foundworthy replied to your post:so after I read Church Zero I was on their website to see about how to join them and stuff because I too feel the call to church plant at some point. The problem is they don't have church that I could go learn at in Canada and so I wouldn't be able to work. So I emailed Peyton Jones asking him about something in Canada. And he said they didn't yet but suggested that I could be it. But I never emailed back because I'm not ready yet haha that was like a year ago.
Oh really? I’ll look into that. I loved his book. What did you think about his position on the five fold ministry, etc?
Okay, so, I think he makes a good case for it, in general. I mean, I've heard most of the basic premise, in bits and pieces of varying depth and size, before; and there are some similarities in implementation with the Prophet-Priest-King model, except that the PPK is generally used as a way to prepare an individual rather than a team, in my limited experience. I think there were some issues with the expectations he extrapolates from the idea. So, he starts out by explaining these five roles (apostle, prophet, shepherd, evangelist, and teacher, for those who haven't read the book - and for the record, he makes distinction between the Apostles and the role of apostles, but that's not the point right now) as areas of giftedness that God has sent the church, based on their description in scripture, and he does a very good job of defining what those roles actually are. So that's good. But he then works from the assumption that every church must have access to all five at all times, even if he assumes the apostle isn't always physically present. Which is fine, except that the scripture he uses to back up this claim are instances when people of varying gifts are sent to and then withdrawn from churches as they're needed - that is, to defend the idea that all five must be constantly present, he shows cases where they are not constantly present as positive examples. Now, his model in general, I would say, is valid and useful. I certainly wouldn't consider it to be a sweeping necessary reformation, as he seems to present it, but then I'm not the one trying to pitch the idea and I have to accept that he really wants us to see the importance of it. But the fact is that, given the evidence he presents, I am more inclined to view these gifts as something that we value and understand and allow to work when they are sent to us, and something that we willing let go of when they are sent elsewhere. Some, of course, are more stable than others - the flock always needs shepherding, but it may not always need a prophetic ministry. As stated, I like the model, and I intend to incorporate it, but as with all models, I think it's important to avoid being rigid about it. If, for a time, the church we're looking to plant must do without a certain role because God decided we didn't need it at the moment and someone else did, then what would it really benefit to demand that that space be filled immediately so we can maintain the five-position model?
tl;dr: It's good, and I'll be using it, but let's not get too committed to models.