New CBF leader says, 'Let's start some churches.'

[William Thornton]

Paynter unveils vision for ‘CBF 2.0’

Buried down towards the bottom of the article is this short paragraph:

Paynter said CBF churches have a unique evangelistic witness to offer. “We must start and nurture new congregations,” she said. “Each healthy CBF church should take up, with prayerful consideration, starting a church within the next five years.”

While gummit money gets far more words in the article, if I were CBF I would like this thrust. It will be interesting to see if it is implemented and with what degree of success.

I'm happy to help out my CBF friends here with a positive discussion on their stuff.

[Sandy]

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.

[Tim Bonney]

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.

[William Thornton]

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

[Dave Roberts]

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

Duly noted!

[Sandy]

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.

[TrudyU]

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

Ed: So what did Sandy say nice about CBF? I seem to have missed it.

[Dave Roberts]

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.

[Tim Bonney]

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

Noted indeed. (Marking the date on my calendar for historic reference. )

[Tim Bonney]

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.

That is the key, strategic placement. It also doesn't hurt to figure out who else is doing the same thing in the same area. One of the mistakes one of my former churches made in their move to a new suburb was that they assumed they'd get all the new people because they were the newest church in the area. The problem was two other denominations had the same idea and built newer churches that actually aimed at the younger demographic in the area and got most of the bang out of the new church starts over a moved older congregation.

[Sandy]

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.

That's the key--"strategically placed" and "well-supported." Baptists of all kinds have a tendency to run to the suburbs to either plant churches, or relocate existing ones. That's why, in the South in particular, the churches are showing lower baptism numbers and decreasing attendance. They've built on top of each other, and they've reached all the upper middle class white people they can. Now, the megachurches are offering their cafeteria-smorgasbord inwardly focused ministries and picking off the wealthier and younger members.

I just finished up a week of mission service where I served alongside a Hispanic pastor from the Chicago suburbs whose Spanish and English speaking congregation of about 500 people works with NAMB and the Illinois State Baptist Convention to support two language church plants in the city, one Polish-speaking and one Ukrainian-speaking, both less than five years old, both ready to become self supporting. The Polish church purchased an abandoned Catholic school facility and share it with the Ukrainians, and with another church plant. The inner cities are definitely underserved, and the lack of any kind of Christian ministry among the ethnic populations on the west side of Chicago was an open door. The Hispanic pastor told me that 700 people worship and attend Bible study in that building in the course of a week.

Geographically, I don't know how well CBF is positioned to be able to support church plants in areas like that outside the South. Looking at their website, there aren't many CBF affiliated churches beyond the Southern states, and a $12 million budget won't cover a lot of church planting without help from locals. Do any of the CBF partner schools offer a major or minor in church planting? That would be a good place to start.

[Tim Bonney]

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.

[Sandy]

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?

[Dave Roberts]

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).

[TrudyU]

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).

Ed: Dave, do I understand correctly, that those two state organizations take a program of their own design to CBF partner schools, If so do you have access to an outline or outlines that you could share.

And to others in this discussion; How many of you have had hands on experience in church planting. If so I would be interested in hearing stories of how it went from conception to viability.

[Dave Roberts]

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).

Ed: Dave, do I understand correctly, that those two state organizations take a program of their own design to CBF partner schools, If so do you have access to an outline or outlines that you could share.

And to others in this discussion; How many of you have had hands on experience in church planting. If so I would be interested in hearing stories of how it went from conception to viability.

To find out what they are doing, you might be better served contacting Rob Fox at CBFVA or Larry Hovis at CBFNC.

[linda]

Old thread, but:

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

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

[Tim Bonney]

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.

That may be a matter of resources and also demographics. It is pretty hard to start a new church in a rural area. In many rural areas where often population is shrinking and many small churches are struggling would it really be a value to the kingdom to start another church to compete with already struggling churches? Would such a church plant have much of a chance at success?

Like it or not, college towns and suburban areas is where people are moving to. Here in Iowa we see growth in the urban areas and decline in the rural population. So in small rural towns that already have many types of churches and a shrinking populace is there a real benefit to starting one more?

[Dave Roberts]

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.

[Sandy]

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.

[Tim Bonney]

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.

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

That may be a matter of resources and also demographics. It is pretty hard to start a new church in a rural area. In many rural areas where often population is shrinking and many small churches are struggling would it really be a value to the kingdom to start another church to compete with already struggling churches? Would such a church plant have much of a chance at success?

Like it or not, college towns and suburban areas is where people are moving to. Here in Iowa we see growth in the urban areas and decline in the rural population. So in small rural towns that already have many types of churches and a shrinking populace is there a real benefit to starting one more?

What if John Wesley had thought that way? There wouldn't have been all those little Methodist churches dotting the countryside around here.

I have wanted to be involved with a CBF church, but the closest one is 90 miles away.

[Sandy]

I have wanted to be involved with a CBF church, but the closest one is 90 miles away.

Is there a particular characteristic or something specific you are expecting to find in a "CBF" church? Some of them do have a distinctive "moderate Baptist" identity and atmosphere, but many of them are only CBF because of a group of their members, and there's not anything particularly distinctive that sets them apart from numerous other SBC congregations. Last time I saw any statistical information, about 90% of CBF congregations were still providing financial support for the SBC through the Cooperative Program.

[Michael Wrenn]

I have wanted to be involved with a CBF church, but the closest one is 90 miles away.

Is there a particular characteristic or something specific you are expecting to find in a "CBF" church? Some of them do have a distinctive "moderate Baptist" identity and atmosphere, but many of them are only CBF because of a group of their members, and there's not anything particularly distinctive that sets them apart from numerous other SBC congregations. Last time I saw any statistical information, about 90% of CBF congregations were still providing financial support for the SBC through the Cooperative Program.

Hopefully those freedoms left out of the "new" SBC, such as the freedom not to believe in scriptural inerrancy, to affirm women as pastors, the freedom not to believe in penal substitution. I am very traditional on morality and ethics, but I am more of a moderate theologically, with some conservative and "liberal" views sprinkled in. I also don't believe in OSAS.