JDGreear.com

Acts 20:28 and the Dilemma of Church Growth

This morning I met with a new group of Summit "lay elders" and Summit Life Group coaches. The reason: I feel our church to be in a dilemma. The dilemma is wanting to reach as many people as possible as fast as possible and, at the same time, to become an integrated, New Testament, community-based, member-caring church. (God has created this dilemma for us: our growth last Sunday was up 57% from the same week last year. We have seen a large number of people trust Christ in the last couple of months.)

In many ways, these Summit leaders and others like them are the way out of that dilemma for me.

Paul experienced, I think, the same dilemma in Acts 20:28 when he said to a group of new Ephesian elders, "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood."

Can you feel the gravitas, the passion, Paul speaks to these men with? Paul, I'm sure felt responsibility for the Ephesian believers because he had planted the church. But now he was in a place where he personally could not oversee each of the new believers. So, he is pleading with other overseers to do his job for him.

In the same way, as pastor of the Summit, I feel responsible for those of the "flock" God has put under my care. I know that one day I will have to answer to God for each of the people who became a part of our community. If God brought people into our fold who were sick and needed help and I didn’t even know about it, He will hold me responsible. If members of our fold openly disgrace the name of Christ and I did nothing about it because I didn’t even know about it, I will have to answer to God for that. But the church is too big for me to oversee each member myself.

There are 2 lazy ways pastors deal with this dilemma... i.e., the dual charge to "reach people" and "shepherd the flock."

The first is to say, “Forget all the responsibilities of shepherding. Who cares if people in our church aren't growing, developing, being helped when they are in need, or if we're not preserving the integrity of the flock by church discipline. Let’s just reach people as fast as possible. Let's grow by reaching people for Jesus and saving them from hell." This, however, is an egregious dereliction of duty. It is in direct contradiction to what the New Testament says a church should be like. Jesus described shepherds who are "hirelings" who leave their responsibilities to the flock when it is not personally convenient. These "shepherds" are simply using the flock for their own purposes--big audiences, notoriety, big salaries, etc.

The second way to deal with the dilemma is to “limit” the growth a church has, so that the senior pastor can know and be involved with each person and feel like it is a manageable-sized flock. In my opinion, that is a cold, heartless approach to the Great Commission. We want God to move mightily here. You don't see Peter saying, on behalf of the 120 believers, to the 3000 new believers in Acts 2, "Whoa, whoa... we can't handle all of you! We can each only disciple 1... so the first 120 of you are welcome, the rest of you need to find another church. We can't really disciple all of you yet... and we're committed to not reaching more people than we can disciple." (I've heard that exact phrase from a pastor!)

There is a third way, and that is to do what Paul did in Acts 20:28 and devote myself to equipping other men (as elders) and women who can share in this mantle of oversight. That means we equip overseers and pastors to be involved in the lives of people in our small groups in such a way that they...

• Know the names and families of people in the small groups under their charge
• Pray for each member of their small groups by name
• Will be aware when they fall into sin or have a burden
• Will be aware when someone in one of their groups need ministry

Essentially, what I laid onto this group this morning is a shepherd’s mantle for the Summit Church. It is a shepherd's mantle that Jesus has given first to me. Now, like Paul, I am sharing it with other faithful leaders. But I still have to answer to God for it. So I told them this morning that I am personally bequeathing to them this mantle, and told them that if they are not going to take it and execute its duties diligently, PLEASE give it back to me and I'll pray and ask God to provide others that will carry it worthily... because I have to answer to God for them.

Summit, this is what I mean by "being committed to growing bigger and smaller at the same time."

The question, of course, that this begs is: Are you a member of the church? Are you in a Summit Life Group? If you're not in the Summit, are you a covenant member and actively involved in your church?

The community Jesus died to create is not a body of Sunday morning spectators wowed and inspired by a performance, but a family of believers. You won't benefit from His protective oversight through His church until you are an actively involved member.

