In The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, Roland Allen attacks the ecclesiastical obstacles that block the church from growing spontaneously. While Allen details many individual issues blocking this growth, most of these issues stem from one thing: a desire by church leaders to maintain control over the expansion of the gospel.
This control is manifested primarily by the refusal to appoint native leaders in newly established churches. Allen gives several reasons for this refusal. First, there is a belief that only professionally ordained clergy with seminary degrees can lead churches and administer the sacraments. Second, there is a belief that new converts cannot be trusted to lead churches, but must be nursed to maturity for extended periods of time. Otherwise, they will fall away or lead members into heresy. Third, there is a fear that new converts will tolerate standards of morality that are sub-Christian.
A second obstacle to the spontaneous expansion of the church is the primacy that missionaries place in promoting western civilization rather than the gospel. These missionaries believe that before a culture can accept the gospel, it must be raised up through Christian schools, hospitals, and medicine. This too is an issue of control, for it is an attempt to engineer the kingdom of God rather than trusting God to bring about his kingdom.
The third obstacle to the spontaneous expansion of the gospel is the transfer of the responsibility of missions from the local church to mission boards.
Allen states that mission boards cannot establish churches, for only churches can produce churches. Mission boards establish missions, which are not churches and are not self-replicating. The result is a controlled outreach, but an anemic one.
Allen is absolutely correct in his analysis. The biblical “pattern” was to establish indigenous leaders in every town. In Scripture, there is no propagation of Western culture prior to the proclamation of the gospel. Furthermore, mission cannot be divorced from the church. The church is by its fundamental nature missional (Jn. 20:21).
In truth, Allen is dealing with a problem not found in the fellowship of which I am a part (churches of Christ). We have no denominational headquarters, and each congregation is autonomous, with its own local leaders. Early in our movement, some argued for “missionary societies,” but this was eventually rejected.
Unfortunately, this rejection was based upon an extreme patternistic hermeneutic rather than being based upon a theological understanding of church and mission. Most of the churches in this movement that do not have qualified elders, however, struggle mightily. Allen appears to think that raising up local leaders is simple and easy; it is not. Still, he is correct in his assertion that leadership needs to be local.
