision to reach the lost and using DMM as

their primary strategy.7

The second focus of this study encompassed ministries already working among Muslims

in MegaMetro. In particular, I set out to discover what ministries already exist with the goal of

reaching Muslims for Christ and planting churches among them, and how much progress has

been made.

Having interviewed subjects from both groups and analyzed the research, a strategic plan

to launch an Ephesus Team for MegaMetro has been developed and is presented in Chapter 5.

The words of the African pastor, himself a refugee coming from a country ravaged by war from

5 These locations are: The Desert (North Africa Middle East region); Ethiopia; East

Indonesia; The Levant; India and Kansas City, Kansas.

6 “Starfish organization” is a term used to refer to an organization which functions with

an open system, decentralized leadership and cohesion obtained by emotional connections as

opposed to hierarchical control (Brafman and Beckstrom 2006). A fuller discussion with

application for mission will be given in Chapter 2.

7 The particulars of a DMM strategy will be delineated in Chapter 2.

6

Islamic hegemony, beckoned me to action. “My cry,” he said, “is to see Muslims come to Christ.

What I mean by that is, I am in pain to see them coming to the Lord. That’s what really I am

hungry for. The thing is, I don’t know how I can make it happen. Is there any clear strategy to

reach out to the Muslims here? Why not?” (GD)

Relationship to the Ministry of the Writer

After serving among Muslims for approximately twenty-one years in Southeast Asia, my

family and I currently live in the suburbs of MegaMetro. Since arriving, we have been stunned to

see the growth of Islam in this city, considered by some as the Medina of the West.8 Clearly

MegaMetro is among the most strategic cities in North America allowing for interfacing with

various types of Muslims, networking with American churches, mobilizing and training new

workers, and accessing the world through its international airport. In terms of Muslim

populations in the United States, it ranks third. Yet there has been very minimal outreach. I

believe MegaMetro now needs a serious collaborative effort to reach its half-million Muslims.

As NS, a Christian from Pakistan and one of my local informants stated, “What is needed for

breakthrough? More harvesters! We must sow and have a strong, intentional follow-up.”

Our last six years on the field in Indonesia were especially formative. Previously we had

tried various traditional approaches to church planting, being unaware of Disciple Making

Movements (DMM) as a strategy. However, in 2009, our ministry approach was reordered as a

result of mentoring by Stan Parks and David Watson. This led to new levels of productivity and

8 Some reasons why MegaMetro is considered the Medina of the West include its large

Muslim population, over 150 mosques and Islamic centers, three Muslim universities, printing

and publishing houses, and the headquarters of several Islamic organizations (Oksnevad 2016).

7

fruitfulness in our country and beyond. Additionally, in our region we were also able to interact

directly with and learn from leaders of two burgeoning movements catalyzed by other

organizations. Through training and coaching cycles, beginning locally but expanding

throughout the Muslim world, we began to partner closely with workers from many

organizations to implement DMM as a strategy in our country and around the world.

This resulted in two peer-coaching groups that have become paradigmatic for my wife

and me: a CPM Roundtable in Java and the Affinity Group Catalysts, a global network. The CPM

Roundtable serves as a place for accountability and sharing as participants learn to apply DMM

principles to their existing ministries. A monthly meeting of this group has engendered

unprecedented unity among a very disparate group of workers from the United States, the

Philippines, Indonesia, Costa Rica, England, Brazil, Holland and Australia with workers from

such diverse organizations and denominations as Mennonites, Baptists, Assemblies of God,

Pioneers, Youth With a Mission, One Challenge, Pueblos Musulmanes Internacional (PMI, a

Latino Mission agency), and the Sydney Anglicans. Through this, we learned that unity was

possible, despite such broad differences, not so much due to shared vision but due to having a

clear strategy such as DMM offers. While the CPM Roundtable is a peer group for workers in

one locality, the Affinity Group Catalysts is a loose partnership of twelve people working around

the world, each having a focus on reaching a broad affinity group. This partnership was

originally intended for my own organization’s workers, but was intentionally diversified to

include others from six organizations and five continents. Though the Affinity Group Catalysts

only meet face-to-face annually, this group has been a key impetus helping its members focus on

seeing movements in broad regions and giving them necessary resources.

8

Both the CPM Roundtable and the Affinity Group Catalysts continue functioning to this

day. Through my experience with them, I have come to understand some key concepts related to

partnership and gospel outreach that I wanted to research more fully through this project.

Scope and Limitations

This project centered on learning from the six Ephesus Teams currently in existence

throughout the world. The focus of my research was to learn best practices: what is going well

and why, particularly in the areas of creating broad collaborative partnerships and in planting

multiplicative churches. Though these were not the only Ephesus Teams in existence at the time

of my research, space and time did not allow me to interview them all.

In addition, study was also made of ongoing ministries among Muslims operating solely

in the MegaMetro area. I did not investigate other ministries among Muslims operating in other

parts of the country or the world. The aim of the research from these ministries was to determine

what is actually happening in MegaMetro: who is reaching Muslims and where is church

planting happening. This was done to learn and also to build relationships for possible future

partnership.9 Since the very essence of an Ephesus Team is to be inter-organizational and

collaborative, any mission group or theological position was welcome as long as it was broadly

evangelical.10 Therefore, though I recognize that evangelicals may be found in denominations

9 Since 9/11, there has been a sizeable increase of interest in Islam and reaching Muslims.

Many Christian ministries have developed educational and training programs, including several

that bring such teaching to local churches. While such ministries are necessary and useful, these

were not studied unless they had personnel actively focused on evangelism and church planting

among Muslims.

10 Evangelical is defined for our purposes by those people whose faith exhibits four key

distinctives: (1) belief in the Bible as God’s sole authoritative Scripture; (2) Jesus Christ as his

9

and organizations that are not evangelical per se including the Roman Catholic and Orthodox

Churches, study was not made of their ministries. Study was also not made of churches and

ministries that have happened to reach some Muslims through their normal ministry programs.

Instead, I endeavored to study every evangelical ministry that is truly focused on reaching

Muslims in MegaMetro.

The result of the two areas of research is a combined report with a strategic plan for the

development of an Ephesus Catalytic Partnership for MegaMetro. It is my sincere hope that this

plan will be a preliminary answer to the African pastor’s plea for a clear strategy.

Goals and Objectives

The first goal was to answer the research question: what are the best practices of Ephesus

Teams currently in operation around the world, particularly in the areas of building collaborative

partnerships and planting multiplicative churches? This was accomplished by analysis of in-

depth interviews of leaders from each of the six Ephesus Teams noted above.11

The second goal of this project was to research Christian ministries in MegaMetro with

the stated focus of reaching Muslims. Key objectives of the local research included learning: (1)

what methods people have been using, (2) what successes they have seen, (3) what they have

unique Son and Savior of the world; (3) the need for each individual to have a personal born-

again experience; and (4) the need to propagate this faith for the eternal salvation of all people.

11 Despite the reality of significant differences among these teams, including ethnicity,

nomenclature, fruitfulness and scope (one doesn’t even refer to itself as an Ephesus Team), all

are similar in their use of DMM strategy, and all have created significant inter-organizational

partnerships which have led to substantial fruit.

10

learned along the way, (4) whether they have experimented with anything similar to a DMM

approach, and (5) how open they are to collaboration.

A final goal was to develop a strategic plan for future ministry through the Ephesus

Catalytic Partnership in MegaMetro, including plans for monthly and weekly meetings, ideas for

creating connections to other Christian churches and institutions in MegaMetro, and input on

prayer and training initiatives.

Methodology

This was a descriptive research project using a qualitative approach. It was done using

interview protocol for in-depth interviews of leaders from both the Ephesus Teams and the

workers among Muslims in MegaMetro. Direct observation and participant observation was also

used. The overarching goal of all interviews was to generate “thick descriptions” (Bailey 2007,

139) of what is actually happening on the ground and what is working (best practices) to produce

multiplying churches among the lost. There were no questionnaires mailed but instead

informants were interviewed in person via Skype or through face-to-face meetings. This allowed

for observation of meta-communication and direct observation as well as participant observation

(Bailey 2007, 3-5). This method of research was chosen because of my own relationships with

some of these ministry leaders, and because the pool of key informants was relatively small.

Moreover, I entered the field not with a hypothesis to prove, but only with a few central, broad

questions that “ask for an explanation” (Creswell 2008, 129).

For researching Ephesus Teams, I endeavored to interview two leaders on each team

using the same questions. (The Interview Protocol is found in Appendix 1.) By interviewing two

leaders, some triangulation was achieved. Since the Ephesus Teams are already actively involved

11

in fruitful DMM ministry, they were my primary focus of learning. Thus, these interviews were

more in-depth, recorded and transcribed. The summary of data was offered to each of the

Ephesus Team leaders to check for accuracy and security issues and to give input on my

analysis. Some of their comments have been included.

For researching MegaMetro ministries to Muslims, I did not have as clear a pool of

subjects to interview. Therefore I began by broad networking in order to learn of individuals,

churches and organizations seeking to reach Muslims. The Coalition of Ministries among

Muslims in North America (COMMA) was a key network for me to meet people and discover

who I should interview. I also visited several area churches and talked with local pastors seeking

to find people to interview. These initial informal interviews led to thirteen in-depth interviews

with individuals currently active and focused on Muslim ministry. To accomplish these

interviews, I made appointments and met with the subjects in person. (The Interview Protocol

used is found in Appendix 2.) All of the local ministries were interviewed face-to-face, not by

phone. The number of ministries and workers which met my criteria for interviews was smaller

than expected; only thirteen local workers were deemed necessary to interview. All interviews

were recorded. Afterward, I listened to the recordings and took notes on key findings and

observations but did not make full transcriptions of these interviews (as I did with the Ephesus

Team interviews). Two interviewees requested a report, so I have sent it to them for their review

and input.

As an application of my research, I have also considered what modifications were

necessary to current DMM training materials I have been using. Though major changes were not

deemed necessary, I did make some modifications based on learnings gleaned from the research.

12

These changes were also edited for content by some of the people involved on Ephesus Teams. I

include an outline of the improved materials in Appendix 5.

As a conclusion to the research, I developed a strategic plan. This plan is based on what I

have learned from both the Ephesus Teams and the other ministries operating in MegaMetro.

However, I did not develop this plan alone. Instead, I have sought to apply the principles of

collaboration by seeking input from my Field Supervisor (an Ephesus Team leader), others

involved in DMM ministry around the world, and new friends here in MegaMetro who are

budding Ephesus Partnership members. The strategic plan is found in Chapter 5.

13

CHAPTER 2

THE PROJECT IN BIBLICAL AND MISSIOLOGICAL

PERSPECTIVE AND LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will trace the development of missions literature that led to the concepts and

principles common to CPM literature today. After defining terms and taking a brief look at

Christian approaches toward Islam through history, I will focus attention on DMM as a strategy

that emphasizes disciple-making leading to multiplicative church planting. Following that is a

lengthy section that considers Jesus and the early apostles’ disciple-making strategies. The

chapter closes by discussing some of the recent literature on building collaborative partnerships

and creating starfish type organizations. By way of conclusion, I consider some reasons why I

think these ideas are important to the development of a collaborative partnership for MegaMetro

city.

Church Planting Movements in

Contemporary Literature

Recent literature on Church Planting Movements has highlighted exciting breakthroughs

in places and among Unreached People Groups (UPGs) previously impenetrable to the gospel,

especially Muslims. A recent edition of Mission Frontiers effuses in its lead editorial, “A

revolution is unfolding in the Church—perhaps even a second Reformation. … Many mission

leaders have known for some time that nations are discipled through movements—rapidly

reproducing generations of disciples, churches and leaders—but now this understanding is

spreading like leaven in sending base churches” (Butler 2016, 4). What exactly do we mean by

14

Church Planting Movements (CPM) and what are some key distinctives of these types of

approaches?

Church Planting Movements Defined

Precise definitions of what exactly constitutes a Church Planting Movement are

somewhat debated; however, a review of the literature points to at least three crucial elements:

(1) a CPM must consist of actual churches being planted, (2) it must be relatively rapid, and (3) it

must be generational. If it is not leading to church planting, it’s not a church planting movement.

If it is not rapid, then it is considered normal growth, not a movement. If it is not generational—

churches planting churches—then it may simply be the work of one or more highly-skilled

evangelists. Note how these three distinctives are evident in the definitions below.

David Garrison (2000, 8) defines a CPM as, “A rapid and exponential increase of

indigenous churches planting churches within a given people group or population segment.”

David Watson defines a CPM as, “An indigenously led Gospel-Planting and obedience-based

discipleship process that resulted in a minimum of one hundred new locally initiated and led

churches, four generations deep, within three years” (Watson and Watson 2014, 4). Jerry

Trousdale (2012, 16), despite his preference for the term Disciple-Making Movement (DMM)

explains, “In a nutshell, Disciple Making Movements spread the gospel by making disciples who

learn to obey the Word of God and quickly make other disciples, who then repeat the process.

This results in many new churches being planted, frequently in regions that were very hostile to

Christianity.” All these definitions speak of movements that are rapid, multi-generational, and

lead to church planting.

15

Lessons Learned from Church Planting Movements

Much of the literature on CPMs has sought to compile lessons coming from these

movements in practical ways for others to use, especially through lists of principles and best

practices. David Garrison’s 2004 book set the pace by presenting three main lists: (1) elements

found in every CPM, (2) elements found in most CPMs, and (3) obstacles that need to be

removed for CPMs to happen (171). Though Garrison’s book is now somewhat dated, his lists of

principles are still relevant and often referred to by others.

Perhaps the most important list Garrison offers is his list of ten principles found in every

movement (172). These principles are: (1) extraordinary prayer, (2) abundant evangelism, (3)

intentional planting of reproducing churches, (4) the authority of God’s Word, (5) local

leadership, (6) lay leadership, (7) house churches, (8) churches planting churches, (9) rapid

reproduction, and (10) healthy churches. Since publication, this list has been reiterated and

expounded in numerous missionary journals and books including Planting Missional Churches

by Ed Stetzer (2006), Discovering Church Planting by J. D. Payne (2009), Global Church

Planting by Craig Ott and Gene Wilson (2011) and The Wheel Model by Frank Schnatter (2014).

Garrison (2008, 212) also has presented a separate succinct list of “five elements found in every

church-planting movement” in the compendium, From Seed to Fruit. These are: a) “effective

ways of initiating a Gospel witness; b) an effective Gospel witness; c) immediate, basic

discipleship; d) effective fellowship formation; and e) ongoing leadership development”

(Garrison 2008, 212).

Though Garrison’s research included the movement taking place among the Hindu

Bhojpuri people in India where David Watson had been involved, Watson has created his own

lists of principles. His main one is a fluid list entitled DMM Critical Elements (Watson 2009).

16

Various versions of this list present between eighteen and twenty-three elements.1 Watson’s list

differs from Garrison’s because Garrison aimed to be descriptive of what he learned through

research while Watson unabashedly seeks to be prescriptive for training and coaching purposes.

Despite some differences between Watson’s and Garrison’s lists, overall the core

principles of CPMs are sufficiently clear. Moreover, both these writers and others seem to hold

the common assumption that if these principles are applied diligently, the possibility for

explosive growth through rapid multiplication of disciples and churches can be unleashed.

Over the past several years, a spate of writing on movements has been published

including Steve Smith and Ying Kai’s (2011) T4T, Jerry Trousdale’s (2012) Miraculous

Movements, David and Paul Watson’s (2014) Contagious Disciple Making, Steve Addison’s

Movements that Change the World (2009), What Jesus Started (2012) and Pioneering

Movements (2015), David Garrison’s (2014) most recent book, A Wind in the House of Islam,

Roy Moran’s (2015) Spent Matches and James Nyman’s (2016) Stubborn Perseverance. All of

these are inspirational, yet also attempt to be practical. In my opinion, Watson and Watson’s

(2014) Contagious Disciple Making is the most useful in spelling out exactly how to do ministry

leading to a CPM. In addition, several of these books also contain other lists including Roy

Moran’s (2015, 71) necessary “mind-shifts,” Trousdale’s (2012, 179) seven paradigm shifts,

Addison’s (2011, 23) five characteristics of movements and Watson and Watson’s (2014) ten

mind-sets of a disciple-maker. Similarly, Timothy Keller (2012, 357) in Center Church, speaks

of three “mind-set shifts” necessary to see multiplication. Though not writing about movements

1 Variations in Watson’s list come from developments over the years as a result of high-

level missionary strategy meetings with CPM practitioners. Watson’s current thinking is

reflected in a list of Critical Elements in DMM which can be found in Appendix 6.

17

in the same sense as CPM practitioners, Keller’s tone and appeal is similar. He argues that “only

a movement of hundreds of churches, small and large, can penetrate literally every neighborhood

and people group in the city” (362).

Meanwhile, significant additional literature on CPMs has also recently appeared in

mission journals, much of it interacting with Garrison and the other authors mentioned above.

The vast majority of these articles are positive (Fanning 2009; Flint 2010; McGuire 2010;

Steinhaus 2012; Handy 2012; Esler 2013; Wilson 2016).2 Missions Frontiers has produced three

entire editions on the topic of CPMs (March/April 2011, January/February 2016 and

March/April 2016). Several of the above articles have also been reprinted in two major

compendiums that are used in training thousands of new mission workers: Perspectives on the

World Christian Movement, 4th Edition (Winter and Hawthorne, 2009) and Encountering the

World of Islam, 2nd Edition (Schwartley, 2014). The overarching thrust in all of this writing is

that these movements are something that God seems to be doing in our generation, especially

among Muslims, and therefore ought to be studied carefully. Such optimism stands in stark

contrast to the history of missions among Muslims.

Overview of the History of Muslim Evangelism

“Christendom and Islam are in many ways sister civilizations, both drawing on the shared

heritage of Jewish revelation and prophecy and Greek philosophy and science, and both

nourished by the immemorial traditions of Middle Eastern antiquity. For most of their joint

2 This literature needs to be understood as similar to, but distinct from previous church

growth materials (popularized by the Fuller School of Church Growth and Mission), from insider

movement literature, and from missional church literature. This project does not discuss these

models of ministry but is focused on CPMs in general and DMM in particular.

18

history, they have been locked in combat” (Lewis 2003, 5). In this statement, Bernard Lewis, an

advisor to President George W. Bush at the time of 9/11 and among the most eminent Islamic

scholars in the United States today, aptly summarizes the sad history between Christians and

Muslims. Partly because of the missionary nature of both religions and partly because Islam is

the only great world religion to be birthed after Christianity, Islam has been an especially

formidable foe. In terms of conversions, more Christians have become Muslims in history than

the other way around. On those occasions when Christian missions have undertaken to

evangelize Muslims, they have found the Islamic world “largely impervious” to the gospel

(Jenkins 2002, 72).

In light of these grim realities, many have faulted the missionaries and strategies of the

past: their methods were too wooden and their attitudes too colonial. Others put the blame

squarely on the religion of Islam itself, viewing it as uniquely imbued with satanic power. Both

assertions are undoubtedly partly true. Without a doubt, some of the greatest names in mission

history have labored among Muslims, exhibiting great sacrifice, exemplary godliness, and

diverse strategies—and yet still found very little success. Some of the more renowned workers

include St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic de Guzman, Henry Martyn, Karl Pfander, William St.

Clair Tisdall, Raymond Llull and Samuel Zwemer. Surely we must tread lightly when assessing

the lives and ministries of such great people of God. Perhaps some of the disappointing results

have more to do with the timing of God than the failure of humans. As we shall see below, that is

precisely what David Garrison argues.

A change in the minds of evangelicals toward Islam began in earnest in the 1970s and

was heralded by a conference in Glen Eyrie, Colorado with an accompanying collection of

19

essays published in The Gospel and Islam: a 1978 Compendium (McCurry 1979). This

conference brought together leading evangelical scholars and missionaries from Muslim lands to

seek God for a new day in missions to Muslims. Greg Livingstone (2014, 215) called this event

“the greatest springboard of mission to the peoples of Islam in history.” An article in the

resultant compendium by George W. Peters overviews the history of evangelism among

Muslims. Peters (1979, 390) comments that the approach of missionaries among Muslims has

produced an “unresolved question,” which is: where historic churches exist in the Muslim world,

should the approach be made through them, or should a new beginning be made? This remains a

key area of differentiation and contention among missionaries up until today.

Summarizing mission history, George Peters categorizes Protestant work among Muslims

as having three prongs or approaches, which developed over time. The first was the direct

approach which began as primarily controversialist (or polemical) and later expanded to also

include a more conversationalist approach (personal friendship evangelism). While commending

the motives and passion of workers employing this strategy, Peters (1979, 394) states

missionaries only won a “few Muslims except in circumstances where they could come ‘under

cover’ and remain anonymous.” The second approach Peters notes is the “comprehensive

approach,” (395) which we may call “the holistic approach” today. Such approaches sought to

combine education, medicine, and the establishment of social institutions along with the

proclamation of the gospel (395). This approach Peters credits with creating “an atmosphere of

tolerance and openness which made it possible for more evangelistically minded missions to

operate more freely” (395). Finally, with developments in modern Bible translation, the printing

press and other technologies including radio and television, Peters terms this more recent

20

approach the “indirect” or “infiltration approach” (396). Quoting Zwemer, Peters understands

this media-based approach as creating “the ubiquitous missionary” (397) and argues

optimistically that such approaches might witness “more effectively, more daringly and more

persuasively” than others (398).

Peters’ survey of the history of ministry to Muslims ends with a discussion of the merits

of allowing converts to Christ to remain loyal to “part of the social and political groups to which

they belong in Islam” (400). Here again he sides with the views of Samuel Zwemer who argued

that Muslims must make a “clear-cut decision, to break with his past” (401) because, “Islam is

the only religion which explicitly in its original sources plainly contradicts and denies the very

foundation stones of Christianity” (401). It is interesting to look back upon this discussion today

and realize that the approach being denounced by Zwemer in the 1940s and Peters in the 1970s

would be classified today as “C-4” (Travis 1998).3

A more recent survey of Christian approaches to Muslim evangelism is the book entitled

Missiological Models in Ministry to Muslims by Sam Schlorff (2006). Like George Peters,

Schlorff does not concern himself with Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox efforts, but focuses

on Protestant approaches alone. These he breaks down into six contextual models. I find

Schlorff’s delineation useful.

The first contextual model according to Sclorff began with Henry Martyn in 1806 and is

termed “the nineteenth-century Imperial Model” (Schlorff 2006, 3). This model was

characterized by aggressive polemics, fueled partly by the notion that Islam was an “inferior

3 In the C-4 approach, believers are encouraged to remain in the Muslim community but

form contextually appropriate churches apart from the mosque. While Islamic terms and cultural

forms are permitted, believers do not identify as Muslims.

21

religion” and would soon collapse (4). Workers of that period primarily sought to argue people

into the kingdom. (This corresponds to George Peter’s (1979, 393) “controversialist” and

“conversationalist” approaches under the “direct” approach noted above). Later in this same

period, Schlorff (2016, 7) understands the “Imperial Model” to morph into a time of “Doubt and

Searching” (1900-1930) in which workers began to notice that the Qur’an actually does contain a

certain amount of truth that could be utilized. While workers agreed the Qur’an did not have

enough truth to lead a Muslim to Christ, they wondered how to “become a ‘Mohammedan’ to

lead Mohammedans to Christ” and to utilize other Qur’anic bridges (9). Nonetheless, those

people who were won to Christ during this period were normally encouraged to integrate into

existing churches (11).

Following the nineteenth century Imperial Model, Schlorff discerns five primary

approaches of the twentieth century. The first approach he calls the “Direct Approach” (12). In it,

missionaries focused on a direct presentation of Christ but downplayed the value of polemic

noting that beating an opponent in an argument rarely led him to Christ. J. Christy Wilson (1891-

1973) is viewed as representative of this approach (13). The second approach was the “Indirect,

or Fulfillment Model” (15). This approach sought to begin with positive elements within Islam

and then built upon them to present the truth of the gospel. In this way, Christ fulfills Islam.

Bevan Jones is seen as representative. Following this was a third and still more benevolent

approach towards Islam called the “Dialectical Model” (17) championed by Hendrik Kraemer

(1888-1965) of the Dutch Bible Society. Kraemer taught that since the “Christian revelation

stands in judgement on all religions” (18)—including Christianity—what was needed was a

dialectical approach which combined continuity with discontinuity. Though Kraemer is credited

22

as having a profound effect on Protestant approaches to Islam, especially influencing European

workers in Indonesia as well as the World Council of Churches, overall few missionaries to

Muslims followed his dialectical approach (Schlorff 2006, 18).

The fourth approach according to Schlorff is the “Dialogical Model” (19). Though there

is significant continuity with Kraemer’s approach, Schlorff sees enough significant differences to

consider this a new phase. Kenneth Cragg and the World Council of Churches are seen as the

main advocates of this approach which sought to “create a synthesis of spiritualties and bring all

religions and ideologies together into a global ‘community of communities’ characterized by

justice, peace, and ‘dialogue in community’” (23). Though most evangelicals would reject this

approach, Schlorff notes that some do “use dialogue in the biblical sense” (24). Perhaps some of

the thinking that considers “truth itself [to be] dialectical” (18) and the Qur’an to be “a word of

God” (23) which came out of this era paved the way for more radical approaches to

contextualization of our contemporary period.

The final approach noted by Schlorff is termed the “Dynamic Equivalence” or the

“Translational Model” (24). Schlorff views this approach as inordinately influenced by the

social sciences; Charles Kraft is considered particularly important. Though Schlorff sees this

model as a return to more biblically sound evangelism, he is concerned that missionaries may

view Islamic culture as overly neutral. He concludes that this approach has led workers to seek

“people movements to Christ that remain[s] more or less within Islam” (26), as well as “dynamic

equivalence ‘Muslim’ churches that remain within Islam,” or “C-5 churches” (27). In the

remainder of the book he seeks to argue against this final approach, offering instead his own

“Biblical-Theological Model” (140). This model proposes to gather new believers from Islam

23

into “distinctly Christian flocks that retain social and cultural ties with Muslim society as much

as possible, but without outwardly remaining Muslim” (146).

Schlorff’s contention about an over-dependence on the social sciences and concerns

about radical approaches to contextualization are reflected in numerous other missiological

publications over the past twenty years. I have already mentioned the acrimonious debates

among evangelicals pertaining to the question of the name of God; the debates about the “C-1 to

C-6 spectrum” (Travis 1998) among missionaries have been no less intense. Indeed, such debates

and experimental approaches have dominated much missionary work among Muslims for the

past twenty years.

A different and more encouraging lens through which to view the history of missions

among Muslims is offered by David Garrison, who focuses our attention on the concept of

movements to Christ throughout history. In A Wind in the House of Islam, Garrison (2014, 5)

briefly surveys history to look for movements of Muslims to Christ which he defines as being “at

least 100 new church starts or 1,000 baptisms that occur over a two-decade period.” Surveying

both the ancient Catholic and Eastern Church, Garrison recounts a dismal picture of nearly

complete failure up until the thirteenth century. Then things began to slowly change.

In the thirteenth century, Garrison sees a “new impulse of Christian outreach to Muslims”

(9) beginning with such notables as Francis of Assisi, Roger Bacon, St. Dominic and Thomas

Aquinas. However, he asserts that their main contribution was the re-Christianization of Iberia

(10). Though reports of thousands of converts did emerge from Conrad of Ascoli (1234-1289) in

Libya and William of Tripoli (1220-1275) in Lebanon, very little of their fruit remained. Ramon

Llull (1232-1316), who followed just after this period, also rejected the Crusader mentality and

24

pursued a loving Arabic-language witness among Muslims. Yet Llull too reported very few

converts. Garrison summarizes, “As the first millennium of Christian-Muslim interaction drew to

a close, millions of Christians had been assimilated into the House of Islam, while scarcely a

single uncoerced Muslim movement to Christ had taken place” (Garrison 2014, 12).

During the Colonial Era, however, Garrison discerns three movements of Muslims to

Christ. First was the highly contextual approach of a Javanese evangelist named Sadrach

Surapranata (1835-1924) who led between ten and twenty thousand Javanese to Christ and

organized them into indigenous mesjids of Kristen Jawa (13). (Interestingly, this happened in the

midst of nearly complete failure of the Dutch Zending to reach Muslims.) Second, there was a

breakthrough under the leadership of Charles Lavigerie (1825-1892) among the Kabyle Berbers

of Algeria. But since this only resulted in “no more than 700 baptized Catholic converts” (15),

Garrison is reticent to categorize this as a bona fide movement. A third movement occurred in

Ethiopia and was led by an insider leader known as Shaikh Zakaryas (1845-1920) which resulted

in seventy-five influential Muslim clerics coming to faith and as well as 7,000 others from Islam

(15). Garrison summarizes this period as follows: “Though missions historians hailed the 19th

century as ‘The Great Century’ of Christian expansion around the world, the century closed with

only two Muslim movements to Christ comprising at least 1,000 baptized converts” (15).

However, in distinction to many other writers, Garrison ends his historical survey very

positively. In fact, he argues that God is doing something new in the Muslim world today. He

states, “a wind is blowing through the House of Islam” for “Muslim movements to Jesus Christ

are taking place in numbers we’ve never before seen” (5). Summarizing the final two decades of

the twentieth century, Garrison states there was a “surge of 11 additional movements” (18)

25

which occurred in Iran, Algeria, Bulgaria, Albania, West Africa, Bangladesh and Central Asia.

And,

In only the first 12 years of the 21st century, an additional 69 movements to Christ of at

least 1,000 baptized Muslim-background believers or 100 new worshipping fellowships

have appeared. [Moreover] These 21st-century movements are not isolated to one or two

corners of the world. They are taking place throughout the House of Islam. (Garrison

2014, 18)

In the remainder of his book, Garrison describes how at least one such movement is

occurring in each of the nine “rooms” of the House of Islam: (1) West Africa, (2) North Africa,

(3) East Africa, (4) The Arab World, (5) The Persian World, (6) Turkestan, (7) Western South

Asia, (8) Eastern South Asia, and (9) Indo-Malaysia (Garrison 2014, 23).

The factors leading to such huge breakthroughs are examined in Garrison’s A Wind in the

House of Islam, Chapter 14, where he presents a ten-point list of “immediate observations” or

“bridges of God.” Though these are distinct from his ten elements found in every Church

Planting Movement (Garrison 2004, 172), there is a great deal of overlap. I have divided these

into factors initiated by Christians (faith, prayer, faithful witness, learning, communication,

indigenization, Scripture in local languages and discovery approach), internal issues within Islam

itself, and “Holy Spirit activity” (Garrison 2014, 240-249). Though there are some new twists on

some former missionary practices which Garrison also acknowledges as important, ultimately he

understands these breakthroughs as evidence of being “caught up in the wind of the Spirit” (261).

