January 18, 2012
9 Reasons NOT to Plant a Church in 2012
Why church planting may no longer be the best vehicle for evangelism.
Tweet
"Church planting is the most effective form of evangelism under heaven," said C.Peter Wagner. I know he said that. I was there. I was a young [and good looking] Seminary student sitting in his classroom when he said it.
It was a welcomed idea, proven scientifically more effective than trying to expand older church structures. Back then, there was little argument against it and the idea was embraced by mission societies and church denominations who played it out in their strategies all through the 90's and also during the noughties when the thinking became mainstream rather than rebellious. I was part of that movement the whole time.
But now it's 2012 and while some young, enthusiastic people are out there planting churches like its 1997, others are focusing on launching more sustainable, more holistic, more measurably transformational Kingdom solutions.
One of the biggest trends in church planting that I observed in my recent 30+ country trek is the SHIFT AWAY FROM planting churches towards NOT planting a church at all but focusing on a wider range of transforming Kingdom activities. Some church planters are delaying the worship service piece of the pioneer missional ministry for as long as possible and sometimes indefinitely.
- At our gathering in Prague, some of the key leaders of the Europe church planting movement a decade ago told us they had already moved into launching monastic type communities and less ecclesiocentric models of ministry than church planting.
- In USA, some of the most innovative new Christian communities I came across did not launch or host Sunday worship services as part of their ministry portfolio.
- In China, I met a young "church planting" couple who have started ministries in over a dozen cities but refuse to start church worship services. They told me that starting a church starts a long and arduous battle with the Chinese government that they have avoided by starting missional enterprises, Kingdom businesses and concert-like events . . . but NOT churches.
- Same in Indonesia. One group had started hundreds of communities but avoided Sunday worship services and refused to construct church buildings, which have a habit of being burned to the ground in that country. Real church happens when the conditions are right, they told me. They would rather seed a potential garden than plant a church.
WHY THE SHIFT?
There has been some disillusionment with the church planting movement, even after it has purged itself of its 80's church growth pragmatism. I have talked with many of these leaders and have added some observations myself. Here are some of the issues:
---------------------------
1. The typical church planting model, in which the solo-church planter starts a gathering that he/she invites potential members to join and commit to lacks satisfying precedent in the Scriptures where Jesus sent out people in teams (2, 12, 70) to find people of peace (them, not us) to allow Kingdom ministry in their venue (not the planter's venue). Add to that the lack of biblical support for a paid professional pastor and the awkward extension of the Temple tithing system into the present day and the whole package seems a little suspect or at least in need of some recalibrating with the New Testament.
2. The measurement criteria of the church planting project, focusing on numbers of attenders and momentum of new church launch, is too narrow, too shallow, unholistic and ignores more vital measurable signs of a transformed society in its various spheres (economic, environmental, social, impact outside the church environment, etc).
3. The people most likely to join a new church plant are usually those with some kind of church background - the de-churched, pre-churched, ex-churched - which means ignoring really lost people and duplicating the ministries of existing churches.
4. The focus on people pre-disposed or pre-favored towards church culture can lead to competition among churches to gather people from a diminishing pool of potentials and, worse, to "sheep stealing" which, although a shortcut to acheiving the goal of planting a church in the short term, fails to extend the reach of the gospel into a new culture as well as creating disunity and distrust within the existing church.
5. The challenge for new members to commit to a church meeting rather than be involved in Kingdom mission activities in the world can often lead to a consumer mindset among new members. By not hosting an event for members but rather inviting participants into mission, a different calibre of people is attracted to the ministry.
6. The new church plant creates a higher institutional visibility in sensitive countries which places it in danger of either stifling regulations or physical threat to its members.
7. The lack of traditional funding sources that used to fund church planter's salary and the first year of operation (often US$100,000) has dried up in the midst of the global financial crisis and changing funding priorities, which has made more sustainable mission practices like micro-businesses and social enterprises become more important as initial building blocks of new ministry environments than trying to start a regular worship service, in which the only sustainable piece is the generosity of the initiates.
8. Church planting normally thrives in wealthier areas or suburban areas but ignores the urban poor. Stuart Murray Williams addresses this weakness here. It also focuses on the functional people rather than the high-need people and so we end up with church that prioritizes the rich, something we are warned about in the Scriptures (see James).
9. In a country where the church already has a bruised reputation for greed, immorality and unethical practices, basing a strategy around starting another church and having people join it, and actually give money to support it, is a hard sell and a troubled solution.
So if these young people are not "planting churches" in 2012, what kind of Kingdom ministry environments ARE they establishing? And how are today's church planters avoiding the past mistakes?
