Again, this is just an idea. I’ve never done this. I don’t know anyone else who has. It’s probably impossible. But at the worst, this would be a good exercise for any church leadership. What would it take to turn an existing church into a planted church?
Here’s a sample church-plant plan. Now, stop and read it.
No, you have to go back and click the link. It’s not long. And I have software that tells me whether you’ve clicked or not — and I’ll think very badly of you if you cheat and skip ahead!!
Here’s the gist of the strategy —
* A detailed strategy built on Biblical principles applied to the local populaton
* Detailed job responsibilities for the leadership
* Start up based on direct mail and other advertising
* A year of preparing the community through a series of monthly or more-frequent events
* Initial membership committed to taking on roles required to bring visitors into community and, ultimately, discipleship
* Worship service targeted to address culture of those invited, instrumental, with an excellent worship leader
* Classes, groups, etc. structured to be effective in outreach
* Ministry leadership in place to work with all age groups (remember most in attendance will be new to the church)
* Etc.
It’s a remarkably detailed, thoughtful plan that will surely demand a tremendous time commitment from the leadership and volunteers. It’s far more detailed than most church’s mission statements or strategic plans — in part because the expectations of the membership are so high.
And they expect to have over 4 visitor for every member! Rather than having 400 members with 200 in attendance, they expect to have 75 members with 400 in attendance.
Rather than starting with 20 and building to 50, they plan to start with 300 to 400 and build rapidly from there.
Now — is there anything that would keep an existing church from doing the very same thing?
In fact, doesn’t an existing church have several advantages — existing building (doesn’t have to be rented), existing, trained, mature volunteers and ministries, money in the bank, name recognition, etc.?
And so, why doesn’t anyone do this? Am I crazy? (I’ve been off the opiates for quite a while now, so I can no longer blame the drugs.)
This plan looks very familiar Jay. We used one similar to it. To answer your question; No. Any existing church in theory has the opportunity to do this.
The main reason they do not, has to with their minds hearts and fears. First they don't see the need. Second if they did see the need, much of their theology would get in the way of their mission. Third it would require that people think for themselves, something that most people in the church of Christ stopped doing long ago or never even did in the first place.
Most of the typical cofC congregations of about 98 members almost exclusively white middle class would rather close down in the next few years than do something like this. Believe me I tried to help a few of them in Arkansas and Mississippi. Thank God a few people are learning and growing as yourself and others.
I was part of a "planting" (more of a volunteer weed!) in the 1980's. We started with 13 adults, counting the preacher and his wife. Most were young marrieds and parents of preschool children. We had no outside financial support. Our plan was a bit different from what you described. Basically it involved discipleship, and every member being evangelistic. We had evangelistic Bible studies at the workplace and in homes. Virtually every visitor who came to church came based on a personal invitation — not an advertizing blitz. We preached a message of sin, repentance, forgiveness, and discipleship. That's basically it. The church grew from 13 to about 185 members in five years.
We were an a cappella congregation, and that was a non-issue.
The key ingredient was that every member was fully committed to the mission. That is the toughest part about changing an existing congregation into one that acts like a planting. If you don't have that, I doubt that advertising, detailed plans and roles for leaders will adequately compensate for the deficiency. What makes small church plantings more effective IMO is that it is easier in that scenario to start from a fully committed baseline.
Alan:
Some food for thought for church planters in 2008. I would be curious as to the state now of the congregation that you helped start? The reason I ask is that there have been churches started that fit the profile that you described and others increased in membership but did not make disciples of all people. Would you say that the majority of the new disciples came from actual lost and unchurched backgrounds or from post modern mindsets, or were they previously affiliated with some other Christian denomination or Christian background? The demographics sociology and thinking are much different now then they were in 1980. Recently I was coaching a friend of mine who is planting a church in MO. He said we are trying to get Bible studies with people but it just seems that not many people want to study the Bible. Either they already have their religious answers or they lean toward a post modern thinking and don't really understand why the Bible is an authority or tells us about God etc.
I asked him. So how do you have a Bible study with post modern un-churched person someone who does not see the Bible as an authority? He could not answer. Well here is an idea. We need to understand the thinking that they come from and how they test ideas and why or how they see issues and claims to faith before we shove a Bible in their face. A good book to understand this would be “God is not great” by Christopher Hitchens or the “The secular mind” by Alan Wolfe. According to Robert Wuthnow lost and unchurched people are 7 times less likely to respond to open Bible study with stranger now than they would have in 1979. Here is another question in the first three centuries until the end of the fourth there was no New Testament canon and all the way up to the mass production of the King James Bible in 1611 there were only about 5,000 copies of the Bible in various languages. The majority of the world's population was illiterate in their respective language. So how did people lead, come to, and point people to faith without a sit down Bible study that was so common in the middle part of the 20th century?