That is, ultimately it is God who is doing a new thing in the Muslim world. Note the balance

Garrison strikes in the paragraph below where he seeks to show both the role of humans and the

work of God in operation together:

What we often fail to see is that it is the body of Christ that is accomplishing those

breakthroughs in the divinely ordained art of fishing for the souls of men and women.

26

When we go to the trouble to learn how the body of Christ is at work in one corner of the

world so we can better apply those lessons in another corner of the world, we are not

simply being pragmatists; we are being students of the ways God is at work in our world.

(Garrison 2014, 244)

We turn our attention now from this brief survey of Christian evangelism in the Muslim

world to some of the concerns of modern church-planting movements.

Concerns about Church Planting Movements

With the rise of new movements and astonishing claims such as Garrison’s above, some

have concluded that CPMs are simply a fad or a new method arising out of American

pragmatism, therefore obviously falling outside the pail of solid biblical practice. Paige

Patterson, President of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, publicly attacked David

Garrison and the idea of CPMs in an address to the International Society of Christian

Apologetics in April 2015 (Allen 2015). John D. Massey (2012, 102), also of the Southwestern

Baptist Theological Seminary, penned a long and thoughtful article in order to offer “a

theological critique of the principles set forth in David Garrison’s book with special reference to

his concept of wrinkling time in missionary work.” Massey is particularly concerned with

Garrison’s desire to “speed up” or “finish the Great Commission,” ideas that he believes may

compromise the “quality and sustainability of the product” (111). Tom Steffen (2011, 355) in

The Facilitator Era warns that modern movements should not simply be sustainable but also

authentic—that is, leading to deep worldview transformation. Craig Ott and Gene Wilson (2011,

78) contend for healthy church multiplication, stating “there must be a balance between

evangelistic urgency and healthy maturity.” And in 2011, Seedbed mission journal produced an

entire edition about CPMs with several articles taking a pro and con position (Little 2011). A

27

main critique of these articles related to CPM practitioners being overly optimistic and creating

false expectations.

Another author critical of CPMs is Jackson Wu (2014) of the Gospel Coalition. In an

article entitled “There are No Church Planting Movements in the Bible,” Wu expresses a concern

about eisegesis—that is, reading CPM back into the Bible in a way which he believes could lead

to overly dogmatic applications. Interestingly, however, Wu’s dispute is not with most of the

principles and strategies of CPM, of which he professes agreement. Rather, what concerns Wu is

“reverse engineering the process and best practices back into the Bible” (Wu 2014, 14).

Such cautions are important to consider. However, overall the literature about CPMs is

quite positive, finding in these modern movements principles similar to other gospel movements

of history. Though certain aspects may be new, in general these movements are seen to be in line

with many of the great works of God in history.4 Ott and Wilson even defend the use of the term

CPM by stating that though it may not be found in Scripture, “the phenomenon is” (Ott and

Wilson 2011, 66). They trace at least four movements in the book of Acts: Judea, Thessalonica,

Ephesus and Pisidian Antioch (68). I conclude from this brief survey of recent literature that

CPMs are simply a new term for an ancient and legitimate reality, traceable all the way back to

the New Testament period. Yet I also resonate strongly with the desire to produce healthy,

sustainable groups of believers (churches) as opposed to those that quickly spring up but do not

last (cf. Matt 13:21; John 15:16). How can we address these concerns and avoid these problems?

4 Ted Esler writes, “It is important to point out that CPM ideas have been around a long

time and may actually be more traditional than the so-called ‘traditional’ models. Henry Venn

and Rufus Anderson (writing in the mid-nineteenth century), John Livingstone Nevius (mid-to-

late nineteenth century) and Roland Allen (early twentieth century) all espoused ideas quite

similar to CPM orthodoxy” (Esler 2013, 73).

28

Disciple Making Movements as a Strategy

Leading to Church Planting Movements

Much of the concern about CPM seems to arise from misunderstandings and abuses

related to it. Indeed, not everyone speaking and writing today about CPM has the same paradigm

in view nor do they necessarily share the same theological commitments. Moreover, a major

misunderstanding is that all CPM approaches are essentially the same. In fact, a CPM is the

desired outcome, not the process to get there; various processes or approaches are being used

around the world. Most notable among these approaches are Training for Trainers (T4T) and the

Disciple Making Movement (DMM) strategy. T4T has been popularized by Steve Smith, Ying

Kai and the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Church; DMM5 has been

popularized by David Watson and City Team. The differences between these approaches have

been outlined by Steve Smith and Stan Parks in two recent articles published in Mission

Frontiers (Smith and Parks 2015).

As mentioned above, various approaches to catalyze movements are being used globally,

including various amalgamations of T4T and DMM. Some of these models are more biblical

than others. However, this project focuses on DMM as a distinct approach and aims at applying

it according to best practices. In the remainder of this chapter, I consider some of the biblical and

missiological basis for DMM. I will not argue that everything happening in the name of DMM is

always in line with the model,6 nor do I argue that DMM is the best approach for all contexts.

5 Sometimes DMM is referred to as “Discovery Model CPM” or “The Watson

Approach,” however, we prefer the term “DMM”.

6 One example of an error is when people use the term DMM to describe a disciple-

making process that puts less emphasis on church formation. This concept is not in line with

29

Instead, I focus on DMM because I believe it is a biblical way to catalyze movements which is

leading to extraordinary fruit in the Muslim world today. Incidentally, these are also among the

key reasons given by the Ephesus Team leaders I interviewed as to why they have implemented

DMM as their primary strategy.

David and Paul Watson explain the term Disciple-Making Movement (DMM) in their

book Contagious Disciple-Making:

After a lot of conversations, we decided to use the term Disciple-Making Movement, or

DMM, to describe our role in God’s redemptive work. There is no doubt we have a role.

Matthew 28:16-20, the Great Commission, tells us to make disciples. The implication is

that these disciples would also make disciples, and so on. As believers obey Christ, they

are to train men and women to be Contagious Disciple-Makers who pray, engage lost

communities, find Persons of Peace (the ones God has prepared to receive the Gospel in a

community for the first time), help them discover Jesus through Discovery Groups (an

inductive group Bible study process designed to take people from not knowing Christ to

falling in love with Him), baptize new believers, help them become communities of faith

called church, and mentor emerging leaders. All of these very intentional activities

catalyze Disciple-Making Movements. Jesus works through people as they obey His

Word, a Disciple-Making Movement becomes a Church-Planting Movement, and Jesus

gets the glory for everything. (Watson and Watson 2014, 5)

An important distinction that the Watsons make with others seeking to catalyze CPMs is

that the focus of DMM is on making disciples, as the name implies, not simply converts. Of

course, other models also seek to produce disciples, but DMM as a strategy attempts to put the

emphasis squarely on disciple-making as opposed to conversion or even church planting. One

unique way DMM emphasizes disciple-making is by sometimes talking about “discipling into

conversion” instead of the normal Christian practice which encourages conversion followed by

discipleship. I explore this emphasis and how it leads to collaborative church-planting below.

DMM as understood by David Watson or the others involved in its formation as a model leading

to CPM.

30

Disciple-Making as the Biblical Priority

I concur with DMM practitioners that our emphasis must be on disciple-making, not just

on evangelism. But if disciple-making is our priority, we must first consider what it means to be

a disciple of Jesus Christ.

What is a Disciple?

The word ή (including its plural form) appears in the New Testament 296 times

and has a considerable semantic range. In its most frequent New Testament usage, ή

simply refers to “learners” or “followers” of Jesus (ex. Matt 8:23, 9:19), not all of whom

continued to follow him long-term (John 6:60, 61, 66). Secondarily, ή was also used as a

specific term for the twelve, whom Jesus also designated as ἀό(Mark 3:14). But in an

exhaustive study that traces the etymological development of ή throughout Greek

history, Michael Wilkins concludes that the essence of being a disciple at the time of Jesus meant

much more than just a learner or apprentice; it meant a committed adherent. “The progression to

‘adherent’ in Hellenism at the time of Christ and the early church made ή a convenient

term to designate the followers of Jesus, because the emphasis in the common use of the term

was not upon ‘learning’, or upon being a ‘pupil’ but upon adherence to a great master” (Wilkins

1995, 217).

Thus Jesus’ stringent demands for being his ή (cf. Luke 9:57-62, Luke 14:25-33,

Luke 18:18-29, etc.), were akin to the demands of other rabbis of the day who expected a similar

commitment to their causes. Yet his standard was even higher: Jesus states, “In the same way,

anyone of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my ή” (Luke 18:33;

31

italics mine). Jesus made it abundantly clear he was not simply seeking students or casual

followers, he was seeking adherents who would stick with him to the end (Matt 24:13).

Bill Hull has a helpful list of five characteristics of discipleship in the first century. These

are: (1) deciding to follow a teacher; (2) memorizing the teacher’s words; (3) learning the

teacher’s way of ministry; (4) imitating the teacher’s life and character; and (5) raising up their

own disciples (Hull 2006, 63-64). Thus, Hull notes, when the early disciples heard Jesus say

“make disciples,” they undoubtedly believed they were to reproduce other people like

themselves, who did all of these same things (62).

However, unlike other rabbis of his day, Jesus did not expect his disciples to ever rise

above their teacher, or even to his level: he alone was the teacher and instructor (Matt 23:8-10).

So his disciples were to go and make disciples of him, not of themselves. “All people are to be

won over to become disciples, people who follow and obey Jesus” (Schnabel 2004, 356; italics

mine). Adherents who obey everything Jesus commanded—including his command to make

others to be like themselves—that is what Jesus had in mind when he said to make ή.

Realigning Our Priority from Conversion

to Disciple-Making

Understanding Jesus’ intent to make the kind of disciples outlined above, it becomes

clear that there is a global problem today with millions of “Christians” who seem to have little

intention of being obedient ή. Some of the problem undoubtedly stems from the fact that

Christianity has become the majority religion in many countries, thus often being politicized and

domesticated as a type of civil religion. But another issue is that modern evangelicalism has been

greatly colored by “an almost exclusive focus on evangelism and conversion to the exclusion of

32

discipleship” (Smith 2010, 2). Gordon T. Smith blames this malady on revivalism, a form of

nineteenth and twentieth century evangelical activism involving a theological emphasis which

resulted in a litany of negative consequences including easy and painless conversion, loss of

connection between conversion and baptism, and a misunderstanding of the term disciple. Smith

argues:

This has resulted in a change in the way the term disciple is now used. The language of

the New Testament assumes that the word disciple is a noun: through conversion, a

person becomes a disciple, a follower of Christ. But in language inherited from

revivalism, a person is first converted and then is “discipled”: the word is used as a verb.

… We urgently need a language of conversion that is deeply oriented toward

transformation, maturity and radical discipleship that portrays conversion as a good

beginning and solid foundation for what is yet to come. There is a deep continuity

between evangelism and discipleship. They are not two distinct acts of the church;

evangelism is integral to the call of the Scriptures to make disciples. (Smith 2010, 12)

Gordon T. Smith’s writing is reminiscent of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who decried the

problem of “cheap grace” at the time of the rise of the Nazi regime in Germany. Bonhoeffer

penned these famous words in 1937 in Nachfolge (English title: The Cost of Discipleship):

“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without

church discipline, communion without confession. ... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship,

grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate” (Bonhoeffer 1937, 45).

Similarly, Scot McKnight states in The King Jesus Gospel that his concern for discipleship has

come so far that he now even views modern evangelistic strategies with a cynical eye:

Most evangelism today is obsessed with getting someone to make a decision; the

apostles, however, were obsessed with making disciples. These two words—decision and

disciples—are behind this entire book. Evangelism that focuses on decisions short-

circuits and—yes, the word is appropriate—aborts the design of the gospel, while

evangelism that aims at disciples slows down to offer the full gospel of Jesus and the

apostles. (McKnight 2011, 18)

33

Citing surveys which show that upwards of seventy-five percent of Americans have made some

kind of decision to accept Christ, McKnight accuses evangelicals of being only soterian, not

truly evangelical. For most are only focused on personal salvation instead of transformational

discipleship rooted in an “apostolic understanding” of the (29).

If we’re honest, many of us in ministry would have to admit that we have inadvertently

contributed to this problem by focusing on conversions rather than on making obedient disciples.

David Watson, reflecting on his own ministry, makes this point forcefully:

God taught me, through many failures, that I had to focus on making disciples of Christ,

not followers of my church or denomination. He also taught me that I needed to teach

these disciples to obey the commands of Jesus, not my church/denominational doctrines

or traditions. This is what led to the breakthrough.” (Watson 2014, 4)

Considering How Jesus Made Disciples

An emphasis in DMM is following Jesus’ example and walking “in his steps” (1 Pet

2:21; 1 John 2:6). That is, DMM practitioners put primary attention on the life of Jesus as the

example, seeking to emulate how Jesus himself made disciples. While there is discontinuity

based on context and time—we can see contextualization happening in the book of Acts and the

Epistles—Jesus himself must remain our ultimate example. Thus in DMM, Jesus is viewed not

only as a perfect moral example worthy of imitation, but also as the greatest Apostle-missionary

example (Heb 3:1), who sent his disciples in the same way he was sent (John 20:21). Paul

pointed to his own example only in as much as it reflected Christ (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Cor 4:16;

1 Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 3:7; Phil 3:17). Consequent to this understanding, Bible passages that are

often overlooked in other models are emphasized in DMM and become keys to the approach.

One such passage often cited by DMM practitioners is Luke 9:1-6 (cf. Matt 10:1-16 and

Mark 6:6-13). This passage is viewed as a model or paradigm for sending disciples today, not

34

simply as historical narrative. This is based on the understanding that when Jesus sent out the

twelve he was not sending them to do something new and different, but rather they were going to

do exactly what Jesus had been doing himself. Jesus himself had preached the good news of the

Kingdom, healed the sick and cast out demons, and then gave his apostles power and authority to

do the same things. The fact that Jesus also sent seventy other disciples with essentially the same

instructions (Luke 10:1-16), is understood to further affirm the legitimacy of understanding this

ministry model as the norm.

It is interesting to note that the above understanding, though often not emphasized in

other ministry models, finds strong scholarly support. Writing on Matthew 10, renowned New

Testament scholar D.A. Carson states, “Therefore it is surely not unnatural for Jesus to treat this

commission of the twelve as both explicit short-term itinerary and a paradigm of the longer

mission stretching into the years ahead” (Carson 1984, 242; italics mine). Similarly, Echkard

Schnabel comments that “Jesus instructs the Twelve in terms of a short-term missionary tour

through Galilean villages. At the same time, he described their imminent mission as a paradigm

of a permanent mission in the future. The short-term training is training for their later missionary

activity” (Schnabel 2004, 292; italics mine).

An example of applying these texts as strategy in DMM comes from David F. Hunt, who

writes about a major movement in East Africa. Hunt explains, “Following the model of Luke 10,

the church planter’s first goal is to find the person of peace … their focus is to disciple the

person of peace or the family of peace and through that family the gospel spreads throughout the

35

community” (Hunt 2009, 91). Notice how Hunt describes the model used in Africa as coming

directly from the life and ministry of Jesus as in Luke 10.7

Thus to practitioners of DMM, the basic pattern of disciple-making was modeled by

Jesus and given to them on at least two occasions when he sent them out to do likewise.

Accordingly, Jesus’ Great Commission as found in Matthew 28:18-20 is not to be applied in any

creative, willy-nilly manner one might conceive, but rather to be understood and applied based

on serious consideration of the actual life and ministry of Jesus as the example.

Elements of New Testament Disciple-Making

How then did Jesus and his early followers make disciples? In the section below, I will

attempt to outline an answer this question. In keeping with the section above, I posit that Jesus is

our first and foremost example of disciple-making. However, we see echoes of his teaching in

the example of his followers in the book of Acts and the epistles as they sought to “walk as Jesus

did” (1 John 2:6).

1. Holistic

Jesus and his disciples ministered to people in a holistic manner, showing concern for

both their physical and spiritual welfare (Matt 5:16; Luke 4:18-19; 5:13; 6:9-10; 9:1; 9:13; John

10:9-10; Acts 2:44-45; 5:15-16; 1 Pet 2:12). Ministry and service were given freely to all on the

7 It is interesting to note that Ralph Neighbour, writing from a radically different context

in the city-state of Singapore, also emphasizes this principle in his writings. Neighbour explains

that Jesus sent his disciples “to journey into new territories where they have no previous

contacts. They are to find a person who will bring them into their oikos. They are to specialize in

penetrating oikoses. No suggestion is made of their doing personal evangelism. … They are

fishing for a special type of person called ‘a man of peace’” (Neighbour 1990, 250; italics mine).

36

basis of the Greatest Commandment (Matt 22:39; cf. Deut 6:4-5), not merely to those who

responded to the gospel message or who were members of one group. The ministry of

compassion was never used to bribe or cajole people into following Christ but was freely

available to all.8

2. Open and Public

Jesus and his early disciples witnessed freely all the time, especially as they were doing

loving acts of service (Mark 1:14, 1:38; Luke 9:2, 24:46-47; 2 Tim 4:2). Though anyone could

be the beneficiary of compassionate ministry, such ministry was always done with a contagious

openness about faith in God, and an appeal for people to believe in order to receive more of

God’s blessings (Mark 1:15, Acts 2:38). There was never any confusion about why Jesus or his

disciples were helping people due to a reticence to witness. Nor was there a need for a protracted

period of time in relationship before speaking, to earn the right to be heard. Jesus and his

disciples ministered simultaneously and continuously in both word and deed.9 Similarly, Paul

points out that his accomplishments came by ministering both “by what I have said [ό] and

done [ἔ],” all in the power of the Spirit (Rom 15:18).10

8 It is noteworthy that several movements I learned about in my interviews were started

when cultural outsiders came to minister to all people in love, but only later shared deeply about

spiritual things when People of Peace were found.

9 This corresponds to a concept very frequently mentioned in modern movements called

abundant seed sowing or living out loud. While not every messenger always shares a complete

gospel message, they are trained and expected to be open and bold about their faith at all times.

10 Eckhard Schnabel points out that the word ἔ is used by Paul sixty-eight times in

his writings but never to refer to miracles. Paul is saying that his lifestyle, his character, his

example is a “work” worthy of following: “ἔ refers to the entire scope of Paul’s ministry

and experience and to his behavior in his daily life as a missionary” (Schnabel 2002, 979).

37

3. Obedience Oriented

Jesus and his early disciples expected unflagging obedience to the Word of Christ

(Matt 7:24, 28:19; Mark 2:14; Luke 11:28; John 14:15, 14:21; Rom 1:15, 15:18). Jesus’ repeated

demands for absolute obedience mirrored his own surrender and obedience to the Father

(John 5:30, 12:49). He expected that subsequent generations would be taught “to obey all that I

have commanded you” (Matt 28:19). Thus, the early church had no doubt that following Christ

meant obeying him, or adhering to him (as per above). Paul stated that the goal of his ministry

was bringing the Gentiles to obey God (Rom 15:18). Obeying Christ, however, was not a slavish

attempt to earn one’s salvation, but an expression of love and thankfulness for salvation. For,

“we love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:8) and “this is love for God: to obey his

commands” (John 14:23). As David Watson writes, “Our love for God is defined by our

obedience. In fact, it appears that God spells love o-b-e-y” (Watson 2014, 45).

Apparently this is a major reason that Jesus expected seekers to first count the cost of

discipleship before committing to him (Luke 14:28; Matt 10:16-42; 16:24-28; John 12:23-26;

16:1-4). Far from seeking popularity and human approval (John 5:41; Gal 1:10), Jesus and the

early disciples understood this obedience to God would cost them everything (Luke 22:42;

Gal 2:20). Those who started this journey were expected to finish it (Luke 9:62). Though he

exhibited patience and forgiveness for those who failed and even denied him (like Peter), the

Chief Shepherd expected his disciples would get back up, keep following and then help to

strengthen the rest (Luke 22:32).11

11 Obedience is one of the great keys to unlocking the Church from its apathy and

inactivity. Movement leaders often speak about groups having the “DNA of obedience” and its

38

4. Group Oriented

Jesus and his early disciples did most of their ministry in groups. Many Westerners are so

individualistic that plural nouns in the Bible are overlooked and group ministry is viewed as if it

were individual ministry. However, Jesus most often worked in groups. At the start of his

ministry, he immediately assembled a band of twelve disciples that “they might be with him”

(Mark 3:14). He then spent night and day with these men, living, eating, sleeping and ministering

together. And most of his ministry happened in the presence of this group of followers.

Moreover, when he sent his disciples out—both the twelve and the seventy—he sent them out,

not individually but “two by two” (Luke 10:1).

Similarly, when Paul went forth, he also went with partners or a team: first with Barnabas

and Jon Mark, then with Silas and many others. Accordingly, while Paul’s instructions to

Timothy in 2 Tim 2:2 are often viewed through an individualistic grid, in fact this verse portrays

generational group leadership training. Paul was not calling Timothy to “find your man” to

disciple (as some groups suggest), but reminding him of the importance of passing on the

message from one group to another. Understood in this way, we realize what this verse is

actually saying: Paul, who had ministered as a group with Silas and others, in the presence of

plural witnesses (ύto Timothy’s family group ι)12 was now calling Timothy to

importance in multiplication. George Patterson and Dick Scoggins’ (1993), Church

Multiplication Guide, emphasized ‘obedience-oriented disciple making’ and influenced a

generation. This book can be seen as a predecessor to current CPM paradigms.

12 Apparently, Timothy had come to Christ as a part of his (2 Tim 1:5). Roger W.

Gehring did an exhaustive study on the concept of oikos in the New Testament in his 2004 book

entitled, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early

Christianity. Gehring argues that oikos was not just a physical structure but refers to the extended

family that lived in it which formed a small community which in turn, was the basic building

39

minister to faithful people (θ) who would be able to minister to others

() also. It was not individuals extracting individuals, but groups working together to lead

people to Christ with their groups. Hence in Acts, we find that the majority of people who came

to Christ, did so with their groups. Clearly, this was one key to the early church’s exponential

growth.

5. Process Oriented

Jesus and his early disciples allowed time for people to process the implications of this

new teaching, not expecting immediate conversion.13 In fact, Jesus spent about three years with

his disciples before they seem to have understood. Even at Pentecost they were still confused

about the Kingdom and their role in it (Acts 1:1-11). Although there was always an expectation

of immediate obedience, Jesus normally did not ask people to “commit their lives to Christ” (as

in revivalism) or convert on the spot. Instead, he seemed to understand conversion as a process.

Because this is not normal thinking in evangelicalism today, I will develop this point at greater

length and include some longer quotations below.

Gordon T. Smith (2010, 6) writes provocatively, “Without doubt, the greatest problem

with the assumption that conversion is punctiliar is that it rarely ever is.” To explain, Smith

quotes J.I. Packer:

block of ancient Roman civilization. Moreover, Jesus and Paul practiced a “house to house

missional outreach” in order to reach entire households with the gospel, by first reaching the

householder as a key to the overall strategy (Gehring 2004, 58).

13 I am using the term conversion and to convert in line with the quotes below that do not

denote making a change in adherence from one religious system to another, but refer to people

who genuinely turn from sin and commit themselves in faith to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord

(Acts 2:37-41).

40

Conversion itself is a process. It can be spoken of as a single act of turning in the same

way that consuming several dishes can be spoken of as a single act of dining …

revivalism encourages us to think of a simple, all-embracing, momentary crisis as its

standard form. But conversion … is better understood if viewed as a complex process

that for adults ordinarily involves the following: thinking and re-thinking; doubting and

overcoming doubts; soul-searching and self-admonition; struggle against feelings of guilt

and shame; and concern as to what realistic following of Christ might mean.” (Packer

1989, 18)

In a similar vein, Timothy Keller states:

We hold to the classic teaching about the nature of the gospel: to be a Christian is to be

united with Christ by faith so that the merits of his saving work become ours and his

Spirit enters us and begins to change us into Christ’s likeness. You either are a Christian

or you are not. ... However, we also acknowledge that coming to this point of uniting to

Christ by faith often works as a process, not only as an event. It can occur through a

series of small decisions or thoughts that bring a person closer and closer to the point of

saving faith. (Keller 2012, 281)

Indeed in the book of Acts, there are examples of what appear to be immediate

conversions (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 8:12; 8:26-38; 9:18; 10:47-48; etc.). However, upon careful

examination, we discern that in nearly all of these cases, these people already had very

significant background knowledge before they professed faith. They did not believe in a vacuum.

Though the moment of commitment may sometimes have been clear, there normally was a lot of

time and process leading up to it. The 3,000 who believed at Pentecost in Acts 2 were Jews and

God-fearers on pilgrimage in Jerusalem to worship God. In their case and in Acts 4, many of the

people listening to Peter’s sermon had even been present at the time of Jesus’ life and crucifixion

(Acts 3:13-17). This was not their first exposure to the facts and discussions about the person of

Jesus of Nazareth. The Samaritans who came to Christ from Philip’s ministry (Acts 8:12) also

had very significant background understanding of the Torah, Jewish customs and of the

Messianic fervor gripping Israel at that time (John 4:25). The Ethiopian eunuch was not only a

God-fearer who had gone to Jerusalem on pilgrimage, but was even reading the Prophet Isaiah

41

when he met Philip (Acts 8:26-39). Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee who was intimately acquainted

with the Law and the Prophets and also knew much about “the Way” (Acts 9:2)—although

having sorely misunderstood it. As for the fruit of Paul’s ministry, the vast majority of his

converts were also either Jews or God-fearers. In those cases where we see Paul ministering in

pagan contexts where people had less background knowledge (Acts 14 in Lystra and Acts 17 in

Athens), it seems evident he took a slower approach to fit his audience.14

Timothy Tennent describes a similar practice from his ministry among Hindus in India:

In my experience of working in India, I have found that discipleship often precedes

conversion by many years. This seems counterintuitive in the West, because Christendom

always assumed a larger Christian context, making it easy to live as a Christian, since

Christian ethics and values were presumably infused throughout the whole of society.

However, in India, it often takes many years for someone to comprehend the gospel

message and what it means to follow Jesus Christ. Lengthy periods of instruction and

modeling often take place long before someone receives Christian baptism. This is closer

to Jesus’ model exemplified in the Gospels, whereby intensive instruction took place with

His disciples for several years before they fully understood and accepted His lordship.

(Tennent 2010, 81)

14 Dean Flemming (2005, 84) in his outstanding book entitled Contextualization in the

New Testament writes, “A comparison of the missionary speeches of Paul in Acts reveals the

extent to which the proclamation of the gospel is tailored to each audience and context.”

Flemming demonstrates that while Paul’s answer to every group is ultimately the same, and his

attitude towards all humans and human systems is graceful, his approach is often quite different.

“In presenting the good news to people who are biblically illiterate, Paul is careful to prepare the

ground. He spends time personally dialoguing with the Athenians in the agora. His speech

begins by affirming what is universal and is shared human experience … only after laying out a

basic biblical worldview about God the Creator of the whole world, the Ruler of nature and

history, and Universal Judge, does Paul raise the issue of God’s particular revelation in Jesus

Christ (83). These remarks by Flemming are predicated by his assertion that the sermon of Paul

as presented by Luke in Acts 17 is not to be read “simply as a record of Paul’s preaching on an

isolated occasion”, but as “a paradigmatic case of Paul’s approach to an educated pagan

audience” (72).

42

As mentioned above, this practice of allowing people time to process, especially in

conjunction with their groups, is sometimes referred to as discipling to conversion by DMM

practitioners. Jerry Trousdale (2012, 101; italics mine) writes, “The church today is preaching to

produce conversion; then teaching to increase knowledge … what Jesus did with the Twelve was

exactly the opposite: He disciples them to conversion.” Although the New Testament does not

use the word disciple in this way, Trousdale’s concern is in line with the quotations above and

can be helpful in challenging people’s presuppositions.

Before leaving this point, I want to reaffirm traditional Christian teaching that recognizes

that though humans may not know the exact time a person comes to Christ, God does. So while

conversion may often be a process, from God’s perspective, there is a point when we are saved.

As stated earlier in the quotation by Keller (2012, 281), “you either are a Christian or you are

not.” My concern is that the modern over-emphasis on event and crisis-conversion experiences

actually is a different emphasis than we see in Jesus’ ministry. Furthermore, allowing people

from Muslim backgrounds to come to Christ over time through a longer process may be crucial

for their discipleship.

6. Fruit Oriented

Jesus and his early disciples expected everyone to bear fruit and reproduce (Matt 5:13-16;

13:23; 28:18-20; Luke 14:34-35; John 17:20; 2 Tim 2:2). Though debate has ensued over what

kind of fruit Jesus was expecting—“the fruit of the Spirit” (cf. Gal 5:22-23) or bringing others to

Christ—there can be no doubt that Jesus expected both. Those who followed Jesus were—and

are—to produce the fruit of the Spirit and to make disciples. “I chose you and appointed you to

go and bear fruit—fruit that will last” (John 15:16). However, this is often an overlooked aspect

43

of following Jesus: he expects fruit. Many of his parables emphasize this theme. The farmer

hoped for the seed to fall on good soil and produce a good “crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or

thirty times what was sown” (Matt 13:23). The mustard seed, “though it is the smallest of all

seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of the garden plants” (Matt 13:32). The yeast influenced

the whole loaf (Matt 13:33), the fig tree was cursed because of its barrenness (Matt 21:19), and

the talents were given with the expectation that they would multiply (Matt 25:28).

One way the early church rapidly reproduced was by encouraging people to immediately

share what they knew. In Jesus’ ministry and that of the early apostles, there was an expectation

of immediate sharing. Examples abound in the New Testament. We recall the Gerasene

demoniac who was sent back immediately to witness despite his undoubtedly extremely limited

understanding (Mark 5:20). We recall the openness of Matthew (Matt 9:10) and many others like

him who brought Jesus and the disciples immediately into their circles of influence ς). We

see that often people immediately brought the Good News to their family and loved ones:

Andrew brought Peter (John 1:41), Philip brought Nathaniel (John 1:45), and Cornelius

assembled his friends and family to hear Peter (Acts 10:24). Other accounts describe whole

families coming to Christ and being baptized together (Acts 16:15; 16:24; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:14-16).

The Samaritan woman immediately broadcast the message everywhere and brought her whole

village to hear Jesus for themselves (John 4:30). The Thessalonians, in spite of severe

persecution, “rang out” the message all through the provinces of Macedonia and Achaia

(1 Thess 1:8). Since new believers everywhere normally have the most connections to non-

believers, immediate openness about new life in Jesus brings immediate impact. In addition, as

new believers in New Testament times lived out their faith in this open, contagious manner, they

44

soon also began to naturally produce the fruit of the Spirit as well, for only in outreach and

service does the believer find himself (Mark 8:35-38; Phlm 1:6).

DMM practitioners believe that by intentionally adopting a model with these elements

that we see in Jesus’ and the Apostle’s ministry, multiplicative disciple making becomes

possible. But what is the biblical means or vehicle for making healthy disciples in a way that will

reproduce?

