Church Planting

[Timothy Bonney]

Actually Sandy there are few UMC churches in Iowa that don't have a contemporary service or at least a blended service.
And interestingly enough I'm not sure contemporary, as it is now being done, is the answer. Contemporary needs to be revamped too. I see it reaching boomers much better than younger people who tell me they don't listen to the styles of music now being done by contemporary praise bands.

I think we need to look at church revitalization as well as new church planting. I think that planting new churches while letting existing churches die also largely shifts membership from one church to another. I think there needs to be a both/and strategy rather than and either/or strategy. Otherwise we gain one end and lose on the other. Also, who is going to pay for these new church starts if we let the churches that are funding the mission of the denomination die on the vine? Stats show that older folks are better gives that new people. So we don't want to just neglect the established churches.

[Ed Pettibone]

Actually Sandy there are few UMC churches in Iowa that don't have a contemporary service or at least a blended service.
And interestingly enough I'm not sure contemporary, as it is now being done, is the answer. Contemporary needs to be revamped too. I see it reaching boomers much better than younger people who tell me they don't listen to the styles of music now being done by contemporary praise bands.

I think we need to look at church revitalization as well as new church planting. I think that planting new churches while letting existing churches die also largely shifts membership from one church to another. I think there needs to be a both/and strategy rather than and either/or strategy. Otherwise we gain one end and lose on the other. Also, who is going to pay for these new church starts if we let the churches that are funding the mission of the denomination die on the vine? Stats show that older folks are better gives that new people. So we don't want to just neglect the established churches.

Ed: Tim, is that next to the last sentence supposed to say "Stats show that older folk are better givers than new people." I believe that to be the case, but I would love to have a reliable source to wave around. I have been saying for years that if we committed even half as much to church renewal as we do to church planting we would see results in the renewed churches equal to if not greater than in new church plants.

And when you say that "younger people who tell me they don't listen to the styles of music now being done by contemporary praise bands." What sort of "style" do they Listen to? Is their objection to the "Music" or the lyrics. And BTW I have heard some stuff labeled Contemporary Christian music that I like and some I have detested. Most of the music at Last years CBF Assembly was too LOUD. Even for my self with one totally deaf ear. And I usually enjoy Ken Medina. LOUD and good seldom if ever are equal, even from Ken's Keyboard. But of course he wasn't running the SOUND board.

[Haruo]

Are older people better givers than new people, or are older people better givers than young people? Not the same thing, and most of the purported documentation I've seen suggests it's the latter, i.e. it's a change in generational generosities, not related to church or the lack of it per se.

[Timothy Bonney]

Are older people better givers than new people, or are older people better givers than young people? Not the same thing, and most of the purported documentation I've seen suggests it's the latter, i.e. it's a change in generational generosities, not related to church or the lack of it per se.

My experience is that it is both younger people and newer people. It takes newer people a while to ramp up their giving. They have to feel a part and trust the organization. Younger people often just don't have the money. But also they don't have the same training in giving older folks have.

You also have the downside of better givers. I remember a particularly big trouble maker in one church who also gave a lot of money to the church. I commented on this to a denominational leader who said, "of course he gives a lot to the church. It gives him more power and control." And in his case that was true.

[Ed Pettibone]

Are older people better givers than new people, or are older people better givers than young people? Not the same thing, and most of the purported documentation I've seen suggests it's the latter, i.e. it's a change in generational generosities, not related to church or the lack of it per se.

Ed; I will agree that in general their is some difference in the giving by young people and "new" people but in most of the entrainment citadels operating as churches the bulk of the attendees are both young and new. Some rather young folk do have pretty good pay checks and / or inheritances, sometimes both. And Again I would like to see some evidence to support your supposition that "it's a change in generational generosities, not related to church or the lack of it per se." It may have some thing to do with geography and the difference in the economy but I am continually surprised at the monies raised here in the NY Capital area when the plight of others is made public. And much of it comes from those between 25 to 45. Youth between 15 and 25 raise a lot of money even though individually they may not have a lot of personal income.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed I could do some hunting for studies. But what I remember reading is that younger people are better at giving to specific causes than to general offerings. That is by the ABC BIM created their "directed giving catalogue" a few years back, so young people could target a particular project or missionary to give to rather than just giving to the IM annual offering. All I was told at IM was that young people are less comfortable with giving to the "big institution" but love to give to a hands on project.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: And Tim I have also seen case of folk who who were well fixed try to use their giving to churches to by favors for their pet projects, but I have also known some folk who gave huge anonymous gifts. That is the donor was known only to the fiance committee. Some times only to the Pastor the treasure (that was once myself) and the Chair of the finance committee. Some times others in the church may be inclined to cow tow to the large known contributors, that is why many pastors I know do not want to know who gives what. And yes I have known a few pastors who favored the money bags.

