Church planting movements (CPM) were first observed around 1994. It has been about twenty-five years since. Practitioners of CPM are now raising questions of its sustainability. Dr Steve Smith, in his ThD dissertation entitled ‘An evaluation of Training for Trainers (T4T) as an aid for developing sustained church planting movements (CPM)’, defined sustainability as follows:

----------------------------------------

In CPM circles, there are two ways that people refer to sustainability.

1) Sustained momentum: Can this system of evangelism, discipleship, church planting and leadership development be sustained for the long-term? Can we maintain momentum or will we plateau at a certain level of growth?

2) Permanence or durability (longevity): Will these disciples and churches be around fifty years from now or are they temporary? What will there be to show for our efforts in twenty years?

----------------------------------------

Dr Smith answered the first question using T4T as an example that is a system that encourages the evangelizing, discipling and church planting among future generations of new believers. He argued using survey results of CPM’s that employ T4T that such a system is crucial for maintaining momentum in a CPM. He further argued from historical Christian movements that it was those movements that were able to maintain a discipleship culture of reproduction that could keep up the momentum of growth for years and decades. A CPM that is powered by a T4T system that has the four components – accountability, vision-casting, practice and goal-setting with prayer – is likewise able to maintain the discipleship culture of reproduction that keeps up the momentum, according to Dr Smith.

As for the second question, Dr Smith acknowledged that it was much more difficult to answer since the first modern CPM did not emerge until around 1994. It is inappropriate to extrapolate a short track record to predict the permanence or longevity of outcome fifty years from now. In his opinion the only way to evaluate the second question is by comparing modern CPM’s with other movements in history and drawing out parallels that may apply.

The reality is that the early church already provides the precedent of how CPM’s could be made sustainable.

Revelation 2:1-5

1“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands.

2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.

3You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.

4Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first.

5Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

The church at Ephesus was the most important stream of Paul’s CPM. By the time John wrote the Book of Revelation Paul had died and his most important CPM stream was floundering, with the disciples having forsaken the love they had at first. In addition Peter had also died along with the other apostles except John, leaving John the only surviving apostle. You see, the work of great big apostles like Peter and Paul who made a lot of noise while alive, when everything had been said and done and the dust had settled, did not necessarily last.

At this juncture John realized that time was running out and something must be done soon and quickly in order to sustain both the growth momentum and permanence of Jesus’ bride. Being the disciple whom Jesus loved, he knew what was needed and proceeded to set the last piece of DNA for the church, which is love. As the only surviving apostle, John ensured that what he spoke of and what he wrote had the theme of love etched in it because it would be carefully heeded by all the disciples. The setting of that DNA irreversibly set the course and destiny of the early church until it became institutionalized by the Roman Empire in the fourth century. Its growth momentum kept up and its permanence was ensured up until that point. Such a state of affairs was made possible also by persecution which purified the faith of the early church.

When they looked at disciples of the early church, pagans would say, “See how they love one another.” Loving one another became the identifying characteristics of the disciples. The early church had such sustaining power that it survived all the persecution launched at it while growing against all odds in the meantime. The love DNA gave the church such cohesive power that the entire Roman Empire eventually got sucked in.

The disciple whom Jesus loved quietly tagged along barely noticed in the shadow of the leading apostles Peter and Paul. When they had died, he single-handedly saved their work from going down the drain without being noticed and credited for it at all, and the body of Christ continues to sing the praises of the two leading apostles, not at all recognizing what the apostle whom Jesus loved had done. John was secure in Jesus’ love for him and was content to walk behind in the shadow of the two leading apostles. We ought to celebrate the disciple who loved like this.

If the most important stream of Paul’s CPM was unsustainable, any CPM stream would be unsustainable in the long haul. If it sustained both the growth momentum and permanence of the early church, the love DNA could sustain both the growth momentum and permanence of any CPM stream. So it is imperative that the love DNA be properly set on the Catechized Disciple-Making Church Planting Movement (CDMCPM) that we are concerned about. That would sustain both the growth momentum and permanence of the CDMCPM. But how should the love DNA be set?

Dr David Watson who pioneered the Disciple-Making Movement (DMM) used bible study for both evangelism and discipleship training. That seamlessly sets supremacy of the bible as a DNA for his DMM. Furthermore the discipleship training is obedience-based with obedience to instructions in the bible being urged on disciples through mutual accountability at every meeting, which holds true for T4T also. This seamlessly sets obedience to instructions in the bible as a DNA. In the long run supremacy of the bible and obedience to instructions in the bible will become second nature to the disciples of DMM.

But how should the love DNA be set on the CDMCPM seamlessly so that love will become second nature to disciples of CDMCPM that both its growth momentum and permanence would be sustained? That is something that has yet to be figured out.