Click here for more info on Summit Life Groups...

The Pastor's Primary Responsibility

During the summer I take, somewhat sporadically, some time to 'vacation.' I try to spend some time with family, but I also try to take time, alone, to hear from God.

One thing which I've been thinking a lot about this past week on vacation is what my "primary" responsibility as Pastor is... there's so many things that are part of my job, and that I enjoy doing... vision casting, preacher-teacher, counselor, staff-coach. But none of these I see as my PRIMARY role.

My primary role as Pastor is to know the Word and hear from God. I'm not just trying to talk spiritual mumbo-jumbo. The Word of God has a power in it that cannot be replaced or duplicated by anything else. Consider these examples:

• Martin Luther summed up his world-transforming ministry this way: "I simply taught, preached, wrote God's word; otherwise I did nothing. And then, while I slept, drank Wittenberg beer with Philip and Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened all who opposed me. I did nothing; the Word did it all. For it is almighty and takes captive the hearts, and if the hearts are captured, the evil work will fall of itself."
• Billy Graham was once asked, "If you had your life to live over, what would you do differently?" He said, "One of my great regrets is that I have not studied enough. I wish I had studied more and preached less. People have pressured me into speaking to groups when I should have been studying and preparing. Donald Grey Barnhouse said that if he knew the Lord was coming back in 3 years, he would spend 2 of them studying and 1 preaching. I'm trying to make that up now."
• The Apostles were asked to meet a genuine ministry need in Acts 6--the hunger of some of their widows. Can't you hear people around them saying, "Now, what good is it to do all that preaching if people from your own congregation are starving?" The Apostles' response, "We must devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word." It's not that they turned a deaf ear--they saw to it that others stepped in to meet the need, but they knew that the greatest thing they could do for their community was devote themselves to the Word. The result is recorded in vs. 7, "The Word of God kept on spreading and the number of disciples increased greatly..."
• Jesus and the Apostles several times warned of ministries that would "succeed" on the surface but which eternity would reveal to be nothing. Think of the parable of the seeds (Mark 4), Paul's warning of the work that turns out to be stubble that won't endure the fire (neither the fire of persecution nor the fire of God's all seeing eye), or Jesus' warning about houses built on sand (Matt 7:24-27)Yes, I'm talking to my megachurch pastor friends who think that a large church proves the blessing of God. If we have a large congregation full of the kinds of "fruit" that won't endure the tests of persecution, will we have anything lasting to show for our ministry?
• Puritan Robert Murray McCheyenne: "What my people most need from me are not my clever sermons but my personal holiness."

That is why I say that I must make my primary task, as Pastor of the Summit, knowing the Word and hearing from God. It is the Word alone that creates lasting fruit. I would do a disservice to everyone if I did not make it my primary task.

It's not that the other things aren't important, just that nothing can replace the Word. As Martin Luther noted, if I get the Word right, I can sleep and drink beer (even though I don't drink, but you know how those Germans are...) and the revolution will happen.

In the Apostles' day, it was waiting on tables which threatened to take away their time from prayer and the Word. What do you think most threatens to take away pastors' time from the Word today?

Here's what I see...

• networking
• reading leadership books
• going to pastors' conferences
• reading blogs
• putting creativity into messages
• staying up on technology
• denominational politicking
• staying up with the latest church growth theories
• email
• meetings

Again, not that any of these things aren't important. But brothers, know the Word!

Question and Answer 4

Here's a great question from someone at our Cole Mill campus, answered by Pastor Rick:

I really like the multi-site concept. Are we going to launch any new locations in the next few years?

This is one of my favorite questions. YES! We have set a goal to start at least one new campus by the fall of 2009. We’ve also put together a team that will be studying, praying and planning to make that happen. I hope we can start even more than that by then. This could be a great way to expand the kingdom here in the Triangle in the coming years. Three things we need to start a new campus: a Place (facility to meet in); a People (who are coming to one of other campuses from a good distance and would make a good start-up core group); and a Pastor (someone who can lead the new congregation). Of course, a little start up funding, too. Where will our next one be? Mebane? Chapel Hill? Fuquay-Varina? North Raleigh?

