Church Planting

[Timothy Bonney]

I keep hoping someone will open an ecumenical forum or a general Christian forum here on BL.com. (hint hint) but until someone does I'll put general church stuff here.

What should the philosophy of church be about church planting? When do denominations plant churches for the sake of offering their own perspective (nothing wrong with that), when do denominations plant churches to meet the needs of non-church attenders? And should denominations plant churches in high church attendance areas when it may mean transfer growth rather than new Christians?

When does an area have enough churches? Or, is it ok to plant a church in an area if you believe most of your membership will come from already existing Christian churches?

What say you?

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Tim, I am persuaded that there is no one size fits all answer to these questions. And I Know of no way for it to be controlled except by denominations which promote Church planting. What it takes is a honesty on the part of the new church pastor and those who are supporting them as they start up.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed: Tim, I am persuaded that there is no one size fits all answer to these questions.

That might be true Ed. I'm convinced there may be more wrong ways to do it than right ways. And I'm no expert.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Tim, I am persuaded that there is no one size fits all answer to these questions.

That might be true Ed. I'm convinced there may be more wrong ways to do it than right ways. And I'm no expert.

Ed: And I agree that there are a lot of wrong ways and I am persuaded that wrong ways almost always come from wrong motives.

[Timothy Bonney]

Good point Ed. I can name a couple of churches in different parts of Iowa that are now categorized in the mega-church size that seem to make it their main MO to go after people attending smaller churches by offering them programs that the smaller church just can't compete with. They seem to intentionally go after already churched people. I personally have a problem with that.

[Ed Pettibone]

Good point Ed. I can name a couple of churches in different parts of Iowa that are now categorized in the mega-church size that seem to make it their main MO to go after people attending smaller churches by offering them programs that the smaller church just can't compete with. They seem to intentionally go after already churched people. I personally have a problem with that.

Ed: Tim could you add some definition to the type of programs they offer that smaller churches can not. And does this really look like sheep stealing or are they simply offering new programs to meet the needs of their own members and designing them to accommodate expansion if it comes. The first thing I thought of is after school tutoring. If a church has a need for twenty of their own youth but for very little additional cost could expand to forty should they not offer it to kids who could benefit but are in some other church? In my experience even if you offer it on a first come first serve basis with no (you must join our church pressure) with in a few weeks or a few months some of those kids ( and maybe their parents) will be in the church meeting their need.

[Sandy]

Good point Ed. I can name a couple of churches in different parts of Iowa that are now categorized in the mega-church size that seem to make it their main MO to go after people attending smaller churches by offering them programs that the smaller church just can't compete with. They seem to intentionally go after already churched people. I personally have a problem with that.

I think they teach that at a conference somewhere. And I'm only halfway kidding about that.

Mega churches become extremely internally focused. I know that in the SBC, most of them don't like to have their statistical data listed because their mission giving is small, and their baptism numbers are small compared to their size. But then, I think that if packaged, programmed ministries in mega churches are attracting people out of the smaller congregations to which they have belonged, then we are losing the entire concept of what constitutes a church altogether. From a Biblical perspective, a church is drawn together by the Holy Spirit, and held together by the same means. The term Ecclesia implies that the people gathered together in a particular church are "called out" and spiritually gifted for service in that congregation. The analogy that Paul uses to illustrate is the body itself. So what you have in mega churches, IMHO, are bodies with multiple parts, most of which are not needed or used, sitting around, going into atrophy. And in the smaller churches, you have bodies missing 80% of their parts, including the essential ones, so they slowly die through attrition and the overwork of remaining members who are committed enough to pick up the pieces and try to work with what they've got.

Willow Creek is one of the few mega churches I know of that has admitted what they've discovered through years of growth into a large congregation. After sucking the life out of over 100 churches in the Northwest Chicago suburbs that disbanded and died as a result of Willow Creek's growth, they discovered that the larger they got, the fewer people they were seeing converted to Christ. They reached a saturation point, where their attendance began to decline as well. Essentially what they've done is plant hundreds of small "churches" back in the neighborhoods, house churches, groups of 10 to 20 people meeting in homes. Of course, it is impossible for a mega church to let go of those groups completely, they still want them at the main house on Sunday, with check in hand, but the small groups have a lot of independence and autonomy, and in some cases, they've actually grown into churches. Now, in the suburbs, with a middle-class population already oriented towards involvement in some form of Christianity, the growth has been good. Where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, in the inner city of Chicago itself, they've discovered the going is a little bit tougher.

[Timothy Bonney]

Yes, I've read about Willow Creeks discoveries and heard their pastor Bill Hybels speak at United Methodist Church of the Resurrection last year in Leawood, KS.

Ed I think Sandy is right about how insular megachurches can become.