That's the subject of another post.
(Which we will post later this week. -Url)
Posted by UrL Scaramanga on January 18, 2012
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6416
Comments
As this is the first of what appears will be a 2-part post, I will withhold final judgement until the argument is complete. I think I have an idea of where he's going. As initial observations, though, I do agree that what is traditionally considered "church planting" is not always faithful to the way of Scripture and could certainly use a reformation. But regardless of what you choose to call it--whether "church planting" or "establishing Kingdom ministry environments" or whatever--we must never abandon the mission to be constantly forming communities where God is worshiped, where people are formed into disciples, and where ministry is practiced in the name of Jesus.
Posted by: Bill Williams at January 17, 2012
I, too, studied under Peter Wagner. I loved him, and still do. Yet, I know from experience that the church growth movement suffers from the same foundational flaw as every other evangelistic outreach or church planting strategy: that we should build barns to contain the harvest. The harvest is His. The only church worth building is the one He Himself builds. And for that, all we need to do is faithfully preach.
Posted by: Mike Gantt at January 17, 2012
I was interested in what he had to day right up to the first numbered point. "Add to that the lack of biblical support for a paid professional pastor ..." Um, I get the bit on temple tithe and I agree the extension is not explicit or implicit in the text, but he principle of giving valuables and assets to the church leaders for the use of the church family is spelled out pretty explicitly in Acts 2 and 4 and into 5. Add to that Paul's statements in 1 Timothy 5:18 and 1 Cor. 9:14 is especially clear. Given how much I disagree with point 1 I find it hard to give credence to the rest of the article.
Posted by: Oliver at January 17, 2012
Particularly on the domestic church planting front, I appreciate the much-needed cautions against simply re-shuffling existing believers and keeping a church from being reduced to a worship service and nothing more. And yes, let's start more and more kingdom minded ventures!
But to stop planting churches, as opposed to planting churches which seek to seriously address these issues? This would be neither biblical nor wise.
I think we in the missional stream need to give attention to what could become our fatal flaw: a deemphasis on the church gathered, the church as worshiping community, the church as committed and definable local body. As we learn to better become the people of God on mission, we must be careful not to err by exchanging one extreme for another.
Posted by: Tim Morey at January 17, 2012
Sorry, but I laugh out loud and shake my head when I read words like "a young 'church planting' couple who have started ministries in over a dozen cities...missional enterprises, Kingdom businesses and concert-like events..." Then I want to cry. Living outside the US, I've seen many enterprises, businesses and events started, but very few of them have survived over the long haul. Starting something is a piece of cake. Claims to have started X, Y or Z in over a dozen cities says to me there's very likely been a lack of oversight and guidance. And those who minister and those who are ministered to likely have little staying power.
Posted by: Greg at January 18, 2012
The movement that is beginning to emerge is a missional model. Numbers are not as important as mission to one's community. Dr. Elaine Heath who is a professor at Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University is a leader in this new monanstic movement. She has written in depth on this subject as well as started several of these communities in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. I think there is a need for these new ministries, but I do not see them completely taking over the ethos of Christianity as a whole. I am curious on how to take these practices and initiate them in the local churches already in existence around our nation and world. I am very intrigued by this discussion and I am excited to see what the future holds. Only time will tell if this is a fade or a great movement of the Holy Spirit.
Posted by: Brandon at January 18, 2012
Recently I asked a group of clergy from Southern Maine if it made sense for the association of churches to plant a new church in the association. Every church planter and church planting organization I have spoken with has re-iterated New England is the worse place to do a church plant. It is the worse place in the United States to plant a new church. What makes it worse is the existing churches struggling to stay alive. Without new churches the historic ones will wither away. I have come to understand historic churches are limited in what they can do in ministry. They are good but limited in what is possible. We need new churches to show new possibilities and make new disciples. As impossible as it may be it is absolutely necessary.
Posted by: Derek White at January 18, 2012
using the old model of church planting is a bit of a straw man. sure people still use the older models but their are fresh church planting movements in the U.S. and overseas. church planting isnt about budgets and buildings but about a peculiar people who do life together following Jesus.