We think that the best "Gospel strategy" for an area includes preaching the message of the Gospel to every person in that area, and demonstrating the Gospel (by acts of love and service) to that area. The best way to do both of those things, we believe, is to plant local churches and congregations. If you'd like to check out a little more about our "multi-site" philosophy, here are a couple of helpful articles. 1 2

Our Missions Strategy: 3

(This is the 3rd installment of a working discussion I am having with myself on our church's missions philosohpy. Today I want to consider how we see our relationship to the Southern Baptist Convention and other such parachurch organizations).

There seem to be two extremes when it comes to working with the Convention for the purpose of missions.

The first extreme is when churches depend on the agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) to do church planting and missions for them.This is what I call "bad parachurchism." OK, yes, I totally made that term up. But here's what I mean: there is good parachurch and bad parachurch. GOOD parachurch ministries FACILITATE the ministry of the church. A good parachurch ministry attempts to be a resource to the local church through which the church can do her ministry more effectively. BAD parachurch takes ministry from a local church and does it for her. Bad parachurch says, "Give us money and people and we'll do ministry for you." 

The SBC was born out of the "good parachurch" model: the agencies of the Convention facilitated the ministries of local churches. Local churches led in the ministry, the Convention served the initiatives of those churches-- but it was the local churches that took the lead and got things done. Over time, it appears that some parts of the SBC have shifted into 'bad parachurch' mode. They expect the local churches to turn over resources so the agencies can do the work. Burgeoning bureaucracies were created that basically duplicated what was to be happening in the local church. We, the local church, are to give our money and be happy with the results, and scolded for not giving properly.

Churches are God's vehicle for ministry. Jesus' strategy for reaching and transforming the world was have His Apostles plant churches in every community (this was Paul's entire strategy!); the local church has the potential to provide the most wholistic, community-loving, Gospel-preaching, multi-generational community necessary for fully-orbed ministry.

Local churches are best suited to provide the resources, training, accountability and drive necessary to accomplish church planting. Churches plant churches. For any parachurch organization, including the National and State Baptist Conventions, taking  this initiative out of the hands of the local church is surely doomed to failure. (to note, I am grateful for and in support of some parachurch ministries which, by my definition above, would be considered 'not ideal'--i.e., ministries not directly tied to a local church. I am in support of them because they are doing things that local churches are simply not doing yet. I am grateful for their ministries, and personally contribute financially to them... I am also grateful that many of them are actively seeking ways to participate with the local church. We have representatives of several of these ministries in our church, and I am VERY grateful for them.)

We, the Summit Church, don't just recruit people to work for the International Mission Board (IMB) or take up money to give entirely to them. These church plants around the world are ours. But before I get ahead of myself, let me mention the opposite extreme:

The second extreme is when churches believe they can do it all by themselves and do not need the expert guidance of parachurch organizations like the International Mission Board. The blessing and curse of my generation seems to be an independent, can-do spirit when it comes to mission. I just finished reading Stephen Neill's A History of Christian Missions, and one of the points he makes is that though Protestants have historically been extremely zealous for missions, we often have charged into unreached areas like Lone Rangers with no sense of who else was doing what for the cause of Christ there. Because of our lack of cooperation, we have often repeated easily avoidable mistakes and caused unnecessary chaos in the fields they we are trying to reach. The IMB has full time "experts" devoted to knowing the various fields, studying what methods work, and linking like minded movements together. They provide a wonderful organization through which to plant churches.

We try to avoid either extreme. We don't just give money and recruits to the IMB and ask them to do our church planting for us. But neither do we charge out to it alone. Our church has chosen to cooperate missionally with the Southern Baptist Convention because we believe unified effort between Gospel-loving churches increases our effectiveness in church planting, leadership training, and public witness.