What they offer that small churches can't offer is a huge variety of activities, small groups, and Bible studies. They also often offer very professional music and speakers/preachers. I know of churches where the entire praise band and leadership are paid professional musicians. So the quality of music can't really be match by many small churches.

Some megachurches are doing good work, don't get me wrong. But some of them also I believe are just shifting members around.

[Gene Scarborough]

I know of no megachurch located in a rural area nor a part of a urban area which is deterioriating.

I was just down the road from Johnny Hunt's mega at Woodstock. We had about 4 families a week join because were were on the busiest state highway to which Hunt moved Woodstock from downtown of that little town (with serious controversy from some old members). He knew the secret and his mega has grown. My church, Noonday, elected to be a country cornpone bunch and they have stagnated. It is all about choices.

Let's move back inside the 285 beltway to Tucker and Rehoboth. Lee was the pastor in its glory days of the 60-70's. They had every big name in evangelism there, like Dale Evans. Now, the growth is 20 miles further NE and they are having to lease their large facilities to a black congregation just to pay the light bill. The remnants of the old group remains, but they are struggling and getting smaller each year.

Personally, I think you minister where you are. The larger it gets, the harder to keep a personal touch and not go toward entertainment and big names to draw a crowd. All the entertainment in the world can't stop a community from changing.

[Sandy]

I will say that I think Willow Creek has probably done something with its church planting that other megas aren't willing to risk, and that is giving their small groups a measure of independence and autonomy that has led to several of them becoming independent churches on their own. They also have invested a lot in their church plant in the inner city, which is an area where the churches are few and far between. It's right downtown, meets in an old, very ornate auditorium that reminds me of the old Fox theaters of past days. Most mega churches wouldn't make the financial effort, or commit the number of people from their main campus for worship to plant a church in the downtown area of a big city, or in the inner city area, since the cost is probably greater than the offering it brings in, but Willow Creek has been there for about seven or eight years now. I visited there a couple of years ago when I was in Chicago doing some continuing ed, there were probably about 250 people altogether, including about 50 that came from the main campus so that they could have a full orchestra for worship. It was a very diverse congregation, lots of Hispanics, and probably about half African American. It's inside the loop, so the best way to get there is on the L-train. They're not treading on any other church's territory down there, that I can see.

I'm also an admirer of National Community Church in Washington, DC. They're not really a "mega," they are a multi-campus church that worships in movie theater auditoriums. Their ministry operates out of a coffee house called Ebenezer's, about a block from Union Station. Their original service met in the theater in the basement of Union Station until the theater went out of business. And its locations are in places where the best way to reach them is via the Metro subway. Their pastor, Mark Batterson, is my favorite Christian author (I would highly recommend his book, Wild Goose Chase)) and the church is what I would call an almost perfect example of a church committed to reaching people from a completely secular background, and making them into disciples of Jesus. In fact, though I almost hate to say it, if their church attracted a lot of people with previous church and denominational baggage, it would ruin their ministry. The inner city of Washington is also another place where there are few viable churches, and their "movie theater church" identity helps them with outreach.

[Timothy Bonney]

Sandy, what you've described above is the right way to do "mega-church." I see Church of the Resurrection in Kansas doing the same thing. They are the biggest UMC church in the US. But they have three additional location. One was a struggling church that was about to fold and they ask COR for help. Another is a downtown ministry in KC Kansas reaching out to inner city young people. Also unlike many megas their pastor Adam Hamilton addresses tough spiritual and social issues. He did a sermon series that became a book on "When the Church Gets it Wrong" knowing that he'd likely lose members because of his pushing the envelope on why young people don't come to church. He lost some people but he also gained some younger adults who felt like he had taken them seriously.

The examples I see of megas that seem to be a bad influence are those who very specifically target members of other churches. I know of examples of one in the central Iowa area that has gone after members of mainline youth groups because they don't believe us mainliners are going to heaven. They suck them in and then brain wash them with their brand of theology which basically teaches that if you can't name the day and hour of your first confession of faith and have prayed a formulaic sinners prayer you aren't "saved."

[Dave Roberts]

One of my problems with the current NAMB approach is that it seems too "top down." The people who best understand the needs for where churches need to be planted are not in Alpharetta. They are the people in the local associations and in state conventions who know the demographics from being close enough to recognize real prospects. Money spent to support church planting partnerships has always been a better use of resources. The fear now is that NAMB may contribute to the creation of a church through those entities that may not make its permanent identity one of SBC. They even fear it might affiliate with American Baptists or CBF (TIC).

[Timothy Bonney]

One of my problems with the current NAMB approach is that it seems too "top down." The people who best understand the needs for where churches need to be planted are not in Alpharetta. They are the people in the local associations and in state conventions who know the demographics from being close enough to recognize real prospects. Money spent to support church planting partnerships has always been a better use of resources. The fear now is that NAMB may contribute to the creation of a church through those entities that may not make its permanent identity one of SBC. They even fear it might affiliate with American Baptists or CBF (TIC).

