Current research shows that the church in the United States is in overall decline. The most recent FACT survey noted a shift in church attendees from smaller, traditional churches (characterized as 100 people or fewer) to large churches (250 people or more) (Burdick, 2018; Chaves, Roso, & Holleman, 2021; Thumma, 2021). Multisite congregations were on the rise, with 11% of church attendees participating in a multisite church (Chaves et al., 2021). More than 60% of church attendees were choosing larger congregations (Thumma, 2021). But even megachurches were declining in attendance overall (Burdick, 2018). Large churches spent the most money on staff and programs but experienced the lowest levels of member commitment, including lower giving percentages, lower volunteer engagement, and more conflict (Thumma, 2021).
Characteristics of the Church as a Movement
Ecclesiology informs the ways the church leaders understand and respond to a state of decline (Cooper, 2020; Herzog, King, Khader, Strohmeier, & Williams, 2020). Some scholars have made the case that God intended the church to be primarily a mission-focused movement, not an institution (Cooper, 2020; Dreyer, 2020; Niemandt, 2019). Church movements throughout history provide insight into movement structures that have proved effective (Addison, 2019).
Adaptability
As with other kinds of organizations, the church is experiencing continuous change (Pakpahan, Nugroho, Benyamin, Pantan, & Wiryohadi, 2022). But a strong ecclesiology can take on flexible, adaptive forms that leave room for people to follow the leading of the Spirit while still holding a sound theological grounding (Male & Weston, 2019). Church movements require adaptability (Handley, 2022). Because the church is a living organization, leaders can flex and adjust the way ministry occurs (Pakpahan et al., 2022).
Jesus was adaptive in the way He taught and discipled (Pakpahan et al., 2022). The incarnation itself can be considered an adaptation that God made to reach mankind (Pakpahan et al., 2022). The Bible depicts innovation as an act of worship and part of Paul’s work in leadership (Covarrubias, Dunaetz, & Dykes McGehee, 2021).
Innovation is characteristic of adaptability, and church innovation can be understood as introducing new processes, products, or ideas into the church community (Dunaetz, 2021). Innovativeness manifests in a culture that supports ideation and generative emergence (Covarrubias et al., 2021; Dunaetz, 2021; Fisk & Hammond, 2021). To be innovative, churches must be creative, open to adaptation, future oriented, risk taking, and proactive (Covarrubias et al., 2021; Dunaetz, 2021; Hirsch & Catchim, 2012). Church leaders need to embrace the reality that significant change will persist, and these changes require innovations in goals, structures, and processes (Fisk & Hammond, 2021). Church innovation should focus on helping the church fulfill its God-given mission to bear witness to Jesus and restore the kingdom of God (Dunaetz, 2021; Lee & Dreyer, 2018).
Rapid Expansion
The movement orientation of the early church enabled natural, organic growth that became exponential, with adherents rapidly multiplying from 120 people to 14,000 (Cooper, 2022; Pillay & Greyling, 2018). The early church’s leadership structure accommodated rapid expansion (Cooper, 2022). The nascent church in Ephesus exemplified this structure, which Allen (1962) describes as operating in a threefold approach of self-propagating, self-governing, and self-supporting (Cooper, 2020).
The growth of early Methodism exemplified a kind of structure that led to rapid movement expansion (Hatch, 1989; Snyder, 2018). Dynamic in nature, early Methodists emphasized a theology and practice of embodied discipleship that engaged new believers immediately in the next steps of discipleship and mission upon conversion (Snyder, 2018). In another case, the early Korean church spontaneously grew rapidly by applying the principles of self-propagation, self-governance, and self-support (Lee & Dreyer, 2018).
Church multiplication currently happening in the “Global South” and “Global East” is reminiscent of what occurred in the early church in Ephesus (Cooper, 2020). Few missionaries outside the United States are planting churches in the traditional ways that continue to develop domestically (Burdick, 2018). Fewer new church buildings are being built in other countries (Burdick, 2018). The forms many global churches embrace are more similar to those of the early church, which grew rapidly through non-hierarchical structures, meeting in homes and public spaces, focusing on relationships, worship, and caring for tangible needs (Burdick, 2018). The cultural influence of grassroots life transformation has the potential to be far more substantial than the creation of more churches in such a climate (Burdick, 2018).
