9 reasons NOT to plant a church in 2012

[Hans Deventer]

http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/ta...h-in-2012.html

Reading this, it seems to make a lot of sense to me. What do you think?

[Dennis M. Scott]

As one who has been instrumental in the starting of 39 new churches and church type missions, I'd say the author is pretty accurate. I'd also offer a couple further considerations. Some believers never bought into the kind of church plants he so correctly describes. Trying not to simply justify my own record, 28 of the 39 efforts mentioned above have clearly been among the poor, refugees, the disadvantaged and immigrants: most would be considered models of compassionate ministry. "Church Planting" for some of us has been a lifelong effort to address many of the very criticisms he makes.

We really need a multi-fronted effort. It is not a matter of not starting the kind of works he criticizes, but that in addition to those, we need an additional movement of alternative ministry(ies). There will continue to be the need for groups that worship "traditionally" on Sunday morning. I still struggle with the concept of not gathering together to do what we most frequently call worship, but I readily embrace the idea that such isn't where most ministry takes place - and especially reject the notion that monitoring such is the best indication that the lost are being found, and believers are being discipled. I suspect that if when new believers are being discipled they will frequently desire to gather with other groups of believers for celebration, and even in church buildings. Sleeping in on Sunday morning is likely no more an option than sleeping in other days.

Generally I embrace the article, but lets not simply stop starting new churches: let's be about starting the Church in far more creative and additional ways.

[Marsha Lynn]

http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/ta...h-in-2012.html

Reading this, it seems to make a lot of sense to me. What do you think?

I came here this morning wondering if anyone had posted a link to it yet. The author makes some good points, although some of them apply specifically to places where there is religious persecution.

I've never quite caught the alarm others have about "sheep stealing." In a setting where churches abound, I see many, many "sheep" astray from their sheepfolds. Putting a label of "stealing" on those who provide a new place of safety for those strays makes an assumption that the other fold owns them and the proper thing for us to do is to shoo them back to their owners. But human sheep cannot be owned. Sometimes it may be time for them to move on and we're in the right place to provide them shelter and nurture for the next stage of their spiritual journey. We won't own them either, and they may be nomadic types who will soon strike out again for greener pastures, but that doesn't mean we aren't the place they need today in order to avoid being lost to the Kingdom entirely.

From that perspective, a church plant that attracts discontented and restless parishioners who are already fading away from other churches and breathes new spiritual fervor into their veins is much better than allowing those people to fall into spiritual malaise and substitute self-centered activities for ministry.

However, that's just a small quibble with one point among many excellent observations. Personally, I value the opportunities for focused ministry afforded by regular gatherings of the Body, but I can also see where ministry on a smaller scale in a variety of settings can be just as valuable.

I think the biggest question in all this is how well Christianity rubs off on people in social settings, since that's going to be the primary setting for evangelism outside of a church paradigm. I can point to no conversions stemming from my twelve years of rubbing shoulders with a variety of lost sheep while demonstrating and communicating my faith (along with most of library staff if teamwork is a basic requirement for all this) to the best of my ability in the public library setting (although there has been mutual blessing from one lonely sheep looking for a new fold who invited me to be a gateway into my church). On the other hand, my local church sitting out at the edge of town isn't doing all that well in terms of evangelism either, so who is to say which setting is more conducive to advancing the Kingdom? It's actually kind of nice to have both settings for ministry and to allow each to enhance the opportunities of the other. The library gives me opportunities to know and converse on any number of topics with people from the community (who sometimes show up at church and discover they know one more person there than they expected) and the church is a place to which I can direct those who are looking for a faith community and do ministry that is unapologetically Bible-focused and spiritual.

Marsha

[Rich Schmidt]

I've never quite caught the alarm others have about "sheep stealing." In a setting where churches abound, I see many, many "sheep" astray from their sheepfolds. Putting a label of "stealing" on those who provide a new place of safety for those strays makes an assumption that the other fold owns them and the proper thing for us to do is to shoo them back to their owners. But human sheep cannot be owned. Sometimes it may be time for them to move on and we're in the right place to provide them shelter and nurture for the next stage of their spiritual journey. We won't own them either, and they may be nomadic types who will soon strike out again for greener pastures, but that doesn't mean we aren't the place they need today in order to avoid being lost to the Kingdom entirely.

Agreed. That's the attitude I tend to have, especially for those leaving our church to go to other churches.

On the other hand, I have a pastor friend who had a mega-sized church move to his town from the town next door, and he was heartbroken to see people leave his tiny church for the big one... in some cases, he'd invested years of his life into these folks, helping them start coming to church for the first time, helping them take steps of growth in their discipleship, only to see them head to "the big church" where less will be expected of them and they can just sit back and be part of the crowd. He actually had some of them say that to him.

