BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Great idea. I don't think this is the first time its been mentioned in CBF. A few hundred churches, uniquely aligned with CBF, would increase participation and loyalty to the fellowship, effectively make new disciples, and would secure the revenue stream for the missions and educational enterprises.

The SBC would be in a much more severe statistical situation if it were not for its church planting efforts, particularly in the West, Northeast and Midwest. Every state convention in those areas showed a net increase in total membership last year, and the conventions in states outside of the traditional Southern Baptist heartland accounted for 175,000 of the 340,000 baptisms. CBF only has a tiny handful of churches in those areas, but they have a big opportunity for ethnic church plants in the South, especially in the growing Latino community.

Everything I've ever read is that new churches reach more new people than established churches do. My own Iowa Conference is talking about an increase in church planting as is the UMC nationally. It is probably one of the biggest mistakes that denominations make is relying on established local churches and not starting new churches. Older churches find it too hard to change.

May I point out for my mod/lib friends that Sandy said something positive about the CBF. Make a note.

Thank you.

For an organization like CBF, I think church planting is crucial. How many CBF affiliated churches are there that have been started from scratch, and don't have a history of involvement in the SBC? The more of those there are, the better for CBF. The structure of CBF is conducive to allowing their local churches to take the lead, and for the national organization to provide the financial resources, or at least, part of them. In the SBC, the more denominational resources you receive, the more each layer of organization wants to have input into what the church becomes. You have a local church, an association, a state convention and NAMB. CBF is streamlined. One person could ride herd on a grant fund.

The SBC has had trouble, in some state conventions, accepting the kinds of churches that are being planted. CBF, and don't take this as a criticism, is probably much more open to BYOB Bible Studies and churches that sponsor card tournaments than the SBC.

I believe Suzi Paynter is on target with a church-starting emphasis. Developing areas, ethnic enclaves, and underserved populations need new congregations to minister to them. Strategically placed and well-supported church starts can make a huge difference.

Another event to mark on the calendar, Sandy and I almost completely agree on his most recent post.

The midwest has also had its share of churches that moved to the burbs and are now being beaten out in getting the rich white people by the megachurches.

I also agree that if the CBF wants to start new churches they need to think about getting outside of their Bible belt geography. Any time I head south I'm amazed at how many more churches there appear to be on nearly every street corner. Why plant churches in what may be a saturated area, particularly for Baptists?

Up here in the corn belt, particularly north of Missouri or west, few know what the CBF is. In Iowa I think there is only one struggling CBF church. So the CBF has opportunities even in Iowa which is often thought to be lilly white if they seek out underserved groups. We have a seriously growing Latino population here in Iowa. My community, Sioux City, is at around 20+% Latino.

So, a couple of questions:

1. Do any of the CBF partner schools offer some kind of training or instruction, or a major or minor in church planting?
2. Where would they start?

CBFNC and CBFVA go to partner schools every year and one of the workshops they have done is on church-starting. There are some CBF church starts in VA primarily in the Richmond area and in Northern VA (DC area).

Old thread, but:

We in Macedonia aka Colorado could sure use some of those churches planted out here!

I'm disenchanted with the CBF. They seem only interested or capable of church plants in college towns or suburban areas. There are none anywhere near my rural area.

I am in an over-churched area where small SBC, UMC, and CBF congregations dot the landscape. Planting another church here might reach a few people, but most of them would not flourish. Rural areas are losing population. In 2010, I worked three months for the Census Bureau as a canvasser. When I turned in area packets, several of them were rechecked (at the insistence of political leaders) because I indicated more vacant or abandoned properties than they wanted to admit were out there. None of my work was found in error, but I think it indicates that there are many houses owned by families who no longer live in the area. They may have preserved their parents' homes intact and furnished, but no one lives in them. Church growth has to come where people are and among populations not already served by five other congregations. There are certainly needs out there, but planting must be with a plan, not just to say we planted a congregation.

I've served churches and lived in areas where the existing churches were too closed off and inwardly focused to be deeply involved in evangelism and outreach. I was in a small town in Southern Missouri at a First Baptist Church, and there were many people in that congregation who had the idea that if people didn't come to our church on Sunday, they were probably going somewhere. I would guess that probably 70% of the people in the area either were not connected to a church, or rarely attended. There may be a lot of churches in a particular area, but there may be few that are suited to reaching people not already involved.

Sometimes, especially in areas like Dave describes, where the population is stable, largely rural, and declining, churches reach all of the "low hanging fruit," and the remaining unchurched population is hard to reach. So the churches turn inward, and are not sensitive to the things they can do ministry wise to reach those who are harder to reach. They adopt an attitude that says, "They know where we are. If they're interested, they'll come." That's one of the reasons that new churches reach more people than old ones do.

There are church "plants" out there that are set up and designed to build a congregation by taking some people from existing congregations. Sometimes, that conveys an arrogance, a "we know how to do it better" attitude, or they use their resources to create the "smorgasbord" of activity that is inwardly focused. A lot of the mega churches don't really even care where their members come from, as long as they're there on enough Sundays to give well.

Sandy, the phenomena, as you've described, of getting "low hanging fruit" isn't limited to long existing congregations. Unfortunately in many areas I've served in when someone starts a new church they end up getting (and sometimes even going after) the low hanging fruit of the already active Christians in other churches around them.

There are always people who are bored with their current congregation or have some difference (small or great) with some view of their church so they are easy pickings for a new church. In those cases all that happens is you shuffle Christians from one group to another.

And lets face it, even in established churches a lot of "growth" is transfer growth rather than new Christians. I've had opportunity to baptize some new believers this year but not as many as I've had transfer from other churches. Many of those transfers were do to mobility (Methodist moving from one town to another) some of them have to do with decisions about the type of church they want to be a part of. (In our case a blend of traditional and contemporary worship with a local social gospel ministries.) But it is still transfer growth.

To me the new church plants that do the most good are those who are planted in an area to reach an under-served group. Rather than just planting a church in an area because there is no CBF, SBC, or UMC church there.

For me I see this being particularly true in areas where some denominations are very similar. For example planting a new ABC church right down the street from a CBF church to me wouldn't make sense. Or planting a new UMC church down the street from a thriving Presbyterian church would hardly make sense because we minister to similar kinds of people.