Collective Leadership
Leadership in the early church was characterized by what scholars now describe as a form of collective leadership (Fairhurst, Jackson, Foldy, & Ospina, 2020). This shared leadership approach helped the church to function as a movement (Cooper, 2020). Peter and Paul were key church planting figures in Acts, but many other people contributed leadership as well (Sorrows, 2020). Paul’s letters demonstrate collective leadership as he listed numerous “coworkers,” referring to them as beloved friends and partners (Cooper, 2020).
Rather than exerting his authority on followers, Paul led by equipping other leaders and motivating them to stay on mission (Cooper, 2020). He shied away from centering the movement around himself (Cooper, 2020). Some charismatic leaders at the time drew people away into heretic cults, but Paul did not function as a charismatic leader with a gravitational pull around himself (Cooper, 2020). Leadership roles in the early church were characterized by their functions, not hierarchical roles, although more positions of leadership emerged over time (Cooper, 2022; Hirsch & Catchim, 2012; Pillay & Greyling, 2018). When hierarchy is absent, more leaders are able to fully engage in the mission of the church (Cooper, 2020).
Vocational pastors cannot solely address all the responsibilities required for congregations to flourish in a complex world, but traditional American church structures do not generally facilitate an environment of collective leadership (Ellis, 2017; Hirsch & Catchim, 2012). The church in America is often too concerned with a specific church structure indigenous to Western culture that is not conducive to growth (Burdick, 2018; Sorrows, 2020). This strategy keeps churches in a state of institutional preservation rather than movement expansion (Burdick, 2018).
Open Social Networks
Religious movements are most prolific when they operate as open social networks that continually connect new people who can engage and multiply as part of the movement (Farah, 2020). The early church functioned in this kind of open system, engaging people in all spheres of life, not merely through weekly services (Pillay & Greyling, 2018; Snyder, 2018). In His leadership, Jesus demonstrated that disciple-making happens in everyday life, not solely within the walls of a building (Beukes, 2020).
Rather than an institution, the church could be missional, relevant, and contextual (Beukes, 2020). God is not limited to working only within the confines of the established, institutional church (Farah, 2020). The church’s focus does not need to be centered around the Saturday or Sunday morning service as the main event, because following Jesus together in daily community is more transformative than dependence on a weekly gathering (Anderson, 2021; Cooper, 2022).
Beukes (2020) noted that the Great Commission must be accomplished in the places where people spend the majority of their time, so homes should be an integral part of the church’s mission. Homes were significant gathering places for the early church, functioning as networks of patron-client relationships (Cooper, 2020). The head of household led the family’s business and religious practices, which indicates why managing one’s household well was a requirement for leadership in 1 Timothy (Cooper, 2020). Homes provided a network that readily accommodated a rapidly expanding social network movement (Cooper, 2020).
Niemandt (2019) explores the importance of developing a theology of place in mission, drawing on incarnation, contextualization, and inculturation. God created all places and created humans to inhabit specific places (Niemandt, 2019). Life is lived in context, and God created people as stewards of the places in which they are rooted (Niemandt, 2019). People represent the faithful presence of God in the world, making the kingdom of God visible (Niemandt, 2019).
Churches are the Gospel incarnate, bringing restoration to the places in which they are rooted (Niemandt, 2019). The church is entrusted with specific places in which its people live, work, and play (Niemandt, 2019). Whether growing or declining, the church is called to share the Gospel in every present moment (Colberg, 2018). To fulfill this mission, the church must be an incarnate presence in specific times and places in this world, addressing tangible needs (Colberg, 2018). If the church is disconnected from the world, it cannot be a proactive source of hope and transformation (Colberg, 2018).
Perspectives of the Church as a Movement
Various perspectives exist regarding the nature of the church as a movement. These perspectives are not mutually exclusive but represent different emphases, including life cycles, remnants, and rhythms.
Life Cycles
Some missiologists draw on organizational life cycle models to describe the anticipated trajectory of church movements (Addison, 2019; Cooper, 2020; Hirsch & Catchim, 2012). The maturation process of a movement’s life cycle is what will determine its trajectory of either multiplication or addition (Cooper, 2020). Bureaucratization leads to an institution, but the exponential growth model leads to a movement (Cooper, 2020).