I don't know of United Methodists doing national church planting (though it could be I've just not heard about it.) In our system the churches related to the Conference (regional organization) so all the church planting I know of is done by the denomination at a more local level. I believe American Baptists as well primarily plant churches via a regional connection.

When I was a SBCer in the midwest we used to say "that may work in Nashville but....." American Baptists say, "that may work Valley Forge but....."

[Timothy Bonney]

What is the latest on the new name for the SBC? I've heard rumors. William you seem to be up on this stuff. What do you hear?

[William Thornton]

One of my problems with the current NAMB approach is that it seems too "top down." The people who best understand the needs for where churches need to be planted are not in Alpharetta. They are the people in the local associations and in state conventions who know the demographics from being close enough to recognize real prospects. Money spent to support church planting partnerships has always been a better use of resources. The fear now is that NAMB may contribute to the creation of a church through those entities that may not make its permanent identity one of SBC. They even fear it might affiliate with American Baptists or CBF (TIC).

I just wrotethat the SBC achieved a net increase in the number of churches over the period 2010-2011 of about one additional congregation per state convention. That is pathetic, of course.

NAMB, who has tightened the numbers considerably, reported 990 church plants during 2011 and this prior to their major new church planting intitiative.

On the top-down stuff. NAMB has:
1. Made the decision to fund state conventions on the basis of existing church/population ratios. This has caused some state conventions to receive less money. It is a reasonable, and rational, approach to funding I think.
2. NAMB recognized that state conventions were using Annie Armstrong and Cooperative Program money to fund a lot of centralized infrastructure and specialized jobs to the detriment of church planters and church planting. The California State Baptist Convention was allocating all of 2% of their budget to church planters. NAMB aims to put 50% of their budget into church planting. Sounds like a better plan than what the states are doing to me.

I wouldn't argue that this is not top-down decision making but I would argue that NAMB is making the proper decisions. It was a mess.

The top-down complaint, I hear it often, Dave, is more about funding than anything else. No one likes to have the money flow restricted.

[William Thornton]

The fear now is that NAMB may contribute to the creation of a church through those entities that may not make its permanent identity one of SBC. They even fear it might affiliate with American Baptists or CBF (TIC).

And on identity issues, one has only to look at what is being done now with support of local associations. There are churches near me whose SBC identity is heavily obscured.

NAMB only plants SBC churches, churches that agree to identify themselves as such, approve of the Baptist Faith and Message, have certain requirements for Cooperative Program support, etc. I don't know how to do much more than that. Once a church is fully autonomous and no longer on a funding scheme from NAMB (or a state convention, or an association, or a mother SBC church) they can do what they wish.

[William Thornton]

What is the latest on the new name for the SBC? I've heard rumors. William you seem to be up on this stuff. What do you hear?

You are indeed out of the SBC loop these days. The grand name change blue ribbon committee punted and recommended an informal "descriptor", Great Commission Baptists, if anyone wants to use it. No legal change of Southern Baptist Convention to another name.

[Gene Scarborough]

The biggest problem I see with church planting is the selfish nature of many local churches in a growing area. New churches may well be needed, but pastors don't want the competition! They will gladly support a NAMB planting churches in some other state where Baptists are foreigners, but "not in my back door."

Some years ago our new DOM saw a need and began to work toward starting some new works when none had happened in years even though there was population growth. When this was brought to the N. Roanoake Associational Meeting there was an official vote to start the process by instigating a new mission offering in the name of the first DOM, a lady. The offering was taken over several years with success. In addition, funds sitting in escrow accounts were brought together and made available to start new churches as well. All was going smoothly and with a good spirit.

The NAMB has a program called P.R.O.B.E. which guides in population research, surveys of households in areas, deciding where new work is needed without running over existing Baptist churches. At the same time NC was undergoing the political trials and tribulation of who would run the State Convention---traditional leadership or new Conservatives. Despite a conscious effort on all sides to have the convention Committee on Committees offer a balanced slate of people from all over NC, men and women, all churches---the Conservatives were pushing and trying to oust from the floor certain proposed people if they were not of "the right stripe." No need to discuss that one again.

In church planting in the North Roanoke Association all was ready. I seriouosly note a new separate ministers meeting was going with conservatives not inviting any outsiders. They were quietly trying to solicit Associational giving for a new Christian School they were trying to start. It was a troublesome competition going quietly in the fringes. It was part of the statewide political organizing to get out a conservative vote and change things as with the SBC.

When the official meeting to make decisions on money use and locations for 2 new churches, it all blew apart. Several pastors aspiring to make theirs a mega-type church stirred the cart, packed the meeting with enough votes to defeat the church planting effort. The jig was up over selfishness when the many rural churches of the association backed the concept of church planting and gave seriously to it for years. Money was in place. It still sits in the bank unused.

