Paul set the standard in Romans 1:14-16:

14 I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15 That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. 16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.   NIV

At some time a church planter will have to deal with the subject of targets. Who am I going to try to reach? Sometimes missions and missionaries spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to determine the proper target, but a serious church planter will have to include this in his thinking. At one time our mission organization became very preoccupied with targets. In meeting after meeting, in large and small groups, this was the topic of discussion. It dawned on me one day that we could spend hours talking about who we should target and leave the meeting, walking past multitudes of people without thinking seriously about their lost condition. Not knowing which target to shoot for is not our problem. Sometimes our problem is being motivated enough to aim for the obvious nearby targets—those within our sight, our voice, our touch, who are still untouched with the Gospel because we have been so preoccupied with discussing who to target.

Some say to go after the rich so they can provide support for future work. This line of thinking includes financial support as well as leadership. I have not personally met any missionary who thinks like this who is effective in any kind of church planting. Part of the fallacy is the idea that if the rich are reached, they will have a great influence on society at their level and downward. Seldom will the rich be able or willing to reach the poor people. Another fallacy is the idea that the rich will be more effective in changing history. Great movements in history—revolutions which have made a difference—did not come from a movement among the rich. If we want to change society and the course of history, we must be aware of that sector of society which has within it the greatest capacity to think and effect revolution. The rich and elite are not the ones; they have it made and would rather things not change. They do not want their status and security threatened. They like history; it has dealt them a good life. These people also tend to be fixed in their way, their web of friends and lifestyle. Arrogance and pride are common to this class. They have the answers and do not need help. These are the reasons they are so closed to the Gospel. Does this mean that we are never to target them in church planting? No, we should never ignore them; but we must realize that human nature has not changed from the days of Christ. Unless our motivation goes beyond reaching them for what they can do for us, we will be void of the Spirit of Christ who is the secret of our success. They need to be reached because they are lost and God loves them.

What about targeting the very poor in church planting? As is true with targeting only the rich, we must be aware of the leadership of the Holy Spirit and go where He directs. To target the very poor and forget and ignore the middle and upper classes may be just as calloused as targeting only the rich.

Some people feel more at ease working with poorer people and are therefore more effective with them. God may lead a person to concentrate his work among poorer people, but no one with Christ in him can be blind to the spiritual poverty of any sector of a Christless society.

Which socio-economic group will have the greatest potential of changing history? The poorest of society are not the ones. Often the poor are too deep in a fatalistic rut to dream dreams. They are not able to see the prospects of revolutions which will change history. They see themselves as lacking education and opportunities. They tend to give up, just living out life as they find it. Discipline is not usually a strong characteristic of the very poor. Disciplined people change history. This does not mean we should ignore the slums and squatters. If they are not born again, they are doomed just as anyone else without Christ.

Who has the greatest potential for changing the course of history? What class of people are most apt to make a difference in a nation? It is the lower-middle and middle class. These tend to dream dreams of what they can become and do. These, not being rich, have little to lose and much to gain. They live at a level of flux. They are out of the cellar of poverty, yet do not feel they have all the answers or all out of life that they want. Generally, it is this sector which is most responsive to the Gospel. They have not only the capacity to be visionaries, they have the necessary discipline to pursue dreams.

Many church planters tend to spend more time with this level of society, just as Jesus and His disciples did. This is the level I have found best to concentrate on, without eliminating the other levels as potential targets for church planting. I feel very comfortable having a church planting Bible study with the rich on one night, the middle class on another night, and slum dwellers on another night, hoping to plant churches among each.

Some people are able to reach one level of society more effectively than others. It is difficult to imagine Christ deciding that He will concentrate on only one level of society and ignore the others. The Lord may lead one person to concentrate on the rich and someone else to concentrate on the poor, but neither can forget nor ignore the masses in various levels of society. I believe it is best to move at the leading of the Holy Spirit, without predetermined boundaries.

Submitted by Charles Brock

1. Learning the heart language of the people helps the church planter learn the culture so that his communication of the gospel “fits” the culture. While the gospel does not change and is relevant for every culture, church planters unconsciously bring the baggage of their home culture to the field with them. When they go into the new culture, they present a gospel message and a resulting church that “fits” their home culture but does not “fit” the new culture. The patience and time that language learning requires also equip the church planter with cultural understanding, since language and culture are tightly woven together. The church planter who learns the host language learns the culture as well and is able to strip the gospel of his home additions so that he presents the Bible message wrapped in the culture and language of the people. Language breaks down cultural barriers and builds cultural bridges by which the gospel can travel to the hearts of the people. 
2. Learning the heart language of the people connects the church planter to the culture so that the people respect him. When the people of the new culture see a person who does not take the time to learn their culture, they do not respect him. Most cultures are relational, while American culture is vocational. In other words, Americans care about “what you do,” while many cultures care about “who you are.” Relational cultures stress the importance of getting to know people as people and relating to them; this cannot
3. Learning the heart language of the people demonstrates love for the people. Not only does language acquisition earn respect; it also shows love for the people. When I returned from furlough to Zimbabwe, the nationals asked me to teach preaching to the young men in the association. I asked why, and they responded, “We know you love us, because you learned our language, and you came back.” Nationals know if the church planter loves them; they see it in his actions, and they hear it in his speech. If the work with the nationals is just a job, they’ll know.
4. Learning the heart language of the people preserves the integrity of the gospel. The Africans have a proverb, “Every translator is a traitor.” While this may or may not be true, the church planter who depends on a translator will never know if he is communicating the gospel he wants to proclaim. Only as the church planter learns the heart language will he be able to encase the most important message in the world—God’s gospel—in words that his hearers will understand.