[Marsha Lynn]

Agreed. That's the attitude I tend to have, especially for those leaving our church to go to other churches.

On the other hand, I have a pastor friend who had a mega-sized church move to his town from the town next door, and he was heartbroken to see people leave his tiny church for the big one... in some cases, he'd invested years of his life into these folks, helping them start coming to church for the first time, helping them take steps of growth in their discipleship, only to see them head to "the big church" where less will be expected of them and they can just sit back and be part of the crowd. He actually had some of them say that to him.

I can see where that would be a very difficult situation for a hard-working pastor and would make one want to weep. And I don't want to detract from that.

Still, an alternative to weeping would be to look for reasons to rejoice.

1. The people who left your friend's church demonstrated that their faith existed independent of their pastor. Pastor-dependent Christians often don't survive a pastoral change. How nice to see they are strong enough to make independent choices for their spiritual diet.

2. If your friend is the only pastor those people have ever had, they have likely absorbed much of his teaching and will carry it into the megachurch, extending his teaching ministry beyond the walls of his small church.

3. The gaps these people leave behind will open up new ministry opportunities for others who might have been sitting on the bench in the shadow of the church superstars. Even if their skills are not up to the skills of those who left, perhaps the freshness they bring to the position will be a blessing.

4. Those left behind sitting in the shadow of the great megachurch might look more closely at where they are and what they want from a church and become more aware of the advantages of a small church.

5. After a while, the flow of traffic may turn the other direction as people in the megachurch become disillusioned by the anonymity of it and want to find a church where the pastor knows their name. Granted the flow that direction may be no more than a trickle, but one or two families can be a huge blessing to the small church.

The truth is, people in a given congregation come and go for a variety of reasons. Painting the megachurch as a thief when people go that direction is a distraction from dealing with the hand dealt to us. They weren't "stolen." They walked down the street by their own free will. And they could have just as easily become burnt out and left the faith entirely or been forced to leave the area due to a changing economic environment or family issues. It's not as though they were "owned" by your friend or the church he pastors/pastored until the megachurch came along.

Watching the nomadic sheep shuffle off to join the party down the street can still be heart-breaking, but I think attitude goes a long way in helping us cope with it. Calling that shuffle "theft" is demoralizing in that it paints the receiving church as godless criminals and the losing church as a victim of that criminal mindset. Where is God in that equation?

Marsha

[Billy Cox]

I've never quite caught the alarm others have about "sheep stealing." In a setting where churches abound, I see many, many "sheep" astray from their sheepfolds. Putting a label of "stealing" on those who provide a new place of safety for those strays makes an assumption that the other fold owns them and the proper thing for us to do is to shoo them back to their owners. But human sheep cannot be owned. Sometimes it may be time for them to move on and we're in the right place to provide them shelter and nurture for the next stage of their spiritual journey. We won't own them either, and they may be nomadic types who will soon strike out again for greener pastures, but that doesn't mean we aren't the place they need today in order to avoid being lost to the Kingdom entirely.

I really detest the 'sheep stealing' metaphor. First of all, in Jesus' day, sheep were imprinted from birth to the sound of the shepherd's voice. Another shepherd would thus have great difficulty 'stealing' sheep thus imprinted. Perhaps that stolen sheep didn't know the pastor's voice very well to start with?

I would characterize the person who leaves a small church to attend a large church thus: The large church offers top-notch, well-implemented programs for children. From the leavers point of view, they are doing what is best for the religious instruction/socialization of their children, and when the small church pastor belittles them or acts betrayed, the leaver simply looks at the pastor as if he just condemned them for choosing their children over loyalty to a religious organization. "Hello? Get a clue?"

[Rich Schmidt]

I can see where that would be a very difficult situation for a hard-working pastor and would make one want to weep. And I don't want to detract from that.

Still, an alternative to weeping would be to look for reasons to rejoice.

Thanks. I doubt he's still weeping over it, as we're several years down the road at this point. Also, he's become good friends with some of the staff pastors at that mega-sized church as they've served together in the local ministerial association.

FWIW, the main reason he wept over their decision was because he saw them on the cusp of stepping into active discipleship & service... and choosing instead to go to a church where they could avoid that & just vanish into a crowd of ministry-consumers. Again, this is based on their own explanation, not on his assumptions.

(BTW, his church is tiny, average attendance below 2 dozen, with more gaps than people. But since these folks weren't serving as of yet, they weren't leaving any gaps of that sort behind.)