Remnants
Throughout history, remnants have brought about new movements and renewed old ones (Rommen, 2021). A spiritual remnant’s primary work is not to break apart and start something new but to preserve the truth of Scripture and the true nature of the church God designed (Rommen, 2021). Remembering the past is an important part of remnant making (Rommen, 2021). Remnant movements are characterized by community, holistic engagement, and repentance (Rommen, 2021).
Many religious movements began as remnant groups that invigorated the church (Rommen, 2021). The Moravians, the Evangelical Free Church of America, and the Covenant Church all broke apart from the Lutheran Church in this way (Rommen, 2021). Methodist class meetings were another example of a remnant movement, in that case emerging from the Anglican church (Rommen, 2021). Similarly, the goal of the Restoration Movement was to recreate the ethos of the early church (Pillay & Greyling, 2018). Many movements that are stalled and declining today were once remnant groups that broke apart and revitalized the church (Rommen, 2021). Churches can learn from the ways past movements preserved truth and instigated renewal to better understand how to do so again today (Rommen, 2021). Some current church movements appear to be accomplishing this ethos organically as culture shifts into postmodernism (Pillay & Greyling, 2018).
Rhythms
According to Cooper (2020), thriving movements involve a rhythm rather than a life cycle. The cadence of this rhythm is growth, solidification, and expansion. Movements persist by exercising this rhythm to multiply churches that are self-governing, self-propagating, and self-funding (Allen, 1962; Cooper, 2020). Hirsch and Catchim (2012) add self-generating to this list. Cooper notes that for rhythms to persist, movement leaders must trust that the Holy Spirit is at work in followers, not just in leaders, and that everyone contributes to carrying on the rhythmic practices of movement.
Frameworks for the Church’s Mission
A single definition of the church’s mission is elusive (Farah, 2020). Some scholars hold a narrow view of the church’s mission that focuses on evangelism, preaching, and discipleship, excluding creation care, community transformation, and social concerns (Farah, 2020). Others emphasize integrative and indicative mission—real-world redemptive practices that preview the final redemption God will bring through Christ (Farah, 2020).
Ecclesiology and missiology have much to learn from one another but are often studied separately (Colberg, 2018). Ecclesiology is not a subset of Christianity but rather an integral part of it on all levels (Colberg, 2018). The church is a mystery, and ecclesiology is designed not to fully dissect it but to better understand and express it (Colberg, 2018). Key models present in church missiology literature include ecclesiocentric mission, modality and sodality, missional ecclesiology, and movemental ecclesiology.
Ecclesiocentric Mission
An institutionally-focused mission has characterized the majority church since the third century (Hastings, 1999). Though the early church was a distributed, rapidly expanding movement, by the time of Ignatius, a distinction between clergy and laity began to form (Cooper, 2020). The third century marked the shift to institutional Christianity, in which church leaders came to hold higher positions of authority over lay people (Dreyer, 2020). Over time, the formal establishment of ecclesial offices (e.g., bishop, priest, and deacon) diminished and, in many cases, eliminated the concept of the priesthood of believers from the institutional church (Dreyer, 2020).
Lee and Dreyer (2018) coined the phrase “ecclesiocentric mission” to describe the inwardly focused institutional church that has dominated Christianity for centuries. As Christianity institutionalized, it increasingly distanced itself from the risk-taking faith of the early movement, separating from its environment and no longer manifesting as an indigenous faith (Cooper, 2020). The structures of the church found in the fourth century would have been foreign to Paul and other early church leaders (Dreyer, 2020). Separated from culture, the institutional church became the center point of salvation (Cooper, 2020). For most of history from that time forward, the church was documented and narrated by a powerful and privileged elite few (Colberg, 2018).
The priesthood of believers, with its collective leadership approach, was a key tenet in parts of the Reformation but became largely theoretical over time (Dreyer, 2020). More recently, many Korean churches, newly planted in the past century, have since come under the influence of institutional ecclesiology (Lee & Dreyer, 2018). When churches focus on growth strategies, they shift into institutional ecclesiology, which helps them to expand and preserve their assets (Lee & Dreyer, 2018). Quick adaptation requires flexible, flat structures, which traditional churches struggle to implement (Pillay, 2020). The complicated processes required in a formal institution slow down innovation and change (Pillay, 2020).