Biblical Discipleship Leads to Church Planting

Discipleship according to the New Testament was personal, but it was not a private or

individual affair. New believers in New Testament times were initiated into the corporate Body

of Christ by expressing commitment to Christ in public baptism, not by praying quietly in

private.15 In the pages of the Gospels, we see that Jesus both envisioned and modeled the

strategy for effective disciple-making and ordained the vehicle for its accomplishment. We have

discussed some of the crucial elements of how Jesus made disciples. Now we will consider his

ordained vehicle: the church.

15 George Patterson (1998, 40) states this bluntly: “The invitation of the apostles, for

example, was not to raise one’s hand or to ‘come forward.’ They simply told those who trusted

in Jesus to show their repentance by being baptized (Acts 2:38; 22:12-16). Any decision-making

ritual that man has devised to replace baptism as the instrument to confirm salvation has had a

much poorer record for determining who is sincere. Baptism is the decision-making ritual.”

Similarly, Wayne Meeks (1993, 153) points out the uniqueness of Christian baptism: “By

making the cleansing rite alone bear the whole function of initiation, and by making initiation the

decisive point of entry into an exclusive community, the Christian groups started something new.

For them the bath [baptism] becomes a permanent threshold between the ‘clean group’ and the

‘dirty world.’” This is especially important in Muslim ministry, a point which is highlighted in a

recent article on baptism by Steven Steinhaus (2014) which appeared in Seedbeds mission

journal.

45

The Twelve as the Embryonic First Church

Though Jesus willingly spent countless hours in public ministry to the masses preaching

from town to town (Luke 4:43-44; Matt 9:35), his main focus was on a surprisingly lackluster

group of twelve men he had selected as (Luke 6:12-16). As discussed above, Jesus’

life reveals an intentional training of these men to do what he did, and this training was most

often done with them as a group. Like people in most cultures of the global South today, Jesus

and his disciples did nearly everything as a group. When they were sent on itinerant ministry,

and even on errands, they were always sent at least two by two. (For mission, see Mark 6:7 and

Luke 10:1. For mundane tasks, see examples in Luke 7:18 and Matt 21:1). Thus when they are

bewildered and afraid after the ascension, it is not surprising to find them sitting in their old

meeting place, “constantly in prayer” as a group (Acts 1:13-14).

Therefore, I conclude that Jesus was not only seeking to accomplish certain tasks; he was

intentionally seeking to form a new community. This community would be the prototype for the

God-ordained vehicle of disciple making: the church. The future of making disciples was not to

be a one-on-one affair, but rather groups of people discipling each other, generation after

generation, in churches. Steve Addison writes, “Jesus came for lost people, but he didn’t want to

just save individuals. He built communities of disciples wherever he went. Jesus expected his

followers to continue meeting as a group following his death” (Addison 2012, 50). Therefore, we

can understand the twelve as functioning in some ways as the first model church. The church that

was founded after Pentecost in Acts 2:42-47 was led by these men and they were the models that

others followed. Arthur Patzia (2001, 62) notes, “The twelve were recruited to confront humanity

with this reality [of the Kingdom] and to form the nucleus of what would become the Church.”

46

So Jesus discipled the twelve as a group and expected they would continue to work as a

group. But he also predicted the emergence and survival of this new group and he even named it

the (Greek: assembly or called-out ones). This new body of Jesus followers would

endure all hardships and even prevail over demons and death itself (Matt 16:18), standing as the

arbiter and pillar of the truth in the world (Matt 18:17, cf. 1 Tim 3:15). Thus it is not surprising

that the early disciples immediately began organizing new believers into ς-based churches

at Pentecost (Acts 2:46), a practice which continued throughout Acts and the Epistles. If

disciples were to be made in the way of Jesus, then there had to be groups discipling each other,

learning from each other and ministering together, just as the twelve had experienced

themselves.

Paul’s Priority on Church Planting as the Vehicle

The Apostle Paul, though not one of the original twelve, also made the planting of

disciple-making churches his modus operandi. With his groups of ς and ς, he

planted churches everywhere he went, quickly appointing local elders to lead them (Titus 1:5;

Acts 14:23). That is why his letters were addressed to churches, or to leaders of churches, not to

individual converts. So great was his concern “for the churches” (2 Cor 11:28) that he labored in

prayer over them, visited them repeatedly (1 Thess 1:17; Acts 15:36), and sent letters and

partners to encourage and strengthen them (1 Thess 3:2). As Timothy Keller (2012, 355) notes,

“Paul never evangelizes and disciples without also planting a church.”

One might ask how Paul could look back at his ministry and conclude, “So from

Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ”

(Rom 15:19). The New Testament contains no record that Paul even went to Illyricum, let alone

47

fully proclaimed the gospel there. Rather than accusing Paul of inflating his success, I conclude

the only plausible explanation can be that Paul viewed himself as primarily a multiplicative

church-planter,16 not an evangelist. He believed the main vehicle or “instrument” (Ott and

Wilson 2011, 22) for evangelism and making disciples was actually the local church. Like the

Thessalonians, local indigenous churches would “ring out” the message of Christ throughout the

provinces where they were located and beyond (1 Thess 1:8).

So Paul considered his purpose to be establishing solid churches in key provincial

centers, then leaving the mop-up job of evangelizing the rest of the area to those churches.

Writing on Rom 15:19, O’Brien and Köstenberger (2001, 184) state that proclaiming the gospel

fully “signified that [Paul] had established strong churches in strategic centers of this area.”

Grant Osborne (2014) concurs, stating: “Paul actually functioned more like a goal-oriented

community organizer who established thriving churches, than an itinerant evangelist.” Ott and

Wilson (2011, 25) summarize: “Paul apparently considered his missionary ministry in the region

complete because churches had been planted that would further preach the gospel to those who

had not yet heard and would further multiply by establishing churches in as yet unreached

regions. The seeds of the gospel had been adequately planted in strategic center.”

This strategy is also discernable from the book of Acts as well, especially in chapter 19.

Luke testifies in verse 10 that from a base in Ephesus, Paul was able to get the message to “all

the Jews and Greeks” in the province of Asia within a two-year span. The text makes it clear,

16 The term Paul used to describe himself most commonly, of course, was not

“multiplicative church planter” but “apostle.” I am using the term multiplicative church planter

to explain what I believe Paul meant. Gene Wilson (2016) has written an excellent article which

calls modern missionaries to operate in similar ways in our day entitled, “Church Planting

Catalysts for Gospel Movements” in The Evangelical Missions Quarterly.

48

however, that Paul himself was not traveling during that period. Thus, the only sensible

explanation of how this happened is that disciples were multiplying the message way beyond

where Paul actually went. Taking their cues from Jesus and Paul, these unnamed disciples also

organized communities of disciples (churches) wherever they went. Michael Green states:

This provincial strategy proved extremely effective. Paul seems to have taken very

seriously the doctrine of each church as pars pro toto. He did not work intensively for

long years in a single place, but set up light-bearing communities of men who had found

salvation in Christ, who could thereafter be the ‘sign, earnest and instrument of God’s

total plan of salvation’ in that province. (Green 1970, 263)

The six churches of Revelation 2-3 were likely planted during this time; however,

“Probably none of these churches were planted by Paul; rather they were most likely the fruit of

a dynamic church planting movement launched from Ephesus” (Ott and Wilson 2011, 25). The

New Testament pattern was disciples being made through the vehicle of church—and

multiplying that everywhere.17

So Paul was a church planter who neither ministered alone nor left new believers alone.

He always went with a group: at least one other partner and frequently more. He often began his

churches through the most natural grouping of all—families (Acts 16:15; 16:34; 18:8; Rom 16:5;

16:10; 16:11;1 Cor 1:16, etc.).

Disciple Making as the Leading Edge,

Not Church Planting

Though church planting is the vehicle for disciple making, CPM practitioners view the

primary task of believers to be disciple-making whereas the task of church planting is the Lord’s.

17 The fact that a Church Planting Movement was launched by Paul as he made disciples

in Ephesus is the reason why Acts 19:10 is the key verse informing the strategy of the Ephesus

Teams serving around the world.

49

“I will build my church,” Jesus said (Matt 16:18). As J.D. Payne (2015, 17) states, “Nowhere in

the Bible is the church commanded to plant churches. … Throughout the Bible, we read of the

birth of churches—after disciples are made.” Some may consider this an insignificant distinction,

however, without this distinction it is all too easy to plant new churches that are not made up of

disciples of Jesus. Or, in already churched contexts, to simply move God’s people around from

one congregation to another based on preferences about style or secondary issues. Roy Moran

(2015, 49) calls this a “confusion of form and function.” The function, he argues, is to make

disciples; the form is the church. Moran writes:

Both Jesus and Paul practiced form following function. The biblical function of the

mission, multiplicative disciple-making, provided the direction and the form of the

churches that followed. They seemed to know that if you make disciple-making disciples,

the result is always a biblically functioning community—Jesus’ church. But if you plant

churches, you don’t always get disciple-making disciples. (49)

Similarly, Craig Ott and Gene Wilson (2011, 237) state, “Healthy and growing disciples

are the building blocks of healthy and growing churches. Both the book of Acts and history

demonstrate that churches are formed where there are faithful, reproducing disciples of Jesus

Christ.” When rapid multiplication or movements occur, there is often concern that speed will

lead to the multiplication of shallow converts. DMM practitioners, however, argue that this is

why the emphasis must be on disciple-making, not just conversions or church planting.

Church Planting Through Partnership

New Testament movements were not solo efforts led by superstars; they were the result

of broad partnerships among believers in Jesus who wanted to “know nothing except Jesus Christ

50

and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2).18 The same can be said of modern CPMs. I believe this

collaborative spirit is among the greatest evidences that these movements are in fact works of

God (John 17:21). In researching CPMs in the literature and through my interviews, I note that

most people involved in these movements display an attitude of surprise at what God is doing

and a great reticence to take credit for themselves. There is a constant mention of dependence

upon God in prayer and a minimizing of the role of individuals.19 There is also a great stress put

on the idea of empowering local leadership (or insiders) as opposed to outsiders clinging to

power.

A key issue impacting unity and partnership relates to the role of the foreigner in other

cultures, in particular concerning questions about church-in-culture decisions or indigenization.

It is no secret that missionaries around the world have long struggled with this issue. Mission

history is replete with embarrassing examples of workers foisting their own cultural preferences

upon local people. David Bosch summarizes:

In Roman Catholic missions the term commonly used in this respect was

“accommodation”; Protestants preferred to speak of “indigenization.” By and large,

however, Catholicism endorsed the principle that a “missionary church” must reflect in

every detail the Roman custom of the moment. Protestants were hardly more progressive

in this regard, not least because of the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity … which

18 Certainly Paul commanded that “good teaching” (1 Tim 4:6), the “things you have

heard me say” (2 Tim 2:2) and “sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9) must be maintained. However, he

was referring to the basics of the faith, particularly the —not secondary or tertiary

issues. Timothy Keller (2012, 308) contends that while it is fine to dig deeper and learn about

details and distinctions, we should “lead by the offense of the gospel instead of by truths that are

predicated on the gospel.”

19 David and Paul Watson (2009, 697) begin their article in Perspectives on the World

Christian Movement on this note, “None of us, in our wildest dreams, ever thought we would

witness what was happening. We planned on establishing a single ‘beachhead’ church where

there was none. We had no plans for seeing hundreds of thousands of churches started. We didn’t

think it was possible.”

51

Westerners tended to recognize more easily in the peoples of Asia and Africa than in

themselves. Still “indigenization” was official missionary policy in virtually every

Protestant mission organization, even if it was usually taken for granted that it was the

missionaries, not the members of the young churches, who would determine the limits of

indigenization. (Bosch 1991, 294-295)

In recent days, similar questions pertaining to contextual issues have led to acrimonious

debates about the contextualization “spectrum” (Travis 1998).20 How can we move past these

debates and work together in unity?

Paul’s Focus on Obedience, Not Forms

In order to move toward unity in issues pertaining to church planting, DMM practitioners

argue that what is needed is a return to paradigms that are more intentionally apostolic. Paul

planted simple, -based, Jesus-centered churches in “houses of peace” (Zdero 2011, 348)

which multiplied everywhere. How was that possible? One key seems to be the freedom he gave

to new believers. Though all churches were formed upon the same , Paul and the early

disciples did not prescribe specific forms of worship. We search the New Testament in vain to

20 Numerous articles in missiological journals and several important books have been

written about the question of contextualization. Recently a mammoth book, Understanding

Insider Movements (Talman and Travis 2015), has been published which brings together many of

the previously published articles on this subject under one cover. However, the book is not an

academic treatise bringing together disparate voices to discuss the model of Insider Movement

(IM) ministry, but instead a collection of essays, all supportive or neutral towards high-levels of

religious contextualization. The irony in this issue to me, as a DMM practitioner, is that while

many in the IM camp believe they are being contextual, many push for a certain type of

contextualization and urge new believers to follow their lead. This too, therefore, fails to truly be

insider led or indigenous for it has been advocated by outsiders. DMM practitioners, using only

the Bible as the text for disciple making, work assiduously to avoid giving their opinions to

questions like “how far is too far” or “can believers in Jesus stay in the mosque.” I believe in this

way DMM offers a huge corrective to the church and especially mission practitioners around the

globe. Sadly, however, the IM has become more publicized and accepted, even in academic

circles, than DMM or other means of working toward healthy church-planting using CPM

principles.

52

find specific forms or liturgies prescribed to all churches. Arthur Patzia (2001, 245) attributes

this to Paul’s tolerance for local variance, “Worship patterns varied among the churches, ranging

between the order of a synagogal model and the rather free expressions of worship evident in

Corinth.”

The reason for variations in context seem to be rooted in Paul’s own view of himself as

an outsider and his insistence on appealing to his listeners to obey the Word of the gospel in

general rather than commanding them to make specific applications. As Robert Banks discerns,

Paul’s attitude is summarized in 2 Cor 1:24, “we do not lord it over your faith; we work with you

for your joy” (italics mine). Banks (1994, 178) continues, “The apostle—for all his divine call,

diverse gifts, and founding labors—does not set himself in a hierarchical position above his

communities or act in an authoritarian manner towards them. He refuses to do this since Christ is

their master.” As noted earlier, this emphasis must be an imperative for us today as well: we are

not making disciples of ourselves (or of our theology or denomination), but of Jesus.

By releasing control of secondary issues and specific contextual applications, we allow

for true indigenization. Notice what Steve Addison writes about Paul’s ministry:

An important element in Paul’s strategy was the establishment of new churches. He did

not just win converts, he gathered them into communities of faith. … The churches met

in homes for worship, teaching and mutual support, and were largely run by local

believers. Paul’s aim was to bring each new church to maturity so he could move on to

the next destination, with the church as a partner in his mission. Christianity’s stubborn

intransigence combined with flexibility in methods was a key to its success. (Addison

2011, 114)

Recent literature such as the above echoes the principles of some of the great

missiologists of previous centuries, including Henry Venn, Rufus Anderson, Richard Nevius and

Roland Allen. Venn and Anderson argued in the mid-1800s for a “Three Self Model” saying that

53

only when foreign control was removed would new indigenous churches see local leadership,

resources and theology emerge. John Nevius (1899) argued for the Three Self Model because it

worked, but Roland Allen argued it worked because it was biblical, that is, Pauline (Steffan

2011, 19). In his 1912 treatise, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?, Allen contended that

Paul’s strikingly brief time in most places he visited was precisely part of the reason for his

success. The brief time in each city was strategic because it forced Paul to use incredibly flexible

and rapid ways to equip new believers. Allen believed that Paul’s basic training of new believers

focused only on the most essential basics of the faith: the creed, the two sacraments of baptism

and communion (but without prescribing the manner in which they were to be done), orders,21

and the Holy Scriptures.22 Thus Paul’s quick departure was actually not a hindrance but a means

of speeding growth, for new believers were immediately put to work (Allen 1962, 77).

Similar to the Pauline model, in Disciple Making Movements today new believers are

immediately put to work sharing what they are learning, leading their own groups (starting as

group facilitators and often ending as church elders), and holding each other accountable to the

application of new truths they discover. This is, of course, very similar to the thinking of Allen

et al. above, however in DMM there is a radical new twist: outside leaders do not normally

attend insider groups for very long but instead encourage seeker and new believer groups to

study and make applications on their own while the outsider mentors an insider(s) to lead. This is

an intentional strategy to help the group make their own applications and determine their

21 By orders Allen meant appointing elders or leaders.

22 Primarily the Old Testament since the New Testament was not yet completed. Later,

letters from the apostles including Paul also began to be circulated. These were also studied by

the new churches and also regarded as Scripture (2 Pet 3:16).

54

preferred styles of worship appropriate to their culture from the very beginning. This stands in

contrast to traditional teaching/instructional approaches where the outsider teaches for some

time, then eventually attempts to pass the baton to a local believer (ex. Hesselgrave 2000;

Steffen 1997). Thus the classic church-planting question, “What will the church look like?”,

becomes unanswerable for DMM practitioners because they honestly don’t know the answer:

new groups of believers will make those decisions. David and Paul Watson write:

DMM is about doing what was done in the first century—giving the Gospel to a people

and teaching them to obey it; seeing them become faithful disciples of Christ; leaving

them to struggle in obeying the Word of God in their own context and history; and

allowing them to develop their own unique practices of worship, leadership, and

governance within the confines of biblical obedience. (Watson and Watson 2014, 26)

De-culturization Clears the Way

DMM practitioners tend to discuss the topic of de-culturization more frequently than

contextualization or indigenization. Watson and Watson explain:

The cross-cultural witness must be able to identify the cultural areas and eliminate them

from his or her teachings. The best way to do this is to use only Scripture for curricula,

and allow local people to answer questions about Scripture, not listen to our answers. We

must learn to teach by asking a minimal number of questions, not by giving the answers

to every question or having an expressed opinion about everything. (Watson and Watson

2014, 14)

Outsiders seek to de-culturize the message by allowing seeker groups to study and apply the

Word of God directly. Then insiders contextualize the message as they read and apply it through

the lens of their own cultural forms.

The Discovery Group

The paramount way outsiders de-culturize the message and allow insiders to lead in most

movements today is by using simple Bible study formats such as the Discovery Group (or

55

Discovery Bible Study) in order to let the Bible speak for itself. While there are several variations

of basic questions used around the world, normally the format is for the group facilitator to

simply ask questions such as the following:

1. What are you thankful for today?

2. What are you struggling with today?

Questions 1-2 are used before reading/hearing the Bible passage. Each person present should

respond. Then a passage from the Bible is read, or an audio file of a Bible passage is played.

After the Bible reading, each group member then retells the story/passage in his or her own

words.

3. What does this passage say about God?

4. What does this passage say about humanity?

5. What will you do to obey it?

Each person is asked for a specific and measurable statement of how they will obey, beginning

with “I will…”

6. Is there something we could do to obey as a group?

7. Who would you like to tell about it?

Each person is expected to state someone to whom they will pass on the Bible story and/or their

application.

The genius of the Discovery Group is that the same, simple but profound questions are

used each week, thereby allowing groups to learn and reproduce them rapidly. No matter what

56

story or passage is read, the same questions are used.23 As groups of seekers begin to study the

Bible on their own using the same questions in each meeting, this easily reproducible DNA is set

and the expectation of obedience is created. Thus there is no need for an outsider to lead or to tell

insiders how to obey in response to the Word. Very quickly seekers and new believers become

used to the discussion questions and the process of making their own decisions. Usually groups

are led by insiders (local people who often have not yet come to Christ) after one or two

meetings. Disciple makers do meet routinely with group facilitators outside the group, but they

exercise great discipline to avoid answering group facilitators’ questions based on their own

ideas. Instead they continually suggest Bible passages for further study. As the group continues,

facilitators often mature and become elders of the new church.

Granted, the Discovery Group format is not directly found in the New Testament.

However, similar practices can be seen. Jesus frequently used a question and answer model of

dialogue with his listeners, including asking people to consider the meaning of Scriptures

(Matt 9:13; John 10:34-38). Similarly, Paul did not use a highly polished form of mono-

directional rhetoric (1 Cor 2:1-5), but reasoned from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that

Jesus was the Christ (Acts 17:2-4). He also had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus

(Acts 19:9). Perhaps most similar to the Discovery Group model, the Bereans had Bible studies

23 As noted above, there is often some variation to these questions in order to fit specific

cultures. For example, with concrete thinkers often the questions “What does this teach us about

God/man?” are changed to, “What do you see God/man doing in this passage?” Other changes

are sometimes made and other questions added, including questions to aid in deeper Bible study.

However, a key is not introducing passage-specific questions or often changing the basic

questions. Either of these will severely hamper reproducibility.

57

with no outside leader present (Acts 17:11).24 Only after they were able to discover on their own

that Paul and his team’s message was in line with the Old Testament Scriptures, were they

persuaded to believe. The Berean’s view of Scripture as the authority and the need for rigorous

discussion was, of course, nothing new to religious Jews who had grown up discussing and

debating the Scriptures through Torah schools and various forms of midrash.

Another important text to consider is 1 Cor 14:26-40, which gives us a glimpse into the

practice of early congregations (also see Col 3:16; Eph 5:19-20). As mentioned above, these

passages reveal that churches in the time of the New Testament were not uniformly structured,

nor did they have a set liturgy or professional ministers delivering an exegetical sermon.25

Apparently there was plenty of room for discussion and expression of one’s gifts and personality.

From other passages, we can see that the early church was often dealing with very practical

applications and personality issues, very much like that which happens in new churches in

movements today (ex. 1 Cor 6:4; Phil 4:2; 1 Tim 5:3-20).

Before ending this discussion of discovery-model church planting as used in DMM, I

want to reemphasize a point already mentioned above. That is, while many seeker groups do

24 It seems the reformation principle of Sola Scriptura has been in constant jeopardy

throughout history. The Berean Jews had it, and it has always been present throughout church

history, but it has often become overshadowed by human preferences for order, direction and

instructional teaching requiring high levels of learning and skill. DMM takes verses like

Heb 4:12 very seriously, attempting to point people constantly back to Scripture rather than

encouraging them to listen to a certain teacher, speaker or preacher.

25 Robert Banks (1994, 105) writes about 1 Cor 14:26 and the early church meetings,

“There is no one order proper for its meetings; any order is proper so long as these criteria are

observed [referring to the context of 1 Corinthians 13-14]. Paul therefore has no interest in

constructing a fixed liturgy. This would restrict the freedom of God’s communications. … This

structure will vary from gathering to gathering and from community to community.”

58

study the Bible without an outsider present, these groups are facilitated by insiders who are in

ongoing relationship with an outside disciple-maker.26 Normally the outside leader (a mature

believer, sometimes theologically trained) meets with the facilitator of the group at least weekly

to do the Discovery Group format with this leader, or leader’s group. (A plurality of elders is the

goal.) He or she goes through the entire Discovery Group question set with the leader(s) in order

to prepare him/her/them to do the same process with the group. During the meeting, there is also

time for evaluation, planning and prayer together. In this way, a solid disciple-making

relationship is formed between the group facilitator and the outsider that is ideally never severed.

This provides a link from the group of seekers to the outside church, and helps ensure quality

control.

When planting churches in contexts where the church already exists, many times these

outside disciple-makers are commissioned by more traditional churches to do this type of

ministry. This happens most often when churches of majority cultures realize they cannot reach

minority cultures using their normal programming or methodologies. However, there is a mutual

understanding, sometimes through the use of a written Memo of Understanding, that these

groups will not be pressured to attend regular services or adopt cultural forms not indigenous to

them. Surely we cannot hide what other Christians do around the world, especially in megacities

26 Some CPM advocates have popularized the M-A-W-L (Model-Assist-Watch-Leave)

model of leadership development finding in it parallels to Paul’s way of church planting.

However, most DMM practitioners I am aware of have modified this acronym at least by adding

an “S” at the end, referring to “stay in touch” thus becoming MAWLS. Movements happening

around the world, both in churched and unchurched areas, are like pyramids of groups being

discipled under mature leaders. The top leaders are always linked to outside leaders who have

strong connections to the global church. All of the leaders of Ephesus Teams I interviewed

exhibit this twin commitment: (1) to stay in touch with fledgling new church plants and (2) to

remain linked to the global church.

59

where immigrants are flocking today. However, DMM practitioners seek to create space and

give time for groups to develop and contextualize the application of the gospel with minimal

outside input instead of immediately urging them to connect with mainstream “Christian

culture.”

Beyond Debate into Unity in Church Planting

While working on teams of DMM practitioners overseas, I have personally experienced

how unifying an approach like this can be, engendering a truly broad-minded evangelicalism. As

mentioned in Chapter 1, I have been amazed by the unity found in implementing DMM as a

strategy to reach Muslims with workers as theologically diverse as Anglicans, Mennonites,

Baptists, independent Charismatics and non-denominational evangelicals all in the same group.

Though we met monthly for prayer and sharing, and worked together throughout the week on

projects and outreaches, our theological differences never divided us. Instead we were all unified

by the commitment to the DMM principle of de-culturization and the practice of immediately

letting insiders facilitate the groups. In this way, debates about secondary and tertiary issues

between partnership members became superfluous. It felt to me like a modern-day fulfillment of

Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17:20-23.

The important principle of not imposing outside cultural forms is generally accepted as

good missiology overseas, yet people working cross-culturally in the United States (with many

successful majority-culture churches surrounding them) easily forget this concept. Believers here

tend to assume that immigrants and other ethnicities can easily join our Caucasian or African-

American congregations, or perhaps those congregations should change to become some kind of

culture-neutral church (if that were possible). However, reaching people coming from radically

60

different cultures in diaspora is not necessarily significantly different from reaching them

overseas. They may live in a new country, but their home-culture ways of thinking often remain,

especially in the first generation. Paul Hiebert and Eloise Meneses (1995) in their book

Incarnational Ministry: Planting Churches in Band, Tribal, Peasant and Urban Societies,

demonstrate that though people may have moved into urban areas, their worldview often remains

intact.

A New Emphasis on Inter-Organizational Collaboration

A sad fact of mission history is that much mission work has been done denominationally

or organizationally, resulting in competition and duplication of time and resources between

mission personnel. Moreover, when Western missionaries have made attempts at forming

partnerships with believers in the newer churches of the global South, many times they were

viewed to be paternalistic, even neo-colonial.

Recently, however, a new spirit has emerged related to collaboration in mission. In 2015,

Peruvian missiologist Samuel Cueva completed a monumental study examining past

understandings of partnership and exploring new models. His proposed solution was what he

termed a Reciprocal Contextual Collaboration Model. Cueva (2015, 390) defines this model as

“a reciprocal relationship of harmonious freedom in creative tension, which exists between two

or more of Christ’s disciples as they seek to accomplish the missio Dei through the

Christological double mandate, which includes commitment to the cosmos and people for the

glory and benefits of God’s kingdom.” A chief concern for Cueva is that true partnership be truly

reciprocal, leaving behind vestiges of colonialism. Other recent Christian literature on

partnership has come from mission leaders such as Brian O’Connell and Phill Butler. O’Connell

61

(2017), the founder of REACT Services, describes a Partnering Continuum which puts

connecting, cooperating, coordinating and collaborating on a continuum. Collaboration, in

O’Connell’s view, is the highest form of partnership and requires a greater commitment and

intensity. He argues that if we are serious about accomplishing the Great Commission, the desire

of those in Christian mission should be nothing short of collaboration.

Phill Butler (2005), author of Well Connected, argues that the rise of the AD2000

movement, Ethnê, and several non-Western partnerships are bringing a new wave of global hope

in mission. He sees increased reason for hope, stating, “Based on the experiences of the last

twenty years, I’m convinced that, despite all appearances and centuries of conflict and division,

followers of Jesus from extremely varied backgrounds really can work together. In doing so, they

can make an extraordinary, enduring impact” (Butler 2005, 1). VisionSynergy, another new

ministry devoted specifically to encouraging missional partnership corroborates this statement.

Their website asserts, “No period in Church history has seen such breakthroughs in such a brief

time period. In many areas where these breakthroughs have occurred, evangelism and church

planting were powered by an intentional partnership of God’s people working together”

(VisionSynergy 2016). It is important to note that the idea of Ephesus Teams came directly out

of the Ethnê movement as a way to partner practically among the unreached (Stan Parks,

September 16, 2016, personal conversation).

It is the promise of impact or “accomplishing the Great Commission” that mission

leaders find so appealing, not simply partnership as an end in itself. As Daniel Rickett claims,

“Partnering is the practice of brotherhood. If we can achieve true brotherhood, we will in a single

stroke enrich one another and advance the gospel” (Rickett 2008, 19; italics mine). Thus Missio

62

Nexus, the largest mission network in North America,27 captures well the spirit and need for

missional partnering in their tagline, “The Great Commission is too big for anyone to accomplish

alone, and too important not to try to do together” (Missio Nexus 2016).

A common CPM slogan is “WIGTake” (What’s It Gonna Take?).28 This slogan is meant

to remind people of a key principle that has been lost to much of the evangelical world: rather

than thinking about what can I do (or my team, church or organization do), we should consider

instead what is it going to take to get the job done? This simple question moves the focus away

from self (my gifting, my abilities, my mission) to the task of reaching the lost and planting

churches among them. When thinking strategically about reaching masses of lost people,

partnership and collaboration becomes an obvious necessity. This strategic thinking has led

many considering Church Planting Movements to take partnership seriously. This convergence

of a renewed focus on partnering in the global church and an implementation of CPM principles

holds great promise. Both these strands of thinking are essential to building up and participating

in Ephesus Teams.

Starfish Thinking for Ministry

In addition to recent Christian thinking on partnership, the 2006 secular best-seller, The

Starfish and the Spider, by business consultants Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom, is what really

27 MissioNexus was created in 2012 through a merger between the former IFMA

(Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association) and the EFMA (Evangelical Fellowship of

Mission Agency).

28 WIGTake is also the name of a CPM publishing arm of the International Mission

Board of the Southern Baptist Church. WIGTake has published both the recent books by David

Garrison as well as books by Ying Kai and Kevin Greeson. The publishing name comes from the

slogan.

63

captured the imagination of many leaders in mission. In it, Brafman and Beckstrom described the

“unstoppable power of starfish or leaderless organizations.” The metaphor is that one can kill a

spider by crushing its head, but some starfish can actually reproduce new starfish from each of

its legs. Brafman and Beckstrom (2006) apply this metaphor to “open system organizations” in

which leadership is decentralized and flexible, and power is shared. In these organizations,

“leaders operate more like catalysts, not CEOs” (124). They seek to create peer groups built on

trust and high emotional connection instead of using more directive, command-and-control

leadership styles. Precisely because of the vacuum created by the lack of traditional leadership, a

myriad of new leaders are unleashed creating a loose, flexible organization that is much harder to

contain. The book cites examples of this type of organization including Alcoholics Anonymous,

Wikipedia, Craigslist, Facebook, Skype and the Apache Native American tribe.