Oh, and I don't remember if he ever used the phrase "sheep stealing" to refer to what happened. As I said earlier, I agree with the general ideas you're setting out on this issue. I'm just seeing ways that this one specific example doesn't seem to fit the stereotype.

To respond to Billy's post: I don't remember if they had children or not, and I'm fairly certain my friend didn't belittle or condemn them in his conversations with them about it.

[Billy Cox]

To respond to Billy's post: I don't remember if they had children or not, and I'm fairly certain my friend didn't belittle or condemn them in his conversations with them about it.

Yes, I doubt that most pastors would belittle or condemn someone who is leaving. That's just bad form. However, I've seen plenty of posts on NazNet in which contempt was expressed for those who leave small churches to attend large ones - presumably to enjoy better programming or (as inferred in this thread) to settle into a do-nothing Christianity.

I acknowledge a bias toward small churches - not because they are small, but because they saddle themselves with the trappings and systems of large churches when an organic approach would better serve both the congregation and community. For example, a church with fewer than 50 people probably has no business owning/renting a facility and hiring a pastor. (or pastors) (!)

[Dale Cozby]

To me this just reinforces the opinion I had for years that the two trends we see in church is for many of the "faithful" to move into ever larger worship churches with professional concerts and a charismatic pastor that preaches "good" but isn't really involved in the peoples lives on the mega church. He/She spends time with his paid staff who do most of the ministry.

The other trend is to move toward organic church. Small groups of intimately involved people who love, live, pray and die together. This can take on many forms based on place, culture and more.

The idea of mega church is attractive for its professionalism, and many ministries that often are supported through direct payment of those using those services , but it seems like Church Inc. to me. The other seems like it doesn't require any form of institution at all, just people who love God and each other and want to help others.

These two movements doesn't leave much room for the churches I knew growing up to exist, or for the methods and paradigms the denomination uses to measure success and 'keep score'.

[Dennis M. Scott]

These two movements doesn't leave much room for the churches I knew growing up to exist,

I'm interested in why you think this to be the case.

Regardless, I hope you are mistaken. The churches you and I knew growing up (grant me some breadth here) can continue to be effective among some groups of people. It is unlikely they will receive recognition for what they do best, but they generally want to keep on going like they are, anyway. And for better or worse, they produce people like you and me. I'm arrogant enough to think that's not the worst thing in the world.

[Hans Deventer]

Got a reply on Facebook from Trevor Hutton, who is a church planting consultant for the British Isles districts.

This is a reminder that Church planting should never be an end in itself, and the motivations must be higher and greater than church growth. Church planting however is ONE essential strategy in the missional activity of God but not the only one. Church growth theory has strengths and weaknesses and of course the current focus on missional church is a helpful wake up call to the Missio Dei. However what is overlooked here is the direct link between missional work and the forming subsequentially of relationships leading to community. The current emphasis on FEOC is of course on doing mission in new ways and in new places among new cultures. All this is good, but of this is done a missional community will always form if mission is truly relational and incarnational. The motivation must be God glorfying, the work kingdom oriented, and the focus Christ centred. The aim is not to start churches for the sake of it, or even for growth, but to recogonise that when the Gospel is lived and shared authentically new communities often form. Church planting at best recognises this and holds true that all missional work must at least be intentional (planting) and almost invariably form a community (church). So long as it has a solid biblical and theological basis and motivation we should always consider church planting as one vital expression of the Great Commission.

[Randy Wise]

As one who has been instrumental in the starting of 39 new churches and church type missions,

One more to go. At "40" you get this badge under your avitar. ""

I would think the Lord is pleased with your efforts.

Randy

[Dennis M. Scott]

One more to go. At "40" you get this badge under your avitar. ""

I would think the Lord is pleased with your efforts.

Randy

I don't think I get another: too much bragging.

[Gene Tatsch]

Reading this, it seems to make a lot of sense to me. What do you think?

... and to me, too.
Sounds very "organic"/"house" church ;-) A paradigm shift for most of us (I'm very much in transition right now)

[Sarah Smith]

I'm one of those sheep who has been stolen from time to time.

I've always wanted to make some things clear to the pastors who thought I had been stolen.

I've wanted to tell them that I chose carefully which church to join. If God indeed calls you to come in and change everything about it, go for it, but understand that may make it morph into a church that God has not called me to be supporting.

I cringe whenever someone makes comments about someone like "they just want a place to go and hide in the crowd" or "they were just beginning to get involved in ministry."

Who's ministry? Some pastors do not evidently understand the first thing about the concept of vocation. If God has called me to raise children, doing that well may take up every minute of every day, and getting them to SS and church on Sunday morning may be all the involvement in the church to which God has called me.

