Is “church planting” a helpful term?
I was having a conversation on Google Chat the other day with Lon, and he mentioned a statistic that I wasn’t aware of related to church planting. Apparently, 80% of church plants fail in their first year. That’s a staggering statistic by all accounts. It led into an interesting conversation about why that might be so. One of the thoughts that I had was that perhaps many church plants fail because too much of the focus is on “church” and not enough on kingdom and discipleship. After all, when are we ever told to build/plant churches? We’re told to make disciples and take the Good News of God’s kingdom to the world, but where’s the command to plant churches? I think that when we focus on discipleship and have a kingdom mindset, God will take care of the church. And, anyway, didn’t Jesus say that He would build His church?
Of course, this raises a lot of questions about church. What is a church? Why does the church exist? What is our role in building the church in light of Jesus saying that He would do it? Is “church planting” the right term to use? If the church is the primary means by which God extends His kingdom and disciples nations, what should that look like?
Lot’s of questions which anyone is free and encouraged to comment on. Here though are a few thoughts of my own. For starters, I believe that the church is first and foremost of body of people. Sadly, the images and thoughts that seem to come to most people’s minds at the mention of the word church are buildings (usually old Anglican ones here in England), Sunday’s, and services. The church is understood at best to be a place where people meet on Sunday’s for a service. It’s not that I think this is necessarily wrong; it’s just that for me this is far to limited understanding of what the church is. And most importantly it is not nearly enough about people and not nearly enough about mission. I see the church as being a community of people on a mission together. And buildings, Sunday’s, and services (in the traditional sense) may or may not be part of that.
And here’s why I think so many church plants fail. I think all too often the focus is on establishing a congregation of church members who will come to a building, on a Sunday, for a service. And, in the spiritual climate of the western world, it is no wonder that so many church plants fail. But if the focus is simply built around our actual commission (making disciples), I really don’t think it is possible to fail. That’s where we’re at with launching Mosaic here in Sheffield. We have no building, deliberately avoid Sunday’s, and have no planned “services” for the foreseeable future. Our focus is simply on building relationships with those who don’t yet have a relationship with Christ and pointing them towards Him. We want everything that we do to emerge out of the actual needs of the people we are trying to reach. I think it is all too easy to try and force people to like the form of church that we are most familiar with. But for a growing number of people, these forms are alien and alienating. And I guess it’s those people that we’re wanting to connect with here in Sheffield.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting this is right for everyone. And there are lot of people both inside and outside of the church who would go so far as to think that what we’re doing is dodgy simply because we don’t have services on a Sunday in a building! But our heart is just with connecting with people who are searching for God but no longer feel that the church is a place to go as part of that search. We don’t really know the exact shape or form Mosaic will take and we’re not that bothered by that. We simply want to make disciples and see God’s kingdom breaking into more and more people and places within Sheffield.
So, what about the question that heads up this post? Is “church planting” a helpful term? For me I think the answer is no. The small team of us who are starting Mosaic are the church. We are not planting a church. We are the church and, through discipling others who have not yet encountered Christ, we will see our community grow. We are not starting a service on a Sunday in a church building; we are building relationships with a community of people who are far from God and creating enviroments where they can find, explore, and grow in faith. We want to do our part in making disciples and then trust Christ to do His part in actually building the church. Maybe that is a church plant, maybe it isn’t. And, to be honest, I’m not that bothered what it’s called. If God’s kingdom is being is being furthered and people are discovering the reality of Christ, that’s all that matters.
What do you think?
May 9th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Jesus told US to go and make disciples, and he said HE would build his church. When I finally realized this I stopped church planting, unplanted the one I started, and instead, assembled a mission team to go into the world. I’ll never regret it. I’ve been doing my job, and He’s been doing His. It’s very freeing. So, even though I’m called upon more than ever to speak to leaders on church planting, I don’t plant churches anymore. We venture into the wild sea of a broken and needy humanity and He establishes the church in our wake.
May 9th, 2006 at 1:44 am
i was looking at matthew 9:37-38 with some friends today. then he said to his disciples, “the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”
perhaps a better term is church harvesting - God is the planter.
May 9th, 2006 at 6:09 am
Hey awesome post Sam! thanks for linking me! I shared what we chatted about with some other people yesterday, and how the way we tend to quantify success in church plants can be so off target.
You’re absolutely right about what matters is God’s kingdom being furthered. I think I need to think more about the ‘church planting’ term. In one sense I feel like I’m already fueling multiple church plants, and while the term can be helpful for me in terms of my attitude, I don’t think it is for many on the outside looking in.
I do like what Dean said about missional teams. the idea of a ‘plant’ seems a bit stiff. I see the church as a community of people that gathered and sent out. and those who gather and those who are sent out are the same people.
May 9th, 2006 at 6:55 am
Personally, I think “planting” is the perfect term. A good church is one that grows like a tree. Plant a church (team of people) in fertile soil that watered by the Spirit, and it will grow tall under the Sun.
The familiar approach is to plant a pole in the ground and glue leaves to it. Eventually you end up with something that actually resembles a tree if you don’t look to closely. It takes water and light to make a tree grow. Those happen naturally. The best we can do is work the soil and let things grow.