Starfish thinking is another concept integral to Ephesus Teams in several ways. First, the

process of Discovery Groups leads to rapid development of many new leaders, instead of one

primary teacher. Second, if groups multiply, multiple generations of leaders can be produced,

akin to the reproduction of legs on a starfish. Third, in order to see CPMs happen, many have

noted the need for massive prayer movements (Garrison 2004, 172; Watson and Watson 2014,

79; Trousdale 2012, 48; Ott and Wilson 2011, 10; Hunt 2009, 94) and training movements as

well (Smith and Kai 2011; Stan Parks, September 16, 2016, personal conversation; Moran 2016).

These “sub-movements” can only happen if God’s people are mobilized on a large scale and

allowed to lead based on the principle of the priesthood of all believers (Watson and Watson

2014, 51). Fourth, in order for an Ephesus partnership to develop in a way that impacts a major

population segment or people group, leaders in the partnership should only hold influential

64

power, seeking to complement people’s affiliation to other organizations, not to control them

through structural power or try to herd them all into the same agency. Starfish-like collaborations

are especially equipped to provide the flexibility in movements to facilitate true multi-directional

streams of a church planting movement.29

While I see the overall concept of starfish organizations as central to Ephesus Team

collaborations, this idea can be overstated. I do not posit that New Testament movements (or

modern-day movements for that matter) were without any organization. Traveling apostles like

Peter and Paul brought cross-pollination and healthy teaching, and some binding mandates were

handed down from the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15:28-29). The early house churches existed not

only as networks within a city, but as a network of networks. Rad Zdero (2011, 349)

summarizes, “Multi-city networks across regions were also fostered through apostolic visits and

letters. And multi-region networks across the Roman Empire provided financial relief for

believers in crisis.” However, the leaders of these New Testament movements and their

mandates did not eviscerate local leadership but allowed it to develop within a broader network

resulting in polycentric leadership. The goal of this research project is to forge a new polycentric

collaborative partnership that can multiply like the legs of a starfish.

29 Similar types of leaderless organization was arguably one of the essential elements

enabling the massive spread of biblical faith throughout the Roman Empire in the early days of

the faith. Peter and Paul, often popularly viewed as Church Fathers who controlled the laity,

were in fact roving, charismatic apostles who acted as catalysts and counselors, not as

controllers. This led to an empowerment of the new churches, giving them the ability to develop

their own congregations in ways that fit their context.

65

Conclusion and Application to MegaMetro’s

Muslim Populations

Having surveyed the literature about recent developments in missions especially in regard

to Church Planting Movements and partnership, I conclude that using DMM as a strategy for an

Ephesus Catalytic Partnership to reach the 500,000 Muslims living in MegaMetro would be a

biblical and valid strategy.

I end this chapter with a couple of final comments. First, some contend that Christianity

spreads best among rural people in traditional societies. However, sociologist Rodney Stark has

demonstrated conclusively that early Christianity was primarily an urban movement, not a rural

one. Stark writes:

Within twenty years of the crucifixion, Christianity was transformed from a faith based in

rural Galilee, to an urban movement reaching far beyond Palestine … while Jesus’s

ministry was limited primarily to the rural areas and the outskirts of towns, the Jesus

movement quickly spread to the Greco-Roman cities, especially to those in the eastern,

Hellenic end of the empire. All ambitious missionary movements are, or soon become,

urban. If the goal is to ‘make disciples of all nations,’ missionaries need to go where there

are many potential converts, which is precisely what Paul did. His mission took him to

major cities. … No mention is made of him preaching in the countryside. Any study of

how Christians converted the empire is really a study of how they Christianized the cities.

(Stark 2006, 25-26)

Though Stark does not answer the question of why modern missions has focused more on

traditional, rural societies than urban areas, I wonder if it is in part due to losing some of the key

movement principles we have discussed in this chapter.

Second, I want to note the urgency of this task, especially as it relates to reaching Muslim

populations in the United States. Dr. Larry Poston (2001, 3-4), a lecturer on Islam in America

and professor of missions at Nyack College, discerns two main categories of Muslims in this

country: ethnic Muslims and cultural Muslims. He notes that while the majority of Muslims in

this country are immigrants, whether a person culturally identifies as a Muslim depends on

66

whether he or she actively participates in Islamic rituals. For unlike the situation in many Islamic

states, Muslims living in this country do have a choice. Poston’s comments on the issue of a

Muslim’s choice is worthy of a longer quotation:

The choice that a [Muslim] makes depends to a great extent on the number of Muslims

surrounding the individual in his or her new environment, the consistency and regularity

of contacts with such peers, and the attitude of non-Muslims with which the individual

comes in contact. This last aspect is particularly important, for a number of previously

‘nominal’ Muslims have been radicalized by negative contacts with outsiders. When an

American makes a prejudicial or misinformed remark about Islam in the hearing of a

Muslim, the potential exists for that person to become vitally Muslim in a way that he or

she never was before. This is obviously a dynamic that Christian witnesses must try to

avoid whenever possible. (Poston 2001, 4)

In another book co-authored with Carl Ellis, Jr., Poston makes a further helpful

distinction. He states that most American Muslims can be categorized as defensive-pacifist, that

is, they have a minimal desire to convert others to Islam. It is only a minority of Muslims that

could be categorized as offensive-activist, or people who actively seek to propagate their faith

and persuade Americans to convert to Islam (Poston and Ellis 2000, 25-26). This distinction

holds true in all segments of Muslims, including new immigrants, distinct ethnic populations and

African-American Muslims. Thus Poston and Ellis warn that when Christians exhibit an “I’ll

show him” (27) attitude towards Muslims, Muslims often become hardened.

In the current American political situation where the nature of Islam and the extent of

Muslim immigration have become hotly debated issues, Poston’s insights may be more crucial

than ever. One implication is that in order to really impact 500,000 Muslims in MegaMetro, an

important part of the ministry will need to be helping the many evangelical churches already

within the city to address their attitudes and prejudices towards Muslims. Indeed, the interviews

done with Ephesus Teams already operating around the world revealed working with the church

is a key distinctive of their work.

67

In Chapter 3, I describe the research process of interviewing both local ministries among

Muslims currently operating in MegaMetro and of Ephesus Teams working around the world. In

Chapter 4, I describe their ministries. The strategic plan found in Chapter 5 is a result of the

current chapter’s literature review coupled with the findings of my research.

68

CHAPTER 3

THE PROJECT NARRATIVE AND FIELD WORK

The research done was descriptive in nature using a qualitative approach by means of in-

depth, in-person semi-structured interviews using an interview protocol (Bailey 2007, 5). An

outline of the steps taken in the research design follows.

Research Design - Steps in

Conducting the Research

First, the group of key informants was selected. For the Ephesus Teams, I was given

names of Ephesus Team leaders by the Ephesus Support Group. For the workers in MegaMetro,

I had to find the pool of informants myself. Second, permission was requested for in-person

interviews, normally through email. Third, each informant was asked to sign an Informed

Consent Form stating that they understood the nature of this research and agreed to be a key

informant (Informed Consent Forms are found in Appendices 3 and 4). Fourth, interviews were

done in-person or via telephone/Skype and recorded completely. Each interview lasted at least

one hour in duration; most lasted ninety minutes to two hours. During the interviews I took notes

on both content and meta-communication. Fifth, I listened to the recording of the interviews and

transcribed them word-for-word in entirety (for the eleven Ephesus Team leader interviews), or

took careful notes on them (for the MegaMetro workers interviews). Sixth, I analyzed the data to

find answers to my research questions and compiled a summary of the answers (found in

Appendices 1 and 2). Seventh, I wrote a report of my findings and conclusions (Chapter 4) and

sent it to the informants for review.

69

Rationale for Research Design

The research approach was qualitative. This was chosen in part because both groups of

informants were relatively small: eleven interviews were done with the leaders of six Ephesus

Teams and thirteen interviews were done with workers among Muslims in MegaMetro. Because

of the small number of informants I did not engage in quantitative analysis. The goal of all

interviews was to generate “thick descriptions” (Bailey 2007, 139) of what is actually happening

in the field and what is working (best practices) to produce multiplying churches among non-

Christian people. I was not interested in simply compiling facts or figures; I wanted to know

details about how things are actually happening and be able to ask detailed questions. This was

done in order to “provide rich ‘context bound’ information leading to patterns of theories that

help explain a phenomenon” (Creswell 2008, 7). Since, “The intent of the study is to develop

generalizations that contribute to the theory and enable one to better predict, explain and

understand some phenomenon” (7). Some of the questions could be considered “grand tour

questions” (70), while the remainder were mostly general and open-ended so informants could

take whatever direction they wanted. Sometimes the initial prepared questions were followed up

by sub-questions related to the answers given. In this way I was able to also get information I did

not expect. By doing in-depth interviews of this nature, I was also able to observe informants’

meta-communication as well as engage in participant observation, especially during the

interviews in Jakarta (in my former country of ministry).

My ultimate objective was to develop an Ephesus Team in MegaMetro similar to those

six Ephesus Teams I was studying. I did not set out to prove a hypothesis but to answer a

“central broad question that asks for an explanation” (129), that is, how were the Ephesus Teams

formed and how did they function in order to produce the fruit of new churches. This

70

overarching objective led to the specific research questions used in the interview protocol found

in Appendix 1. I also wanted to know exactly what is happening in terms of reaching Muslims

and planting churches in the MegaMetro area. That second objective led to the specific research

questions found in the interview protocol in Appendix 2.

Informant Selection and Criteria

The informants for this study were made up of two groups: (1) Ephesus Team leaders and

(2) workers serving in outreach ministries to Muslims in the MegaMetro area.

The group of informants for Ephesus Teams was well defined due to information from

the Ephesus Support Group. In fact, there are several others who have adopted the Ephesus

vision and are also attempting to begin Ephesus Teams. However, I sought only to interview

those who were known to have established a solid collaboration and had seen significant fruit in

terms of multiplying groups of seekers and believers. It was therefore a great honor to be able to

interview all of these teams, but especially JP in India and BA in Ethiopia since both of these

indigenous leaders have begun powerful collaborations and have been used to catalyze full-

fledged Church Planting Movements. Though there are significant differences in reaching

Muslims in the United States compared to overseas (a point mentioned frequently by the

MegaMetro workers), I wanted to research these Ephesus partnerships in order to bring more

clarity on a successful model for collaboration and strategy for a movement (DMM) that is not

commonly practiced here.

Determining key informants for MegaMetro was not as straightforward since I had no

predetermined list of successful ministries to interview. Moreover, this task was complicated by

the fact that many Christians today are writing and speaking about Islam, but may not be

71

significantly invested in actually doing significant outreach to Muslims. Thus, determining

exactly what ministry is taking place in MegaMetro was a major research objective. In order to

create a pool of subjects I engaged in significant networking and informal interviewing prior to

the formal interviews. Sometimes this required meeting people more than once and proved to be

quite time-consuming. I also sought to find additional subjects through the snowball method, that

is by asking informants who else I should interview. After sorting through many contacts and

holding about twenty informal discussions, I eventually found thirteen key informants who were

interviewed face-to-face.

For both groups of informants, I had to give every assurance that the information they

shared would be kept confidential and that I was someone they could trust. This was

accomplished by use of informed consent documents (found in Appendices 3 and 4) which were

signed by each informant, and by explaining some of my background, mission organization,

relationships, educational institution (TEDS), and vision for the future. In addition, I promised to

not reveal the exact locations of their teams, but only to use initials in print. In some cases, it

took some time, effort and money to develop this trust, however, doing so enabled them to open

up and provide “a wealth of information that [I] would not have gotten without the initial

establishing of this rapport” (Bailey 2007, 74).

Data Collection, Recording and Analysis

Each Ephesus Team leader interview was recorded using an iPhone audio recorder

application and an additional Skype audio recorder for back-up and quality control. Sometimes I

had to listen to recordings over and over in both formats in order to ascertain exactly what was

being said and to ensure accuracy. Also, as informants spoke, I jotted down notes in a journal. I

72

did not alter the set of questions used in these interviews, but generally asked them in order, as

many as time and interest would allow. In some cases, due to non-verbal cues, I did not feel at

liberty to ask every question and demurred from follow-up questions.

As a researcher who is a committed practitioner and trainer of Disciple Making

Movements (DMMs) myself, I had to seek to ensure that I was hearing what they really said and

not reading my own thoughts into their words. Thus, in order to minimize bias, for each Ephesus

interview I transcribed the recordings of the interviews word for word. These were written

exactly as recorded including interjections like “well” and “you know.” In some cases, when

transcribing the interviews later, I was surprised to find that my hand-written notes did not match

what was actually said. In order to minimize bias and increase validity, I attempted to interview

two Ephesus Team leaders using the same questions. (As it turned out, I was able to do this for

every team with the exception of the Levant team, of which I was only able to interview one.) By

interviewing two leaders, some triangulation was achieved (Creswell 1994, 7). Moreover, since

all of these teams are somewhat inter-connected through key leaders like PKS and David

Watson, some cross-checking from one team to another was also possible. While listening to the

content of the answers to my questions, I also sought to observe my informants’ meta-

communication by paying attention to voice inflection, tenor and tone and other emotional cues.

Later, I analyzed each interview and summarized the crux of the answer to each question. In

some cases, I sought clarification through subsequent email discussion. The summaries of these

interviews were compiled in a chart form (kept personally); fuller narrative elucidation is found

in Chapter 4. Later I sent these documents for the informant’s review. Some of their comments

and corrections are reflected in this project report.

73

For the MegaMetro workers, I recorded the interviews using an iPhone, but did not

transcribe the interviews afterwards. Instead, I listened carefully to them later to find the core of

their answers to my questions and to note non-verbal cues. Since all of the MegaMetro

interviews were able to be done in-person, these tended to be longer in duration, usually over

coffee or a meal. Some of the informants were tense and nervous about the subject matter so

spending time chatting and eating together was essential to build rapport. The summaries of

these interviews were compiled in a chart (kept personally) and are explained in Chapter 4. Two

of these workers only agreed to be interviewed if they could review the results of this research. I

sent them Chapter 4 and Appendix 2 and some of their comments have been incorporated.

After compiling all of the data, I analyzed responses from both sets of interviews on a

question-by-question basis. Since data was collected using semi-formal Interview Protocols to

capture the topics of greatest interest to me, I did not have a mass of unstructured data that

required coding. As a conclusion to the research, I developed a strategic plan based primarily on

input from the Ephesus Teams but also including some ideas from the existing ministries in

MegaMetro. The rough plan was then sent to others for input which was taken into account in the

final plan as reflected in Chapter 5 (and my personal plan in Appendix 7).

Description of Research Execution

The completion of the field work took approximately five months, beginning in July 2016

in a conference room in Jakarta and ending in early December 2016 in my home office via

Skype. The interviewing period for the Ephesus Team leader interviews was concurrent with the

interviews of the MegaMetro workers. This juxtaposition created some difficulties in juggling

meetings locally while also trying to set and carry out international phone interviews. In order to

74

accomplish this research, I engaged in face to face meetings primarily in MegaMetro, USA, but

also in San Jose, California, Nairobi, Kenya and Jakarta, Indonesia. Most Ephesus Team

interviews were done via Skype. However, since I was able to meet six Ephesus leaders in

Jakarta, Indonesia, I took the opportunity to do these interviews face-to-face. All of the

MegaMetro interviews were done in person. Email and telephone were used to set appointments.

Prior to the main research period, I had already done some of the broad networking in

MegaMetro, including attending a meeting of COMMA. This network was an important place

where I was able to meet people to help discover who I ought to interview formally. This

informal networking continued during the interview period as finding a pool of appropriate

informants in MegaMetro required a lot of additional effort. This included interaction with an

additional twenty contacts and referrals who were not formally interviewed.1

1 The twenty additional meetings and conversations I had in order to ascertain key

informants for MegaMetro included the following: an Ethiopian pastor in the western suburbs, a

missions pastor at a mega-church in downtown MegaMetro, a missions pastor at a western

suburban Bible church, a regional leader for a mission organization who is also a DMM trainer,

three mega-church outreach team members living in an ethnic area of town, a couple living in

west MegaMetro who also attended one session of my DMM First Steps training, a mission

organization mobilizer and T4T trainer, two NGO refugee resettlement workers, two staff

workers at a Friendship Center, two leaders of a Bible study ministry, the new director of BA’s

former Ethiopian mission organization who was taking advanced studies in MegaMetro, two

leaders from the course “Encountering the World of Islam,” one leader from a group of

Indonesian professionals living in the United States, a long-term missionary in Indonesia visiting

the area, a suburban pastor from a missional church based out of Texas, and an Evangelical Free

Church mission pastor in the western suburbs. This final pastor and I met twice to talk and visit a

local mosque together. None of these people reported many conversions, nor had a lot of

ongoing ministry to Muslims. Some of these names and referrals came from a researcher with

my mission organization, and from Don McCurry, author of several books on reaching Muslims

and co-founder of the Zwemer Institute of Muslim Studies.

75

Although I believe the objectives of the research were accomplished, I did experience

some frustration with the length of time it took. In particular, the Ephesus Team leaders were not

as available as I had hoped; in one case I had to eventually give up on an interview with the local

leader and was only able to interview an expatriate leader (Levant). In several cases, the original

date we had agreed upon for the interview had to be moved back, sometimes several times over

several weeks. In retrospect, I should have expected this difficulty due to the fact that some of

these leaders are involved in actual movements. Nevertheless, the reality is that these

postponements did impact the final publication of this project report. I also noted that most of the

people interviewed had already been interviewed for other similar projects, causing them to be

less enthusiastic about helping me. However, for most informants, when they learned more of the

specifics of what this project entailed, they were quite amenable. Informing people that I was

doing this project as a part of my Doctor of Ministry program from Trinity Evangelical Divinity

School also added credibility. Nevertheless, through the interview process, I am happy to report

that I was ultimately able to get clear answers to my research questions, and more so, was also

able to develop new friendships and strengthen existing ones. I am grateful for this new

relational capital that will be crucial for the actual development of the Ephesus Partnership in

MegaMetro.

It was inspiring and humbling to be able to learn directly from Ephesus leaders about

exactly what is happening on the field today, as opposed to only hearing anecdotal reports (often

second or third hand), or reading about them from previously published articles and books.

While there were several surprises and revelations of things not going as well as hoped, still I

was honored to be able to personally interview leaders involved in two significant movements

76

(Ethiopia and India) and to learn of several other emerging movements happening as well. The

interviews confirmed that each Ephesus Team is indeed operating as a collaborative partnership

and is using DMM as the centerpiece of its strategy. It was exciting to hear that all these teams

have seen multi-generational Discovery Groups and/or churches forming among Muslim, Hindu,

secular and traditional Christian-background peoples. I even learned of a number of Muslim

imams and sheikhs who have come to Christ in Africa and the Middle East. Many of these claims

were able to be confirmed/triangulated as I heard the same information emerge from other

informants in separate interviews. Most encouraging overall was the level of godliness and

humility exhibited. In fact, the most fruitful people seemed most gracious and godly.

In some cases, both for the Ephesus Teams and local MegaMetro workers, I was not able

to ask all of my questions. Skype calls overseas frequently dropped, interruptions occurred, and

sometimes people got excited about certain topics and conversation went on too long in one

direction prohibiting answers to other questions. Sometimes I was able to follow up initial

interviews with additional meetings or emails in order to get complete data. Frequently key

informants did not know complete answers to all of my questions or they were hesitant to over-

report. Security was an issue with both groups of informants.

Learning what has been happening in MegaMetro was much less encouraging than what I

heard from the Ephesus Teams. First of all, not all informants were enthusiastic to meet; some

were suspicious and very careful; one even refused to meet. A few others I had hoped to meet

never materialized. Second, I found the difference in demeanor between leaders on the Ephesus

Teams versus workers in MegaMetro significant: the former exhibited a strong spirit of

enthusiasm and excitement while the latter were generally frustrated and negative. Some of the

77

reasons given for this frustration were limited resources and funding, difficulty of doing outreach

in their context and lack of fruit. Several informants noted that reaching Muslims in the United

States seems to be actually harder than reaching them in their own countries, and everyone

reported that church planting in this area among Muslims has been nil.

Nevertheless, I am hopeful that at least some of these frustrations of fellow workers in

MegaMetro might be mitigated through a collaborative partnership like an Ephesus Team with

DMM as its strategy. In fact, it was apparent that, for the most part, these workers were

encouraged simply to meet and learn of my desire to also reach Muslims in this area. I am glad if

I was able to be an encouragement to them.

78

CHAPTER 4

REPORT OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

This project was initiated with the ultimate goal of catalyzing a collaborative partnership

of Christians using Disciple Making Movement (DMM) as a strategy to engage and plant

churches among Muslims living in MegaMetro. I’ve chosen to name this proposed new

partnership an Ephesus Catalytic Partnership, based on input given from the six other similar

collaborative teams operating around the world which were interviewed for this project.

Overview of Ephesus Vision and Team Naming

As noted earlier, there is no fixed nomenclature for these teams. Some use the term

Ephesus Team while others use the terms network, team, hub or other organizational names. At

this junction, I also need to point out that there is no official list of Ephesus Teams nor anyone

who decides which team is in or out. Instead, there are various collaborations which have

grasped the Ephesus Vision coming out of the Ethnê conferences1 and are seeking to develop

something similar. Some of these are getting traction and seeing great fruit; others are struggling

or have stalled. It was a great privilege therefore, for me to be able to interview some of the best

examples of very fruitful collaborative teams connected to the Ephesus Vision. Though two of

the teams I interviewed have been in operation before the term Ephesus Team was used (India

and Ethiopia), in many ways these have become the standard-bearers and prime examples that

others seek to follow.

1 Ethnê Conferences are called Global Ethnê Gatherings and were held in 2006, 2009

and 2012. (www.Ethne.net)

79

A loose work-group called the Ephesus Support Group that seeks to follow-up Ethnê

conferences is proactively trying to help facilitate new and existing Ephesus Teams. It was

partially through the help of people on the Ephesus Global Support team that I was able to

contact and interview the teams I did. They have developed a set of internal documents to

elucidate the vision and have published two articles in Mission Frontiers (Long 2013; Parks

2016). I include their definitions of the Ephesus Vision and Ephesus Teams below:

The Ephesus Vision: In this generation, cascading movements throughout the most-

neglected families of the unreached (similar to the cascading movement described in Acts

19:10).

An Ephesus Team is a mutually committed group of CPM practitioners seeking cascading

movements among a family of unreached groups. (Stan Parks, October 2012, email

correspondence)

Since the six Ephesus Teams were my primary focus of research, I now present a detailed

and thick description of each of these teams. My primary goal was to answer the research

question: what are the best practices of Ephesus Teams currently in operation around the world?

I especially wanted to know what was working in two main categories: creating a broad

evangelical partnership, and actually seeing fruit in the field—people coming to Christ and

multiplicative churches forming.

Comparative charts of the raw data from the Ephesus Teams as well as from the

MegaMetro ministries were made but not included in this project report. Instead, what follows in

this chapter is a narrative description and summary. I also do not provide full transcripts of the

interviews, but distill the data in order to focus on my specific areas of concern. The first major

section of this chapter focuses on the Ephesus Teams, giving a description of each team,

discussing how the collaboration works and reporting how many partners are involved. After

80

describing each team in its context, I then describe the fruit they reported. Care is taken to avoid

disclosing information that would endanger the work. Following the description of the Ephesus

Teams, the second major section reports findings on the ministries in MegaMetro. Finally, I

conclude this chapter by noting important points given to me as input for the formation of a

partnership in MegaMetro. This input informs the strategic plan as found in Chapter 5.

Ephesus Team Descriptions and Findings

Six Ephesus Teams were interviewed for this Project. The order of the information below

reflects the order of the interviews based on informant availability. It does not reflect any ranking

of importance or value.

The NAME Ephesus Team

The first team I researched was the North African-Middle East (NAME) team. This team

is a collaboration of workers operating all over the region with leaders currently residing in The

Desert (actual area withheld for security reasons). The idea to form this team was a direct

outcome of an Ethnê network meeting in 2010. The initial meeting to discuss the formation of an

Ephesus Team occurred in 2011 with the first official team meeting occurring in 2013. Though

not the oldest collaborative partnership I interviewed (Ethiopia and India have been in operation

much longer), in many ways this team serves as the prototype for many others. This is partly

because PSK, one of my key informants, was one of the originators of the Ephesus Vision;

furthermore he has been among the most proactive in helping develop similar teams. This team

has a vision to penetrate all of the NAME region for the gospel—a region of about 300

Unreached People Groups (UPGs), nearly all Muslim. So far, however, their primary focus has

been on the Arab and Kurdish peoples.

81

The NAME Ephesus Team today is a collaboration made up of four Middle Eastern

organizations plus ten international mission organizations. All of the seven teams in the NAME

region which are seeing movements (or emerging movements), are involved in this Ephesus

Team. A deliberate decision was made to not exclude any Church Planting Movement (CPM)

strategy; however, after many trials and failures over the years nearly everyone today is using

Disciple Making Movement (DMM) as their main strategy. This is largely because they have

seen the most fruit through using DMM, both in terms of new church planting among Muslims

and in terms of discipling Christian background people in the region through multiplying small

groups (often referred to as Discovery Groups or Discovery Bible Studies.)

People on the NAME Ephesus Team exhibit a high-level of commitment: several

members are reported to prioritize Ephesus Team meetings and activities over those of their own

organizations and other mission meetings. The Ephesus Team meets as a large gathering every

nine to twelve months, but primarily meets in sub-groupings related to the generational level of

fruit that members are seeing (one meeting for those seeing second generation and above;

another meeting for those seeing less). Other activities include promoting and facilitating

Roundtables for ongoing peer coaching and prayer in each city or closer geographical grouping,

a monthly phone call for group prayer, a monthly day of fasting, and a newly developed monthly

newsletter for encouragement. The core of their meetings together consists of people sharing

what is happening in their areas using Circle Diagrams. (Dotted circles indicate Discovery

Groups, solid circles indicate new churches, and rectangles indicate training/coaching groups.)

The free and open sharing is both motivating and bonding. After a person gives an update, the

group prays for him or her, often with tears. Persecution, deportation and suffering are common,

82

and some are facing burnout as the demands of ministry seem to outpace capacity. Partly because

of sharing and learning from one another, and partly because of the stress, this Ephesus Team has

become a life-line to over thirty movement leaders serving all over the NAME region.

The fruit they have seen is also very encouraging: across the region, combined data sets

total 2,600 new churches and at least 300 additional Discovery Groups up to the eighth

generation in several different streams.2 Both believer and seeker groups reported come from

three different backgrounds: about one third of groups consist of people from Muslim

backgrounds, one third are made up of people from traditional Christian backgrounds (now

forming into new discipleship groups) and the following third of the groups are a mixture of

Muslim and Christian background people meeting together. In one area particularly known for

violence and terrorism, there are fifty-eight new house churches including seven made up of

radicals. (The groups of radicals were started by a couple of imams who renounced violence and

spoke publicly about their decision to do so because of the teachings of Jesus. That stream is now

reproducing up to the fourth generation.) One especially encouraging story was of Arabs and

Kurds reconciling across enemy lines as they are coming to Jesus and now helping each other

start new Bible study groups. Not surprisingly, the visible role of far-outsider missionaries (often

of European descent) is very limited; nearly all of the group are led by local believers/insiders or

near-neighbors. Many of the churches formed have begun because of the collapse of the status

quo of certain countries in the region and the resultant refugee crisis.

2 It is often a challenge to get adequate data to distinguish which groups are already

churches and which are still Discovery Groups/seeker groups. Usually in movements using the

DMM strategy, a group is considered a church when the leaders/majority of the group are

baptized and they commit to functioning as a church. Over time the groups that have become

churches become clear.

83

When asked about the reason for their successes, apart from the timing and blessing of

God, PSK noted that most organizations nowadays send out workers without a clear vision,

strategy, or training. And there is often very little accountability. For the Ephesus Team,

however, with its clear vision on reaching the region, the unified strategy of DMM and ongoing

training cycles has filled this gap for both local and expatriate workers. In addition, partnering

together and learning from each other was the way some organizations seeing breakthroughs

could get the help they needed. “Other organizations had awesome DNA that we needed,” MC

stated. Because of the environment of mutuality and friendly accountability, people who are

reluctant to give ministry reports to their own organizations happily submit case studies and

church planting metrics to the Ephesus Team for group analysis and prayer.

Prayer was another key element mentioned, especially corporate prayer for one another.

MC stated, “There’s power in prayer and worship that brings unity … it really shifted the

atmosphere.” He illustrated his point by telling of a prayer meeting where all the workers in one

area met monthly. Someone would lead worship and facilitate prayer, then they would have a

meal together. “Initially when we’d hear of someone coming to Jesus it was like ‘yeah’—but we

were all kind of bummed it wasn’t us! But after three or four months of praying, the whole

atmosphere changed where … people realized we are all on the same team. Who cares about the

organization or any of that stuff? This is all for Jesus!” (MC).

Another key factor in seeing fruit has been access ministries that provide a clear blessing

to the communities they serve before gospel proclamation. PSK explains, “Some areas rely too

much on proclamation, skipping meeting needs first. Really the best way around the world to

84

find People of Peace is by meeting needs. It is crucial to do social ministry and to do it in the

name of Jesus. Serve everyone, but then focus spiritual ministry on the spiritually open.”

A final key pertains to understanding the role of outsiders versus insiders or local

believers. CM stated that “none of the emerging movements we know of in NAME has been

started by an outsider leading someone from zero to salvation. … [Instead] outsiders are finding

[Muslim Background Believers or] MBBs who are not seeing the kind of fruit they want to see

and are asking for help. So the outsiders are finding these guys and coaching them and then

they’re starting to see breakthroughs.”

The East Indonesia Network

I interviewed the initiators of the East Indonesia Network in a conference room in

Jakarta. HKL and his wife were both missionary kids who grew up in Southeast Asia. They

returned later and are now committed to life-long mission work, having already been on the field

for over twenty-years. They reminisced about an Ethnê event in 2011 where, with PSK, they

began to dream about reaching out more broadly than to one UPG or UPG cluster. This dream

became a reality as a new Ephesus Team was launched at a networking meeting in Singapore in

2012. The internal designation they use is the East Indonesian Network, but outside, they call it

the East Indonesian Ephesus Team. The initial glue that bonded these people together was the

shared desire to reach the thirty Unengaged Unreached People Groups (UUPGs) in East

Indonesia. Soon after, another long-term missionary couple, ASR joined. They then recruited an

Indonesian leader to lead the network. Twenty-eight organizations are now involved, both

expatriate and national. This was the only interview I was able to do in person with two couples

acting as key informants in the same room together. It was inspiring to hear them recollect what

85

had happened over the past few years and describe the scope and impact of their ministry.

Unfortunately, I was not able to interview any of their Indonesian partners.