The majority of highly structured churches spent far more money on themselves than on mission (Cooper, 2020). Megachurches are often aligned with a heroic model of leadership, in which those who experience explosive growth become iconic (Sanders, 2018). These churches are typically also risk averse because if institutions are not preserved, leaders lose their jobs (Cooper, 2020). Korean society largely perceives their Western-influenced megachurches, known to be fraught with scandal and corruption, in a negative light (Lee & Dreyer, 2018). In the West, fewer people engage every year in similar kinds of large, institutional churches (Male & Weston, 2019).
Modality & Sodality
The model of modality and sodality was introduced in the early 1970s by missiologist Ralph Winter (1974). Winter introduced the thesis that, regardless of locale, Christianity as a movement consists of two structures: modality and sodality. Winter traced the roots of modality to Jewish synagogue life, in which the faithful engaged in a structured, intergenerational community regularly. This community included all Christians in a local area (Winter, 1974). Sodality was rooted in the example of Paul’s missionary band of experienced workers who took a second step of additional commitment to apostolic work with a more homogenous tribe (Winter, 1974).
Winter (1974) described modality and sodality as the two redemptive structures found in the New Testament. These structures provide patterns for the Christian movement to follow in function or through dynamic equivalence, although not necessarily in form (Winter, 1974). This model held the conviction that movement efforts are most effective if both modality and sodality are fully engaged (Winter, 1974). For example, remnant groups like the Pietist movement were a sodality that instigated renewal within the institutional church during the Reformation (Winter, 1974). An effective sodality does not conflict or clash with the modal churches that coexist alongside it (Winter, 1974).
Missional Ecclesiology
Missional ecclesiology frames the church’s purpose as fulfilling the mission of God rather than focusing on individual conversions and institutional maintenance (Lee & Dreyer, 2018). In this view, the church is a community of witnesses who hold a theocentric view of mission that emphasizes discipleship (Lee & Dreyer, 2018). Mission is part of the essential nature of the church (Colberg, 2018). The church transforms the world through its mission, and mission transforms the church (Colberg, 2018).
Missional ecclesiology, also called missio Dei, was informed by the theological understanding that the mission of the church is God’s mission flowing to and through the people of God (Lederleitner, 2021). Missio Dei ascribes to God the attribute of sending (Verster, 2022). The concept of missio Dei is that God initiated mission by sending the Son (Jesus), the Son perpetuated it by sending the Spirit, and the Triune God now sends people into the world on the mission of God (Lederleitner, 2021; Verster, 2022).
Missio Dei and incarnation are embodied through mission in particular places (Niemandt, 2019). Hirsch and Catchim (2012) described this as the missional-incarnational impulse, in which it is vital to be in the presence and proximity of the mission (Niemandt, 2019). The church enacts missio Dei by living as the body of Christ in the world and engaging in God’s redemptive mission (Farah, 2020).
According to missional ecclesiology, the church is valuable because of its mission, not its inherent worth as an institution (Colberg, 2018). Missional churches focus on Jesus, not on their own structure (Colberg, 2018). Rather, the church directs people to the mystery of Jesus (Colberg, 2018). Missional churches recognize their responsibility as a priesthood of believers to go out and engage people where they are rather than attempting to draw them into the institutional church (Dreyer, 2020; Male & Weston, 2019).
Movemental Ecclesiology
Movemental ecclesiology further refines the understanding of church mission as a movement (Farah & Hirsch, 2021). According to movemental ecclesiology, the church needs to focus more on its ability to transform communities (Farah, 2020; Farah & Hirsch, 2021). Farah (2020) similarly described the notion of movemental ecclesiology as motus Dei, a play on missio Dei emphasizing movement. Cooper (2022) builds on these concepts to explore the dynamics of adaptive ecclesiology. All three similar phrases allude to the essential nature of the church as a movement called to reach Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth simultaneously and flexibly (Cooper, 2022).
Current Church Movement Trends
The North American church has manifested in many different expressions of structure, style, culture, and ethnicity (Burdick, 2018). Dominant movement trends that extend beyond ecclesiocentric expansion include church planting movements (CPM), disciple making movements (DMM), and church network movements.