The IMB's massive resources (that are compiled from so many churches working together) make it so that our missionaries do not have to raise support. The IMB makes a great structure for technical training of our missionaries, ensuring their care while on the field, and giving strategic direction. But they are still "our" (the Summit's) churches we are planting. The initiative lies with us; we use the IMB as the vehicle through which we plant churches. To note, the IMB has been great to work with in this regard.

Our Missions Strategy: 2

This is part 2 in a working discussion I am having with myself about our church's mission philosohpy. Feel free to interject your thoughts into my stream of consciousness. In part 2 I want to discuss a unity between 3 things which are often separated in a church.)

The second peg of our missions strategy is this: We see a unity in community ministry, church planting, and international missions. Here's why:

• In order to really transform an area for the Gospel, you need to minister to both body and soul. The preached message of the Gospel is paramount, but to make the Gospel message intelligible to our audience we must demonstrate God's love in action. Plus, if we love our neighbors we won't sit by when there is a need we can meet. Therefore, we try to teach members that their "secular jobs" are vehicles for blessing the community. We also try to lead every small group to be meaningful involved in blessing the community in some way.
• The most effective way to transform an area is to plant a church, because a church is the best at doing both of the above. Plant a church and teach the new community to preach the word and care for the physical needs of the city.This was consistently Paul's strategy in Acts: go to the most strategic cities in the world and plant churches there.
• When you plant a church, the church should establish itself, immediately, as a transforming, caring force in the community. They can do that by caring for the city's poor and teaching its members they should seek to bless the city. Rather than simply meeting as a core group for a year in a Starbucks or a school cafeteria, they should go in serving the community.
• What we do in strategic overseas cities is really an extension of what we do here in our own cities. We will seek to meet the needs of the unchurched city in say, Indonesia, in the same way we have met our own city's needs. (This means, btw, that some of the most needed overseas church planters are not 'professional ministers,' but people with a genuine, marketable skill that they can use to bless the community.
  

Our Missions Strategy: 1

Over the next few weeks I'd like to spell out, perhaps sporadically, how God has shaped our view of mission. I'm doing this as much for myself and our church as I am for anyone else... sometimes it helps to think out loud on these things.

The first thing I want to say I'm sure seems obvious, but on closer consideration is not something we should take for granted... and that is that we are very committed to empowering our members to be "on mission." The reason I say it is not as "obvious" as you'd first think is that there are two basic approaches to church that are popular.

The first is "attractional"... and that basically is the idea that Sunday morning is the key time for churches to reach people so all the energy goes into getting people to that one spectacular event. The ministry is built primarily around one man, who is himself very fruitful.

The other approach is "incarnational," wherein the members are empowered to carry the power of God into the community. Sunday morning is not the primary place of ministry, nor is the pastor the primarily fruitful minister. Sunday morning is the "staging area" wherein believers are empowered to go be fruitful in the community.

Which approach is correct? Both have an element of truth in them. Sunday morning is, in American culture at least, the place where it is easiest to connect with unbelievers. However, as a pastor my primary goal is not to gather a throng of people merely impacted by my own fruitfulness, but to train people to become fruitful in their own rite. The church is not one, fruitful genius surrounded by several thousand dependent sheep; rather, it is one pastor dedicated to seeing others become every bit the leader he is. After all, 39 of the 40 miracles in the book of Acts happened outside the church. God wants to be in the marketplace, and pastors equip members to take Him there.

That's why I am unbelievably excited that we had 115 PEOPLE COME TO OUR 'PROSPECTIVE CHURCH PLANTERS' LUNCHEON LAST SUNDAY. That's right... 115 people who are praying about LEAVING our church to go plant churches either somewhere in America or overseas. I love the idea of people leaving our church to go and plant their lives somewhere else. Obviously I want a lot of people WITHIN our church committed to our own community and leading here in RDU through the ministries of our church... but if given the choice between people sitting in the congregation admiring and soaking up my teaching each Sunday or using their ministry gifts in a church plant in an unchurched area, I would without hesitation choose the latter.