The East Indonesia Network was formed with a primarily focus on the thirty UUPGs of

East Indonesia. Combined with the other UPGs of that area, this network has a combined focus

population of twenty-seven million people. Their initial goal was to see all these UUPGs

engaged with teams having an effective CPM strategy by 2018. The vision is to catalyze

movements among them. In the beginning, they noted that all kinds of workers—translators,

sending organizations, mobilizers, prayer people, media people, etc. were all doing their own

things. So these two couples called an initial meeting in September 2013 to which they invited

all these people with the hope to “bring everyone together to see that they are a piece of seeing

movement happen” (ASR). They sat down as a group with the list of UPGs and UUPGs and

discussed them one by one: Where were people working? What groups were completely

unengaged? Did they have a CPM strategy? From the emergent data, people and organizations

began to take ownership of certain UUPGs saying, “We can do that!” It was an electric

environment as people caught the vision of reaching out to new groups in partnership.

What has happened since has been a level of cross-denominational, inter-organizational

collaboration that these couples feel is unprecedented. “We intentionally with [our organization]

are sending workers to partner with like-minded practitioners in these UUPGs so they can get the

on-field training. … That was just not happening four years ago” (ASR). Now, as a partnership,

they are beginning to work on the second step of resourcing field workers. “Once the teams are

formed, how to resource them, help them with ongoing training and member health, leadership

development and multiplication?” (ASR). This is a noteworthy shift from standard missions

86

operations, for in this East Indonesia Network they see each member team as their collective

responsibility—not each organization’s separate responsibility. “I think it is part of building

trust. We say this is an end-goal. It’s not our organizations that we are beholden to. I think it’s a

beautiful thing. It needs to be done more” (ASR). As a result, the existence of this network has

led to many new laborers going forth. “Going from a few workers to seventy now—that’s a

breakthrough!” (PSK).

Recently at a large gathering of the network, an Indonesian leader looked over the

statistics and said, “If we continue on the same trend we’ve been going since this started, we

won’t have every UUPG engaged by 2018…but we will by 2020!” HKL commented, “That was

very exciting. I mean, we miss our goal by two years? Since the coming of Jesus, to miss it by

two years is pretty good!” In addition to annual meetings for the whole network, other activities

include a weekly prayer and fasting day, local areas encouraged to have their own monthly or bi-

monthly meetings, and some specific projects executed together (including a member care

program, a translation project, and cross-organizational training).

This collaboration is also seeing significant fruit in the field. As of October 2016, there

are sixty-four ongoing Discovery Groups (mostly first and second generation), forty-one new

house churches, and in one area, multiplication to the fourth generation. And some of the fruit is

in areas where “there’s never been a believer since the time of Jesus” (HKL).

The Kansas City Ephesus Team

The next team I researched was the Kansas City Ephesus Team (also called the K.C.

Catalyst Team and Disciple K.C.). Roy Moran (2015), author of Spent Matches and the initiator

of the team, was my first informant and his close partner, OC, was my other key informant. Roy

87

first heard of CPMs and DMM through City Team, a mission organization headquartered in San

Jose, California that runs rescue missions and does church planting around the world. Roy

attended his first DMM training in 2009 and then attended a City Team leadership conference in

2010 where he was able to meet many leaders from movements around the world. In Spent

Matches (2015), he explains how he labored to apply DMM principles to create a “hybrid

church” where he was pastoring. During that period, he also began an Ephesus Team for people

who wanted to use DMM as a strategy to reach the whole city.

God was calling me to a city, not to a church. And … he had planted the church to bless

the city. So I needed to take my eyes off the [people near my church] and move them to

the 2.3 million that live in K.C. So that’s how the Ephesus mentality gave birth: how do

you catalyze movements in a city with a population of 2.3 million that’s extremely

diverse? (Moran 2016)

Today Roy leads a team of six active core people plus another outer ring of people who

are friendly and interested. They define their target area as the greater Kansas City area,

including the suburban and exurban communities in seventeen counties. Their strategy is DMM.

Roy explains why he used DMM instead of other church multiplication models, including T4T,

“DMM requires a lot of deconstruction—that’s why T4T is easier to accept. It doesn’t take

[much] to realize DMM and T4T are two different things. And the last thing you need to do is

confuse people at the beginning” (Moran 2016). OC works for another church in the Kansas City

area that allows him to use fifty percent of his time in ministry with the catalyst team outside the

church. The team’s focus is on making disciples outside of church structures, especially by

starting Discovery Groups in the homes of lost people and in apartment buildings infamous for

crime and at-risk people. Their Catalyst Meeting takes place monthly for planning, updates and

prayer.

88

A key ministry of the team is vision casting and training. Roy noted that most people

need six or more exposures to DMM before they understand it, so these activities cannot be a

one-time thing (Moran 2016). To cast vision, they occasionally sponsor ninety-minute luncheons

with church leaders in order to introduce world-renowned DMM figures like David Watson.

Through these vision-casting events, training cycles are begun. Interest in DMM has also been

generated by people reading Roy’s book and wanting to know more. Roy shared an idea he

credits to Stan Parks, “In order to start a CPM, you have to first spawn a training movement. So

we train as many as we can” (Moran 2016). Their catalyst team holds about one training per

month.

Training cycles usually begin with a Friday night and Saturday all-day event where

Moran (2016) attempts to deconstruct some of the standard church paradigms, followed by an

optional eight-week training cycle. He notes, however, he doesn’t like to use the term trainings

but instead speaks of engagements. “We want to engage you in a process, because we don’t think

a one-time exposure to this is going to be valuable,” Moran notes (2016). On Friday nights, they

usually begin by challenging people to try to ride a backwards bicycle, a specially engineered

bike with a gear that makes the handle bar steer in the opposite direction from a normal bike.

When everyone fails—and they always do—they use this as a metaphor to discuss how riding a

backwards bike is analogous to movement thinking: “it all looks familiar to you, wheels, pedals

and handlebars—the basic truths are the same … but … manipulating that bike and causing it to

move forward takes a new way of thinking. … If you do what you do normally, you’ll fall off the

bike. It’s going to be counter-intuitive all the way.” (Moran 2016; italics mine). If people are

interested in the longer training cycle after the weekend, Roy asks them to pick a facilitator who

89

leads the training group each week as he/she is coached by the Catalyst team. In that way, the

team is able to raise up new leader-trainers and maximize their time.

OC notes that one key motive for the Catalyst Team is trying to find out “where God is

on the move” in various places in the city and then to get involved there. Often as people go

through the training they end up becoming partners. The Catalyst Team then gets to be involved

in “the cool things God is doing” (OC) through others, and helps them improve as they show

them how to implement DMM principles into what others were already doing.

Today there are about fifty Discovery Groups operating around Kansas City, about half

of which are made up of Christian background people with the rest being from non-Christian

backgrounds. Some are Hispanic, others are Chinese visiting scholars, and one new group

consists of twenty-seven African Muslims. In one case among suburbanites, Discovery Groups

multiplied to the fourth generation. Unfortunately, however, this did not last. The first generation

group grew too large and switched from doing Discovery Bible studies to a more traditional

teaching format. This created a pattern the rest of the groups couldn’t follow, which lead to their

collapse. It was not clear what happened to the people who had been involved in those groups.

Many of the Discovery Groups in Kansas City have formed through partners seeking to

build community in suburban neighborhoods where people are isolated and feel lonely, and by

intentional outreach to help the poor in apartment buildings. “[Partners] prayer walk apartment

complexes and get to know the managers,” Roy stated. OC added, “It’s all about the Person of

Peace concept, but in light of the apartment managers. People build good relations with

apartment managers and once you’re in, you can do so much: free garage sales, stuff with kids,

90

get donations from churches and do giveaways, backyard Bible studies with kids, Discovery

Groups right there.” These are done in nearby partner church buildings.

The Ethiopia Transformational DMM Team

Whether the Kansas City team realizes it or not, one plank of their ministry is very close

to that being used by BA and his partners in Ethiopia: they do not primarily seek to do the

ministry themselves but to “help partner churches do the ministry” (BA). When they want to

engage a new area or UPG, BA and his partners first find the churches close to that area, then

they go and ask them what they are doing to reach them. This is a crucial reason BA gives for the

huge impact his team has had in the Horn of Africa: “awakening the sleeping giant” (the

Church).

BA and his ministry in the Horn of Africa were used by God to catalyze a major Church

Planting Movement beginning in about 2005 and continuing to the present. Though it has

experienced ups and downs, BA and his team are determined to see it continue. In fact, he

described their ministry motto as “to ignite, accelerate and sustain disciple-making movements”

(BA). He said it is important not to just focus on initiating something, but to sustain and cultivate

it:

Something I see is that movement is like a garden: it has to be cultivated. Yesterday’s

victory cannot guarantee the ability to face today’s challenges. So the honeymoon period

only lasts a few days; then, the reality comes. Every day has to be a new day and we must

be careful from the start. … Igniting is good, and accelerating is good, but the last one—

sustaining—if you don’t have a strategy to sustain, it will be very difficult. (BA)

BA’s focus on sustainability was refreshing to hear. He and his team seek to not just

launch movements, but to cultivate them. He is an apostolic church planter with a nurturing,

pastoral heart. When I asked about their training format, he spoke of the need to connect with

91

people “heart to heart” (BA). When I asked questions about partnership, he first mentioned the

need to have a heart for God and for people, and then to have a “desperate love and passion” to

drive the strategy—instead of thinking of this ministry as a job (BA). He talked of maintaining

long-term relational connections with grassroots leaders so that, despite organizational changes,

“there is no way we’d be disconnected” (BA). BA advised me, “Don’t think to be a Paul. Be like

a Barnabas who can train and coach many Pauls—and those Pauls will train and coach many

Timothys, Tituses, and so on.” His long-term American partner and friend, HD (who was my

second informant for this Ephesus Team), corroborated this emphasis, “Focus on relationships,

not programs. [It] is really all about building relationships. Teach that … not to go and do a

project, but to build relationships” (HD).

In light of this relational focus, it’s understandable how this Ethiopia Transformational

DMM team has been able to forge such a massive partnership: BA reported having over 200

partners, and HD confirmed there are well over 150, “but I don’t know the actual number.”

Furthermore, BA explained that they don’t only have their own direct partners, but their partners

also have partners. “We tell them that one of the responsibilities of a partner is to develop other

partners—so we’re a network of networks. We have generational networking just like

generational churches” (BA).

This emphasis flows from BA’s original vision:

The reason we chose to do the collaborative partnership is because of the reality that the

Great Commission is not one organization’s task or one individual’s task. It cannot be

finished with one single person or organization but it requires a collaborative solution. …

Way before we even got involved in DMM or CPM in about 2002, I realized in order to

really reach the UPGs, I needed to not create a new organization but to really mobilize

the churches so they could be able to join one another. … So we primarily focus on

partnering with the church. (BA)

92

Meanwhile, HD’s high respect for African leaders and his commitment to partnership made him

a perfect partner for BA when he moved to Ethiopia in 2005. The statement below captures HD’s

heart:

It has to be a partnership of equals. It has to be that the partner is really the key driver. I

feel like what we, as expatriates, have to do in partnership development is to learn how to

take second place … we cannot drive these partnerships. We have to be catalytic kinds of

people who come alongside and encourage, but we have to see [local] partners as equal

with us. It just grieves me when Westerners … don’t have much trust. They think that we

who come from the First World should be first. … But I think we have to turn that on its

head: No! These people are more mature … have more experience. … We bring

something and can give it to the partnership, but what we bring is not the most critical

part of the partnership. … We must not come with power and control; we’ve got to come

with ideas and support and encouragement. Think of how Paul did it—his primary role

once things got rolling was to be an encourager—encourage the churches. It didn’t

depend on him. (HD)

The result of the thinking above is a “cascading kind of partnership” (BA), which has

produced amazing fruit in terms of church planting: both BA and HD affirmed results in church

planting of over 8,000 new churches in at least fifteen generations, about 30% of which are from

Muslim background, 30% animist and 40% Coptic.3 And all of this has happened since 2006. As

BA explained the way their partnership works and the different populations they are reaching, I

3 Concerning these amazing numbers, I believe it is helpful to hear how BA, HD and

their partner organizations keep documentation and back up these claims. BA explained the

process of collecting data through their church partners: each church partner keeps track of their

workers and ministry, and then the data is reported through quarterly meetings with BA and his

leadership team. The leadership structure, as reported by BA, is made up first of fifteen

“Movement Leaders,” then fifty-eight “Strategic Coordinators” then finally hundreds of

“Grassroots Coordinators.” Data that is reported has come up through these channels. In

addition, they have an audit every five years. To do that audit, BA and his team go out to actually

see a sampling of the churches being reported along with the partnering churches. Finally, BA

says that after doing the audit, they intentionally report a lower number than what they believe is

actually happening. Some of the stories coming out of this movement are reported in the book

Miraculous Movements (Trousdale 2012).

93

began to wonder if we should actually be speaking of something as large as this as different

movements, instead of streams in one movement.

The India Ephesus Hub

Another major movement leader I was very thankful to interview was JP, an Indian

national who has forged another broad-based partnership similar to BA in Africa. JP is leading

one geographical portion of the Bhojpuri movement as outlined in the article, “A Movement of

God among the Bhojpuri of North India” (Watson and Watson 2009). He reports to the overall

movement leader along with several others at his level, and holds a position in their non-

governmental organization (NGO) which is registered with the Indian government. However,

despite the massive ministry they have spawned numbering in the millions, surprisingly, this

organization only has forty to fifty staff (JP). This is because they operate like the ministry in the

Horn of Africa: everything is done as a part of a massive collaboration. JP explains the idea of an

Ephesus Hub this way:

The idea is that these groups have to take the ownership of a whole area, whole region or

whatever … depending on the populations. … They have to take ownership and they

have to do everything … taking the burden. You know this whole movement has to move

from being centralized to centrifugal. Everywhere if you don’t create that hub you don’t

succeed because otherwise you have to go all the time. Every place where we begin the

ministry, we create these hubs. (JP)

The motivation for this, JP states, is simple, “You know we cannot hire everyone.” So

instead of a huge staff, JP has about fifteen active organizational partners in his area.

Nationwide, they have over two hundred. Hearing JP’s heart makes it evident why it is so easy to

partner with them. His laid-back love for God and magnanimous spirit toward other believers is

contagious:

94

You know people come and go and have their own agenda. They want to learn how to

[reach] people then they move on. And they don’t want to have a movement but a

monument—you know, build their own organizations. But it’s okay as long as people are

getting saved. [Many] people don’t understand what we do, but for those who do

understand and want to become a part of the movement, they continue to work with us.

(JP)

The organization JP works for has a vision to reach thirty million people by 2018. And

apparently they are well on their way. Recent reports of believers in the movement among the

Bhojpuri language group alone are in the millions, and JP reports that this movement has also

spilled over into several other language groups. In his area they are reporting about 5,000

churches. They no longer keep track of seekers or seeker groups.

Apart from massive collaboration with hundreds of partners, how do such things

happen? JP cites several factors for their success. First, he notes their use of “Community

Learning Centers” (CLCs). The idea of these centers is to send new workers into communities

not as religious workers, but as people who have come to help the community. Their modus

operandi is to rent a very small house or storefront and put up a small sign. The sign states the

name of their NGO and that this is a place where people can come to find help. Much of the help

is very low cost and they have no budget. Often the main help they give is to assist illiterate

people fill out forms to apply for government funding, or to initiate discussion with community

leaders on how to address problems by using resources and labor already in the community.

So the church planter becomes a leader in the community by helping them … with many

issues and problems, like getting electricity [cables to their houses], or road repairs. … So

you can take some of these issues and try to connect with government projects and all this

kind of thing, and you tend to become a community leader. And that gives you access to

the whole community. (JP)

These CLCs do not stay in place forever, however, but become the launching point for

seeker groups that become house churches. But the priority on helping others, or obeying the

95

Greatest Commandment (to love God and others), is at the heart of the new church plant. One

example of a CLC in an urban context is located in a large shopping mall. The ministry rented a

small kiosk in the mall where they started a counseling center, to do personal and career

counseling. And “through the counseling we did not use counseling just to help people, but as a

tool of evangelism [and] discipling” (JP).

One of these mall counseling kiosks received opposition from a Christian-background

man who knew their intentions. Fearing they would upset the peace, he warned people not to go

there. JP reported that this caused the local evangelist to become quite upset and discouraged.

“So I asked him, what else do you have there [in your area]?” He replied, “We have fighters!” So

JP asked him what if he were to organize a wrestling tournament in conjunction with the low-

level government employees in order to give the youth something more constructive to do with

their time. “It was never in my mind to organize a wrestling tournament,” JP said, “but this guy

came up and we discussed it and somehow it worked!”

Another reason JP gave for their success is the creation of “Micro-Hubs” where people

can come for spiritual reasons and find spiritual resources. These Micro-Hubs are started after

the CLCs have led to house churches. Most hubs have four to five people who stand by to give

spiritual counsel and to supply seekers with Christian materials and Bibles. These Micro-Hubs

then become a resource center for people who want to grow in Christ. Thus, they tend to last

longer and be larger than the CLCs, and they end up facilitating a lot of church planting.

I wondered aloud how JP and his partners could be so creative in solving issues that so

many mission workers have struggled with for years. JP gave God the glory: “You see, God

brings these fresh things into our lives, otherwise the movement will become stagnant. He gives

96

us all the strategy and the ideas that propel the whole movement and helps us reach out.” I

marveled at the simplicity and childlike faith revealed by his response; maybe this is one reason

why so many people involved in movements always speak of the importance of prayer.

Like the rest of these Ephesus collaborations, JP also spoke often of training, coaching

and mentoring:

The role of mentors is very, very important. Because you have to foresee things. That’s

why ongoing continuous training is very important. And accountability is very important.

But accountability with leaders is based on relationship. Not authority and those kinds of

things. And that helps people to do things. Like [when] somebody comes and says you

have to multiply. And you say, “I do?” And so you multiply … second generation, third

generation and that’s it! But unless someone tells you that you need to keep going, [you

won’t]. (JP)

JP went on to speak of “layers of training, layers upon layers” that are not centralized. Though he

didn’t use the term, his description reminded me of what David Watson has called “soft

accountability” (David Watson, September 15, 2016, personal conversation). If accountability is

relational and love-based, as opposed to hierarchical and authoritarian, many times people

actually seek it out. So training, per se, isn’t the key but training leading to coaching and ongoing

mentoring with accountability is.

Another crucial principle emerged as I listened to this leader of leaders:

Most of the time I’m doing training, leadership training and mentoring. Okay, that has

been my role. And secondly it is strategic networking—helping leaders sit together and

brainstorm, do a network, start a hub, those kinds of things. But personally I’m also

leading people, I’m discipling people and … I start new groups. That has to go on,

because otherwise I will lose this practical base. … Even though I do the leadership

training, I’m also trying to do the basic disciple-making in groups. (JP)

Though I should not have been surprised, I was. Here is a man who could easily say he does not

have time to do evangelism or to start new groups—his hands are too full with high-level

leadership issues. But he continues to disciple and start new groups so he doesn’t “lose this

97

practical base” (JP) Earlier in the interview he had mentioned that his wife is involved with

helping a local school near his house; now he made it clear he himself is also doing basic

ministry tasks. No wonder people are willing to be accountable to a leader like this. No wonder

so many people are willing to partner with him.

One partner I was able to interview was RA, an American working with a foreign mission

organization but living in a different city. Though JP and his organization are primarily reaching

Hindus, RA is focused on the Muslim population. Yet he is another partner eagerly collaborating

with JP’s group. We discussed at length why he desires to work with this group, especially since

some outsiders have questioned the legitimacy of the Bhojpuri movement and even CPMs in

general. In response, RA made several strong statements about his perspective on the role of

foreign missionaries. “I got over self-as-a-strategy in China [a prior ministry location]. I know

it’s not going to be me, but partnering with local believers.” He continued, “Some people are

skeptical, but as I’ve gotten to know these [local] people, I’m really impressed” (RA).

Since I am aware some of my readers may also be hesitant to partner with local believers,

I am including a lengthy quote below from RA explaining his rationale:

The thing that made me push past the negativity or skepticism … was getting to know

people who were with [this organization]. … I guess I’ve had connections with about two

dozen different Indian organizations at some level so I’ve been able to learn the lesson

that nobody’s perfect … but you’re looking for people that have at least a few important

qualities: first of all, an openness to partner, and second, they’ve fallen out of love with

money, and third, that they’re open to house-church kind of stuff and not just building

buildings. And then, if they have an openness to reaching Muslims. But with [this

organization], I’ll mention two things that really attracted me to them: first of all they

already had movement DNA. So it made them particularly attractive. … I found that in

the broader sense of the many different organizations I’ve partnered with, I can get going

faster with organizations that already have movement DNA in them. Another thing I’ve

found is that they were already good at establishing healthy relationships in unreached

communities. (RA)

98

I believe there is great wisdom in the quote above. RA’s perspective highlights the indigenous

principle, that it must be local believers or insiders who are leading these movements. Over and

over in my interviews, this principle stood out.

I was also delighted to hear how RA has been able to partner with people like JP to bring

the fire into Muslim areas as well. Today RA reports two emerging streams—not yet

movements, yet breakthroughs nonetheless—of Muslims in Discovery Groups learning about

Jesus. One stream has about thirty-five Discovery Groups and the other about seventy-five, forty

of which would now be considered churches. Twenty of these churches are fourth generation

groups and all of them are led by insiders.

One surprising aspect of my research on the India ministry was to learn that while RA is

assiduously applying DMM as a strategy with Discovery Groups as a key component, the

Bhojpuri movement has somewhat gotten away from this. Apparently, in the early days of the

work (in the late 1990s), when the Discovery Group concept was being developed as a tool,

many of the groups were using it. However, as time went by and the movement has expanded,

more and more of the groups have become more like traditional house churches with singing and

preaching instead of reading and discovering. When I expressed surprise at hearing this, RA

countered by stating he himself was even more surprised! Nevertheless, this serves as a good

reminder to me of several key points often spoken about in DMM circles, but sometimes

forgotten.

First of all, on every Ephesus Team I interviewed, the leaders emphasized prayer. No one

came close to suggesting that any method, no matter how brilliant, could replace the power of

God. ‘A CPM is a movement of God,’ is an oft-quoted axiom. Second, to quote AR, “The

99

Discovery Group itself is not a key driver for this movement.” While this may seem contrary to

some of what I’ve written above, I believe it can be understood by quoting BA in Africa.

Referring to the concept of discussion and the importance of group interaction versus using a

certain set of questions, BA states:

So they’re community oriented and not ‘religious’ but intentionally spiritual questions

that will encourage everyone, even women and children, to speak. Otherwise only the

men or husbands talk. But we give time for every person to be personal and express

themselves. … But our primary focus [in accountability] is whether that leader is

teaching or helping the group to discover? So, I think the discovery questions are not cut

and paste, but the DNA of those questions is the concern for me: is that person teaching

or helping them to discover? ... I’m mostly concerned about the DNA. … So how did the

early church happen and how can we do it in a cultural way? Some of them might need a

bit of teaching. But also always using questions so they will reflect and also obedience

questions so we can know where they are. (BA)

This is a good and helpful perspective from Ethiopia, perhaps going beyond some of the current

thinking or practice in the Bhojpuri movement, but it also raises a third point that has been

repeatedly emphasized: there is a continual need for ongoing training to maintain key basic

principles and practices. And so I was not surprised to hear RA report that as he has partnered

with leaders from these Hindu-background churches to reach Muslims, they have expressed

excitement about returning to more of a discovery format. This has led him to do several

Discovery Group trainings for other leaders in the movement throughout other parts of India,

something that PSK has also been involved in.

A final observation on the Indian success story pertains to the role of access ministry (or

social ministry). Where there have been breakthroughs in India, among both Hindu and Muslim

populations, local workers have excelled at truly being a blessing to people in need. Whether it is

by helping illiterate people fill out government forms or sitting and giving counsel to hurting

shoppers at a mall, these believers are making themselves a tangible blessing to their

100

communities. AR commented, “So it starts with the CLCs, and then it just turns into this

reputation that ‘this guy wants to help you’—and everybody likes someone who wants to help

them. And you know, they’re very much Jesus-people, well-known as being connected to Jesus,

so they’re able to bring in the spiritual component.” It reminds me of what Jesus said, “By this

everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35).

The Levant Ephesus Team

The final Ephesus Team I interviewed was the Levant team. Though this team is involved

in some truly historic ministry, I was frustrated to not be able to interview a local Arab leader for

this project. Instead, my key informant was an expatriate missionary, RN. Fortunately though,

since this team is also closely tied to the NAME Ephesus Team in The Desert, I have been able

to meet others who are involved, including the two key Arab leaders on other occasions. Thus,

some of the background information below comes from previous conversations as well as from

PSK and MC on the broader NAME Team.

The Levant Ephesus Team was started about four years ago when ministry in the Middle

East began to take off after the Arab Spring. Initially there was one Arab leader serving as a

Baptist pastor, prominent in both the Christian and broader community. This pastor learned

about DMM from outside workers and began to develop a collaboration to reach people,

especially targeting the many Muslim refugees coming into his area. A local training

organization was formed and scores of local pastors trained in outreach to Muslims. Soon

another pastor began to work closely with the first, even though he came from the charismatic

tradition. “The fact that the two key leaders are not the same—one is charismatic and the other

101

Baptist—makes collaboration natural” (RN). Today there are four local pastors who form the

core of this team.

As these pastors began to do trainings for local church leaders, they recruited a large

number of other partners in several countries leading to the formation of their own Ephesus

partnership. Their focus population is primarily the whole area of the Levant. However, this is

their official written vision statement: “To see an indigenous movement of disciples and

churches ignited by godly leaders multiplying across every nation and every segment of society

so that the name of Christ is glorified” (RN). They have three primary ways to accomplish this

vision: Training, Development (especially among refugees), and Media. However, RN notes that

the main thing they are doing now is training.

Trainings are done at local churches or at their own office training room. In addition, they

have six to eight leadership development weekends each year. These serve as an opportunity for

many people to get together, cross-pollinate and learn from outside speakers. Some of these

outside speakers have been from the NAME Ephesus Team including my two informants, PSK

and MC, as well as David Watson. In fact, MC used to live in the Levant previously and still

keeps in close touch with the key Arab leaders. Both of the Arab leaders have also frequently

attended the NAME Ephesus Team gatherings and they maintain links to a mission agency based

in the United States as well as close connections to partners in Egypt.

The primary way this collaboration is seeing fruit is by helping refugees in the name of

Jesus. They give food packets to refugee families and help with a wide variety of other needs.

However, the refugee problem is so overwhelming that some leaders are showing signs of

fatigue and burnout. Moreover, because some of these local leaders have struggled to stay on top

102

of the crisis, their commitment to multiplication principles seems to have also waned. In

discussing the numbers of groups and churches, things are quite fuzzy compared to other areas I

researched. Nevertheless, RN believes there may be upwards of 2,000 groups in five countries,

with about 350 local groups. But most of these groups are first generation without many second

or third generation groups and many people in these groups may also attend Sunday services at

local churches. It remains to be seen if they will also stay committed to Discovery Groups as

their main means of discipleship, or if these groups will multiply in more resistant areas. RN

summarized this to be “less of a deep, singular movement than a massive collaborative

partnership. So, for that reason I wouldn’t call it a movement yet, but it is definitely an Ephesus

Team or collaborative partnership.”

Reflecting on this ministry in the Levant, I am reminded of Roy Moran’s (2016) concept

of a hybrid church. The key idea is that in Christianized areas, there will always be a strong pull

towards attractional, building-centered worship services. Therefore, Roy suggests that we ought

to maintain Sunday morning worship services for people who are seeking God in that way while

simultaneously starting lots of Discovery Groups among the lost who are unlikely to ever go into

a church building. As I watched a video of some of the new believers from this effort, it appeared

that some people in the video were from both categories. Some wore hijab and talked about

“following Isa” while others were dressed in more Western style and talked about “becoming

Christians.” It seems the former group represents those who are primarily from stronger Muslim

families who are coming to Christ more quietly through Discovery Groups, while the latter

represent those who have made a clean break with Islam and/or have come out of Christian-

background families. The idea of a hybrid church also allows traditional churches to be a

103

covering for various types of people coming to Christ: both those who are willing to be overtly

Christian and those who—due to pressure, persecution or various other considerations—desire to

follow Jesus in a more contextualized way. Though I am not sure if the leaders of the Levant

Ephesus Team are aware of the term hybrid church or Roy Moran’s (2015) book, it appears that

this is essentially what they are doing.

The Levant Ephesus Team may not be as pure a model of DMM as is found in some

areas, however, God is obviously at work in new and unprecedented ways. And the fact that they

have built a large collaborative partnership to maximize laborers is clearly a major part of the

reason for their success.

MegaMetro Ministry Workers’ Findings

As mentioned above, although the reports from the Ephesus Teams were very

encouraging, the outreach to Muslims in MegaMetro was much less so. In my research for this

project, I interviewed thirteen Christian workers in face-to-face interviews, all of whom had a

significant focus on reaching Muslims in this area. In order to find this group of key informants,

I also met in person with an additional eighteen other pastors and cross-cultural workers living in

the area, attended a COMMA network meeting and consulted with six others via telephone. The

thirteen personal interviews were conducted as a result of the other informal meetings and phone

calls. I also sought to meet with one additional informant for a personal interview, but he was

unwilling. A final worker was willing but unable to meet during the time of my research. I will

not give thick descriptions of each of these ministries as I did with the Ephesus Teams but will

simply summarize my findings in the paragraphs below.

104

The first key informant interviewed was Roy Oksnevad (2016), the founder and Director

of the COMMA network. Roy and his wife began ministry in the United States in 1994 after a

fruitful ministry among Muslim immigrants in Belgium. However, Roy has been disappointed to

find that Muslims are harder to reach in the United States than overseas. He believes that because

of this, many of the models that are successfully used overseas fail here. Part of the problem is

the American work ethic and pace of life that immigrants “just aren’t expecting” (Oksnevad

2016). Another factor is the independence and separation of people here in the United States;

“people just aren’t out on the streets the way you see in other parts of the world” (Oksnevad

2016). Another thing that has been disappointing is the apathy of Christian workers and churches

to help BMBs4. This has resulted in difficulties in finding housing for persecuted believers in the

area, finding funding for workers operating in this context, and (at least partly) for the collapse of

a BMB fellowship that he and others began. As he and his partners ran annual retreats for BMBs,

they found the costs increasing but the interest of churches minimal. Eventually they gave up on

that endeavor.

Yet, this is all in spite of the real need for work of this type in MegaMetro. Oksnevad

(2016) pointed out that MegaMetro is considered “The Medina of the West” and has between

400,000-500,000 Muslims overall including African-American converts and increasingly, second

and third generation immigrants. (One encouragement, however, is that most Caucasian converts

to Islam enter due to marriage, and then mostly revert out of Islam again.) Roy spoke of three to

4 Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background (BMB) is now the preferred term for

people coming to Christ out of Islam. Previously the term Muslim Background Believer (MBB)

was common, however, today most prefer the term BMB believing it “emphasizes the

individuals’ present conviction rather than their previous religious affiliation” (Miller and

Johnstone 2015, 3).