Posted by: joe at January 19, 2012
Like Mr.Jones I've been around the block a few times and so "Let me give you 7 Billion reasons why you should plant a church..." The church, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the people of God is God's plan A to reach the world and there is no plan B. The church is not perfect, but it is still the best thing going. God is a sending God. His church is a sent church. 7 billion people desperately need more God-honoring, Christ centered, multiplying, reproducing, sent, mission driven churches. Mr. Jones correctly gives counsel about changes that church plants should consider, but to say churches should not be planted misses the mark. The church planting organization I work with, Stadia, is investing significant resources in the Missional Church model. It would be irresponsible for us to do otherwise. We are for missional church planting. We are also planting lots of churches using the traditional church planting model. I just returned from a trip to Ecuador where whole communities are being transformed because of church planting. People are living on a dollar a day in these communities. I can give you church planters all over the U.S. that are making a huge difference in their communities. Cleveland, Charlotte, Raleigh, LA, Atlanta, D.C., Baltimore and other cities are being transformed because of leaders who had a vision to plant a church. Let me re-state: LET ME GIVE YOU 7 BILLION REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD START A CHURCH!
Posted by: Tom Jones at January 19, 2012
Let's not forget a worship "service" does not a church make. Nor does a church make a worship "service." A church...part of THE church is people in covenant relationship with each other. Almost everything else is irrelevant.
Posted by: Tom Clegg at January 19, 2012
I love that you brought this up! I definitely think that - given all the points you bring up - the idea of the type of church being "planted" is very important. Trying to replicate the institutional idea of church might not be make the most sense. But growing sustainable groups of people that are exploring a similar interest makes a little more sense. I find that having leaders be part-time ministry leaders and then either full or part-time workers in a career or outside job has worked best. This usually comes out of a situation where there is a need for a church, not just a plan for it.
Posted by: TonyB at January 22, 2012
Interesting article, I am not sure the word "Church" is being used correctly. What is church? maybe it isKingdom People living for and in the kingdom. IF so then Church is the right language. Perhaps the current method of "Church Planting" is full of false assumptions about church and poor practices about evangelism. Should not every believer in every church be talking with everyone they know to share how awesome our God is and how incredible the kingdom is? When this happens then any method of gathering as a body of new believers will be new community and part of Church.
Posted by: Leslie at January 23, 2012
The dismissive tone of many of these comments sound much too much like those of the owners of the White Star Line in defense of their precious new unsinkable boat, the Titanic.
Keep rearranging the deck chairs gentlemen, everything is fine.
Posted by: John Musick at January 23, 2012
As a former churchplanter, who wrestled with many of the issues the author has written of - I think he makes some very valid points. Seeding the kingdom, drawing disciples into mission, worry less about "success" and de-emphasizing paid staff, buildings, and budgets are all points that should be taken to heart. We do need to shatter our concept of "church" and replace it with a more biblical concept of the people of God journeying together, sparking the extension of God's kingdom wherever we are, but without losing the value of a genuine "gathered community" that is surrendered to the leadership of Jesus.
Posted by: GG at January 24, 2012
And what do you think Paul did when he went from city to city. He started churches from those he evangelized. I'm a bit tired of all this "missional" baloney. We have now a new "buzz" word. The fact is that we are to start communities of faith and establish churches to reach the communities who need Christ and become his disciples. The fact that some have done so poorly doesn't negate the responsibility to do it faithfully. That fact is Jesus came to build his church, and the churches were local in the NT not some sort of unidentified flying object.
Posted by: Doug at January 24, 2012
Seems Andrew is making a fine argument to no longer do program based-pulpit centered churches and go to holistic small group or cell churches. How many ropes of sand can we stand? John Whitefield said it best (I parphrase):"I got converts, John Wesley changed a nation." New Englnd churches may be dying but New England people want real godly community and Jesus.
Posted by: Don Mann at January 24, 2012
Great comments. Thanks. Its obvious that most of the commenters here can see through my tongue-in-cheek provocative post to the underlying argument behind it that using a Sunday worship service as a front line of attack in our evangelistic strategy (how I understand Wagner) is not as obvious as it used to be and in some cases might consume more resources than it does contribute to the wider ministry. Alongside that is the observation that there are many ways to gather and be the church without having to set up big show on a stage on Sunday morning that we hope will replace our relational evangelistic efforts.
YOu guys are just too smart. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. Let me know if you have any particular questions regarding these ministries or countries and please read the next installment which looks at a network that has grown to 1000 communities and is impacting their country in a measurably transformative way and yet they have not started any worship-service events that most people relate with "church".
Posted by: andrew jones (tsk) at January 24, 2012
very insightful especially with our changing culture
Posted by: charles stone at January 24, 2012
The truth is, the ecclesia are the 'set apart people' and a church is a body of people who are set apart to 'be' the body of Christ in whatever context they feel called to.
It's too easy to say that church planting is passe and that missional activity is the way forward. The truth is, Missio Dei is about God's heart to the world.