Of the people we send out, not all will be "church staff" or "vocational ministry" people--many will go and get "regular jobs" and be a part of the serving, paying, praying, incarnational, Christ-sharing, believing-God-for-awesome-things ministry team in a new community that desperately needs the Gospel.

So, peg 1 of our missions philosophy is that we are committed to empowering people to send them out to build the church.

More to come...

The Connection Between Church Planting and Small Groups

Here is a great post by our illustrious small groups pastor, Spence Shelton, on the connection between small groups (for us, Summit Life Groups::SLG) and church planting. Spence is one of the wittiest people that I know, and he has a new blog.

Several people in our church have blogs that are quite good. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but here are a few good ones in addition to Spence's:

• Sharon Hodde: Sharon is a women's and college ministry leader. She is a graduate of Duke Div and extremely articulate.
• Jason Gaston: Our clinically insane student life minister. I love him. He's got a great team: Shannon Simoneau and Ryan Doherty. I can't think of anyone I'd rather have leading our middle and high school students.
• David Cox: David is a newer member. He left a very large church in Florida to begin a great new ministry going based here in RDU called "The Other 6 Days." It is designed to lead people to bring the Kingdom of God into the workplace.
• Kristi Butler: Kristi is also a newer member who has been married to pastor for over 20 years and reared 4 wonderful girls, including one they adopted from overseas. She has a lot of wisdom and a great ministry among women.

There are many others... feel free to let me know about them in the comments section.

The title of Sunday's message is "How to Date and Love a Woman." I know, that's ambitious and promises more than I can deliver, but we'll be looking at the Song of Solomon chapter 2:8-3:5. Solomon's wisdom should be able to make up for my lack of it.

The Gospel and Loving our City

If you're interested, our friends at 9Marks picked up on an article I wrote for theresurgence.com called "Should Evangelical Churches Do Social Ministry" and have been debating it. Their debate on it is here.

This is very important to our church's understanding of our mission to our city, and your insight is welcomed, whether here or on their site.

Method to the Madness and Valentine's Day

For those of you that may be interested, we've put together a growing resource page that discusses the philosophy behind different ministries here at the Summit. You'll find links to articles and blogs we've written. It is here.

Here's how my day is going: (Have I told you I love living in a house with 4 girls? A friend of mine told me that having boys makes you a father, but having little girls makes you a DADDY.)

Should Evangelical Churches Be Involved in Community Ministry and if so, WHY?

Our church is committed to physically blessing whatever area we are trying to plant churches in. By that I mean not only do we want to see churches planted, we want to see the improvement of local education, health, and politics, and standards of living, and see the decrease of crime and poverty. We engage in projects to those ends. We don't do this as a bait and switch, as if it's just a gimmick to get people to trust Jesus. Part of the Gospel is loving our neighbor whether or not they ever trust Jesus. As a friend of mine says, "We don't serve to convert, we serve because we are converted."

Thankfully, a lot of evangelical churches today are re-embracing the need to love their world soul AND body. However, they don't always seem to agree on the reason behind why we do it. Some have never put much thought to it. There seems to be a theological haze around evangelical community ministry.

Let me sketch out for you a few of the different reasons I've encountered for why churches serve (or don't serve) the physical needs of their community. (I will leave the names associated with these reasons out in case I am misrepresenting them, but I have found popular evangelical spokesmen who advocated each of these positions)...