105

four major concentrations of Muslims in MegaMetro, but pointed out that since the majority of

Muslims live in the suburbs rather than the city, they are harder to access. “There are no venues

for meeting Muslims. Interfaith dialogue is okay but the big problem is Muslims don’t want to

talk theology, they just want to be friends. Hookah shops are places for men to hook up with

women—not the same as overseas” (Oksnevad 2016). Another informant made a similar

comment stating, “America is a social desert. People coming out of Islam need a replacement for

the Islamic ummah” (CH).

Despite these negative realities, Roy has an impressive list of ministries he has been

involved in starting: COMMA (mentioned above), a Friendship Center, an Iranian Church, and a

BMB fellowship. In addition, he and his wife have led Bible studies with seekers, helped

refugees, organized prayer meetings, taught seminars on Islam and Muslim outreach, published

books and journal articles on this subject and helped out with an Arab church plant. However,

Roy reports that both the BMB fellowship and the Iranian church have closed and he knows of

no other BMB church in this area. The reality of there being no BMB churches in MegaMetro

was confirmed by every other person I met, including all twelve other key informants. There are

several Arab and other ethnic congregations from areas that have very significant Muslim

populations (Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia), however, everyone said there were no

BMB churches. This is surprising, for there are Iranian and other BMB churches in other parts of

the United States—why should there be neither in MegaMetro?

A surprising point Roy made had to do with persecution. He spoke of a certain part of

town that is “controlled by the mosque,” which is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. He

described the situation in that area like this:

106

We had full-time missionaries that were focused there, but they didn’t last. One BMB

said, “I can’t tell anyone I’m a BMB. I had more freedom in Palestine than I do here.”

People are very suspicious. There’s an atmosphere of fear. … Think of school-yard

bullies, that’s what you’ve got. BMBs there just refuse to do anything with other Muslims

because of fear. So the second generation believers are totally cut off—shunned like in an

Amish community—for any [Muslim] who shows any interest in Christianity. Totally cut

off. (Oksnevad 2016)

When I asked Roy what is going well he responded, “Not much!” UM, one of Roy’s partners,

responded to the same question similarly, “Everything is in shambles. There was a big collapse.”

He went onto say, “I don’t know anyone seeing lots of conversions [of Muslims to Christ]

anywhere in the United States” (UM).

The things Roy reported as most fruitful were hospitality with Muslims and having Bible

studies with seekers. “Those who have come to Christ out of my wife’s Bible studies—those

have truly become disciples,” Oksnevad (2016) said. Nevertheless, Roy reported seeing less than

five Muslims come to Christ directly over the past twenty-two years.

My hope was that the things Roy reported were the exception, not the norm. Or perhaps

he did not have the full picture? But since he leads the main network in the United States for

workers among Muslims, I was not surprised to find out that my initial interview with him

proved indicative of the things I would hear over and over again from others as well. A pastor

from Pakistan said when he came to the United States he was so happy because of the freedom to

talk about God. He himself reported seeing “many” people come to Christ, but quickly added

that most of these new believers have moved away and that the one church he and his colleagues

had begun had also closed. “These things can happen, but we lack personnel,” he lamented. An

Arab pastor I interviewed mentioned that there are several Arab churches in the area, but his has

the most BMBs. When I asked him if it was true that there were no BMB churches in

MegaMetro, he responded affirmatively, adding that he knows of none in Dearborn, Michigan

107

either and that the Iranian church that was once here had also closed. When I asked informant FG

about how her work here compared to her previous ministry in Pakistan she said, “People are

harder to reach here than in Pakistan!” She reported only being directly involved in seeing two

individuals come to Christ in her whole tenure in this ministry since 2003. In the paragraph

below, I summarize the key findings from the local ministries among Muslims in MegaMetro as

represented primarily by the numbers.

After in-depth interviews with thirteen informants, I found that ministry among Muslims

in MegaMetro began in earnest in 1994. There has been a slow but steady increase of workers,

beginning with just one family to a current total of about twenty workers. However, when I

analyze how many of these people are truly focused on reaching Muslims, I conclude there are

perhaps eight. Yet even that number belies the reality that many of these also spend a lot of time

in tent-making (to make a living) or in other ministry, so the actual number of hours logged in

seeking to reach Muslims specifically is probably much less than 320 hours per week (eight

workers multiplied by forty hours per week). I found four distinct teams working with Muslims,

however three of them are not exclusively focused on Muslim ministry. As stated above, I found

no BMB fellowships or churches despite the fact there are at least six Arab or Egyptian churches.

I also found that at least two BMB fellowships have died (one Iranian and one multi-ethnic BMB

fellowship). I was interested to also find out which of the workers in MegaMetro were familiar

with and favorable towards DMM as a ministry paradigm: I found only two who knew about

DMM and tried to apply it, one who knows DMM and is negative towards it, and seven who did

not know it at all. The rest were either ambivalent or very minimally informed. The highest

number of converts from Islam I heard reported was ten. However, it turned out that this number

108

did not reflect this informant’s own personal ministry, but came from a recent baptism where

new believers from a variety of ministries had been baptized together. The thing that encouraged

me most was hearing of two Central Asian families that had come to Christ together. My

enthusiasm, however, was mitigated upon learning that they had both been absorbed into

suburban congregations after that and are no longer involved in outreach to other Muslims today.

During the course of my interviews, I also met one Arab believer who was antagonistic towards

outreach to Muslims. He did not want to be “profiled” but just to be a “normal American” (his

words). I wonder how much his attitude reflects that of other BMBs, and also explains some of

the difficulty in reaching immigrants in general. There are zero movements or emerging

movements. If I take the combined number of all converts mentioned by key informants and add

about another twenty percent with the hope that these numbers are overly conservative, I

conclude that there is less than a .005% conversion rate of Muslims in the MegaMetro area.

Despite the bleak realities mentioned above, I did find several encouragements. These are

listed in the bullet points below:

• One imam is very open and in ongoing relationship with two workers.

• More and more local churches are interested in being equipped for Muslim outreach.

• Iraqi and Syrian refugees are open; some are coming to Christ and others enquiring.

• South Asians tend to be more open than Arabs and “many” have responded (NS).

• Non-government organizations (NGOs) like World Relief are creating a lot of good

will.

• Some ethnic groups have their own community organizations that make them easier

to access. One such organization has 300 Muslim members and was started by a

nominal Christian. One of my key informants (GD) is an accepted leader in this

community, despite his Christian faith.

109

• Peace Fellowship, an Arab church started by HC and friends, is able to be a

replacement community for some BMBs and Muslim seekers. It may be that

Discovery Groups could be used as a way to lead seekers to the Lord in groups

and/or follow up people who have already made professions of faith in ethnic

churches like this.

• There are many other immigrant churches in MegaMetro that could potentially be

mobilized for near-neighbor outreach to Muslims. A key informant (TE) has planted

six.

• Four friendship groups have been started by one worker in conjunction with

Caucasian churches who want to befriend Muslims (FG).

• Since so many Muslims come with a very traditional view of marriage, after living in

the United States they often feel a need for marriage counseling. This service, along

with translation and other general help for immigrants, is a huge way to access

Muslims living in MegaMetro today (BR).

• Hospitality, friendship and eating meals together—these actions of love are always

fruitful (UM).

• There is significant interest among key informants and other workers in the area for

increased partnership in prayer and doing outreach together.

• There are some new teams forming in conjunction with Pioneers, Frontiers and Reach

Global.

• Two families came to Christ together when a worker used the Discovery Group

format (CD).

• There is interest in learning about DMM on the part of several I have met.

Input and Advice Given for the MegaMetro

Ephesus Partnership

The final research question for the Ephesus Teams (Question 11) asked informants to

give input to me as I seek to start an Ephesus Team in MegaMetro. Question 9 asked for major

lessons learned through partnership. In the interviews of local workers among Muslims, Question

5 asked what has been going well, and Question 6 asked about fruitful practices. I did not have a

specific question to seek input from the MegaMetro workers. In the final section of this chapter, I

110

seek to synthesize the answers given to these questions, with special attention given to things that

seem most relevant for the formation of an Ephesus Team in MegaMetro.

1. Pray

Nearly every Ephesus Team interviewed mentioned prayer as a crucial activity done

together; most gave it as an input for me as well as I start a new team. “Well one thing … is

prayer. We’re trying to get people to write down [answers to prayer], but you can kind of go

back and just see how prayer was so foundational. If you want to start an Ephesus Team, just get

people praying” (PSK). MC is on the same Ephesus Team as PSK. I mentioned the testimony he

gave about prayer in the section above, stating that through it their team became unified. He

added, “You can invite anyone to a prayer meeting whether they’re trained or not … tell them,

‘Let’s agree to pray for God’s big heart for this city’” (MC). He also mentioned that there’s a

House of Prayer ministry in the NAME region that they often send prayer requests to. Though

not a part of their Ephesus Team per se, the Ephesus Team considers the House of Prayer a

partner in prayer. BA said, “A prayer base is very important. Movements don’t happen without

intentional prayer: it’s the vehicle.” ASR suggested taking a season of prayer focused on asking

God what needs to be done. Several mentioned the idea that prayer is not just talking, but also

listening to God.

I was not surprised to hear the Ephesus Teams emphasize prayer. As noted in the

literature, movements are marked by “extraordinary prayer” (Garrison 2004, 172). But a new

insight I came to understand is that when these movement leaders talk about prayer, what they

often mean is corporate prayer—getting together to pray for movement, for each other, for things

happening in the field, and to listen to God’s heart.

111

An additional interesting thought on prayer came while discussing training. Both JP and

BA stated that when they hold DMM trainings, they always start with a lot of prayer, even a full

day of prayer. BA also said that whenever his leaders come together for their quarterly meetings,

they spend the entire first day (out of four) in prayer and fasting. I have a hard time imagining

that busy Americans would be pleased if they came to a training event that I was hosting where

we spent the entire first day in prayer alone. But I believe with some creativity, I could do a lot

of vision casting, education and even some training while praying if I put more thought into it.

Thus, I have incorporated some new ideas on prayer both into the strategic plan in Chapter 5 and

into modifications I have made to the training materials found in Appendix 4.

While the Ephesus Teams described a very strong emphasis on prayer, it did not come up

nearly as often in the interviews of local ministries among Muslims in MegaMetro. However, NS

told me about the start of a ministry he and four others began in the Little India section of

MegaMetro. He said that in 1994 they were discussing ideas for reaching immigrants with

leaders of a local Indian church. Someone suggested they should take a whole night in prayer.

While they were praying that night, they felt the Lord calling them to start a ministry center. That

ministry was begun that year and continues to this day. Two other workers (KL and FG) shared

their team’s practice of prayer drives. Since the area they minister in is too big for prayer

walking and the weather is often inclement, they go out instead in cars to pray.

112

2. Cast Vision to Others

The vision for an Ephesus Team is what drives it. Table 1 shows Ephesus Team’s grand

vision.

Table 1. Ephesus Team Vision Statements

Team Name Team Vision

NAME Ephesus Team 22 nations of NAME region; 300 UPGs

Ethiopia Team The entire Horn of Africa; 27 major UPGs, mostly Muslim

Levant Ephesus Team Four major countries of the Levant; the whole world

India Ephesus Hub All of North India, Hindus and Muslims

East Indonesia Network 35 UUPGs above 10,000 in population + other UPGs in area;

total 27 million people

Kansas City Catalyst Team 2.3 Million people of greater Kansas City; all segments

including immigrants

The uniqueness of these Ephesus Teams is that they all have such huge visions, there is

no way any single organization or denomination could achieve them. That is perhaps the greatest

unique contribution these teams bring. Who, apart from these Ephesus Teams, is asking the

questions about who will reach an entire mega-city, or all the UPGs in an area, or all the

countries in a region? To use the words of MC, these are people who “just drip vision.”

Therefore, one key thing these leaders urged me to do was to cast vision. One said that

casting vision is one of the most important roles far-outsiders have played in modern movements

(PSK). Besides casting vision, several also suggested asking Christian leaders challenging

questions like, “How do you think God wants to use Muslims here to transform this city?” (MC),

and “Does God want to see multiplying churches among every group here?” (PSK). Roy Moran

(2016) said to ask leaders, “Where do you want the Gospel to go?” and, “How will it get there?”

113

Nevertheless, while casting vision for reaching 500,000 Muslims in MegaMetro may be a

key starting point, there were also warnings. PSK warned that it is very important that people

own the vision and do not view the Ephesus Team as a threat to their own organizations. And

ASR noted that this is the very reason they do not call their partnership a team but a network.

JP and BA helped clarify a key to vision-casting: we must inculcate in others the idea that

this work is theirs. JP stressed, “Why do you think I’m the leader? Forget about that! This is not

[my] work—this is God’s work.” Similarly, BA talked about how he views his organization as a

catalytic organization, not a church planting organization doing the ministry by themselves but

“helping the church fulfill the Great Commission.” So he challenges pastors, “Try to do

something that others think is impossible. Try a new thing with a new strategy.” ASR reminded

me that many times the reason people lack vision is because they need education: “They don’t

know there’s a mosque right next door.”

3. Have a Clear Strategy

On this point, there was some difference of opinion. All of the teams are using DMM as

their primary strategy: however, there was some difference as to whether that should be stressed

at the beginning of forming a partnership.

Some advocated taking a slow and relational approach. JP, the Indian Ephesus leader,

talked about starting with common goals and having a collaboration that’s “progressive,” like

God’s revelation to us in the Bible.

So all collaboration should be progressive. It should not be this extreme kind of thing,

sudden kind of thing. Because people are not ready to accept this new thing immediately.

So first let’s agree to a common goal that we need to reach out to MegaMetro…then

[discuss] what do we do? What activities? Then you can share with them some of the

success stories [from movements]. (JP)

114

His viewpoint was reinforced by things I heard from AR about the work in India, also by

comments from RN about the work in the Levant. The way he described the partnership in the

Levant was much more about relationship and friendship than strategy. He stressed that these

local Arab pastors seem much more interested in just getting started doing things, even if the

model is not perfect. “You can fix it on the way,” RN said. Apparently one way they “fix it” is

through their frequent training weekends, up to six per year. Similarly, BA of Ethiopia talked

about the importance of finding people with a “desperate love and passion. That will drive the

strategy”, he said, “which comes later.” His American partner, HD, advised me to avoid debates

and focus on building relationships instead. And “don’t disparage other methods or models. Say,

‘we feel God’s given us a different strategy to use and that’s what we have experience in so

we’re using it’” (HD). He also advised me to focus on church leaders to train, not pastors or the

other highest leaders. “You’re not going to convert a whole church to do DMM; focus on a few.

If you can get a few from an Arab church that would begin to implement, that would be

wonderful.”

A particularly confusing question is whether DMM and T4T practitioners can collaborate

in the same partnership. The leaders above would tend to say yes, however, it seems they would

also seek to influence the T4T people to be more DMM minded. (The reason being that they

have seen DMM to be much more effective in their areas, especially in reaching families leading

to oikos-based church planting among staunch Muslims and Hindus.) This was shared by the

leaders of the NAME Ephesus Team and the East Indonesia Network. They initially welcomed

people using various models into their broad partnership, but over time sought to train them in

DMM as a best practice. But Roy Moran (2016) said starting with different strategies on the

115

same Ephesus Team would confuse everyone: “It doesn’t take too many brain cells to realize

DMM and T4T are two different things. And the last thing you need to do is confuse people at

the beginning. Keep your focus tight on DMM … mixing the two strategies is a two-headed

beast.”

Everyone agreed that there must be an emphasis put on casting a broad vision, and they

all use DMM as their strategy. They urged me to be committed to DMM as well. The difference

of opinion had to do with how to work with people coming from different perspectives and unify

them into the same strategy. Or, how soon to put DMM forward as the strategy. That leads to the

next point of agreement below.

4. Train, Train, Train … Then Coach

One thing mentioned by everyone on the Ephesus Teams as a major lesson and as input

for me was the need to have an intense focus on training. I note that three of the local ministries

in MegaMetro also mentioned they were involved in training church people to do outreach and

considered that to be one of their best practices. But when the Ephesus Teams spoke of training,

it was specifically training in DMM. In fact, for each of these teams, training in DMM is the

primary way they develop partnerships.

“Partners are created by trainings,” said BA. This is a radical difference from how normal

networks are developed where people are invited based on vision and interest. All but one of

these Ephesus Teams (East Indonesia) invite everyone to trainings then become partners with

those who begin to apply the principles and practices of DMM. PSK’s succinct statement

summarizes the overall sentiment of nearly all: “train a lot of people in DMM, then coach them.

Those people are the ones who will later join the Ephesus effort.” BA had just come from a

116

training he was doing before our Skype interview. He mentioned that the group he was

interacting with was one of the largest denominations in his country. AR said that he made it his

goal in the first year to train a whopping 500 people in India. As it turned out, he “only” was able

to train 450, however, it was out of that massive training effort that he had found his five closest

national partners.

BA and HD also explained a couple of strategies they use to keep trainings from getting

out of control. First, they don’t focus on training full time ministers but on those who have jobs

in the community. Then “by default they have access to the community” (BA). HD added that

it’s easier to focus on lower level leaders who are not too busy, not the main pastors or senior

leaders. Second, they first hold an initial one or two day introductory exposure training with

information about the UPGs in the area, the status of mission work and some brief ideas about

DMM. Then they see if people do anything in response. Only if they do something will these

trainers offer to come back and hold a full week-long training. BA commented, “Even if they

say, ‘I tried your ideas and it didn’t work’—at least we know they tried!” In this way this team is

not just giving trainings all over the place, but finding people who are truly burdened to reach the

lost and who are open to a new paradigm. A similar approach is used by the Kansas City team:

they spend the first two days of training in deconstruction. Then if people are interested and

hungry for more, they will return for a full-week later. Several warned me to watch out for

Christians who seem to run hither and yon just looking for the next training to attend.

Another thing emphasized in all these partnerships was the need for training to be

ongoing for those who are implementing. Some talked about training cycles and avoid the term

training events; others emphasized the importance of building relationships as the main goal of

117

the training. The Ethiopian movement is sustained by quarterly meetings for prayer and training.

After each quarterly meeting and each training, BA asks people to spend time in planning. Each

person is asked to make a twenty-four hour plan, a one-week plan, a one-month plan and a one-

year plan. Then, to be sure that they understand that the network/Ephesus Team is not to take the

place of their leadership, they are told to send those plans to their organizations, not to hand them

into the trainers. The Indian leader, however, raised the concept of training to an even higher

level: “Leadership training is the engine of the movement,” JP said. He then related how they

train people in stages: first, they train people how to start groups; second, for those who are

starting groups, they teach them strategy; third, for those seeing multiplication, they have

leadership training. As the trainees continue doing (emphasis his), the trainers keep training.

They have training in monthly seminars for people leading Community Learning Centers. And

they have annual conferences, where they do more training. JP summarized, “Training is not

centralized; it’s layers upon layers. Focus on the do-ers. Help them problem-solve so they keep

going.”

Finally, RA gave me strong encouragement to focus on practitioner groups using a very

simple method based on application. As people try things out, ask them first to tell their

experience. Then ask them what they learned from trying. Finally, ask everyone in the group

what they learned from this person’s experience. That is how RA does ongoing coaching with

leaders week by week. He recounts how excited groups become as they learn from each other

and repeat the process with others they are training. RA says, “This is the most important thing

we do.”

118

5. Do Social Ministry and Loving Acts of Service

to Gain Access to Muslim Communities

This point was actually never mentioned directly to me as input for MegaMetro, nor was

it mentioned in Question 9 about major lessons in partnership. However, it came across so

strongly in Question 5 on access for the gospel that I feel the need to highlight it here. Because

the workers among Muslims already operating in MegaMetro did not already know about the

DMM strategy, the way they spoke about things was different. However, the theme of making

friends, showing hospitality and loving people in tangible ways was talked about constantly. CH,

the Arab pastor, emphasized this the most, explaining that his church has done much to help the

social and material needs of refugees, even giving away sixteen cars (donated from other

churches and given to them to pass on). Friends of Muslims groups came up several times as a

fruitful practice. In addition, I realized that most of these people are involved nearly every day in

interactions with Muslims that show the heart of God for all people and the love of Christ. These

interactions include ESL classes, refugee ministry, translation services, marriage counseling,

providing for felt needs, and the simple but important task of just being friends.

But it is the Ephesus Teams that have really taken the idea of loving service to a higher

level. When discussing who to train in DMM, BA spoke of the need to look for Christians who

have a real “loving passion” to reach Muslims. “Love and passion are keys,” he said. His view

was that too many Christians are “training oriented,” but the real need is to be “people oriented”.

“If they are just wanting to know information, or to go out and argue with Muslims—those are

not the kind of people we’re seeking. We need people who are willing to truly love Muslims, that

is, to focus on the Greatest Commandment first, then the Great Commission” (BA). In other

words, BA is saying to use access ministries to show love and compassion for people’s needs, no

119

matter who they are. Then as believers do this, they will find open People of Peace (PoP) who

can be led to become disciples of Jesus. But the love and compassion piece is critical. HKL said,

“The people getting the results are doing a whole lot more than proclamation. They’re meeting

needs.” This is reminiscent of the Indian teams which start with Community Learning Centers

(CLCs) as a way to help meet tangible needs of people in their neighborhoods, malls, etc. then

through those centers begin to find open people who in turn open their families and communities

to the gospel worker.

On finding ways to meet needs, JP had this advice: “We don’t do … ‘pilot projects’ …

where you do one thing and then it becomes successful. We do multiple projects because in pilot

projects, if it fails, I’m a failure. But if I do ten things, even if nine fail, still I’m successful in

one. And that will help me to go ahead.” I love the attitude expressed in this statement: bold

willingness to try, experimentation with lots of things, humility and a carefree spirit in the face of

failure. “Even if nine fail, still I’m successful” (JP). It leads me to dream of partnering with large

suburban churches to each do several projects among Muslims: Friends of Muslims groups, food

and practical helps for refugees, job creation for depressed communities (many of the Muslims I

have met here so far are factory workers, taxi drivers, restaurant or retail clerks), ESL groups,

gardening clubs, baking classes, and practical talks given at community centers by Americans

who can help with specific areas of need (living in cold climates, driving in snow, the United

States tax code, finding jobs, etc.).

Again, this emphasis on access ministry did not come across directly as advice for me

from the Ephesus Teams. Perhaps they thought I already knew this from other questions. But I

believe this piece is very important and exciting because I have not found most Americans think

120

this way. They seem to either not witness to Muslims at all or, if they do, they believe it should

only be proclamation, arguments or debates. But these only address the mind. What the Ephesus

Teams are doing so well is entering communities with loving actions first, then moving to

proclamation and persuasion for those who express interest. It’s both an effective and efficient

way to influence large numbers of people.

6. Additional Pieces of Input

As I close this chapter, I want to make sure I do not fail to report some other key pieces

of additional input that were not strong themes, but nonetheless seem important. The paragraphs

below simply compile items not already mentioned.

About building a collaboration, PSK said, “It’s a lot slower than you think.” JP warned,

Satan will try to distract you and divert your mind. Don’t focus on people like Judas;

focus on people who will build. Try to recruit all kinds of people and don’t be

discouraged if people leave you. It’s okay. You see in revivals there was just one person

who was willing to stand, so one person can make a difference! Plan your course of

action because after the initial success, you tend to fail. Some great movements started

off well but failed. (JP)

PSK added, “Work relational lines. Just show up and attend their events, even if you are not the

one speaking or training.” And Roy Moran (2016) suggested working wisely: “There are plenty

of networks already existing [in MegaMetro]. Some are available for you to infiltrate. And when

you can get into a network and train, they give you their credibility. Start there. It’s much faster

than creating all new networks.” But ASR warned me to be careful of the name I use: if we call it

a team, some will be afraid to get involved out of fear it implies too great a commitment. For this

reason, in MegaMetro, I chosen the term Ephesus Catalytic Partnership.

In addition to creating a network and doing training, however, Roy reminded me to keep

it down to earth:

121

I think you need to have a bi-modal approach to things: you take the strategic and the

tactical view at the same time. At some point this has got to get to the street and it has got

to bring Muslims into groups reading the Bible. If it’s all about theory, all about strategy,

it’s useless. So you have to keep your eye on both of those at the same time and ask,

“What has the potential to get to the street level quickest?” (Moran 2016)

I end with a wise word from JP, “If you don’t create the [Ephesus Partnership], you have

to go everywhere all the time and do everything yourself.” MegaMetro is much too large, and the

Muslim population too diverse and dispersed for that. Attempting to take all of the above input to

heart, I conclude with a strategic plan in Chapter 5.

122

CHAPTER 5

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR AN EPHESUS CATALYTIC

PARTNERSHIP IN MEGAMETRO, U.S.A.

A collaborative partnership for MegaMetro is envisioned with the goal of engaging and

planting churches among the 500,000 Muslims living in this area. The unique emphases of this

partnership will be three-fold:

(1) Focus exclusively on reaching Muslims in this area

(2) Use Disciple Making Movement (DMM) as the strategy

(3) Groups are primarily catalytic in nature; not a traditional church-planting team

Introduction and Overview

The reason for focusing specifically on Muslims is that while other strategies are working

fairly well among other unreached and under-reached population segments in the United States,

they are not working well among Muslims in MegaMetro. The research done for this project

revealed that while there are over 150 mosques in the MegaMetro area, there is not a single

existing church in MegaMetro made up primarily of Believers in Christ from a Muslim

Background (BMBs). This failure was attributed partly to a lack of committed workers,

especially those originating from these groups, and on inadequate support of those workers (NS).

Additionally, several of the workers interviewed in MegaMetro mentioned the need for a

deliberate focus on reaching Muslims so that people are not pulled off task to work among more

accessible and responsive groups.

The reason for using DMM as a strategy is that workers need a common way of working

to unite them, not just a general vision they have in common. While vision can bring excitement,

123

workers can only really be united through a common strategy. Without an overarching strategy,

people cannot see a path for collaboration. But if people can grasp a strategy and see their role in

accomplishing it, great excitement and fruitfulness can result. The research done for this project

confirmed that extraordinary fruit is in fact being produced in many parts of the world where

DMM is being implemented. However, at the same time workers interviewed in MegaMetro

were generally discouraged and reported little fruit. Further, those few new believers who have

come to the Lord in MegaMetro have been brought into traditional structures that cannot easily

reproduce locally, let alone extend back to their countries of origin. Rather than confuse people

with multiple strategies, we will “keep our focus tight on DMM” as our strategy (Moran 2016).

The Ephesus Partnership must be primarily catalytic in nature because MegaMetro is a

too large an area with too dispersed and diverse a Muslim population for any single group of

workers to handle alone. Thus, the main functions of this partnership will be to mobilize and

equip other believers, not to try to do everything ourselves. Catalyzing the churches of

MegaMetro is the only feasible way to get the job done. As BA of Ethiopia reminded me,

reaching the lost in each area of MegaMetro is primarily the responsibility of the churches

already in those areas – not that of a small group of outside missionaries. And, “the nature of

partnership is to help churches fulfill the Great Commission” (BA). Thus, by casting vision,

training, coaching and mentoring, the Ephesus Partnership will help God’s people in MegaMetro

reach out to the lost communities of Muslims living near them. We will prioritize training

BMBs, then training believers from the same ethnic groups from Christian backgrounds (for

example, Christian background Arabs), and finally anyone else who has a desire to be trained in

DMM.

124

Yet there must be a “strategic and a tactical view” (Moran 2016). Therefore, Ephesus

Catalytic Partnership members will also need to be personally involved in direct outreach to

Muslims (tactical work) in obedience to the Great Commission, and model this to others while

simultaneously seeking to be catalytic.

Finally, each partner/member of the Ephesus Catalytic Partnership will also be expected

to develop multiple leaders who repeat the process to create a partnership of partnerships (as BA

reported has happened on the Ethiopian Ephesus Team). In this way, reaching 500,000 people in

MegaMetro becomes conceivable.

In the pages below, I list some of the activities the partnership will need to be involved in

to see this vision accomplished. This will require a mass mobilization of workers, especially

regular believers who are not full-time ministers.

Key Ideas and Main Pillars of a Strategic Plan

Key verse. Acts 19:10 describes Paul’s work in Ephesus stating, “This went on for two

years so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia [estimated population of

12 million] heard the word of the Lord.”

Key idea. Powerful gospel penetration such as that described in Acts 19:10 could only

have been possible through catalytic church planting, using a 2 Tim 2:2-type group

multiplication strategy that immediately empowered local leaders.

MegaMetro Ephesus Catalytic Partnership vision. A decentralized, equal and

collaborative partnership of disciples, both professional ministers and volunteers, from disparate

organizations and backgrounds, united by a commitment to the strategy of DMM with the vision

125

of reaching every major segment of MegaMetro’s Muslims with the gospel of Jesus Christ within

five years.

Main Pillars of this ministry. Using DMM as our strategy, we will work primarily in

these five areas. Note that all of these five points were emphasized as crucial activities by the

people interviewed on other Ephesus Teams:

1. Pray boldly with perseverance for movements of God among these Muslim

communities.

2. Cast Vision to believers that Muslims are being reached and multiplicative church

planting is happening.

3. Train interested believers in principles and practices of DMM, prioritizing ethnic,

near-neighbor churches and BMBs.

4. Build partnerships with implementers to create synergy with as many like-minded

people and organizations as possible.

5. Reach out to Muslims, start Discovery Groups with People of Peace (PoP)1 from their

families and friends in order to lead them to Jesus and form indigenous fellowships

that multiply.

As the partnership grows and develops, we may need to find point people for each of

these five pillars. However, their responsibility must not be viewed as a position but as a

catalytic role so that no one becomes a bottleneck. Nearly all of the activities suggested below

are being practiced fruitfully by the Ephesus Teams I interviewed. Each section below is

preceded by statements from the interviews, primarily from those on Ephesus Teams. There is

1 A Person of Peace (PoP) is defined as Jesus does in Luke 10:1-16 and Matt 10:1-16.

From these verses, I conclude that a PoP must have at least these three main characteristics: (1)

welcoming and open to disciples of Jesus with a new or different type of spirituality, (2) a

willingness to open their oikos or group to the gospel messenger, and (3) a willingness to listen

to the Word. The PoP may or may not choose to follow Christ but they are often the person that

God uses to bring the gospel into new communities.

126

also a note describing the current situation in MegaMetro. While I believe the five pillars are all

essential, the activities listed below them are not meant to be prescriptive but best practices

helpful in generating ideas.

Specific Activities Required to Facilitate the Above Pillars

Pillar 1: Pray Boldly

Pillar 1: Pray boldly with perseverance for movements among these Muslim

communities.

Wisdom from Current Practitioners on Ephesus Teams

• “Movements don’t happen without intentional prayer; it’s the vehicle” (AB of

Ethiopia).