Church Planting Movements (CPM)
The terminology of church planting movements (CPM) entered the missions conversation in the 1990s, following the shift of Christianity’s growth toward the “Global South” (Farah, 2022). Garrison (1999) formally introduced the phrasing of CPMs as a way of describing church movements modeled after the New Testament church. Church planting movements are rapidly multiplying indigenous churches that have exceeded four generations of expansion (Farah, 2021). Nearly 1% of the world is currently engaged in a CPM (Farah, 2020). Church planting movements involve three stages: (a) rapid growth; (b) exponential multiplication; and (c) indigeneity (Cooper, 2020). Church planting movements are not countercultural but rather engage local culture with the Gospel (Cooper, 2020).
Missiologists frame the occurrence of a CPM as a phenomenon resulting from strategy rather than as a strategy itself (Cooper, 2020). Church planting movements are not formulaic, instead functioning as “a dynamic process of learning and evolving within the context of a movement” (Farah, 2022, p. 356). Church planting movements focus on generational growth rather than on classic church planting models like hub and mother church multiplication (Farah, 2022). Generational growth resonates with Allen’s (1962) concept of self-supporting, self-propagating, and self-governing churches (Farah, 2022).
Disciple Making Movements (DMM)
Disciple making movements (DMM) describe movements of God of various kinds (Farah, 2020). DMMs are characterized by the rapid multiplication of social networks and consist of small groups that multiply into house church networks or form collective churches (Farah, 2020). DMMs most often live on the margins of the institutional church and, like CPMs, are often described as phenomena rather than as the result of planned approaches (Farah, 2020). DMMs are more often reverse engineered, as described by looking back after occurring (Farah, 2020).
Farah (2020) makes the distinction that DMMs are not anti-institutional but anti-institutionalization. Institutions add structural value to movements but, when applied improperly, can stifle multiplication (Farah, 2020). Disciple making movements are polycentric, characterized by multiple centers of sending and receiving (Farah, 2020; Handley, 2022). The central identity points are Jesus and the Bible, not a specific denomination or source church (Farah, 2020). Disciple making movements build philosophically on Sanneh’s (2015) work on the translatability of the Gospel into every culture.
Church Network Movements
In the early 2000s, a wave of churches structured for movement arose in response to a perceived failure of megachurches to focus on mission amid their strong institutional frames (Pillay & Greyling, 2018). House churches, microchurches, and other distributed church models exemplify the kinds of less hierarchical ecclesial structures that emerged to address the challenges of institutional ecclesiology (Farah, 2021; Sanders, 2018). This stream of adaptive church models did not claim a shared nomenclature like CPMs and DMMs per se (Farah, 2021). However, these churches shared in common the goal of functioning in a networked way for movement rather than for institutional growth (Sanders, 2022; Sorrows, 2020).
McGavran’s (1955) The Bridges of God explored ways to reach people and groups through social networks of lay people in house churches. Later, McGavran adapted this work to suit a quantitative, attractional church growth model, but he later regretted this and personally preferred focusing on church multiplication rather than church growth (Farah, 2021). McGavran did not intend for Westerners to coopt his work into methods and formulas for consumeristic church growth in the way it unfolded (Farah, 2021).
Microchurches are a type of church network movement characterized by decentralization, flexibility, and contextualization (Sanders, 2022). To Sanders, a church of any size can be valid so long as the ecclesial minimum of worship, community, and mission is practiced regularly. Because micro- churches are small, they practice the ecclesial minimum in messy, flexible ways that enable them to remain both organic and dependent on the leading of God to persist (Sanders, 2022).
According to Sanders (2018), the primary work of the centralized church is to equip sent Christians to reach others. By focusing on smaller church units, or microchurches, a decentralized church can sustain a flexible structure more readily with microchurches than it could if the network involved numerous large churches (Sanders, 2022). The purposefully small size enables agility (Sanders, 2022). Sorrows (2020) described microchurches as self-sustaining, intentional gatherings of disciples that meet outside a traditional church setting to practice worship, Word, prayer, fellowship, ordinances, and evangelism.
Taking Action to Reverse Decline
The New Testament provides substantial instruction to guide church leaders but stops short of mandating some of the rituals the American church holds, such as meeting on Saturday or Sunday mornings and delivering a 40-minute message to a group of people sitting in rows. Organizations of any kind must embrace adaptability in order to navigate the constant change that is inherently a part of the global society in which they function. If a church’s current form is not leading to disciple making and flourishing, leaders can be encouraged that the Holy Spirit empowers churches in many different shape and forms. Two practices church leaders can undertake to cultivate an openness to adaptability are engaging in collective discernment and becoming a student of other church forms.
