Over the past few years, I’ve wondered if the Church is supposed to be on the offense, if we are called to blow the hinges off of Hell’s gates, then why do we plant new congregations so tepidly? Why do we prioritize the planting of churches in environments that we think will be most “receptive,” with less regard for their spiritual need? Why are we so slow to assault Satan’s strongholds, if that’s where the lost are congregated?
Is the Church to be on the offense, or the defense?

Is the Church to be on the march, or left to cower in a corner? Which posture is ascribed in Scripture?

Well, Christ’s statement to Peter in Matthew 16:18 was this:
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

The implication is that the Church is on the march, laying waste to the enemy’s doors and defenses. Satan and his army are in retreat. Christ’s kingdom advances, hemming the enemy in.

And yet, do we evangelize accordingly? Do we plant churches with this sort of confidence? Are we bold in practice and not just in theory? Candidly, having served as a church planter and interacted at length with those in this field, I don’t think so.

As happens so often, we can hear Christ’s mandate, nod our heads in agreement, and then fear sets in.

“We are on the offensive,” we think. “But we need to be strategic in our advance.”

And by “strategic,” what is meant is this: we will advance only in those situations that are so idealized as to assure our success. We plant churches not simply because of a community’s need, but because that community is deemed “viable.” And viability is often defined by terms and measurements that shame us.

Over the past few years, I’ve wondered if the Church is supposed to be on the offense, if we are called to blow the hinges off of Hell’s gates, then why do we plant new congregations so tepidly? Why do we prioritize the planting of churches in environments that we think will be most “receptive,” with less regard for their spiritual need? Why are we so slow to assault Satan’s strongholds, if that’s where the lost are congregated?

In Revelation 2 and 3, you may recall that Christ dictated letters to seven different churches. One of these churches was in a city named Pergamum. In addressing this church, Christ refers to Pergamum as the place where “Satan’s throne is.” Apparently, although Satan’s handiwork is felt the world over, there was a sense in which it was particularly manifest in Pergamum.

And yet, SOMEONE planted a church there.

Someone took the Devil by the horns, so to speak, and planted a church in the enemy’s backyard. Someone didn’t listen to objections that it would be “too hard,” or that Pergamum wasn’t ideal for God’s Word to thrive.

I wonder, would Pergamum make “the cut” for many of the church planting bodies of our day?

“Viability” is not a function of temporal means and methodologies. Rather, what is viable is this: the salvation of every man and woman that God ordains, in every place that He might send us.

Toby B. Holt is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.