To Plant or Grow?

By Kim Reeder

"That church should start a church!" said a retired missionary turned seminary professor to an excited student. The student was telling the professor about the church he attended. "We're up to three services, and we're still running out of room." Everyone who heard the conversation expected another "Great job!" or "Praise the Lord!" Instead, the professor's comment suggested that instead of being excited and savoring the church's success, there was a more pressing need-the need for starting new churches. The professor's comment touched on a seldom discussed and maybe unpopular notion of church growth. Is there a point at which a church should shift its primary focus from growing itself and branch into another kind of kingdom growth? That is, planting another church. Should they move from growing a great church to reaching a great community?

This church's story is repeated in various North American contexts. God blesses a church and it grows. Maybe a new dynamic pastor revitalizes the congregation with expository preaching. Maybe the church experiences spiritual revival. For whatever reason, a church grows to the point of maximum capacity. Parking becomes scarce, educational space limited, and for obvious reasons, the church adds a service. As the momentum continues, the church starts a third service. In some rare cases, a fourth service begins on Saturday night. The church finds itself arriving at a point of decision. Having no more physical room to grow, there seems but one solution-build a bigger building. So begins a capital campaign. An architect draws up blueprints for a new multi-million dollar facility, and the members of the church see the results of God's blessings in a new elaborate building. The intended result? Expanded ministry opportunities for the community and numerical growth for the church. The unintended consequences? A large burden of debt church members may shoulder for years, and sometimes an unspoken distrust by the lost community who wonder why so much money is spent on an elaborate building when there are so many people in town with unmet physical and spiritual needs.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to discourage mega churches or building campaigns. There's room and need in God's economy for churches of all shapes and sizes. We should rejoice when a church experiences significant growth. After all, there are some ministries that can only be supplied by a large church with expansive resources. However, there's another solution to the problem of limited space. It's a solution that may be less popular and may require more prayer and work than actually starting a building program. Before pouring that first cubic foot of concrete-maybe that church should start a church!

Southern Baptists generally accept the idea, at least in theory, that church planting is a scriptural mandate given to the church. However, in practice, churches have sometimes left North American church planting to the "professional" church planters. Church planting is ultimately not the responsibility of the Cooperative Program or the North American Mission Board-it's the mandate of the local church. When God blesses a church with phenomenal numbers and financial resources, the leadership should at least consider that part of God's intention for causing such growth is so the church will be able to give up some resources to begin another church start.
   
Sacrificial Giving
Faithful Christians experience the blessings that come from giving sacrificially to their local church. A church that truly commits to being involved in starting new works will experience, on a corporate level, these same blessings. Make no mistake, sacrificial giving is just that-sacrificial. It's a giant leap of faith for a church to invest in planting a church. A new church start will require many of the growing church's strong, spiritual, and most faithful members to leave and take their commitment to the new location. Deep financial sacrifices will be made to keep a new work going until it becomes self-sufficient. From salaries to rent to marketing, the church that decides to shift from a growth-only mode to a planting mode must be prepared to make sacrifices in their giving. A step of faith? Absolutely. Will God bless? Certainly. In fact, as a church planter friend reminded me, studies have shown churches that choose to plant also continue growing. When a church plants a church, the two churches together often see more combined baptisms than the original church would have alone. Have you ever heard the old saying, "You can't out-give God?" It's true for individuals, and it's true for churches.

Deciding to only grow 
When a church opts not to invest in a church start, it's fair to ask about motives. There are many motivations for choosing not to invest in a new work. A church may be tempted by the publicity that comes from being bigger, and a larger salary for the pastor would be nice. The church's leadership may fear the task of replacing leaders. It's so difficult to find volunteers for needed roles in the church, and for some pastors the idea of losing them is unbearable.

There are positive reasons not to plant and focus only on growing. A large church has ministries and options available that a smaller church does not. Some people are drawn to a larger church for the multiple service times or a variety of small group classes. Fitness centers and sports leagues attract many unchurched people from the community. A larger church's financial base allows it to have professional style presentations and services, as well as fund ministries in the community for which a smaller church would never be able pay. These types of programs often attract certain individuals who would never be willing to join a smaller church. On the other hand, there also are benefits to church planting.

Deciding to plant
There are times when planting a new church is simply a "no brainer." No other alternative is adequate. How do you know? Here are a few questions to ask. Is there a geographical area within the community that would benefit from a new church? Is there a growing neighborhood without a church presence? Are members of the church driving a significant distance to attend because they have no church in their own community that meets their needs. If a number of people who live in this area drive a significant distance to go to the same thriving church, it could be the optimum situation for a new church start.

Is there a neighborhood nearby that's demographic has changed due to racial or economic factors that would benefit from a different kind of church? Are there people groups or population segments in the community that are not being reached? Churches that experience phenomenal growth will still not reach every demographic in the area. These churches often have people within them whose spiritual gifts and life experiences enable them to be effective church planting volunteers in this situation.

"Different methodologies, different languages, different life experiences, and different churches are required to reach different peoples," says John M. Bailey, senior director of enlistment and missional nextworks at the North American Mission Board, in the book Pursuing the Mission of God in Church Planting. "Therefore, the natural response for a missional church is the planting of strong, effective churches to reach identified unreached peoples who will then duplicate the process. Missional churches see church planting as a natural ministerial expression of a New Testament church."