Engage in Collective Discernment
Ultimately, church leaders should follow the direction the Holy Spirit gives them through discernment (Barton, 2012). Organizational culture shapes its leaders, and pursuing discernment requires attention to the organizational culture and needed changes (Barton, 2012). Mission grows out of true transformational community, often spontaneously as leaders seek God’s will together (Barton, 2012; Wolff, 2021). Practicing spiritual discernment in a way that is open to the bigger questions of organizational culture, structure, and purpose can help leaders hear God’s will in regard to the church’s future shape. In an atmosphere of prayerful spiritual discernment, it is a good idea to ask foundational questions that support strategic planning such as, “What’s working and what’s not working?” and “What do we need to start, stop, and continue?” Leaders needs to have the posture of humility and active listening to leave space for everyone to hear from God and bring it into the conversation. Every believer has access to the Holy Spirit and thus to His wisdom (Wolff, 2021).
Become a Student of Other Church Forms
The prevailing church model in the U.S. is just one of many forms the church may take. Taking time to observe and be curious about other church structures, such as microchurches, can expand a leader’s idea of what is possible. Resources such as the Underground Network (Underground, 2022) and Exponential Next (Ferguson, 2024) are available to introduce leaders to innovative church practices they may not have had previous exposure to.
Conclusion
As the American church navigates this season of change, there is a valuable opportunity to revisit and draw inspiration from the early church’s model of growth and engagement in considering how the future church might take shape. Emphasizing decentralized structures, fostering community involvement, and encouraging personal commitment could offer pathways to revitalization. By understanding and possibly integrating these historical dynamics, contemporary church leaders can develop strategies that not only address the current decline but also reinvigorate the church’s role and relevance in the American social landscape.
Laura G. Slezak is an organizational researcher and leadership professional based in Orlando, Florida.
References
Addison, S. (2019). The rise and fall of movements: A roadmap for leaders. 100 Movements Publishing.
Allen, R. (1962). Missionary methods: St. Paul’s or ours? Eerdmans Publishing Co. Anderson, D. (2021). Digital monastic communities at Sumter Chapel, Americus, Georgia. Great Commission Research Journal, 13(2), 85–88.
Barton, R. H. (2012). Pursuing God’s will together: A discernment practice for leadership groups. InterVarsity Press.
Beukes, J. W. (2020). To be or not to be? A missional and practical theological perspective on being church without walls amidst coronavirus disease 2019: A challenge or an opportunity? HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 76(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i1.6115
Burdick, B. H. (2018). The status of the church in North America. Review & Expositor, 115(2), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034637318771354
Chaves, M., Roso, J., Holleman, A., & Hawkins, M. (2021). Congregations in 21st century America. Duke University, Department of Sociology. https://sites.duke.edu/ncsweb/files/2022/01/NCSIV_report_final.pdf
Colberg, K. (2018). Ecclesiology today and its potential to serve a missionary church. Missiology, 46(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1 177/0091829617739842 Cooper, M. (2020). Ephesiology: A study of the Ephesian movement. William Carey Publishing.
Cooper, M. (2022). Reflections on the state of church planting in the US. Evangelical Missiological Society, 2(1), 96–111.
Covarrubias, A., Dunaetz, D. R., & Dykes McGehee, W. (2021). Innovativeness and church commitment: What innovations were most important during the pandemic? Great Commission Research Journal, 13(2), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.3930788
Dreyer, W. (2020). The priesthood of believers: The forgotten legacy of the reformation. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 76(4), 1–7. https://doi. org/10.4102/ hts.v76i4.6021
Dunaetz, D. R. (2021). Innovation in churches: A theoretical framework. Great Commission Research Journal, 13(2), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3930786
Ellis, Z. (2017). Shared leadership in congregations: How to construct a holding environment to do adaptive work. Discernment: Theology and the Practice of Ministry, 3(2), 1–22.
Fairhurst, G. T., Jackson, B., Foldy, E. G., & Ospina, S. M. (2020). Studying collective leadership: The road ahead. Human Relations, 73(4), 598–614. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0018726719898736
Farah, W. (2020). Motus Dei: Disciple-making movements and the mission of God. Global Missiology, 2(17), 1–10.