• “If you want to start an Ephesus Team, get people praying” (PSK of The Desert

Team).

• “I think corporate prayer is really powerful. Even if it is a small number of people,

like three to five, praying regularly and saying, ‘Let’s agree for God’s big heart for

this city’” (MC of The Desert Team).

Notes from MegaMetro Research

There is a new and growing city-wide network of prayer in MegaMetro, but so far it does

not have an emphasis on reaching Muslims. There is, however, an International House of Prayer

that prays for Muslims on Friday mornings.

Plan of Action

1) Make prayer our first priority.

a) Each local Work Group will plan to host weekly prayer meetings. Though open to all,

these meetings are especially for local partners on the Ephesus Catalytic Partnership

and for people being trained in DMM. They will also function as venues for casting

vision to Christians for DMM and Muslim outreach. “As we talk to these people in

127

these emerging movements they’re all saying, ‘the key is reproducible tools and

extraordinary prayer.’ So, man, let’s pray together!” (MC).

b) Invest a lot of time praying. Encourage workers to spend a half-day in prayer weekly

and set aside at least one full-day of prayer each month (East Indonesia Team).

c) Encourage fasting among workers one day each week. “We have prayer and fasting

days weekly” (HKL of East Indonesia). Tell Muslims we fast (David Watson,

September 15, 2016, personal Interview).

d) Have prayer walks around mosques and in Muslim neighborhoods and apartment

blocks, as a normal activity. When prayer walking, also be open to finding People of

Peace (RN of The Levant Team).

e) Start First Steps trainings with Day 1 focused on prayer. “The first day we want to

spend a long time in prayer” (AB). Model extraordinary prayer in training. Use prayer

itself as a way to teach on Day 1. Some ideas include:

i) Pray for some actual movements with details of what is happening.

ii) Pray parables and other Scripture as suggested by David Watson (Watson and

Watson 2014, 93).

iii) Do a study on prayer and the Holy Spirit in Acts. Then pray the ideas and

prayers of Acts, especially asking for boldness as in Acts 4:24-31.

iv) Pray over each other for the training, for each other’s families, issues, and

ministries. Use BLESS acronym. (See Session 1 in Training Materials for

more detail.)

v) Use Operation World (Mandryk 2010) and news events to pray for the home

countries of local Muslims.

vi) Spend time in listening to God in prayer (ARS of East Indonesia).

2) Multiply bold and persevering prayer among other believers.

a) Connect to House of Prayer, city-wide prayer ministry, etc. to enlist their help (MC).

b) Seek out pre-existing prayer warriors to get them praying for Muslims (PSK).

c) Use email and social media to keep prayer partners informed (MC).

d) Be sure to include ethnic and non-Caucasian churches as well.

128

Pillar 2: Cast Vision

Pillar 2: Cast vision to believers, especially to non-Caucasian pastors and leaders.


• “Be a person who just drips vision. Telling God stories … dripping vision, dreaming

out loud with other Kingdom-minded people … and telling stories” (MC).

• “I’d think in terms of what could happen in MegaMetro, finding out what’s being

done and what’s not, and then dividing up the jobs” (ASR).

• “The next thing we do is plant the idea in their mind that [reaching] Muslims is

possible. You know the fancy word is ‘vision casting’ but it’s just the idea that

reaching Muslims is possible” (RA of India).

• “I think I would look for two-three-four people, leader type people, not necessarily at

a real high level, but as you share with them they begin to buy into your CPM/DMM

kind of vision … focus your effort and energy on them” (HD of Ethiopia).


There is a local chapter in MegaMetro of the national network of Christian workers

among Muslims called COMMA. There is also a network of ethnic pastors, other pastors’

networks, a mission mobilizer network organized by The Evangelical Alliance Mission (TEAM)

and several large seminaries, Bible colleges and mission organizations. It appears, however, that

few people in these networks and organizations know about or appreciate DMM.

Plan of Action

1) Build relationships and “make friends with everyone” (Moran 2016).

2) Hold large gatherings to introduce DMM to Christian leaders with speakers and authors like

David Watson, Jerry Trousdale, Roy Moran, Stan Parks, etc. (Moran 2016).

3) Spend time developing relationships with Christian leaders, especially from new immigrant

groups. Attend their ministry events—even when I’m not speaking (PSK).

129

4) Ask hard questions to help pastors and Christian leaders think in new ways (Moran 2016).

For example:

• Where do you want the gospel to go? How will it get there? (Moran 2016)

• Does God want to see multiplying churches among every Muslim group here? (PSK)

• What does God want to do to reach the lost here? (BA)

• How can we see movements of disciples in this city among these groups? (HKL)

• How do you think God wants to use Muslims here to transform this city? (MC)

• How can we do ministry here that is easily scalable and transferrable back into

immigrant's home countries? (HD)

• What are the UPGs and UUPGs living in this city? Who is reaching them? (RA)

• How are you multiplying your ministry/disciples? (RM)

• If we didn't invite these people to existing churches, could we reach them? (OC)

• How can we better obey Jesus and do our part in the Great Commission? (DJ)

5) “Infiltrate existing networks of Christians” (Moran 2016).

a) Non-Caucasian/New Immigrant groups in MegaMetro must be priority.

i) Intentionally make connections between movements happening overseas with

churches and people from these from countries in MegaMetro (AB).

ii) Get involved in ethnic pastors’ association, cast vision (TE).

iii) Find clubs/associations of Christian ethnic groups. Make friends, attend

events, cast vision (GD).

iv) Get to know ethnic churches and fellowships. Make friends, speak

occasionally, attend events, help out, cast vision.

v) Goal: Raise up ethnic Christian leaders who will be champions to reach

Muslim segments of the MegaMetro Muslim population, especially:

• Pakistani and Indian

• Arab and Egyptian

130

• Bosnian-Herzegovinian

• African-American

• Sudanese

• Somali

• Ethiopian

• Rohingya

b) Caucasian and African-American organizations and churches in MegaMetro

i) Get involved in MegaMetro prayer initiative to meet pastors and mission

leaders. Share needs for prayer and ideas for involvement among Muslims.

ii) Get to know mission leaders at Christian universities and seminaries in the

area. Keep them informed of what is going on. Help teach and mentor

students to reach local Muslims while studying (UM).

iii) Partner with Christian organizations doing short-term outreach in ethnic areas;

aim to add a long-term church planting among Muslims component (HKL).

iv) Partner with mission organizations in the area which send people overseas to

Muslim areas; offer to train their people in DMM. Involve trainees as a part of

the Ephesus Catalytic Partnership while here (PKS).

v) Get to know churches and NGOs that help refugees. Cast vision to workers

and volunteers about doing more in terms of discipleship and church planting.

Train interested people in DMM training cycles.

vi) Get to know student ministries already reaching out on campuses and

community colleges where there are lots of Muslims. Teach them DMM and

ideas for reaching Muslims.

vii) Remember to pass the baton. The local churches and organizations must take

ownership. “We can help them, but they must own the vision” (BA).

c) Both groups: use books to cast vision (PSK). Some good options include:

• Miraculous Movements by Jerry Trousdale (2012), available in several other

languages

• Contagious Disciple Making by David and Paul Watson (2014)

131

• Healing the Broken Family of Abraham by Don McCurry (2001)

• A Wind in the House of Islam by David Garrison (2014)

• Spent Matches by Roy Moran (2015)

Pillar 3: Train Believers

Pillar 3: Train believers to do DMM among Muslims.


• “At its core [the Ephesus Team] is a training organization” (RN of The Levant

Team).

• “If you’re going to see a CPM, you’re going to first have to spawn a training

movement” (Moran 2016, referencing Stan Parks).

• “I’m not thinking to be like Paul. But to be like Barnabas who can train and coach

many Pauls” (BA).

• “What we’re seeing in the Middle East is that prayer in general helps people catch a

vision for movements. … And then, training a lot of people. Train a ton of people.

Then coach them. They become the candidates for the Ephesus Team” (PSK).


I found no training currently being offered in DMM in MegaMetro. One worker is

training people in T4T, but not specifically for Muslims. There are various training programs

being promoted for outreach to Muslims, but none using DMM as its strategy. Seminaries and

Bible schools in the area teach church planting, but not DMM. I did, however, find some interest

in learning about DMM from some local churches and among several of the workers in the

MegaMetro area. There are several training programs and seminary courses offered on Islam and

reaching Muslims.

132

Plan of Action

1) Train in DMM: “Create partners by training people” (BA). Give knowledge; practice skills.

a) Prioritize training of BMBs first, then ethnic churches that are from Muslim areas or

populations: ex. Ethiopian, Sudanese, Egyptian, Lebanese, Indonesian, Indian (HD).

b) Especially seek to train Christians with secular jobs who already have lots of access

to Muslim communities, not primarily professional ministers (BA).

c) Use initial one-day training then follow up with 12 weeks for those who apply (PSK).

d) Invite people who complete trainings to join a local Work Group as a part of the

overall MegaMetro Ephesus Catalytic Partnership (MC).

e) Spend most of the first day of the 12-week training in prayer (BA). Use prayer

meetings and special prayer events to teach and do.

f) Always include going out to talk to Muslims as a part of each training cycle. Help

people make baby steps and celebrate progress (RA).

g) On the final day of 12-week training, ask people to plan for each block below (BA):

• Next 24 hour plan

• One week plan

• One month plan

• Three month plan

• Get permission to send their plans to their leadership. Try to meet them again

for a check-up in three months (BA).

h) For follow-up trainings, first ask the group to share:

i) What they did

ii) What they learned from what they did

iii) What the group can learn from each other’s experiences

i) Do not give further training to groups or individuals who are not applying previous

training (RA).

2) Train in Qur’anic bridging, or refer people to other trainings where this is taught. Since

Muslims in the United States tend to be more educated than the majority in their home

133

countries, we need to prepare workers with more information about Islam and the Qur’an

(RA). Use these tools to get people into Discovery Groups. Consider using The Camel by

Kevin Greeson (2010) and Stepping Stones to Eternity: Jesus from the Qur’an to the Bible by

Don McCurry (2011).

Pillar 4: Build Partnerships

Pillar 4: Build partnerships to create synergy among DMM practitioners.


• “Work the relational lines. Showing up, being their friend, not just showing up to

train” (PSK).

• “We primarily focus on partnering with the church—to help the church be mission

minded and also get fired up. Partners are created through trainings” (BA).

• “I just knew if we were going to impact a broad spectrum of the country it was going

to have to be through partnership” (HD).

• “You’ve got a lot of people in the MegaMetro area—same heart as you, same Great

Commission heart. They just don’t have a strategy that’s going anywhere. … So I’d

talk to as many people as possible. … Some of them could become your allies”

(Moran 2016).


Despite the COMMA network, there does not appear to be much synergy between

ministries in MegaMetro. Mostly I found individuals working alone without clear strategies,

including those on the three organizational teams in the area. Many workers cannot focus fully

on Muslim ministry due to tent-making jobs and/or other ministry commitments. Training people

in DMM leading to on-going partnership could be a critical improvement.

Plan of Action

1) Ephesus Gathering: Hold a monthly gathering for broad partnership across the city.

134

a) Provide lunch for monthly Ephesus Gathering (OC). Rotate the venue and part of

town to be fair. (Gatherings are for core people trained in DMM and committed to

implementation.) If cost becomes prohibitive, seek sponsors (Moran 2016).

b) Pray for each other, do reporting, ongoing training and coaching (beyond First Steps

in DMM), troubleshoot, share resources, strategize, make plans then evaluate (PSK).

c) Occasionally have renowned DMM and CPM speakers come to Ephesus Gatherings

to train and troubleshoot. (Capitalize on times when these leaders are in town to cast

vision for DMM.)

d) Identify locations in town with major Muslim populations. Ask partners, “Who wants

to take responsibility to see something started there?” (ASR).

2) Work Groups: Create local chapters of the greater Ephesus Catalytic Partnership as work-

groups2.

a) The leaders of these work groups also attend Ephesus Gatherings each month (MC).

b) Hold prayer meetings each area each week. Prioritize evenings so all can come (CD).

c) Plan and do ongoing outreach together (GD).

d) Plan and execute ongoing DMM training cycles on all levels (PSK).

e) Hold each other accountable in mutual and loving sharing (HKL).

3) Catalytic Efforts: Be a catalytic team; don’t try to do everything ourselves (AB).

a) Help people see they are a part of an integrated whole (HD).

b) Help churches by having a ‘Friends of Muslims’ packet to help them easily get started

doing Muslim outreach (FG). Early on, explain the idea of Hybrid Church (Moran

2015) so they can use DMM for certain population segments while maintaining

normal programming for others. Offer follow-up training for those implementing.

Key areas for initial involvement of churches:

i) Teach them to meet needs first. Great Commandment followed by Great

Commission (BA).

2 I envision at least four local chapters or work groups seeding DMM into the four major

Muslim concentrations in MegaMetro. In some parts of the world, these are called DMM

Roundtables.

135

ii) Help them brainstorm needs of community then make plans to address needs

(BA).

iii) Show them how to do the Discovery process of inviting lost people to look at

the Scripture rather than using sermons, tracts, books, movies, etc. Create a

one-page summary sheet so everyone knows exactly what to do (PSK).

3) Build a resource library or system for sharing translations, Bible study series, case studies,

articles, Bible translations, etc. (PSK). This may be a good role for less extroverted partners.

4) Evaluate: Make ongoing learning and unflinching evaluation normative (Oke 2013).

Pillar 5: Reach Out to Muslims

Pillar 5: Reach out to Muslims and disciple believers to become new churches.


• “At some point this has got to get to the street and has to bring Muslims into groups

studying the Bible. If it’s all about theory, all about strategy, it’s useless” (Moran

2016).

• “But personally I’m also leading people, I’m discipling and whenever I get time, I

start new groups. That has to go on, because otherwise I will lose this practical base”

(JP).

• “As CPM trainers and coaches we must lead by example. How can we train others to

go out and look for Persons of Peace if we aren't willing to do the same?” (ASR).

• “Doing Bible studies with Muslims is very much a fruitful practice. The [new

believers] that came out of my wife’s Bible study are disciples—the Bible is so key”

(Oksnevad 2016).


There are thousands of evangelical churches, several mega-churches plus various ethnic

churches in MegaMetro. Yet I found very few Christians aware that there are 500,000 Muslims

also living here. Meanwhile, I found only about twenty people focused on outreach to Muslims.

While there are many Christians involved in loving service to Muslim immigrants and refugees,

136

very few are engaging them evangelistically or have a strategy for church planting. There are

several Arab and Egyptian churches, no BMB churches and no Iranian Church. There is a

Friendship Center in an ethnic pocket but it does not have a strategy for multiplication. No one

had stories of families or groups of Muslims coming into the Kingdom except one worker who,

by using the Discovery Group format, led two immigrant families to Christ. However, since he

did not help the Discovery Groups become new churches, these new believers were absorbed

into Anglo churches and are not reproducing.

It is also important to note that the Muslims found in MegaMetro (and in most North

American cities) can be viewed as separate sociological segments. These can be understood as

another lens with which to view the Muslim community, distinct from the ethnic groups listed

above (See Pillar 2, a). Separate tactics to penetrate each segment will likely be required:

• International students and scholars

• Refugees and asylum seekers

• Other new immigrants (not refugees)

• Long term immigrants

• African-American converts (several branches)

• Incarcerated Muslims

Plan of Action

1) Create Access: Minister to Muslim communities through multiple on-ramps of loving

service.

a) Remember the best access is through families of believers (JP). Get to know BMBs

and other believers who have Muslim family members and help them reach out.

b) Volunteer with refugee resettlement agencies, NGOs, etc. to meet Muslim immigrants

and help them in their times of need (RN).

137

c) Find and join ethnic clubs and associations (most will welcome interested people of

other ethnicities). At the same time, encourage believers from those groups to also get

involved in these associations (GD).

d) Ask churches in Muslim areas what skills their people have that could bless Muslims

and immigrants? Help them turn these things into access ministries (BA).

e) Promote multiple access points, not just one. Encourage people to try lots of things

based on their gifts, resources, skills—not just “a pilot project” which may fail (JP).

f) Train people to love first by deeds then to look for People of Peace through the access

created by their good works (PSK).

g) Encourage business people to consider opening businesses in Muslim areas (BA).

h) Train believers who are already in business in Muslim areas to use their businesses to

reach people and start new churches (BA).

i) Have sports enthusiasts start clubs/teams in focus areas to use for outreach (RA).

j) Take a soccer ball and go with one or two other believers to a park to find people to

play. Plan to spend time chatting and being conspicuously spiritual after the game.

k) Explore opening a counseling kiosk at mall like the Ephesus Team does in India (JP).

l) Open a Community Center or Friendship Center in a different part of the city (NS).

m) Get involved in apartment complexes where lots of immigrants live. Develop ongoing

relationships with landlords. Ask how to help their residents (OC).

n) Set up forums for speakers to speak to immigrants about felt needs of people living in

America (JP). Some topics might include:

• Living in cold climates

• How to find shopping bargains

• Driving in the snow

• The US tax code

• Finding jobs

• Ways to save money in the area

• How to master English

138

o) Use trained counselors to lead marriage enrichment seminars and offer marriage and

family therapy (BR).

p) Use trained teachers to teach ESL and other classes at local colleges with lots of

immigrants, especially targeting older and married students with families (CH).

q) Use volunteers to teach ESL and tutor students at Islamic elementary and high

schools or in public schools where there are lots of Muslim immigrants (FG).

r) Use volunteers to lead a six-week advanced ESL speaking class in areas where

immigrants live. Promote classes through outdoor signs and flyers in Muslim

languages like Arabic, Urdu, Malay (for Rohingya), etc. Use conversation topics that

allow teachers to discern who is spiritually seeking. Train teachers to start Discovery

Bible Groups in the native languages outside of class with seekers (Kevin King,

February 22, 2017, personal conversation).

s) Figure out some classes or seminars that local BMBs could teach that would be a

blessing to Muslims. Students will come for content and may be surprised their

teacher is a believer (BR).

t) Learn about local schools, mosques and community centers in Muslim areas. See

what needs they have and serve them in whatever ways possible (BA). For example:

There are three Muslim colleges in MegaMetro which offer classes in Arabic,

calligraphy and Islamic art. These classes could also provide opportunities to meet

and interact with a variety of Muslims.

2) Do Verbal Outreach through Events and Activities – Do broad seed sowing (Garrison 2004).

a) Encourage Ephesus Work Groups to have an outreach event approximately every

month. Invite trainees and partners to participate (OC).

b) Teach workers that the goal is not to have events but to build loving relationships

with lost people (BA).

c) Lead by example and do outreach to model behaviors even if not an expert (JP).

d) Some ideas for short-term outreach events:

i) Hospitality: Host families for meals together. Have larger gatherings to share

the meanings of important holidays. Involve trainees and disciples to these

meals as well (GF).

ii) Go to areas where there are lots of Muslims to search for People of Peace

using “spiritually contagious statements” and surveys (ASR).

iii) Go to mosques to talk to people:

139

(1) Use The Camel (Greeson 2010) to discuss passages about Isa in the

Qur’an to find seeking People of Peace.

(2) Say, “We’re from a local church/Christian college/organization. We’d

like to know some needs of the Muslim community and ways we can

help” (JP).

iv) Go to public parks in Muslim-populated areas to talk to people. Practice using

tools in the training materials to talk to people.

v) Go to shopping malls in Muslim-populated areas. Say assalam walaikum

(peace be upon you) to Muslims (RA) and welcome new comers saying,

“Welcome to America. I’ve been praying for your country.”

e) Visit restaurants, coffee shops and hookah bars frequented by immigrants and taxi

drivers. Ask people about their experience in America. Pray for those who are open.

f) Use Facebook and other social media to make initial contacts, then meet with

interested people in person as possible.

g) Utilize other ideas for on-going outreach as found in section above on Access.

3) Seek out responsive population segments. MegaMetro has large populations of Bosnians,

Indians, Pakistanis, Arabs and various African Muslim ethnicities. In addition, 30% of

Muslims here are African-American (Oksnevad 2016). “If one segment is not responsive,

keep looking for those that are” (OC).

4) Start Discovery Groups: Use access to find People of Peace who lead family/friends into

Discovery Groups (Albright 2011).

a) The only person I found who has led families to Christ in MegaMetro did so using

Discovery Groups. He met seekers who were visiting a mega-church, befriended

them then asked them: “Would you and your family and friends be interested in

looking directly at the Bible to see what it says and how to apply it to your everyday

lives?” (CD).

i) Let the Person of Peace (PoP) decide who to invite to the group.

ii) Meet in the PoP’s house or in a location he/she determines, not your space.

iii) Urge the PoP or other insider to facilitate the group Discovery study as soon

as possible (the outsider should only lead a maximum of 2-3 times).

iv) Allow the group to discover; do not teach them or answer questions. Instead,

refer them to the text to find answers or say, “That will become clearer in the

weeks ahead as we study.”

140

v) Allow the group to create their own culture of when/where to meet, who

attends, how/if they pray, what/if they sing, how long they meet, if they have

food/what food they have, etc. Do not make decisions for them. Let them

discover God’s Way through the Bible.

vi) Help the group become a house church as they mature in Christ. Do not force

them into other cultural expressions/to use language that is not native to them.

(All the above sub-points about the Discovery Group are taken from Watson and

Watson 2014, 141-156).

5) Nurture disciples: Help people coming to Christ to mature and get into churches.

a) Remember: “Doing evangelism without church planting is like throwing a new-born

baby on the street” (CH).

b) Create a discipleship and training process so growing disciples, churches, and leaders

can develop in Christ (PSK).

c) Churches can be “surrogate faith communities” for new believers because, “America

is a social desert and Muslims need a replacement for the ummah” (CH). Therefore,

help Discovery Groups become churches in the homes of the People of Peace. (See

Sessions 9-11 in Training Materials for more information.)

d) Help new disciples, churches and leaders reproduce new disciples, churches and

leaders. Train them in DMM so they multiply (PSK).

e) Coach them toward movement (BA).

f) Help them influence other population segments both in MegaMetro and other

locations, including their homelands (MC).

Conclusion

Though there is no guarantee that by doing the activities above we can see a Church

Planting Movement happen in MegaMetro, this list is almost entirely made up of direct input and

best practices from the fruitful Ephesus Teams interviewed for this project. I do not believe that

we can create formulas for spiritual ministry and expect them to be pleasing to our Lord. Nor can

we manipulate God by doing things correctly, then demand his blessing. However, the practices

listed above are, in fact, strongly biblical in nature and clearly blessed by God in many difficult

141

areas of the world today. Furthermore, in other cities, people have done similar things which

have led to multiplied groups of Muslims studying the Bible and churches forming both in the

United States and back in their home lands. Clearly one huge key to seeing these things happen

is indigenous leadership. Though this Ephesus Partnership is being initiated primarily by a group

of Caucasian Americans, the direct work of outreach will likely need to be done primarily by

believers from more similar ethnic backgrounds living in MegaMetro. Finding and helping

disciples from communities like these to become effective in outreach using DMM will demand

a strong and on-going commitment to cross-cultural friendship and earnest prayer.

Perhaps the principles and practices of DMM can be seen as similar to the old adage of J.

Hudson Taylor, “God’s work done in God’s way will never lack God’s supply.” DMM at its

core, is simply the long, hard process of discipling people into faith in Jesus together with their

families and friends. But by co-operation with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:25), through abiding in

the vine (John 15:1-8) especially through prayer (Mark 14:11), and by careful consideration and

application of the Word (Josh 1:8; Ezra 6:10; 2 Tim 3:16), I believe these activities can be means

of grace that God uses to bless and win many in our day.

My earnest desire and the prayer of my heart is that God will be pleased to use this

project to launch hundreds of new disciple-makers who will reach thousands of Muslims in

MegaMetro, leading to new churches that multiply throughout the area and beyond—even to the

very heartlands of Muslim populations overseas.

142

APPENDIX 1

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL USED WITH

EPHESUS TEAM LEADERS

1. When did this team start, and why?

2. How many significant partners and organizations are on the team?

3. What is your target group/area/population?

4. What is the overall vision and strategy for your team?

5. What have you found to be the best ways of accessing the people you seek to reach and

sharing the Gospel with them?

6. Approximately,

a. How many Discovery Groups are currently meeting?

i. To what generation?

b. How many house churches are currently meeting?

i. To what generation?

7. What percent of the groups are led by cultural insiders?

8. What activities do you do together with partners on the team?

9. What are some major lessons you’ve learned on partnership through the Ephesus Team

experience?

10. What motivated you to intentionally work collaboratively instead of only building an

organizational team?

11. What input would you have for someone working to start a similar team in a mega-city in

the United States?

143

APPENDIX 2

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL USED WITH MEGAMETRO WORKERS

1. How long have you been doing this ministry? Were you the founder?

2. What led you to Muslim ministry in this area?

3. What is your focus population/people?

4. What can you tell me about your ministry team and partners?

5. What is going well so far?

6. What have you found to be among the most fruitful practices?

7. What are some of your main struggles in this ministry?

8. Have you seen any of your focus group come to Christ? If so, how many? Have any

relatives or groups come to Christ together?

9. What do you do with new believers?

10. Have you started any churches or believers’ groups with people of your focus group? If

so, who is leading those groups?

11. Are you familiar with recent writing on CPM and DMM? Do you think these paradigms

could be fruitfully applied to ministry among Muslims here?

12. If God were to really bless your ministry, what would it look like in three years?

144

APPENDIX 3

INFORMED CONSENT LETTER FOR EPHESUS TEAM LEADERS

I am currently enrolled in a Doctor of Ministry program at Trinity Evangelical Divinity

School (TEDS) focused on Intercultural Studies (ICS). One of the requirements of this program

is to conduct field research on a topic related to my personal ministry. My project is on

developing an Ephesus Team to reach Muslims in MegaMetro.

With this letter, I would like to ask you to participate in my research project as a key

informant. Specifically, I am requesting to interview you about your involvement on an Ephesus

Team. I will be asking approximately twelve main questions, requiring no more than one hour of

your time. Subsequently I will also request you to read my report of the interview to ensure

accuracy. If you do not want to do this, you may waive this right. Note that I will also be asking

someone else on your Ephesus Team to participate in the same process.

I will work with you to ensure that every precaution has been taken to protect the security

of you as an individual and of the people in your ministry. I will keep all information you

provide in strict confidence. At no time will I reveal your name or location of ministry, nor the

names or locations of people you refer to. I do plan to publish the name of the region in which

your Ephesus Team is operating, but will not reveal where church-planting is being done.

Please understand that your participation in this research is completely voluntary and you

are free to withdraw at any point.

“I acknowledge that I have been informed of, and understand, the nature and purpose of

this study, and I freely consent to participate.”

Name: ___________________________________________

Signed: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________

145

APPENDIX 4

INFORMED CONSENT LETTER FOR WORKERS IN MEGAMETRO

I am currently enrolled in a Doctor of Ministry program at Trinity Evangelical Divinity

School (TEDS) focused on Intercultural Studies (ICS). One of the requirements of this program

is to conduct field research on a topic related to my personal ministry. My project is on

developing a collaborative partnership called an “Ephesus Team” in MegaMetro to reach

Muslims and plant churches among them using a multiplicative model.

With this letter, I would like to ask you to participate in my research project as a key

informant. Specifically, I am requesting to interview you about your ministry in MegaMetro. I

will be asking approximately twelve main questions, requiring no more than one hour of your

time. Subsequently I will also request you to read my report of the interview to ensure accuracy.

I will work with you to ensure that every precaution has been taken to ensure the security

of you as an individual and of the people in your ministry. I will keep all information you

provide in strict confidence. I will not reveal your name or exact location of ministry, nor the

names or locations of people you refer to, without your consent. I do plan to publish the name of

the general areas in which ministries to Muslims are operating in MegaMetro, but will not reveal

exact details.

Please understand that your participation in this research is completely voluntary and you

are free to withdraw at any point.

“I acknowledge that I have been informed of, and understand, the nature and purpose of

this study, and I freely consent to participate.”

Name: ___________________________________________

Signed: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________

146

APPENDIX 5

OUTLINE OF DMM FIRST STEPS TRAINING CURRICULUM

Twelve lessons for training disciples of Christ in the basics of DMM are outlined below.

These lessons can be trained on a week by week basis (doing one lesson per week), in a week-

long seminar, or over four whole-days (usually Saturdays). Note that each lesson seeks to

incorporate knowledge and skills training. This is done through studying the Bible, relaying

information, doing exercises and skits, practicing skills in the classroom, memorizing verses and

spending significant time in prayer. Groups usually also plan to go out and practice skills

together during the course of a training, sometimes over lunch or on additional outings.

Session 1: God is the Author of CPMs. Prayer for the

Messengers and for Movements.

• Use stories or a case study to emphasize that only God can start a movement

• Study Scripture: Study all passages in Acts about prayer and the role of the Holy

Spirit

• Teach that prayer movements usually precede disciple making movements. Then

spend long periods in prayer together. Vary styles, postures, groupings

- Pray for actual movements happening today

- Pray for each other as we begin this training

- Ask God for more of the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13)

- Pray for countries and requests in Operation World (Mandryk 2010)

- Use the B-L-E-S-S acronym (Body, Livelihood, Emotional health, Social

health, and Spiritual health) to practice blessing others

- Use parables and other Scripture to pray (Watson and Watson 2014, 93)

- Spend time listening to God

147

• Resist the urge to get into more material or to teach

• Assign memory verse for the week: Acts 1:8 or Luke 11:13

• Assign field work for the week: Go on a prayer walk with a friend in a Muslim area

• Summarize with hand motion/gesture: Have everyone lift hands into prayer posture

(like Muslims pray by lifting their hands. Refer them to 1 Tim 2:1-4)

Session 2: God Draws and Teaches

• Review last week’s lesson and verse and ask how people are applying

• Study Scripture: John 6:43-45. Discuss who teaches and who draws

• Exercise: Ball toss game. Debrief and discuss

• Teach key definitions: CPM, DMM, multiplication

• Exercise: 2 Tim 2:2 skit. Debrief and discuss

• Prayer: For God’s leading together; ask God to multiply our ministries

• Assign memory verse for the week: John 6:43-45

• Assign field work for the week: Pray daily for God to lead you to people he is

drawing. Consider fasting (part of) one day as you pray

• Summarize with hand motion/gesture: Have everyone use hands to motion calling

someone to yourself

Session 3: The Greatest Commandment – Love

and Obey


• Study Scripture: Mark 12:29-31 and Deuteronomy 6:4-9

• Teach key definitions: Shema lifestyle, Shema statements, living out loud

• Exercise: Practice walking around classroom and making ‘Shema statements’

• Prayer: Pray for boldness and Holy Spirit empowering as we live out loud

148

• Assign memory verse for the week: Mark 12:29-31

• Assign field work for the week: Make seven Shema statements, at least one per day

• Summarize with hand motion/gesture: Have everyone crouch and cover their head in

defensive posture, then rise up, touch heart and open arms wide into open stance

Session 4: The Great Commission


• Study Scripture: Matthew 28:16-20

• Teach key definitions: disciple-making, nations, teaching to obey

• Exercise: Simon Says. Debrief and discuss

• Exercise: 3-minute Bible study. Explain and practice in classroom

• Prayer: For God to give us people to disciple; against fear in reaching others

• Assign memory verse for the week: Matthew 28:18-20

• Assign field work for the week: Make at least seven Shema statements. Do 3-minute

Bible study at least one time this week with an unbeliever

• Summarize with hand motion/gesture: Have everyone stand and pretend to be running

a race, then passing a baton onto someone behind them

Session 5: Becoming Like Jesus


• Study Scripture: John 20:21-13 and Philippians 2:4-13

• Discuss: Role of forgiveness and service in reaching Muslims

• Exercise: Practice making apologies in classroom with other students

• Exercise: Chair race. Debrief and discuss

• Prayer: For God to give us humility to love, serve and forgive

• Assign memory verse for the week: John 20:21

149

• Assign field work for the week: Keep doing Shema statements. Also, talk in-depth to

one unbeliever and ask what they find offensive about Christians, then apologize

• Summarize with hand motion/gesture: Have everyone get on knees, outstretch hands

and look up to heaven in the position of a servant looking to a master

Session 6: Becoming Like Those You Want to Reach


• Study Scripture: 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

• Teach key definitions: de-culturalization, indigenization and why movements must be

indigenous

• Exercise: Orange skit. Debrief and discuss

• Exercise: Practice using terms that are not offensive to Muslims and self-designations

other than “Christian” in class

• Prayer: For God to help us not be controlling; for indigenous movements to happen

• Assign memory verse for the week: 1 Cor 10:32-33

• Assign field work for the week: Keep doing Shema statements. Practice using terms

that Muslims relate to including assalam walaikum, Isa al Masih, follower of Isa, etc.