The mega pastors were glad to send the money to some foreign state or area. They were seriously against the local church planting idea. Since the defeat of the local planting idea there is an on-going battle to shift the funds given for local church starts to something far away--or a christian school---or anything suiting the new power political outlook.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: So Gene what do you propose?

[Gene Scarborough]

Try worshiping God through faith in Jesus, the Christ.

The Gospel Blimp always gets one in trouble!

Anyone not knowing this one can check here: http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Modern-Parables-Joseph-Series/dp/0781409357

[Ed Pettibone]

Try worshiping God through faith in Jesus, the Christ.

The Gospel Blimp always gets one in trouble!

Anyone not knowing this one can check here: http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Modern-Parables-Joseph-Series/dp/0781409357

Ed: Gene I do worship God in faith through all three personages of the trinity, FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT. What exactly does that have to do with church planting? Never saw a gospel blimp. And of course the story you linked is fiction. But even then the couple in the story where not involved in "church planting", theirs was a method of evangelism.

[Timothy Bonney]

You are indeed out of the SBC loop these days. The grand name change blue ribbon committee punted and recommended an informal "descriptor", Great Commission Baptists, if anyone wants to use it. No legal change of Southern Baptist Convention to another name.

I'm too busy figuring out United Methodists now to keep up too much with a denomination I left in 1993. Its odd that they chose a churchy insider term like "Great Commission." Non Christians won't get any more from that than they do Baptist or Methodist. Oh well, not my problem.

[Timothy Bonney]

The biggest problem I see with church planting is the selfish nature of many local churches in a growing area. New churches may well be needed, but pastors don't want the competition! They will gladly support a NAMB planting churches in some other state where Baptists are foreigners, but "not in my back door."

I'm not always convinced a new church with a new building and new costs of property and building are really always the way to go. I'd scratch my head if it were suggested we start a new church in Sioux City. There are already twelve (12) UMC churches in the Sioux City metro area. (10 in Iowa, 1 in Nebraska, and 1 in South Dakota). Would a 13th UMC church really help anyone? And that doesn't even mention all the other churches in the area. Sioux City is highly churched. Why start a new church here?

[Gene Scarborough]

My question exactly here in little Bath.

Not everybody feels the need to attend church all the time. The presence is sufficient when they seek to participate. The cost of a building and property and the other things to keep a church going is always significant. No amount of church attendance is ever going to get one through the gates of heaven anyway.

I think we would be much better off sometimes spending the money on that electricity and new organ to set up some form of help for the multituded who can't pay their light bills right now.

[Sandy]

The biggest problem I see with church planting is the selfish nature of many local churches in a growing area. New churches may well be needed, but pastors don't want the competition! They will gladly support a NAMB planting churches in some other state where Baptists are foreigners, but "not in my back door."

I'm not always convinced a new church with a new building and new costs of property and building are really always the way to go. I'd scratch my head if it were suggested we start a new church in Sioux City. There are already twelve (12) UMC churches in the Sioux City metro area. (10 in Iowa, 1 in Nebraska, and 1 in South Dakota). Would a 13th UMC church really help anyone? And that doesn't even mention all the other churches in the area. Sioux City is highly churched. Why start a new church here?

I think you have to ask the question, are the 12 existing UMC churches in Sioux City in a position to reach into the unchurched, non-Christian population, win them to Christ and disciple them? And a second question is whether any of the 12 are willing to make the kind of changes necessary in order to do that? Methodists tend to be just a tad bit more formal and traditional in their church approach than most Southern Baptists are, and that's not always conducive to church growth.

In our county seat, the FUMC is what you would expect to find in a typical, downtown small town Methodist church. It has a pipe organ, white steeple, chandeliers, white pews, arched ceiling, and follows an order of worship that requires a three page, 11 X 14 bulletin. On Sunday morning, their 800 seat sanctuary may have 100 souls in attendance, few, if any, under 55, except maybe the pastor and his wife. But, about four blocks from the campus, in a converted store facility, about 600 people will gather, sing choruses and praise songs accompanied by guitars, keyboards and drums, and participate in an interactive sermon. Same church, though the service is identified as "Crossfire". They are planning a second "plant" like that one, about five miles out. There are two or three other UMC congregations in the immediate vicinity, but they wouldn't be affected by one of these kinds of churches landing right next door. In fact, they've considered planting a contemporary congregation in a nearby community where the UMC church disbanded a few years back.

I know there are some individuals involved in church planting in the SBC who just move in and set up shop, ignoring other churches in the area, but there are others who do some careful research. Just because there are churches of other denominations around, does not mean any of them are viable, or capable of reaching into the unchurched culture. And that may include well established Southern Baptist churches in some places in Dixieland.