I may not be able to be at your Bible study Wednesday night because I need to be home supervising homework, packing lunches for the next day, leading my children in prayer, and tucking them into bed. That may be God's call on my life, and to leave my post might be to disobey Him.

God may have called another in the church to be a truck driver and support his wife and kids. That may mean working long hours, with what hours he has left filled with his responsibility before God as husband and father. If you push him to get involved in this ministry and that ministry you may run him off to a church that values the ministry he is already fulfilling.

Another may be called to be a doctor, or waitress, or any number of callings.

I believe God MIGHT be giving you your vision for what needs to be done. I need you to believe that I can hear God's call on my life and my ability to see the vision He would give me.

Offer many opportunities for service, yes, most surely, but do not judge the spiritual state of those who are not signing up to take part.

It just might be we have been given a different vocation and calling by God.

[Billy Cox]

I cringe whenever someone makes comments about someone like "they just want a place to go and hide in the crowd" or "they were just beginning to get involved in ministry."

Who's ministry? Some pastors do not evidently understand the first thing about the concept of vocation. If God has called me to raise children, doing that well may take up every minute of every day, and getting them to SS and church on Sunday morning may be all the involvement in the church to which God has called me.

Pastors are so immersed in the life of their local church that it can be difficult or impossible for them to comprehend, let alone value those who are only in it ankle-deep.

I'm halfway expressing sympathy for their plight, but then shaking my head that they are standing around waiting for the world to change.

[Ryan Scott]

To me this just reinforces the opinion I had for years that the two trends we see in church is for many of the "faithful" to move into ever larger worship churches with professional concerts and a charismatic pastor that preaches "good" but isn't really involved in the peoples lives on the mega church. He/She spends time with his paid staff who do most of the ministry.

The other trend is to move toward organic church. Small groups of intimately involved people who love, live, pray and die together. This can take on many forms based on place, culture and more.

I agree with this impending dichotomy. It reminds me of the story Peter Rollins tells about the end of the world. God comes and takes all those faithful Christians who have been pining for heaven and gives them their divine rest. God then takes all the angels with him and moves to Earth, to take up residence with those who have put their lot in with those struggling to survive in life.

I think it is a beautiful reflection of scripture without heaping condemnation on anyone.

[Rich Schmidt]

I cringe whenever someone makes comments about someone like "they just want a place to go and hide in the crowd" or "they were just beginning to get involved in ministry."

Who's ministry? Some pastors do not evidently understand the first thing about the concept of vocation. If God has called me to raise children, doing that well may take up every minute of every day, and getting them to SS and church on Sunday morning may be all the involvement in the church to which God has called me.

I appreciate your sharing the "view from the 'stolen' sheep," Sarah. Since this part seems to be directed pretty squarely toward my earlier comments, I feel like I should respond.

Mainly I want to say: Please don't assume that your description here matches what my friend meant when he was mourning the loss of those families from his church community. Maybe you're not assuming that... but it wasn't clear to me from what you wrote. What I relayed here was based on what these folks told my friend when they left his church. And he has a broad enough understanding of ministry and vocation to not fall into the trap you described here... though I acknowledge that I myself may have fallen into it in the past.

I'm not challenging the validity of your points. I'm just feeling the need to stick up for my (hopefully still anonymous) friend, to whom I don't think your descriptions apply.

[Sarah Smith]

Rich--point taken with a couple of caveats.

While your post was indeed the one on naznet making those statements, they are common as fleas on dogs around here.

And your friend, whom I assume if he is your friend is a good guy, cannot possibly see into the hearts of others. He can state what he sees, but all he can see is the outward behavior, not the inward motive.

I think we get further in dealing with sheep, stolen or otherwise, if we start from the base of assuming they have what to them is a good reason for their actions.

[Rich Schmidt]

And your friend, whom I assume if he is your friend is a good guy, cannot possibly see into the hearts of others. He can state what he sees, but all he can see is the outward behavior, not the inward motive.

Which is why I've said every time that his comments were based on his conversations with them and their own explanations for why they were leaving.

[Billy Cox]

Which is why I've said every time that his comments were based on his conversations with them and their own explanations for why they were leaving.

And I acknowledge that where gaps appear in the story, I fill in details and motivations from my own stories.