[Gene Scarborough]

From this sharing on worship styles and giving, it would appear we have a growing selfishness in what people want from church and a growing level of wanting to control where the money goes.

Is this similar to the obsession with electronic divices which give you the appearance of being in touch and in control at all times when you are spending money for programming?

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed: And Tim I have also seen case of folk who who were well fixed try to use their giving to churches to by favors for their pet projects, but I have also known some folk who gave huge anonymous gifts. That is the donor was known only to the fiance committee. Some times only to the Pastor the treasure (that was once myself) and the Chair of the finance committee. Some times others in the church may be inclined to cow tow to the large known contributors, that is why many pastors I know do not want to know who gives what. And yes I have known a few pastors who favored the money bags.

Yes Ed I've had experiences like those above as well. I think in the subject of church planting one of the decisions that has to be made is how the church meets its financial needs. Of course house churches and churches meeting in public buildings probably have a lot lower expenses in some ways that established churches.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: And Tim I have also seen case of folk who who were well fixed try to use their giving to churches to by favors for their pet projects, but I have also known some folk who gave huge anonymous gifts. That is the donor was known only to the fiance committee. Some times only to the Pastor the treasure (that was once myself) and the Chair of the finance committee. Some times others in the church may be inclined to cow tow to the large known contributors, that is why many pastors I know do not want to know who gives what. And yes I have known a few pastors who favored the money bags.

Yes Ed I've had experiences like those above as well. I think in the subject of church planting one of the decisions that has to be made is how the church meets its financial needs. Of course house churches and churches meeting in public buildings probably have a lot lower expenses in some ways that established churches.

Ed: Tim I confess I know very little about house churches. I have read some accounts supporting the concept but I have never been acquainted with any one involved in such. One of my favorite axioms is "never say never", so it is possible that at some time and some place I could become involved in one of these. My sense is that the need rare but if a denomination is aware of a need they should be prepared to offer assistance. I can not get excited about individuals doing this on their own.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed I'm not really into the house church concept either. I can see using homes for some small groups. But I'm a afraid you end up with such small groups that you really have no coherent church. As you say, never say never. But it wouldn't be my preferred method for doing church.

[Gene Scarborough]

The plus of house churches is getting the church out to neighbors and friends who might not come to the main church.

Some years ago, Lyman Coleman produced the Serendipity Series which was a relational bible study for small groups. The SBC has now bought it and we know the theological slant it will have in the future.

I used it on youth retreats to facilitate relationships and good biblical discussion. Each session was based on a starting scripture / questionnaire to promote private thinking / sharing with the smaller group / more sharing with the larger group / final time of prayer and celbration of fellowship.

I can see such an approach being a plus if it starts with the scripture from larger corporate worship and extends to homes of members as they invite friends to join them and then, hopefully, to draw them into the larger church fellowship.

Otherwise, it could become a splintering factor as some church member feels the need to start his own personality worship group. On the other hand, such members tend to think far more of themselves than the Pastor whom they criticize!

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed; Gene, What you describe sounds like a home bible study which as I understand is different than a "house Church".

And I have been in a few churches where many of the people who attended S.S. (not just kids) did not stay for worship and most pf the people who attended worship service never attended S.S. or any other bible study. An exception back in the days of the SBC "January Bible Study", some folk who never came to S.S. would come to the January Bible Study. And honestly I usually preferred Training Union to S.S. but attended both.

[Gene Scarborough]

I am like you, Ed, a house church is usually the main thing without relationship to a big church. If they grow, they might become a more regular church with more people.

I was thinking in terms of a combination which might simply reach people for Christ or revitalize a church insisting people must come to it rather than it going to them.

[Sandy]

The "House Church" concept is actually based on the model of the church found in the New Testament. They were all "house churches" in that they met in houses, one in particular mentioned in Corinth, I believe, was next door to the synagogue. The "church" included all of the believers in a particular city, but they met in small groups in different locations. They were connected to the other believers in the same city via their leadership--overseer, elders, pastors (interchangeable terms) and through their ministry, but they met separately for worship, teaching and fellowship. There are several benefits I can see in doing things this way. One, the church's resources are not invested in the inefficient and ineffective use of a building, and two, the size of the group is limited by the space in the house. Starting new groups helps the church keep reaching new people. And everyone has to be involved, using their spiritual gifts to make it work. It also pushes the church to constantly and continuously be teaching and training new leaders.

I have been in one church that tried this. It was very hard for the people in the traditional congregation to accept the fact that a gathering at someone's home, where worship and Bible teaching were taking place, was the same as "going to church." There were questions about who was in charge, whether or not to count them in the attendance (we were, after all, Southern Baptist), did the person in charge need to be an "ordained" minister, were they teaching the Sunday School lesson from the quarterly, was it real "church," did they have to be accountable to the "main" church. They started off with two house meetings, and eventually, even though the leaders of both remained "members" of the main congregation, the accountability and ties to the main church held them back, and they went their own way. One of them has developed into a congregation of about 50 people that meets in a hotel banquet room each week, the other has become a network of small groups, about five or six, all through the region of the city where they originally started out.