May 9th, 2006 at 6:57 am
I can chime in on this…as we’ve begun to progress here in Sacto, I was not comfortable (many of us really) with the term “church plant.” So I started saying, “birth of a spiritual community,” which is OK; and reading Dean say “assemble a mission team” really rang true for me. I’ve been unsettled in trying to explain to folks what we strive to do…church plant seems to be what folks understand and if I try to explain it some other way they scrunch up thier face and look cock-eyed at me…that’s the Christians; as I expalin to the unchurched or “de-churched” they get it…what does that mean?
“Venturing out into the wild sea of a broken and needy Humanity…” yeah, I get that.
I envision a community that ebbs and flows, announcing the Kingdom and calling others to it; and that can look so different, everyday, depending on what’s going on; a perspective like this really blows the doors off what we tend to expect from a church and church plant. I think it makes some people (Christians) nervous.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
I talked a little about Elton’s Trueblood’s book that discussed how our use of church effects our attitude here: http://bookclub.voxtropolis.com/2006/04/18/45-yrs-trying/
Also, the question, “What is a church?” has been a struggle for me often as most of my ministry has been with “para-church” ministries that often remind us that we aren’t a church. I keep asking myself, “Why not?”
May 9th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
I appreciate your “parachurch” perspective Jake. I think if we were forced to measure the church by mission alone, then in many cases we’d have to take “church” and “parachurch ministry” and reverse the labels.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Dean - great thoughts. Summarises how we feel perfectly. Can’t believe we’ll be seeing you guys this Saturday! In California!
Terry - thanks for stopping by. I think the picture of the harvest field reminds us that we are called to partner with God in what He is already doing. Sometimes I think we think it’s the other way round!
Peter - I have less of problem with the word plant than I do church actually! Plant can be a helpful image (though it is limiting in the sense of portraying how the church is meant to be a movement of people on a mission together.
Eric - I agree about liking “assembling a mission team”. That’s exactly it. Finding language the communicates what you’re actually doing with both those who do follow Christ and those who don’t is definitely challenging. Trying to communicate with followers of Christ in particular has been a real challenge due to the overfamiliarity with the language.
Jake - thanks for your thoughts. So where do you feel you are on the “what is a church” question? I think there’s a lot of room for a good discussion about church vs. parachurch. We’ve had quite a bit of experience with this here in Sheffield with student ministry which I will bring to the conversation in a bit if people are interested (I’m about to go and see Mission Impossible 3 now!)
May 9th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Sorry Lon…just realised I missed you off! I guess we have had a bit more of a chat though!! (That’s my excuse anyway!)
May 9th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Hey Sam, no worries, now that i know you’re on googlechat, you can’t escape me!
May 10th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Thought I’d just post this comment by Erwin McManus on parachurch organisations. I’m re-reading An Unstoppable Force at the moment and read this just this morning:
In many ways the emergence of the parachurch reflects the paralysis within the local church. When we stopped calling youth to the mission of Christ, Youth With A Mission emerged. When we ignored the opportunity to reach university students, Campus Crusade emerged. When we settled for church attendance and neglected discipleship, Navigators emerged. When we hesitated to call men to the role of spiritual leadership, Promise Keepers emerged. Yet while the parachurch was rallying and mobilising men and women whose hearts were longing to serve Christ, it was at the same time accelerating the spiritual anemia and decline of the local church. The church became a fortress from the world rather than the hope of the world.
What do you think?
I think Erwin’s right on the mark here. Our situation in Sheffield over the last few years has very much been about a group of us mission-minded churches taking back on our responsibility to reach out to the students in our city rather than passively watching a parachurch organisation do it all. We want to reach out to students and empower them to reach out to their friends. And we believe that their being connected to a healthy, missional church is the best way for them to do that.
Any thoughts?
May 10th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Great Stuff Sam,
This conversation has the potential to linger for quite sometime. Through different research and conversations I have been informed of the top three reasons church plants fail. Although this isn’t true across the board most of the plants I have observed that have failed have been because of these three reasons.
Number 1: Wrong person - believe it or not some go but aren’t called to it. One of the ways we have gone about identifing if it is a right person or not is through an assessment. Please don’t get me wrong, all are called just maybe not to the lead role.
Number 2: Spousal Cooperation - If the spouse is not fully committed to the plant it can be very damaging. Not just to the marriage but all parties associated with the plant. My wife and I have been in counseling for several months now and will continue to go past our actual launch date.
Number 3: Inadequate Training/Preperation - There are a lot of great resources out there but they still fall short in adequately training or preparing. One of the best ways to train and prepare is to be associated with a “mother” church. The other key in this area is a mentor and if at all possible one who has planted a church successfully before.
Which brings me to my question. Recently our plant team was sitting around the table and my mentor said he was going to do everything he could to see this plant be a success - to which my wife replied what is a successful church plant look like to you?
How would you answer that? What does a success look like in a church plant?
May 10th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
all very intersting.i have one question thoug… what is the parachurch?
May 10th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Chantelle, an example of a parachurch organisation/ministry in England would be UCCF. Does that help?
May 10th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
i’m really sorry to be a bit blond but that still doesnt make and sense to me
May 10th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
The parachurch ministry I’m most connected to is the Baptist Student Union, which is supported by local churches as a ministry on campus. Essentially it has a specific focus (college students) and is not the sole extension of one local body. Other than being financially dependant on an association and consequently subject to their restrictions, I’m not sure what part of being a church in its own right it is missing.