1. Some say we do community ministry because we are extending the Kingdom of God on earth: Some people believe that Jesus left us to build His kingdom on earth. We are not simply to be evangelizing the earth, as if we're simply trying to load up the Ark before God destroys the world again. These people embrace a worldview of creation/fall/redemption/restoration. The whole point of God's work is not simply to rescue people out of the earth, but to actually restore the earth to its glorified state. They point out that in the final chapter of Revelation what you have is not a group of Christians being evacuated off of earth into heaven, but a city coming DOWN from heaven to earth. Jesus' miracles, they note, were not (as commonly supposed) a suspension of the natural order, but a return to the natural order. They showed the earth the way it was supposed to be, the way it will be in the Kingdom. Jesus' resurrection, in like manner, was just the "firstfruits" of the resurrection of the whole world. We are to take the power of this resurrection to all spheres of the world. Martin Luther exemplified this when he answered the question, "What would you do if you knew Jesus were coming back tomorrow?" with, "Plant a tree. Imagine what that tree will look like in Jesus' glorified reign." For these people, community restoration is not simply a means for evangelism; rather, evangelism is the means to community restoration, because "community restoration" is the ultimate point of the church's work on earth! I've heard community restoration and evangelism described as two wings of the same plane, with community restoration being the "more important" wing!

When confronted with the question, "But doesn't the Bible say in 2 Peter 3 that the earth will be burned up?," these people point out that what Peter actually says (when you consider the Greek translation) is that the world be "purified" through fire and that the heavens and earth will "pass away." When the earth is purified by fire, the dross of corruption and sin will be burned away but the gold of God's Kingdom will remain. Just as one day my physical body will "pass away" and my spirit will still remain, so the dead outer body of the earth will dissolve and only the Kingdom (which we have been building on earth) will remain. Jesus will simply finish what we have started.

2. Some say we do community ministry simply because we love our neighbor. Some other Christians disagree with the above, but are still involved in community ministry. They say that we are not called to build the kingdom physically on earth, other than to call people to surrender to the Lordship of King Jesus. Jesus will build the Kingdom Himself, our role in the Kingdom is to call people to King Jesus. Ours is not primarily the ministry of restoration, but the ministry of reconciliation. They point out that the city that we see in the final chapter of Revelation DESCENDS from heaven, not rises up from the earth as Christians build it. In other words, we don't build the Kingdom so Jesus can return to it. He builds it and brings it down to us.

These people are still involved in serving their neighbor, however, as they note that we cannot love our neighbors and see them cold and underfed and not meet their physical needs. Love is the most significant change the Gospel makes in our hearts, and to love people means that we can't sit by when they are in hungry. "We don't serve to convert, we serve because we are converted."

It's just that they would not see the restoration of society as the endgame of OUR (the church's) work on earth, they would see the redemption of people as the church's work. Evangelism is our PRIMARY task, not community restoration.

3. Some say social ministry is not the domain of the church; the church should only be concerned with preaching the Gospel. Other Christians go a step farther and say that preaching is the one, primary work of the church and that other good pursuits (like social justice) should not take the church away from her one task, the preaching of the Gospel. These people believe that preaching the Gospel IS the greatest act of community service they can do.

They would see themselves kind of like an EMT in an emergency. If there were an earthquake that left a lot of people dying, the most loving thing the EMT could do is not be distracted by cleaning up all the mess and do the one thing that only he can do, and that is perform emergency procedures that save lives.

They point out that in Acts you don't see the Apostles running soup kitchens, you see them preaching. When they are presented with a social need like the hunger of the widows (Acts 6), they challenge other Christians to take up this task so that they will not be distracted from preaching. They point out that when Jesus was asked to get involved in social justice issues, he declined and preached instead: when he was asked to end world hunger in John 6 he declined and preached instead to the people about Himself as the bread of life; when he was asked to solve the property dispute of one person who had been cheated out of their property, He said that this was not His business and preached to the crowd instead about the sin of greed.

These people believe that individual Christians (or groups of Christians, as in charitable foundations, philanthropy groups, parachurch ministries, etc) can and should engage in community ministry issues, just not the local church body herself. The focus of the organized church should be preaching. However, if the church perceives that she can preach the Gospel better by engaging in community ministry, she should do that. But preaching is the endgame.

