I have no personal experience with church plants, but feel strongly about the movement and the importance of doing more of it. Please add your thoughts to the mix. I'd love to learn more from the front lines.

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." -Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

In the Great Commission, Jesus commands his disciples to do what He did: make disciples.

Much of our effort is dedicated to making attendees, not apprentices.

I'm saying that the goal is not attendance (I know, you're not saying that, either). The goal is not even evangelism per se (if it were, there'd be more passages about it in Acts and the Epistles). but well-shaped apprentices of Jesus Christ. The mission is New Creation.

I believe Scripture teaches that the disciple-making process is inherently, naturally attractive. When people see a life that works, they will want to know where and how we got that way.

I wish you'd explain what you're saying. I mean, I'm not arguing that evangelism is the sole focus of the church or that every ministry must be focused evangelistically. I've argued against that viewpoint a number of times.

The Great Omission argues for "discipleship" but what does that mean? What's the right "commission"? I find this all very puzzling.

Acts 8:4 is pretty much the only New Testament passage on personal evangelism that I can find.

The work of the community of Christ is disciple-making, not pure evangelism.

This is not to suggest that the "church plant" focus is wrong — just that the "church" has to be "planted" with the right Commission. Dallas Willard's writings, especially The Great Omission, point this out brilliantly.

Some are purely maintenance — preparing communion, visiting the sick, mowing the grass. These are very important and they aren't to be tested based on baptisms.

Just so, when we care for the poor or give money to a foster care agency, the test isn't baptisms. It is, however, effectiveness at caring for the poor. If we aren't really helping in a way that glorifies God, we need to fix it or do something else.

When we host an Easter egg hunt and ask our families to invite friends, this is neither maintenance nor benevolence. It's either catering to our own children or else it's evangelism. And we justify investing huge amounts of time and money arguing it's for evangelism.

In that case, we should sensibly ask whether it's accomplishing the goal that sold the program to the elders or budget committee — does it do effective outreach?

If the answer is: look at all the couples who transferred membership here from another church, then it's not evangelism at all.

Now, I'm an advocate for the Simple Church theory (in general, not detail). We shouldn't ask our members to do things that aren't effective at whatever the goal is. Nor should we replace secular events where our members could make friends with the unchurched.

Hence, I find myself opposed to church league sports. Far better to fellowship with the unchurched! (But a church league that draws from the unchurched would be excellent, and we have members doing just that.) I mean, I just think we need to be honest with ourselves and ask: does this event serve it's intended purpose? And even better: does this event make the best possible use of the talents and energies of our people to serve its intended purpose?

We have only so much time and money. We want our members to befriend the unchurched. Therefore, we need to do less so we can do more.

How much of our activity related to ministry, programs etcetera can really be tied back to a deep spiritual significance or mission? Remember that evangelism is part of the mission not the mission itself. How much of it is really just a result of our cultural way of doing to church? Involvement and even what some may perceive to be “Christian Service” is not the equivalent of spiritual growth.

Some examples activity that is required by our cultural way of doing church but is really about being busy not spiritual growth or mission:

Washing the baptismal garments – (Irrelevant in the 1st century

Preparing communion – (Met in houses the host only prepared enough communion for the few meeting in the house

Cleaning and maintaining the church building and grounds (Irrelevant met in homes in 1srt century

Recording attendance (Irrelevant in 1st century

Bible classes and preaching that do not result in spiritual growth but just more knowledge or memorization. (In the 1st century the word of God was written on people’s heart and shaped their behavior, living and character.

The list can go on and on. These activities are what some may refer to as “necessary evils” because of our white middle class way of doing church in America. It is very hard to draw the connective tissue back to the mission from these activities.

We really need to learn how to measure something else, like volunteer hours or friends brought to church or something.

2 Samuel 24 comes to mind…

It just seems to me that the things that really matter cannot be objectively measured. Maybe that's not by accident. If we could bottle the perfect forumula for growing churches, and reproduce it, we'd use that ability to build a tower of Babel. It takes faith out of the process. (ie, the faith that if we do the things God says, we will produce the results God wants).

Now, the temptation is to think: how can we make VBS evangelistic? Wrong question. The right question is: how can our church help us be evangelistic?

I don't think either of those is the "right question." I just don't see Paul using evangelistic effectiveness as the litmus test for every work of the church. It seems to me that Paul's teaching focused on building up the church in faith, hope and love; preparing the people for works of service; and bringing glory to God. And by the way, those churches grew dramatically.