Learning to plant churches for the 21st century

In Sheffield in September 2007, a new training programme began called Porterbrook Training, part of the Porterbrook Network. Michael Jensen interviews its director, Steve Timmis, for EN, to find out what it is all about.

MJ: Before we talk about Porterbrook Training specifically, can you tell us how the Porterbrook Network came into being?

ST: The Porterbrook Network happened because of a dual conviction: we need new missional churches planted and existing churches to become more missional. The Porterbrook Network focuses on both those through a ‘family’ of ministries:

* Porterbrook Training is a one-day-a-week course for people in ministry situations, from apprenticeship schemes to being part of a church planting team (currently in its first year).

* Northern Training Institute (NTI) is a three-year graduate level programme for those in church leadership, which enables them to stay in their ministry context (currently in its third year).

* The Distance Learning programme, which uses the material from the one-day a week course and runs intensive sessions throughout the year for those in full-time paid employment (due to start in September).

* The Consultancy service offers advice and direction to churches and leaders who see the value of outside input from people with appropriate experience and training.

MJ: If finances were no object, and you knew that your students were going to return to missionally more difficult areas, wouldn't you prefer to send students to a full-time course of study?

ST: That’s a very interesting question, Michael, and the simple answer is ‘No’! We’re not set up in competition to full-time courses, but we do offer a viable alternative, and not simply in terms of a cost benefit. Everything we do is geared at helping practitioners reflect theologically on their ministry, and for their ministry to inform how they do theology. Because all of them are working at the coalface, they are constantly coming up against a range of issues, questions, problems and opportunities. That ministry context is part of the way God shapes and refines them, which, in turn, impacts on how they study the Bible, and vice-versa. It really is a dynamic, refreshing and fruitful context.

Missionary God

MJ: In your book Total Church you write: ‘Authentic theology must be shaped by what we might call a missionary hermeneutic. Theology divorced from this context is essentially barren, self-referential and indulgent’. Would you be able to flesh this out a little?

ST: I think it does change the content of theology if that theology is ‘barren, self-referential and indulgent’. To understand God as a ‘missionary God’ is hugely important and defining. It shapes our understanding of the Trinity, our Christology, our ecclesiology, and even our eschatology. So God’s commitment to rescue sinners is not simply something he does; it reveals the God that he is. The cross is the clearest revelation of his character and, in that event, he acts in love to save sinners for his own glory. In that act he is acting consistently with his own nature, which is one of love and justice. That is why the Church, which this missionary God calls into being, is, by her very nature, a missionary church. Recognising that has huge implications for both our identity and our practice.

MJ: Doesn't a full-time course of study protect theological training from becoming merely pragmatic or result driven? How do you help students to take the business of study seriously, not only in terms of time but in terms of the value they see in their study?

ST: I’m not sure about the first part of the question, because it seems to assume that theological training out of a full-time context will inevitably be pragmatic or result driven. Theology taught and learned in the context of life and ministry helps protect against the twin perils you highlight because your context earths you and shapes your expectations. People in whatever ministry context need to value theological study for their own godliness and the development of their ministry. By training them in situ, they not only learn the value and importance of it, but also hopefully learn the discipline of maintaining it.

But you have highlighted an important point. Of course, there is a danger in doing training in situ, if that training is limited or defined by the context. So, if the church context in which you are operating is, for example, numbers driven, then inevitably that will colour the way you approach study. You will want to learn whatever you need to learn to fill the building. The end result will be pragmatism rather than principle. But if you have a missional context, the problem isn’t there, because you are grounding the study in its right object.

It is also important to have a view to equipping people for ministry generally and not simply for the immediate situation. We want Porterbrook Training to be a blessing and of use in a wide range of ministry situations, and so the training people go through does not just focus in on one kind of context. Each term we have a theme day with an invited practitioner from a different part of the world and different ministry situation.

Sheffield and New York

MJ: You have an ongoing partnership with Tim Keller and Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York. Could you tell us a little about that, especially given that Redeemer seems to be a very different way of doing church from The Crowded House in Sheffield? Does the PT model adapt well internationally?

ST: Redeemer has been very helpful and Tim is on our Council of Reference. They’ve made a number of resources available for our use, and Al Barth, their Europe and Africa Co-ordinator, has taken one of our theme days. We also have active partnerships in Dallas, San Diego and Tacoma in the US and Perth in Western Australia, where the curriculum is about to be run.

You’re right about Redeemer and The Crowded House doing church differently but we do share a number of values and a common commitment to reaching cities through church planting. I also think it is a compelling illustration of our commitment to equipping people for a range of contexts. To a significant extent, the shape of a church is going to be determined by the environment it is in. There can be no ‘one size fits all’ approach. Church planting is a gospel initiative rather than an opportunity to do church in a way that suits me.

What a variety?

MJ: So Porterbrook Training is supporting pastors and church workers in a variety of church situations Ð in both denominational and independent settings. What have you observed about the different ways in which the training has been applied? And tell us about the range of students you have doing Porterbrook at the moment.

ST: At the moment we have pastors, members of church planting teams, those responsible for the development of small missional teams in a large church, elders, trainee elders, apprentices, a missionary on furlough and student workers. We even have students who connect to the lectures via Skype because it is too far for them to travel to Sheffield every week. We have people in urban, suburban and rural settings. Some of the people are in supported gospel ministry and others are self-funded. These contexts shape the way the training is used, and we actively help the students think through the applications specific to their context. For example, as a direct result of this course, one church has begun to radically re-think its strategy for church planting, and, rather than going for a standard approach of sending 40 or so people with a pastor to start in another part of town, is now thinking through how to set up a number of missional communities in different areas in and around the building. Also, two other students are beginning the process of planting a network of churches in a largely unreached area.

MJ: How do the results of your training model compare to what comes out of traditional seminaries and colleges? Do your students lose anything academically?

ST: I think that question needs to be asked of the people who have gone through this alternative model of training, and the people who those people work with! I am persuaded that the students who are coming to the end of their NTI course are as equipped for supported gospel ministry as anyone coming out of a more traditional training context. Our students are not taught Hebrew and Greek, but I know very few ministers who were taught it at theological college who actually retain any meaningful level of proficiency once they get onto ‘the field’. What we do is encourage and equip students to use the wealth of original language resources at our disposal. So, do they lose anything? Not only do I not think they lose out, I happen to think they gain a huge amount. But in the end, Michael, the test will be whether or not the Porterbrook Network results in sustainable churches being planted in the UK and around the world. The early signs are that it will, and my prayer is that those new plants are the promise of a full harvest.

Learning to plant churches for the 21st century

Missionary God

Sheffield and New York

What a variety?

For further details, visit http://www.theporterbrooknetwork.org.

Main Articles

Other articles