4. Some say community ministry is done as a "sign" of the Gospel, and a necessary part of preaching the Gospel. OK, I'll admit, this is my position (which is why I left it till last.) We believe that community ministry is more than just love of our neighbor, it is a sign of the Kingdom that Jesus inaugurated. In the same way that Jesus' miraculous signs gave physical pictures of what His kingdom was like (a Kingdom without blindness or sickness), community ministry also shows what the kingdom is really like: a kingdom of justice, progress, equity, health, and sacrificial love. Unlike the "build the Kingdom" people, however, we don't believe that we are actually building the Kingdom on earth. Jesus alone can do that. As pointed out above, the glorified, restored city comes down from above and the heavenly Garden is planted by God Himself.

What we are doing is giving signs, the way that Jesus did. Signs, whether done by Jesus or by us, are only temporary. The blind eyes that Jesus healed went blind again--they weren't Kingdom eyes, because Kingdom eyes will never decay. The dead people Jesus raised died again. He was only giving a temporary picture of what the Kingdom was like. Some theologians assert that had Israel accepted Jesus as the Messiah He would have inaugurated the Kingdom, in which case the healings He gave would have become permanent and the actual institution of the Kingdom. Regardless, Jesus is now in heaven and we await His return. He alone can bring resurrection to the earth. Just like his signs and miracles, our "restoration" is only temporary and only a sign of the future restoration. The bodies we heal will deteriorate again; the neighborhoods we rebuild will turn back into ghettos once again. Every single "renewal" that God did in the Bible, Old or New Testament, eventually deteriorated back into chaos, with the exception of the resurrection of Christ Himself and our souls resurrected in Him. We are not building the Kingdom for Jesus; we are giving signs of that Kingdom, just like He did.

To those that think we are actually building the Kingdom now, I would urge the consideration of a little historical context: this was the failed experiment of zealous Christians in the 17th and 20th centuries. In fact, much of the "America is God's chosen nation" heresy in the church today came out of the mentality that some Christians had at the birth of our nation. They thought they were building the perfect Kingdom government which Jesus would come back to. Those that are trying to build Kingdom businesses and Kingdom governments should be wary of trying to actually build the Kingdom without the King.

What we, the church, are here to do, primarily, is to preach the Gospel of His Kingdom and compel others to surrender to the King Jesus. Ours is the ministry of reconciliation to the King, not restoration of the Kingdom. HOWEVER, just as Jesus, as part of His preaching, gave signs of the Kingdom, so we are to perform signs in our communities. We are to heal the sick, feed the hungry and clothe the poor, sometimes by natural means and sometimes supernatural. We are to constantly testify that this is what the Kingdom is like and compel people to come to Jesus the Kingom. Our kindness is neither random nor senseless. It signifies the Kingdom. We are to (in the words of N.T. Wright who, so far as I know, does not agree with my position) "sketch out with pencil what Jesus will one day paint over in indelible ink."

We want our cities to be like Samaria in Acts 8, who "rejoiced" because of the preaching and healing ministry of Philip. We want our communities to be like Tabitha's community in Acts 9 who wept at her death because of all the kind deeds she had done in their midst. We believe that the beauty of Jesus' kingdom is so compelling that our community will look at us and say, "Wow. We don't believe what they believe, but thank God they're here!" 

Also, do not overlook that the local Church itself is the greatest earthly sign of the Kingdom. The Church is to be an inexplicable new community of unity and love--Jesus said in John 17 that the world would know Jesus' Messiahship by the love of His disciples for one another.

I guess my position is kind of a hybrid of the first 3. We serve people because we love them, and because we know that in order to preach the Gospel effectively to them we need to give them signs of the Kingdom we preach. 

This is a work in progress for me, so I'm open to your thoughts.