That church is diverse and has continued to grow (although not as rapidly as in the earlier years). The membership is around 500.
I'm not finding the "post-modern" phenomenon to be nearly as significant of a hurdle as you've suggested. People genuinely are interested in what the Bible has to say. We start our studies by establishing the scriptures as the Word of God and the standard for our lives. I believe faith still comes by hearing the word of God. And my experience continues to confirm that.
I agree that a lot of people people aren't very interested in proof texts about impersonal doctrinal subjects. But they are deeply interested in topics like sin and how it messes up our lives, and especially how it affects our relationship with God — and what God has done to address our sin problem. The gospel is still a compelling message, even to post-moderns.
Alan
I am very glad for the success of the church you helped start in 1980. In know by experience it will always be near and dear to your heart. The reason I ask these questions is most church plants fail in the first year in fact research shows the majority do. I know of two right now that fit the profile that you described. One is actually going to disband soon and the other is one in MO that I mentioned earlier and is changing it’s direction and strategy so that don’t have to do the same thing soon. We don’t here about these too often though. So the assumption that all you have to do is the profile you described from 1980 church plant would not be valid as a global idea for church planting.
Remember Paul became all things to all people in order to win to Christ. He always made it a point to understand the world views and thinking from which his audience came. The first step to becoming all things to all people is to understand who they are and how they think. Not becoming all things to all people is one of the main failures in most church planting. The other factor is the geographic location and the respective demographics. Post modern thinking is stronger in some place than others. So it may not have been as much of a factor in 1980 in the place of the church plant you are describing, but believe me it is in places like Austin Texas (where there is large percentage of young professional educated post modern people) in 2008. The assumption that all people think the same way and related assumptions to this could be detrimental to our mission.
When you say it is diverse, would it come anywhere close to a proportionate representation of the surrounding demographics of age, race, marital status, socioeconomic group, ethnicity etc.? The only reason I ask this is that my father in law thinks his 1000 member congregation in Round Rock TX is diverse since they have two black families that came over from another cofC that just closed down and one Hispanic family. This does not come anywhere close to representing the demographic diversity surrounding this congregation.
So I would still like your input specifically on these questions. Please think about my question before 1611 how were people taught and brought to faith without a printed OT NT canon (Bible)? So how do you have a Bible study with post modern un-churched person someone who does not see the Bible as an authority? Here is one more question. What do you do in your life now based on the thinking technology and paradigms of 1980? A lot has changed since 1980. If we were to base our lives and business on what we understood in 1980 we would fail in most aspects. Business now uses computers then in 1980 they did not. Related to religion and God people think differently then they did 30 years ago. So I have think that much of the struggle and failure we are experiencing now in the established churches and church planting efforts within the cofC are because we using 1980s or older thinking and “church” technology to do “people” and kingdom business in 2008.
Just some thoughts and questions, please do not take offense but rather as a means of dialogue.
I don't have the demographic statistics for that congregation, but I'll give you my impression. I'd say it matches the racial and economic demographics of the community quite well. It's definitely not your traditional white congregation with a couple of token black folks. If there is an under-represented demographic, it is probably the over-65 age group.
I'm not sure how folks were brought to faith in the centuries prior to 1611, but I also doubt that would be the model we should follow. In the first century, it was by preaching the simple gospel, as I described in an earlier comment. While we lack the miracles that were present in the first century to confirm our message, we have the scriptures. I am firmly convinced that they are the right tool for the job.
One mistake I've seen people make is to pick a few conveniently located non-Christians and pursue them relentlessly. That becomes wearisome both for the Christian and the non-Christian, and is not effective. What works far better is to cast a wide net, and spend your time with those who want it. If you don't see anyone like that in your net, you need to cast a wider net.
Alan:
You said "I’m not sure how folks were brought to faith in the centuries prior to 1611, but I also doubt that would be the model we should follow. In the first century, it was by preaching the simple gospel, as I described in an earlier comment. While we lack the miracles that were present in the first century to confirm our message, we have the scriptures. I am firmly convinced that they are the right tool for the job."