• Summarize with hand motion/gesture: Have everyone pretend to be carrying heavy

suitcases. Then pretend to drop them, pick up a new hat, and put it on with a smile

Session 7: A Strategy Jesus Used to

Reach the Lost


• Study Scripture: Luke 10:1-16 and Matthew 10:1-16

• Teach key definitions: Person of Peace, oikos, ‘stay with them’

• Exercise: Practice using B-L-E-S-S to pray for each other

• Prayer: For God to lead us to People of Peace and them to us

• Assign memory verse for the week: Luke 10:2-3

150

• Assign field work for the week: Keep doing Shema statements. Go out to look for

PoP using Shema statements and praying B-L-E-S-S for Muslims you meet

• Summarize with hand motion/gesture: Have everyone stand and make hands into eye

glasses shape then look around the room as if searching for something

Session 8: Finding Households of Peace


• Study Scripture: Luke 10:5-6 (Review only)

• Teach key definitions: House of Peace, discipling groups, individual versus group

conversion

• Exercise: Simulations of people looking for PoP. Debrief and discuss

• Exercise: Kingdom Circles. Explain and practice in class. Use in final simulation

• Prayer: For God to lead us into Houses of Peace and to see groups

• Assign memory verse for the week: Luke 10:5-6

• Assign field work for the week: Keep using Shema statements to seek PoP. Try using

Kingdom Circle illustration with at least one Muslim

• Summarize with hand motion/gesture: Have everyone extend arms, look out into the

room, then bring arms together as if hugging someone

Session 9: Starting Discovery Groups


• Teach how to facilitate a Discovery Group; the golden question: “Would you and

your family and friends be interested in reading directly from Scriptures to see what

God says and how to apply it in your daily lives?”

• Study Scripture: Genesis 1:1-2:4 in Discovery Group format

• Exercise: Break into groups of three and do Discovery Groups on Genesis 1

• Exercise: Practice asking people if they’ve had a dream they believe came from God

151

• Prayer: For God to give courage to ask Muslims to start Discovery Groups (DGs); for

them to dream

• Assign memory verse for the week: 2 Tim 3:16

• Assign field work for the week: Keep doing Shema statements. Ask at least one

Muslim if they have ever had a dream they believe came from God

• Summarize with hand motion/gesture: Have everyone do previous lesson’s gesture

then take one hand and put it over the top as if putting something (the gospel) into the

embrace

Session 10: Principles of Multiplying Disciples


• Study Scripture: Assorted parables of Jesus

• Exercise: Put DMM cycle into order (puzzle)

• Teach key definitions: DMM cycle and critical elements of DMM

• Prayer: For God to multiply our ministries. For commitment to stay the course

• Assign memory verse for the week: Matt 13:23

• Assign field work for the week: Keep doing Shema statements. Ask the golden

question to someone you have been talking to about the Lord

• Summarize with hand motion/gesture: Have everyone pretend to be looking at a list

and checking things off one by one

Session 11: What is the Church?


• Exercise: Elements of a great church, elements necessary for church

• Study Scripture: Acts 2:37-47 in Discovery Group format

• Teach: How seven questions of Discovery Group lead into church planting

• Exercise: Rabbits or elephants?

152

• Teach: Church circles to track multiplication and health

• Prayer: for God to use us to plant healthy, biblical and multiplying churches

• Assign memory verse for the week: 1 Peter 2:9

• Assign field work for the week: Lead a Discovery Group with Christians. Then

debrief and explain how this becomes a church

• Summarize with hand motion/gesture: Clasp hands together with fingers on inside as

children do “this is a church and here’s all the people.”

Session 12: Plan and Implement


• Study Scripture: Matthew 7:24-27 using orality model

• Exercise: Use list of counterintuitive elements to review everything

• Teach: Importance of writing vision statement, plans and accountability

• Exercise: Take 15-minutes of silence to write out plans. Share in small groups

• Prayer: For God to help us put into practice. For commitment to stay the course

• Review: Seven commitments. Ask everyone how to keep in touch

• Summarize with hand motion/gesture: Have everyone pretend to look at wrist watch

and contemplate what to do. Then do gesture of praying (from Session 1) and review

all other gestures from every lesson. Have fun reviewing every gesture then compete

to see who can do them best and fastest for a prize

153

APPENDIX 6

DMM CRITICAL ELEMENTS

The list of Critical Elements in DMM found below is built upon the list of Critical

Elements by David L. Watson. It has been modified and categorized by Stan Parks and myself

for use as a part of the training materials as found in Appendix 5.

God

1. God is the initiator of DMMs – they are His work and for His Glory (Hab 2:14; Eph 3:20-21)

2. The Holy Spirit is the author, equipper, and empowerer of DMMs (Acts 1:8)

3. Scripture is the foundation of all beliefs and practices (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Vision

4. God gives His vision for reaching a UPG/city/tribe/nation to a person/team (Acts 19:10)

5. Vision is shared and co-laborers are raised up (initially outsiders, but the main harvest force

is inside the unreached group – and the outsiders must help the insiders reproduce vision

casting)

Prayer

6. Relationship with God is primary, personal and team (Matt 22:37)

7. Prayer and fasting for the lost is foundational (Luke 10:2)

8. Spiritual Warfare is necessary (Eph 6:12)

Reproduction of intercessors is key.

Evangelism

9. Ministry creates access for evangelism

10. Use the access to find Persons of Peace (Matt 10, Luke 9, Luke 10)

154

11. Share in truth and power (“Kingdom of God is near” and “Heal the sick”) (Luke 10:9)

12. Use culturally-appropriate evangelism (1 Cor 9:19-23)

13. Evangelize oikos (households and relational networks) as your main focus (Luke 10:5-8)

Help them begin reproducing immediately.

Discipleship

14. Disciple lost people/oikos to commitment to Christ

15. Teach them to love Jesus and obey His commands (Deut 6:4-9; John 14:15; Matt 28:20)

16. Group Process: help the group learn together and share leadership and accountability

17. Persecution is normal and prepared for (John 15:20; Luke 21:12-19)


Churches

18. Churches are discipled oikos that become obeying congregations, usually meeting in homes

19. Scripture and the Holy Spirit are all they need (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 14:26)

20. They discern how to redeem local culture

21. They need to learn to also reach out beyond their culture/group (Matt 28:18-20)


Leaders

22. Outside leaders model (reproducible by insiders), equip, watch, let them go, stay in touch

23. Develop leaders through on the job training (Phil 4:9)

24. Inside leaders lead everything and reproduce (2 Tim 2:2)

25. Local leaders are self-supporting (outside funds that might create dependency are avoided)

Reproducing leaders is crucial – a DMM is a leadership development movement.

155

Plan and Evaluate

26. Research: know and continue to learn about your people

27. Prayerfully prepare a plan of ‘What God wants to do’ for the End Vision (Acts 19:10;

Rom 15:18-19)

28. Be very honest in evaluating both strengths and weaknesses and make necessary changes

29. Be accountable to God and each other

156

APPENDIX 7

PERSONAL ACTION PLAN

SPRING 2017 – SPRING 2018

The strategic plan in Chapter 5 is intentionally broad and multifaceted to facilitate use by

many others. It is intended to provide the main areas (or Pillars) that workers will need to engage

in so that literally hundreds of believers from all parts around MegaMetro of the Body of Christ

can effectively engage Muslims, find People of Peace and begin easily replicable house churches

in their homes. The sub-points under each Pillar are meant to be like an idea starter, or a

reference list of effective tactics that are being used on other Ephesus Teams which could also

likely be implemented here. It is not, however, a specific plan for what I intend to do in this next

year—there are simply too many items to manage.

This Appendix, however, reflects my own personal plans for Spring 2017 – Spring 2018.

By faith, these are the specific things I intend to implement in order that this partnership may get

off the ground in MegaMetro. May the Lord bless the work of my hands by his Spirit so that

these actions become truly catalytic in launching streams of new disciples for the glory of Jesus

(Ps 115:1; Eph 3:20-21).

Personal Plan for Implementation Based on

Five Pillars of Ephesus Strategy

Pillar 1: Pray boldly. Personal activities planned:

• Host and facilitate prayer meeting Tuesday nights at our home for Western suburban

Ephesus Work Group (This was already begun in January 2017.)

+ Use this event to invite new people who want to pray for Muslims

+ Use this also as a place for on-going training in DMM including:

157

- Ideas for creative prayer

- Introduction to resources like Operation World (Mandryk 2010), etc.

- Review of concepts and simple tools used in DMM trainings

+ Occasionally prayer walk together for variation and training

+ Occasionally have dinner together

+ Keep inviting others to come as I teach and network broadly

+ Goal: At least 12 people praying together weekly by Spring 2018

• Fast weekly on Fridays until dinner

+ Promote this idea with other workers, especially those in prayer group

+ If unable to do complete fast, do partial fast (sugar, carbs, etc.)

+ Occasionally break fast with other workers in the evening

+ Especially pray on Fridays for Ephesus partners and movements among

Muslims in MegaMetro

• Attend MegaMetro House of Prayer Friday mornings to pray for Muslims (twice

month)

+ Attend at least twice a month as my normal schedule when in town

+ Invite others to go with me as way to cast vision and grow relationships

• Get involved in leadership and events of MegaMetro Prays movement

+ Attend leadership gatherings and get to know leaders

+ Cast vision for need to pray for Muslim community here as well

+ Seek opportunities through this network to preach in churches about reaching

Muslims and DMM

+ Attend events they hold and invite others

• Maintain Prayer Room at my house for on-going requests

+ Use stickies for prayer requests

158

+ Invite others who visit my house to pray with me in that space for on-going

requests

• Seek to multiply prayer groups in other Ephesus Work Groups around town, go to

them as needed to help them get started and grow

Pillar 2 – Cast Vision. Personal activities planned:

• Ask TE about Ethnic Pastor’s Network

+ Get involved, make friends

+ Cast vision for Muslim ministry and train those interested in DMM

• Make a habit of taking time with ethnic pastors and leaders to cast vision and partner

+ Meet HC and discuss ideas for helping his church. (Met on March 17, 2017)

Keep in touch with him; stay close to him and his church

+ Meet Pastor TE, GD, BR, MN, and Professor NS to share results of this

Project and discuss ideas for working together. Have some over for dinner

+ Network broadly to meet non-Caucasian believers who have a heart for

Muslims. Get to know them, explain Ephesus vision and invite them to

trainings

• Attend COMMA meeting quarterly, as able and seek to find partners there

• Hold large kick off event in Fall 2017 for Ephesus Catalytic Partnership:

+ Invite David Watson and BA or other non-Caucasian leader to share

+ Theme: Loving Muslims in our Midst (or something similar)

+ Find someone else to handle logistics

+ Raise funds locally for this event to increase ownership by area people

+ Hold large meetings to cast vision:

- Lunch meeting (90-minute lunch and talk by David Watson)

- Evening meeting (perhaps at large church)

+ Have these leaders also meet with Ephesus partners and attend a Tuesday

night prayer meeting, if possible

159

• Meet with some African-American pastors to share needs of Muslim community

+ Help resource them to reach Muslims.

+ Work towards on-going relationship with at least one of these churches

• Seek opportunity to speak in chapel at 2-3 Bible schools/seminaries in the

MegaMetro area and teach DMM at one this fall

+ Meet a Professor this Spring to discuss teaching

+ If able to teach, set up on-going mentoring program in DMM for students who

want to implement

+ Connect students to other Ephesus partners

• Buy at least two dozen books and keep in home to give/sell to interested people

+ One dozen copies of Miraculous Movements (Trousdale 2012)

+ One dozen copies of Contagious Disciple-Making (Watson and Watson 2014)

• Find a local church for our family to attend in this area that wants to be involved

+ Meet Missions Pastor to share about DMM and reaching Muslims (Done in

early March with one pastor. Waiting for response from his other leaders)

+ Help that church set up a program to reach Muslims in their area

+ Attend this church about twice monthly and serve as a resource

Pillar 3 – Train believers. Personal Activities planned:

• Target: Lead at least one DMM training cycle in MegaMetro each semester. Prioritize

ethnic believers. Do this with my wife and involve others from local Ephesus Work

Group.

• Also, create on-going Guys Mentoring Group for those already done with Session 1

training. Meet once a week for ongoing coaching and mentoring separate from prayer

group. Assign 3-column studies and discuss when together.

• Learn about best Qur’anic bridging training in this area to network people into. If it

doesn’t exist, modify McCurry’s (2011) Stepping Stones to Eternity or Greeson’s

(2010) The Camel and train others to train with it.

160

• Do not neglect to train and involve my kids in this ministry. Use Bible at meals. Keep

them updated on what’s happening.

• Involve people I’m training in activities and outreach in Pillar 5.

Pillar 4 – Build partnerships. Personal Activities planned:

• Hold monthly Ephesus Gathering. (Started March 4, next meeting on April 15.) Use

ideas in this section of Strategic Plan in Chapter 5 for these events.

+ Consider and discuss merger of close, regional DMM group into the Ephesus

Team.

• Get close to people in Ephesus Catalytic Partnership. Have them to our house. Do

ministry activities together. Seek to grow the group.

• Help others in Ephesus Gathering start local work groups with weekly prayer

meetings. Attend and encourage these as I can (per point six under Pillar 1 above).

• Help DJ start training group in L section of town (10 minutes from here). Try to help

others do the same, especially those in our Western suburbs Work Group.

• Be sure to involve women. Take time off as needed to be home in order to facilitate

my wife meeting women. Model ministry as husband-wife team.

• Keep pursuing relationships at NGOs, especially Scott’s, to help them close the loop

from only doing Access Ministry to also helping start churches.

• Help F or IP or PI begin training program in MegaMetro. (Discussions already

underway). Be a coach to their people but do not take on their burden for leadership.

Network them into a section of town where there are lots of Muslims near us. (near L

or WC)

• Help a local church in the Western suburbs that wants to reach immigrants and

Muslims to begin an outreach. Help them do it; do not do everything for them. Be a

Catalytic Coach, not the Leader. (See point 8 under Pillar 2.)

• Befriend everyone in Muslim ministry in MegaMetro. Stay involved in COMMA.

Visit other team meetings as possible. Consider not meeting as Ephesus Gathering on

months of COMMA meetings to encourage people to attend that instead. Perhaps

meet Ephesus friends for a meal before or after COMMA meeting.

Pillar 5 – Reach out to Muslims. Personal Activities planned:

• Continue to build relationships with A&T and E (Burma) long-term. Stay friends with

them even if they stop showing spiritual interest. Follow up leads from CH.

161

• Find new ways to meet other Muslims on weekly basis. Do one activity each week:

+ Either get involved in ESL ministry or start new one

+ Or get involved in food or transportation ministry

• Continually be friendly and outgoing to Muslims I see in stores, etc. Welcome them.

• Host events Quarterly in our area with Ephesus Work Group like picnics, outreach at

parks, potluck dinners, etc. (See list of ideas under Create Access in Pillar 5, Plan of

Action in Chapter 5.) Always include some Bible in these events to look for PoP.

Invite PoP to start new Discovery Groups.

• Ask God for 1 Discovery Group meeting each week with PoP. Either attend with my

wife or mentor leaders outside. Help the Discovery Groups become a House Church.

+ Goal: 1 new house church in 2017; 3 new house churches in 2018

162

REFERENCE LIST

Addison, Steve, Alan Hirsch, and Bob Roberts Jr. 2011. Movements That Change the World:

Five Keys to Spreading the Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

_____. 2012. What Jesus Started. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

_____. 2015. Pioneering Movements. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Albright, Delancey. 2011. “A Chronological Bible Storying Approach to Church Planting

Movements Among Sumbi Muslims.” DMin thesis, Trinity International University.

Allen, Bob. 2015. “Paige Patterson Details Missiological ‘Battle’ at IMB.” Baptism News

Global, September 14. Accessed January 11, 2017. https://baptistnews.com/article/paige-

patterson-details-battle-at-imb/#.WRDCf9IrLb0.

Allen, Roland. 1962. Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? 6th ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing. (Orig. pub. 1912.)

Bailey, Carol A. 2007. A Guide to Qualitative Field Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Banks, Robert J. 1994. Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Cultural

Setting. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. 1937. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: MacMillan.

Borkett-Jones, Lucinda. 2015. “We are living in the midst of the greatest turning of Muslims to

Christ in history.” Christianity Today. June 17, 2015. http://www.christiantoday.com

/article/we.are.living.in.the.midst.of.the.greatest.turning.of.muslims.to.christ.in.history/56

393.htm.

Bosch, David J. 2000. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. New

York: Orbis Books.

Brafman, Ori and Rod A. Beckstrom. 2006. The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power

of Leaderless Organizations. New York: Portfolio.

Butler, Phill. 2005. Well Connected: Releasing Power, Restoring Hope through Kingdom

Partnerships. Waynesboro, GA: Authentic.

Butler, Robby. 2016. “Are Movements the Seeks of a Second Reformation?” Mission Frontiers

38, no. 2 (March-April): 4-5.

163

Butler, Robby, guest ed. 2016. “Women Engaged In Church Planting Movements Among

UPGS.” Mission Frontiers 38, no. 1 (January/February).

Creswell, John W. 2008. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, And Mixed Methods

Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cueva, Samuel. 2015. Mission Partnership in Creative Tension. London: Langham Monographs.

Esler, Ted. 2013. “Two Church Planting Paradigms.” International Journal of Frontier

Missiology 30, no. 2: 67-73.

Fanning, Don. 2009. “Church Planting Movements.” Trends and Issues in Missions, paper 6.

Accessed January 11, 2016. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgm_missions/6.

Flemming, Dean. 2005. Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and

Mission. Leicester, U.K.: Apollos.

Flint, Chris. 2010. “What are the Advantages of Church Planting Movements over against

Insider Movements?” St. Francis Magazine 6, no. 6.

Garrison, David. 2004. Church Planting Movements: How God Is Redeeming A Lost World.

Arkadelphia, AR: WIGTake Resources.

______. 2008. “Factors that Facilitate Fellowships becoming Movements.” In From Seed to

Fruit: Global Trends, Fruitful Practices, and Emerging Issues among Muslims, edited by

J. Dudley Woodberry, 207-218. Pasadena: William Carey Library.

———. 2014. A Wind in the House of Islam. Monument, CO: WIGTake Resources.

Gehring, Roger W. 2004. House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures

in Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Green, Michael. 1970. Evangelism in the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing.

Greeson, Kevin. 2010. The Camel: How Muslims are Coming to Faith in Christ. Monument,

CO: WIGTake Resources.

Handy, Wesley. 2012. “Correlating the Nevius Method with Church Planting Movements: Early

Korean Revivals as a Case Study.” Eleutheria 2, no. 1, article 3. Accessed on January 10,

2017. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/eleu/vol2/iss1/3.

164

Hesselgrave, David J. 1991. Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan.

______, McGavran, Donald and Jeff Reed. 2000. Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: North

America and Beyond. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Hiebert, Paul G. and Eloisa Meneses. 1995. Incarnational Ministry: Planting Churches in Band,

Tribal, Peasant and Urban Societies. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Hull, Bill. 2006. The Complete Book of Discipleship: On Being and Making Followers of Christ.

Colorado Springs: NavPress.

Hunt, David F. 2009. “A Revolution in Church Multiplication in East Africa.” Dissertation,

Bakke Graduate University.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1999. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New

York: Touchstone.

Jenkins, Philip. 2002. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Keller, Timothy. 2009. “Cities and Salt: Counter-Cultures for the Common Good.” In

Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, 4th ed., edited by Ralph Winter, 615-619.

Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

_____. 2012. Center Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Lewis, Bernard. 2003. The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. London: Phoenix.

Little, Don, ed. 2011. “Practitioners in Conversation.” Seedbed 25, no. 2 (December).

Livingstone, Greg. 2014. You’ve Got Libya. Oxford: Monarch Books.

Long, Justin. 2013. “The Ethne Ephesus Vision.” Mission Frontiers. March 1. Accessed March

17, 2017. http://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/article/the-ethne-ephesus-vision.

Mandryk, Jason. 2010. Operation World. 7th ed. Colorado Springs: Biblica Publishing.

Massey, John D. 2012. “Wrinkling Time in the Missionary Task: A Theological Review of

Church Planting Movements Methodology.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 55, no. 1:

100-137.

McCurry, Don. 1979. The Gospel and Islam: a 1978 Compendium. Monrovia, CA: Missions

Advanced Research and Communications Center.

165

______. 2001. Healing the Broken Family of Abraham: New Life for Muslims. Colorado Springs:

Ministries to Muslims.

______. 2011. Stepping Stones to Eternity: Jesus from the Quran to the Bible. 1st Edition.

Ministries to Muslims.

McGuire, Dwight. 2010. “Two and a Half Percent: Church Planting Movements from the

Periphery to the Center.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 44, no. 2 (January): 176-185.

McKnight, Scot. 2011. The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan.

Meeks, Wayne. 1993. The First Urban Christians. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Miller, Duane A. and Patrick Johnstone. 2015. “Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background:

A Global Consensus.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 11, no. 10: 3-19.

Missio Nexus. 2016. “The Great Commission: Big & Important!” MissioNexus. Accessed

September 15, 2016. https://missionexus.org/the-great-commission-big-important.

Moran, Roy. 2015. Spent Matches. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

______. 2016. Interview by author via Skype. Kansas City. September 9.

Neighbour, Ralph W., Jr. 1990. Where do we go from here? Houston: TOUCH Publications.

Nichols, Laurie Fortunak and Gary R. Corwin, eds. 2010. Envisioning Effective Ministry:

Evangelism in a Muslim Context (An EMQ Monograph). Wheaton, IL: Evangelism and

Missions Information Service.

Nyman, James. 2016. Stubborn Perseverance: How to Launch Cascading Movements to Christ

among Muslims and Others. Mount Vernon, WA: Mission Network Press.

O’Brien, Peter and Andreas J. Köstenberger. 2001. Salvation to the Ends of the Earth. Downers

Grove: InterVarsity Press.

O’Connell, Brian. 2017. “Getting Past the Myths of Partnering.” Mission Frontiers 39, no. 2

(March/April): 31-34.

Oke, Kenn. 2013. “Church-Planting Metrics: Measure What’s Important.” Evangelical Missions

Quarterly 49, no. 3 (July): 282–290.

Oksnevad, Roy. 2016. Interview by author. Carol Stream, IL. August 25.

166

Osborne, Grant R. 2014. “The Meaning and Methods of Church Planting.” Paper presented for

MN9840 Missions in the New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School,

Deerfield, IL, July 21.

Ott, Craig and Gene Wilson. 2011. Global Church Planting: Biblical Principles and Best

Practices for Multiplication. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Packer, James I. 1989. “The Means of Conversion.” Crux 25, no. 4 (December): 14-22.

Patterson, George and Dick Scoggins. 2002. Church Multiplication Guide. Pasadena, CA:

William Carey Library.

Parks, Stan. 2016. “The Ephesus Vision for Every Ethne.” Mission Frontier 38, no. 3 (April 30).

Accessed March 17, 2017. http://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/article/the-ephesus-

vision.

Patzia, Arthur G. 2001. The Emergence of the Church. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Payne, J.D. 2009. Discovering Church Planting. Colorado Springs: Authentic.

______, 2015. Apostolic Church Planting. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Peters, George W. 1979. “An Overview of Missions to Muslims.” In The Gospel and Islam: a

1978 Compendium, edited by Don M. McCurry, 390-404. Monrovia, CA: Missions

Advanced Research and Communications Center.

Poston, Larry. 2001. “The Current State of Islam in America.” In The Gospel for Islam, edited by

Roy Oksnevad and Dotsey Welliver, 3-20. Wheaton, IL: Evangelism and Missions

Information Service (EMIS).

______, and Carl F. Ellis, Jr. 2000. The Changing Face of Islam in America. Camp Hill, PA:

Horizon Books.

Rickett, Daniel. 2008. Building Strategic Relationships. Orlando: Stem Press.

Robertson, Patrick, David L. Watson and Gregory Benoit. 2013. The Father Glorified: True

Stories of God’s Power Through Ordinary People. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Schlorff, Sam. 2006. Missiological Models in Ministry to Muslims. Upper Darby, PA: Middle

East Resources.

Schnabel, Eckhard. 2004. Early Christian Mission. 2 vols. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

167

Schnatter, Frank A. 2014. The Wheel Model: Catalyzing Sustainable Church Multiplication

Movements. Rocklin, CA: William Jessup University Press.

Schmidt, Gabri. 2004. Islam in Urban America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Schwartley, Keith E. ed. 2014. Encountering the World of Islam, 2nd ed. Littleton, CO: Bottom

Line Media.

Shipman, Mike. 2013. Any-3: Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime—Win Muslims to Christ Now!

Monument, CO: WIGTake Resources.

Slack, Jim. 2007. “Church Planting Movements: Rationale, Research and Realities of Their

Existence.” Journal of Evangelism and Missions 6 (Spring): 31-32.

Smith, Gordon T. 2010. Transforming Conversion: Rethinking the Language and Contours of

Christian Initiation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Smith, Steve and Stan Parks. 2015. “T4T or DMM (DBS)? Only God Can Start a Church

Planting Movement. Part 1 of 2.” Mission Frontiers 37, no. 1. (January/February): 36-39.

Accessed January 11, 2017. http://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue /article/t4t-or-dmm-

dbs-only-god-can-start-a-church-planting-movement-part-1-of-2.

______. 2015. “T4T or DMM (DBS)? Only God Can Start a Church Planting Movement. Part 2

of 2.” Mission Frontiers 37, no. 3 (May/June):32-35. Accessed January 11, 2017.

http://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue%20/article/t4t-or-dmm-dbs-only-god-can-start-a-

church-planting-movement-part-1-of-2.

Smith, Steve and Ying Kai. 2011. T4T: A Discipleship Re-Revolution: The Story Behind the

World’s Fastest Growing Church Planting Movement and How It Can Happen in Your

Community! Monument, CO: WIGTake Resources.

Stark, Rodney. 2006. Cities of God: The Real Story of How Christianity Became an Urban

Movement and Conquered Rome. New York: HarperCollins.

Steffen, Tom. 1997. Passing the Baton: Church Planting that Empowers. La Habra, CA: Center

for Organizational and Ministry Development.

______. 2011. The Facilitator Era. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

Stetzer, Ed. 2006. Planting Missional Churches. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Steinhaus, Steven. 2011. “Exponential Disciple-Making: A Fresh Approach to Church Planting

Movements.” Seedbed 25, no. 2: 5-17.

168

______. 2014. “Reforming Baptism: A Call to Return to the Normal New Testament Way of

Committing to Jesus.” Seedbed 28, no. 1: 28-42.

Talman, Harley and John Jay, eds. 2015. Understanding Insider Movements: Disciples of Jesus

within Diverse Religious Communities. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Tennent, Timothy C. 2010. Invitation to World Missions: A Trinitarian Missiology for the

Twenty-first Century. Grand Rapids: Kregal Academic and Professional.

Travis, John. 1998. “The C1 to C6 Spectrum: A Practical Tool for Defining Six Types of ‘Christ-

centered Communities’ Found in the Muslim Context.” Evangelical Missions

Quarterly 34, no. 4 (October): 407–408.

Trousdale, Jerry. 2012. Miraculous Movements: How Hundreds of Thousands of Muslims Are

Falling in Love with Jesus. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

VisionSynergy. 2016. “Why Collaborate?” Accessed September 15, 2016.

http://visionsynergy.net/why-collaborate.

Watson, David. 2009. “Church Planting Movement (CPM) – Our Definition.” TouchPoint Blog,

June 15. Accessed September 39, 2014. http://www.davidlwatson.org/2009/06/15/

church-planting-movement-cpm-%E2%80%93-our-definition.

Watson, David L. and Paul D. Watson. 2009. “A Movement of God among the Bhojpuri of

North India.” In Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, 4th ed, edited by Ralph

D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, 697-700. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

_____. 2014. Contagious Disciple Making: Leading Others on a Journey of Discovery.

Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Wilkins, Michael. 1995. Discipleship in the Ancient World and Matthew’s Gospel. Eugene, OR:

Wipf and Stock.

Wilson, Gene. 2016. “Church Planting Catalysts for Gospel Movements.” Evangelical Missions

Quarterly 52, no. 3 (July): 134-135.

Winter, Ralph D. and Steven C. Hawthorne. 2009. Perspectives on the World Christian

Movement, 4th ed. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Wood, Rick, ed. 2011. “Church Planting Movements: Rapidly Multiplying Faith Communities.”

Mission Frontiers 33, no. 2 (March/April).

Wu, Jackson. 2014. “There Are No Church Planting Movements in the Bible: Why Biblical

Exegesis and Missiological Methods Cannot be Separated.” Global Missiology 1, no. 14

http://visionsynergy.net/why-collaborate

169

(October). Accessed August 8, 2016. http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english

/article/viewFile/1711/3794

Zdero, Rad. 2011. “The Apostolic Strategy of House Churches for Mission Today.” Evangelical

Missions Quarterly 47, no. 3 (July): 346-353.

developing an ephesus catalytic partnership as a new … dmin project on ephesus tea… · ephesus...

Documents