[linda]

Wow do I feel out of the loop reading this thread!

I'm from a time, place, and industry where nobody planted us churches.

You get transferred to an area, find no churches of your flavor, and start one in your living room. When it is up and running and maybe ready for a building and a pastor you contact the denomination or association or whatever your flavor calls it and hitch up.

Or, folks in a town decide to agree to disagree on doctrine/music/how far of drive to make to get to church or some such thing, and either nicely or nastily decide to "multiply" be becoming two separate churches.

Do we get seed catalogues to choose our "plant?"

[Ed Pettibone]

Discussing House churches Sandy writes:

I have been in one church that tried this. It was very hard for the people in the traditional congregation to accept the fact that a gathering at someone's home, where worship and Bible teaching were taking place, was the same as "going to church." There were questions about who was in charge, whether or not to count them in the attendance (we were, after all, Southern Baptist), did the person in charge need to be an "ordained" minister, were they teaching the Sunday School lesson from the quarterly, was it real "church," did they have to be accountable to the "main" church. They started off with two house meetings, and eventually, even though the leaders of both remained "members" of the main congregation, the accountability and ties to the main church held them back, and they went their own way. One of them has developed into a congregation of about 50 people that meets in a hotel banquet room each week, the other has become a network of small groups, about five or six, all through the region of the city where they originally started out.

Ed: Sandy, when you say in the second sentence "It was very hard for the people in the traditional congregation to accept the fact that a gathering at someone's home, where worship and Bible teaching were taking place, was the same as "going to church."

I am put off a bit by the implicit idea of two (or three) congregations, the new group(s) meeting in homes and the "traditional congregation" meeting in their long time house of worship. What did/do they have in common other than the same God in 3 personages?

Did the new groups have purpose statements ? If so where they the same? In what way did accountability to the "main church" hold them back. By the way I much prefer the term "parent" church to "Main". What did the "main" church do for them? What ages where the attendee at the two new groups? And how long as of now have they existed?

[Tim Dahl]

Here is a pretty good book on church planting, per the question. It is The Multiplying Church, by Bob Roberts Jr.

Just a pic of his book.

[Sandy]

Discussing House churches Sandy writes:

I have been in one church that tried this. It was very hard for the people in the traditional congregation to accept the fact that a gathering at someone's home, where worship and Bible teaching were taking place, was the same as "going to church." There were questions about who was in charge, whether or not to count them in the attendance (we were, after all, Southern Baptist), did the person in charge need to be an "ordained" minister, were they teaching the Sunday School lesson from the quarterly, was it real "church," did they have to be accountable to the "main" church. They started off with two house meetings, and eventually, even though the leaders of both remained "members" of the main congregation, the accountability and ties to the main church held them back, and they went their own way. One of them has developed into a congregation of about 50 people that meets in a hotel banquet room each week, the other has become a network of small groups, about five or six, all through the region of the city where they originally started out.

Ed: Sandy, when you say in the second sentence "It was very hard for the people in the traditional congregation to accept the fact that a gathering at someone's home, where worship and Bible teaching were taking place, was the same as "going to church."

I am put off a bit by the implicit idea of two (or three) congregations, the new group(s) meeting in homes and the "traditional congregation" meeting in their long time house of worship. What did/do they have in common other than the same God in 3 personages?

Did the new groups have purpose statements ? If so where they the same? In what way did accountability to the "main church" hold them back. By the way I much prefer the term "parent" church to "Main". What did the "main" church do for them? What ages where the attendee at the two new groups? And how long as of now have they existed?

One of the groups was started by a former staff member who was commissioned by the parent congregation to start a new church in his home, located in an area where several thousand homes had been built in the previous decade, with no new churches visible in the area. The other was a deliberate attempt to go after people who were not attracted to a traditional church setting. They started in a home in a historic district with a culturally, socially and economically diverse population dotted with church buildings that belonged to once-thriving congregations now dwindled down to a few remaining elderly souls. They both had mission statements, originally authored by the parent congregation based on their vision of ministry, but in the practical application, some tweaking became necessary. The small group leaders were paid by the parent church, attended weekly staff meeting, and reported on their work to the parent church business meeting. There were some members of the parent church who thought that somehow, these groups would begin encouraging their people to "attend" the parent church, that after some period of time, that would be the goal. That was never part of the agreement, but when the parent congregation underwent a leadership change, that became the expectation. By then, the house congregations weren't dependent on the parent church's finances, and decided to go their own way.