Here is a reality there are many people who are sincerely seeking spiritual truth and meaning yet because of their education culture and experience they are not as likely to sit down to a traditional Bible study. This does not mean that they don't want it (gospel) it just means that there questioning and doubt process works differently than those who are willing to just jump right into a traditional Bible study.
I also believe that this is a huge mistake we have made in our evangelistic assumptions. The judgment of who wants it or who doesn't based on their willingness to jump into a Bible study right away is just wrong. The idea that people don't want to sit down and study the Bible right away then they just don't care is wrong.
This is wrong and is contrary to the nature of God. The scripture talks of how God relentlessly pursues us and how he is patient and desires that none should be lost. What if every time we questioned or showed disinterest God just gave up on us? God came to man. Man did not go find God.
Do you remember how Paul and Peter talk about people being won over without a word simply by our kindness, patience and mercy? No argument, no Jules Miller film strips, non five steps to salvation.
Take a look at this site. It is about a church called Gateway who has baptized 10,000 people since 1998 70% are under the age of 30. The main thrust of the congregation is seeker based small groups called “doubters wanted”. This is one format where people come and discuss their questions and ideas about God, spirituality and religion in an open format. Many times the Bible is referenced as the leader feels appropriate the vibe of the discussion. Once people come to faith there is a serious Bible study before baptism. The small group my younger brother leads there has baptized and made 6 disciples just since January. Guess what these people would have never darkened the door of the traditional church building there are plenty typical old churches around there that offer traditional Bible studies all the time. Their themes are “come just as are”, “but don’t stay that way”.
If the approach of the traditional Bible study had been the only thing used here there would be thousands that have come to faith who would not have. They will tell you themselves. Most of them were indifferent to organized religion at the least in the beginning.
Joe,
We may have such different experiences that we are failing to communicate. What you mean by "traditional Bible study" may be worlds apart from what I'm talking about. I suspect that is the case.
What I'm describing has worked in big cities in the US, and in rural villages in Africa. It has worked on American college campuses, and on the streets of Calcutta. And it is currently working in all those places, and many more. It has converted Muslims, Hindus, Budhists, and more. It is person-to-person evangelism. It may not start out as a study with open Bible, but it always ends up teaching the Bible one way or another — even if the person being taught cannot read or write.
Jesus sent us out to make disciples, teaching them to obey everything he commanded. Christianity is a taught religion. If we are not teaching the Bible, what would we be teaching?
Alan:
I actually think we are thinking much of the same thing. The person to person evangelism is best when we become all things to all people as it was mentioned earlier. Did you ever notice that when Paul engaged people in conversations of faith he always started with questions not answers and he had always had done his home work on how they thought and understood God, Religion and spirituality? We would do ourselves well to do the same that is all I am saying. I don't believe that Christianity is only a taught religion. Empty religious dogma is a dime a dozen. True Christianity is about spirituality not just a set of religious rules, dos and don'ts etc. I believe the answer to the earlier question is this. During the first three centuries and all the way up to the eighteenth century God's word was transmitted by word of mouth oral tradition because it was written on people's hearts. I wonder if we didn't have the written OT and NT canons as we do today if they word would be written on our hearts the same way.
When you say it is working everywhere. How would you define working? Leading people to the decision to be baptized? Increasing participation in the local assembly? You see I define “working” as faith that leads to discipleship. Discipleship is one who is constantly growing (measured by behavior) in the areas of Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Gentleness, Goodness, Faithfulness and self control.
I can't see inside people's hearts, but the results look genuine to me.
I can provide a little insight about this plan specifically. Because I live in the Northern Virginia area, where this church was planted and I have several friends who currently attend or have formerly attended this congregation — actually they have three campuses — Dulles, Centreville & Haymarket.
But my comments are less about the plan, than about the results to date. Attendance is pretty good. Worship is very contemporary — heavy use of video and graphic presentations. Very contemporary music with fairly heavy instrumentation. Several people whom I know who've no longer worship there complained that they felt uninvolved in worship; more like an observer than a participant.
The Leadership is very accepting. Virtually anyone who is willing to teach is allowed to teach, and there are no litmus tests relating to doctrine — at least none that have gained broad visibility.
They do draw a very young audience, with lots of children. They've struggled with getting people into small groups where they can develop closer relationships. And as you might expect, this has led to "shallow" textual studies (compared to typical C of C standards).
No elders or deacons. The only organization is really driven by the staff. But the staff's emphasis seems to focus on encouraging members to serve one way or another. Which many do.