[Susan Unger]

I've never quite caught the alarm others have about "sheep stealing." In a setting where churches abound, I see many, many "sheep" astray from their sheepfolds. Putting a label of "stealing" on those who provide a new place of safety for those strays makes an assumption that the other fold owns them and the proper thing for us to do is to shoo them back to their owners. But human sheep cannot be owned. Sometimes it may be time for them to move on and we're in the right place to provide them shelter and nurture for the next stage of their spiritual journey. We won't own them either, and they may be nomadic types who will soon strike out again for greener pastures, but that doesn't mean we aren't the place they need today in order to avoid being lost to the Kingdom entirely.

From that perspective, a church plant that attracts discontented and restless parishioners who are already fading away from other churches and breathes new spiritual fervor into their veins is much better than allowing those people to fall into spiritual malaise and substitute self-centered activities for ministry.

I agree.

Thinking more about sheep straying...It irks me a little when I hear of pastors of straying bad sheep saying that they call the new pastor to warn them of the bad sheep. It would seem that this could close too many doors to that particular sheep in need of God's love. I'm thinking of a situation in particular. Then, in my church administration class, I was told that pastors can warn other pastors of 'bad' sheep but parishioners can't warn other parishioners of 'bad' pastors. This makes no sense to me.

[Billy Cox]

Thinking more about sheep straying...It irks me a little when I hear of pastors of straying bad sheep saying that they call the new pastor to warn them of the bad sheep. It would seem that this could close too many doors to that particular sheep in need of God's love. I'm thinking of a situation in particular. Then, in my church administration class, I was told that pastors can warn other pastors of 'bad' sheep but parishioners can't warn other parishioners of 'bad' pastors. This makes no sense to me.

It's also possible that a pastor who badmouths one of his former 'sheep' diminishes his/her reputation with the pastor on the other end of the conversation. As for parishioners not being allowed to warn others of bad pastors, I think that's more an acknowledgement that they will do so anyway, whether it's good form or not.

[Susan Unger]

It's also possible that a pastor who badmouths one of his former 'sheep' diminishes his/her reputation with the pastor on the other end of the conversation.

This is where I was coming from. I was told that for a parishioner to warn another congregation about a pastor, it is gossip. But if a pastor warns another pastor about a parishioner, then it is not gossip. To me that is being hypocritical. Warnings on either end will affect if not diminish the reputation of the person with the others [whether said warnings are needed or not]. So instead of saying one is ok and the other is sin is not right.

[Tim Bourland]

Pastors are so immersed in the life of their local church that it can be difficult or impossible for them to comprehend, let alone value those who are only in it ankle-deep.

I'm halfway expressing sympathy for their plight, but then shaking my head that they are standing around waiting for the world to change.

There might be a step to be taken to break them out of that immersion. Require that they (dare I say all pastors...at least for a time) be bivocational. That would force them to deal with the same time constraints of those "uncommitted church people" to whom they minister. If they have any amount of heart and understanding, their tune will change quite quickly.

[Gene Tatsch]

... Require that they (dare I say all pastors...at least for a time) be bivocational...

Thank you!
I know of at least one pastor who was quite offended when I suggested he didn't understand what I (non-pastor) was dealing with.
And I suspect bivocational pastors would be much more effective in shepherding the flock ...
... and would be unfettered to speak God's words ...

[Billy Cox]

There might be a step to be taken to break them out of that immersion. Require that they (dare I say all pastors...at least for a time) be bivocational. That would force them to deal with the same time constraints of those "uncommitted church people" to whom they minister. If they have any amount of heart and understanding, their tune will change quite quickly.

The thought just occurred to me... I have heard plenty of pastors refer to academia as the 'ivory tower' as though it exists in a separate rarefied world, but I have observed that the average ministerial student working his/her way through school is far more engaged with the lost world than the average full-tme pastor.

[Tim Bourland]

The thought just occurred to me... I have heard plenty of pastors refer to academia as the 'ivory tower' as though it exists in a separate rarefied world, but I have observed that the average ministerial student working his/her way through school is far more engaged with the lost world than the average full-tme pastor.

The sad thing is that they quickly lose that in exchange for the comforts of the church office. Then, before they know it, they've become insulated from the hurt of the world around them. Really, it's very sad. I know. I've been there. So glad that God has led me into bivocational ministry. It really is an amazing journey!

[Billy Cox]

The sad thing is that they quickly lose that in exchange for the comforts of the church office. Then, before they know it, they've become insulated from the hurt of the world around them. Really, it's very sad. I know. I've been there. So glad that God has led me into bivocational ministry. It really is an amazing journey!

I observed this in a church plant several years ago. For a time, it was story after story of people far from God being reconciled to Him, but gradually gave way to a constant triage of the various afflictions within the congregation until salvation stories were very rare. It turns out that proximity to lost people has a very strong correlation to lost people turning to Jesus.