I agree with Tom Morey when he says that starting something isn't the same as getting it to work long term. I am a church planter, working on helping develop leaders who can go into their own world to establish an aspect of the Kingdom of God. What a church looks like differs according to need but in the end, God's people are a worshiping people, a sacrificial people, an innovative people and each generation finds new ways of establishing God's Kingdom in a way that reaches the new generations we are called to.
Honestly, though I appreciate the thoughts expressed here, in many ways the article is built on semantics... in danger of causing division rather than appreciation each of the other. We're all called to different ministries... so that 'through the Church the manifold wisdom of God can be shown to the world and to the principalities and powers of darkness'... live and let live, if that living means giving all we have to the purposes of God as we understand them to be for us.
Posted by: Bev Murrill at January 25, 2012
Church planting is so 1997? Actually, it's a bit older than that if the New Testament accounts are any indication.
Ironically, I can't think of any missional endeavors that can be considered "more sustainable, more holistic, more measurably transformational Kingdom solutions" than the local church in its globally diverse forms.
Granted, the church's shortcomings have been well-documented, but what other voluntary association of individuals and family members across all ages and backgrounds meets weekly, year-round in almost every nation on earth and has a 2000-year track record of resilience and adaptation?
No military empire, financial corporation, altruistic non-profit or humanitarian movement has demonstrated the long-term viability of God's Kingdom as embodied by his called-out community, the church.
Posted by: Dan S. at January 25, 2012
There is a quote most, I believe, contribute to Augustine that goes something along these lines, "the church is a whore, but she is also my mother."
From one who has been largely critical of the institutional church yet am a follower of Christ because of her, I understand the sentiment.
I agree that we need to be engaging the world missionally, carrying out our faith to impact and proclaim the promises and hope of the kingdom of God where he has placed us into positions of influence. However, I have a hard time when I hear of a church in my area spending over 8 million dollars on a sanctuary renovation to better proclaim this kingdom message, or when a church spends similar amounts building a cafe so that it is more convenient for people to be there and not have to leave (and engage this world) to go get lunch.
If we could all simply learn to follow and obey as true disciples, perhaps we wouldn't need to spend so many resources to pretty up the package. Besides, it wasn't Christ's appearance that drew people (Isa. 53:2), it was His Truth and authority, right?
Posted by: Nathan Teigland at January 26, 2012
Reports of the death of the local church (including those to be planted) have been greatly exaggerated. I've been hearing such reports for years, always with a reference to areas where church planting is difficult (usually China). The reports usually include a reference to the "fact" that local churches as we know them are not based on the New Testament and are a Western phenomenon (along with our emphasis on large churches). The reality is that in much of the non-Western world church planting continues apace, and church growth is astounding. Maybe the desire to bash local churches (and "traditional" plants of local churches--especially if they separate us from our tithes) is a Western phenomenon.
Posted by: Ed Crenshaw at January 26, 2012
Mike Gantt - Acts 2 to is about giving your finances and possessions to help the poor and needy in the church. Acts 4 and 5 is the same. 1 Cor 9:14 is about supporting those who preach the Gospel - i.e. evangelists, missionaries. And if the church just paid those, how many more would be in the Kingdom?!
That leaves 1 Tim 5:17-18 and what Paul means by 'double-honour'. It could mean financial, but scholars are divided on it. Many suggest - if it is financial - then it is more in line with an honorarium than a salary. So what is does not referred to in any of these texts is a paid professional pastor. Elders in the early church may have been pastoral - they may also have been evangelists or teachers. Many of them would have been tent-makers, just like Paul. Therefore, for you to dismiss the article based on the texts you quote, underlines I'm afraid your ignorance of their original meaning.
For the record, I think there are many valid points in the article to which I would add one other - many have used church planting to empire build, rather than Kingdom build. As a result, many wonderful opportunities have been missed. Blessings to all!
Posted by: Richard M at February 3, 2012
I am a missionary and someone who devotes themselves to helping God's people learn the commands of Jesus in order to Start churches. I think it is always important to evaluate how we work and minister. If there are people out there trying to incorporate a North American model of church planting cross-culturally, there will be difficulties. The author brings up some very valid concerns about the methods that have been used in the past as well as currently. I believe what is the best method is to work at disciple making first and foremost. Then work with God's people at those disciples making disciples. Let the congregations determine how or if they can pay their pastors and what buildings they like. Bi-vocational pastors have been around for a very long time and in some cases unpaid pastors as well. In North America and perhaps others places we have built these mega-buildings that we call churches. Is this model cost effective? Are we reproducing disciples? Are we replacing ourselves in order that they may reproduce? That is what Jesus did. Much food for thought, God Bless.
Posted by: Paul Goodner at February 7, 2012