Farah, W. (2021). Identifying current gaps in church planting movements research: Integrating first- and second-order perspectives. Great Commission Research Journal, 13(2), 21–36.
Farah, W. (2022). The genesis and evolution of church-planting movements missiology. Missiology, 50(4), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/00918296221097652
Farah, W., & Hirsch, A. (2021). Movemental ecclesiology: Recalibrating church for the next frontier. Arab Baptist Theological Seminary. https://abtslebanon.org/2021/04/15/ movemental-ecclesiology-recalibrating-church-for-the-next-frontier/
Ferguson, D. (2024). Introducing Ex Next. Exponential. https://exponential.org/next/
Fisk, G. M., & Hammond, M. M. (2021). Revitalization and resurrection? Confronting decline and change in religious organizations. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 18(3), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.51327/IXEV3410
Garrison, D. (1999). Church planting movements. International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. https://antiochjourney.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/cpm_booklet_standard_english.pdf
Handley, J. W., Jr. (2022). Polycentric leadership for kingdom movements (Part I). Evangelical Missions Quarterly, 54(2), 20–27.
Hastings, A. (Ed.). (1999). In A world history of Christianity (pp. 25–64). Wellington House.
Hatch, N. O. (1989). The democratization of American Christianity. Yale University Press.
Herzog, P. S., King, D. P., Khader, R. A., Strohmeier, A., & Williams, A. L. (2020). Studying religiosity and spirituality: A review of macro, micro, and meso-level approaches. Religions, 11(9), 437.
Hirsch, A., & Catchim, T. (2012). The permanent revolution. Jossey-Bass. Lederleitner, M. T. (2021). Navigating leadership challenges in a polycentric world. Transformation, 38(3), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/02653788211030304
Lee, Y., & Dreyer, W. (2018). From proto-missional to mega-church: A critique of ecclesial ‘growth’ in Korea. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 74(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v74i4.4665
Male, D., & Weston, P. (2019). What does the development of fresh expressions of church in the UK tell us about mission today? International Review of Mission, 108(2), 276–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/irom.12284
McGavran, D. A. (1955). The bridges of God: A study in the strategy of missions (CIU Library Print Collection BV2060.M27 1955a). World Dominion Press; G. Allen Fleece Library Catalog.
Niemandt, C. J. (2019). Rooted in Christ, grounded in neighbourhoods–A theology of place. Verbum et Ecclesia, 40(1), 1–10.
Pakpahan, G. K., Nugroho, F. J., Benyamin, P. I., Pantan, F., & Wiryohadi, W. (2022). Pandemic ecclesiology: Church re-actualisation during the pandemic. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 78(4), 1–8.
Pillay, J. (2020). COVID-19 shows the need to make church more flexible. Transformation, 37(4), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265378820963156
Pillay, J., & Greyling, M. (2018). Are we going back to our roots? The restoration of early church ecclesiology in the modern church today. Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae, 44(1), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.25159/2412-4265/2375
Rommen, E. (2021). Remnant and the new dark age. Religions, 12(6). https://doi.org/ 10.3390/rel12060372
Sanders, B. (2018). Underground church: A living example of the church in its most potent form. Zondervan.
Sanders, B. (2022). Microchurches (a smaller way) (Rev. ed.). Brian Sanders. Sanneh, L. (2015). Translating the message: The missionary impact on culture. Orbis Books.
Snyder, H. A. (2018). John Wesley, Irenaeus, and Christian mission: Rethinking Western Christian theology. The Asbury Journal, 73(1), 138159.
Sorrows, J. D. (2020). The Acts way: Returning to the original plan A of church planting. Great Commission Research Journal, 11(2), 152–164.
Thumma, S. (2021). Exploring the dynamics and challenges of congregational size.Theology Today, 78(3), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405736211030245
Underground. (2022). Tampa Underground. https://www.tampaunderground.com/
Verster, P. (2022). Perspectives on church and mission: The missional church and metaphors for the church. Verbum et Ecclesia, 43(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/ ve.v43i1.2379
Winter, R. D. (1974). The two structures of God’s redemptive mission. Missiology, 2(1), 121–139.
Wolff, R. (2021). Community discernment for making major group decisions. Direction, 50(1), 85–96.