Paul makes multiple references of financial gifts that he received from churches he planted. Philippians 4 is one such reference. The church gave without it being a requirement, but it obviously was something they understood to be consistent with their brotherly cooperation for the advancement of the gospel. In verse 15 he says that in the early days of his preaching the gospel no church except theirs helped him financially.    

By implication it can be assumed that at the time he wrote this letter others were helping. He also directly connects the gift to the gospel.  Acts 18 says that Paul worked at making tents until Silas and Timothy arrived. Did Paul cease making tents because the others took up the tent making, or was it because they brought financial support? They had come from the new Macedonian church plant.  

Paul apparently taught new believers about their responsibility for themselves at the same time that they received assistance from the outside. Philippians 4:15 makes specific reference to the Philippian church being the only one helping him when he was in Macedonia. This assistance did not retard the commitment of giving by the church, but evidently served as an example. Later Paul used the poor Macedonian believers as an example for the Corinthians.  

The only references that we have of financial assistance related to the church in Jerusalem speaks of the church there as being the recipient. Probably that was not always the case. They sent Barnabas and others to the new work in Antioch. It is reasonable to expect that they helped with financial support for the ones they themselves sent out.  

What seems to emerge is a picture of support of the ministries in terms of the ministers and their support being an informal cooperation. That is, the sender did not pay all the bills of the missionary that they sent out. Paul reminded Timothy of this fact in I Timothy 5:18. Not to muzzle the ox as he threshes the grain—that is as he works—is applicable to the minister in his field of service.  

Beginning in Antioch the new churches accepted responsibility for themselves, but also considered themselves responsible for aiding in a material way those who had aided them in a spiritual way (Acts 11:27-30). In addition Paul wrote to the Roman believers saying, “For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual benefits, then they are obligated to minister to Jews in material needs.” (Romans 15:25-27) It is not difficult to imagine that what Paul alludes to in his letters must have had at least some emphasis in his personal teaching in the churches.  

The examples cited would indicate that the churches both heard and heeded Paul’s teaching.  

It would seem reasonable to conclude that the New Testament example suggests that does not require that no funding come from external sources for the support of ministers who are sent. It does seem to require the recipients of that service participate in that support. IT IS PRECISELY THIS ELEMENT THAT HAS BEEN MISSING in the way many mission agencies have worked in recent years. On the other hand some have tended to expect their missionaries to receive a major portion of their support from their partners in the field of service.  

Paul did not stay long in Philippi, or in other Macedonian cities. However, there was time enough for them to understand the need to cooperate financially in his ministry.  

• Sending churches and receiving emerging churches should share financial responsibility for the missionary.
• The primary responsibility is always for local people to accept the ownership of the local new work from the beginning. The original vision should include leading the new church to quickly participate in the extension of the gospel to others.
• Helping fellow believers in times of crisis in other locations – even in the “Mother Church”– is an indicator of maturing believers.           

Application of Principles:

1. A new group of believers should quickly learn tithing and giving of offerings and should begin to assume the financial support of the church planter as well as the other expenses of the church. (Much more needs to be understood about preparing for the permanent pastor if the planter moves on to plant other churches.)
2. Missionaries working with established conventions (or unions or other national designations) should have their support at least partially paid by the Baptist partner, who should also participate in the invitation for the specific missionary who serves them.  At a minimum there should be assistance with ministry expenses.  
3. The mature indigenous church should understand the need for direct and indirect cooperative efforts of extending the gospel to all peoples. That is, the church should directly multiply itself through extension multiplication, but it should also help cooperatively through organized mission efforts such as a cooperative program. 

Rugged log cabin house church individualism is not to be found in the New Testament. Nowhere do we see an understanding that every believer should launch out alone to start a new church as a part of his obedience based discipleship. That is both extra-biblical and anti-biblical.  

The New Testament examples are based on teams working together and on networks that continue to lend support over time and extensive geography. The concept of missionary disengaging is often attributed to Paul`s expression in Romans 15:23, that “there is no further place for me in these regions.”  However, that ignores the fact that Paul`s attention remained on those regions up to the time of his death. Soon after this statement was written Paul began his period of imprisonment. He continued to focus on proclaiming the gospel to the unreached. He also completed the transformation of his ministry to that of a team coordinator, moving his team about from place to place as he focused more on the need for helping churches to mature.   

 Paul`s connection and cooperation with other Christian leaders is clearly seen:  

Paul accepted accountability. He returned to Antioch to report on his work. He also accepted guidance, and sought guidance from the counsel in Jerusalem.

Paul held others accountable. In Jerusalem he called on the leaders to deal with the Judaizers. There are a number of examples in his epistles to his holding team members and churches accountable.

A healthy indigenous church will be connected and accountable, as well as demanding accountability of leaders and other churches.  We are laborers together with God. (I Corinthians 3:9)