Here's a question that most people would not expect. What kind of impact will choosing to grow rather than plant have on the community? There's a vast chasm that separates the lost community's thinking from church members' thinking. When a church builds a large facility, two sets of assumptions emerge. Church members assume that a new building will bring corporate unity and the ability to reach the community through new and exciting programs. On the other hand, unchurched people ask: "Why would a church spend millions on a building for themselves when there are so many people in the community suffering?" This question sometimes leads to the assumption, "If I go there, my money will be spent to maintain elaborate facilities instead of helping the community." Granted, a church cannot allow unregenerated people's opinions to influence every decision. However, in the area of stewardship, it's fair to consider what impact the decision will have. After all, it's the same community the church is trying to reach.

Many questions present themselves to the growing church, and praise God they do! Ultimately the decisions must be bathed in prayer. However, when a church grows there's nothing wrong with asking, "should planting a church be an option to only growing?" I would suggest there's everything right about asking it.

To find out more information about how your church can be involved in church planting-either as a primary church, cluster church or supporter church-talk to your local association's church planting leadership, your state convention or visit www.ChurchPlantingVillage.net.

Kim Reeder is a graduate student at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and currently lives in Memphis, Tennessee, with his wife, Jennifer, and son, Thomas.

Getting older - Getting better

By Michael Day, Executive Director of Missions for the Mid-South Baptist Association, Memphis, Tennessee

The longer I live the more I'm drawn to an assessment of the aging process popularized by a 1990's television commercial-"You're not getting older, you're getting better." The premise of the message, apart from selling older people a magic potion, is that the accumulation of years can and should result in a richer, fuller and more meaningful life. Every year that passes prompts me to personalize the question: Is my body just getting older, or am I getting better? It may be helpful, and revealing, to ask a similar question of local Baptist bodies as we approach the 300th anniversary of the local Baptist association. Are we just getting organizationally-older or are we getting cooperatively-better at supporting the work and ministry of the church?

WE ARE GETTING OLDER!
Three hundred years ago, the first Baptist association in America was birthed by a small band of Baptist churches in Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Known as the Philadelphia Baptist Association, these Colonial Baptists acted upon their concern for doctrinal unity, their need for fellowship, and their zeal for evangelism, to form the body which set the stage and became the model for future associations, state conventions and national entities. Better still, this young association "got it right" from the outset in terms of where the attention of Baptist associations must be focused. A review of the Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association reminds us that the association was organized to meet annually "to consult about such things as were wanting in the churches, and to set them in order." As Baptist Historian Walter Shurden asserts, "In the first half of the eighteenth century the Philadelphia Association focused on the needs of the churches and the ministry." This pioneering association of churches was clearly focused upon knowing the needs of the churches, cooperatively meeting those needs, and assisting the churches in their tasks of education, evangelism and missions.

ARE WE GETTING BETTER?
If "better" means "bigger," then the answer to the question is a resounding YES. Southern Baptist associations alone number in excess of 1,200. But the question is not, "Have we gotten larger or grown significantly?" The real question is, "Are we better at discovering the needs of churches and supporting the ministries of the churches."

I can only answer the question from the perspective of one association-the one in which I'm privileged to serve. We count ourselves among a growing number of Southern Baptist associations seeking an associational paradigm that faces into the realities of Southern Baptist life, builds the relationships necessary for cooperative ministry, and validates the relevance of associational work to the ministries of the churches. From our perspective, the criteria "betterness" is fairly simple.

We get better as we become more church-driven. The church is the living expression of God's mission in the world. The Great Commission and Acts 1:8 were spoken to the nucleus of the church and not to local associations or denominational entities. Therefore, the work of an association of churches must be driven by and focused upon the work of the churches. The "strategy" of the association of the future will not begin with the development of centralized mission and vision statements, but with a prayerful and careful view of the vision, mission and "strategies" God has established within each of His churches. The association of the future will not evaluate itself on the basis of "annual meeting" attendance or participation in associational events, but upon the extent to which it assisted the churches in the accomplishment of their God-given vision.

We get better as we become more priority-based. A church-driven association is not loosely guided by the whims or wants of its member churches but is consistently controlled by the biblically-based priorities of the church. The priority of the church, living as the body of Christ, is to behave and minister as Jesus did in establishing the church, proclaiming the good news, caring for people and developing leaders and disciples. This priority-based association of the future will make every effort to focus its prayers, efforts and resources upon the scriptural priorities of the church-starting and strengthening churches, discipling believers and mobilizing the church to care for people and preach the gospel.

We get better as we become more resource-focused. If the work of an association consists of the work of the churches, then the ministry of an association must be focused upon providing the human, financial and material resources that assist the churches in accomplishment of their mission. The association of the future will work hard to resist the impulse to become a "substitute" for the church.

We get better as we become more institutionally-free. If the association of the future is truly focused on providing resources to assist the churches, it will work very hard to avoid owning anything or obligating itself to the maintenance of "institutions" that reduce the resources available to the churches. As associations give up ownership of community ministry centers, conference centers, campus facilities, etc., they'll find they have increased financial resources to support churches that have a vision and strategy for such ministries. Instead of initiating, building and developing such ministries, the association of the future will encourage and assist churches who engage in those ministries.

We get better as we become more strategically-managed. The long and varied history of associations in America has mandated a variety of roles for those who serve the association in leadership and staff positions. In our day, the associational leaders' long-respected role of "Pastor-to-the-Pastors," "Baptist Mediator," or "Associational Administrator" will give way to a catalytic, facilitative, missionary role. The value of staff and leadership in the association will be measured, not by how efficiently they conduct business and "direct" the work of the association, but by how effectively they facilitate and support the work of the churches.

We get better as we become more Kingdom-conscious. We have a very committed and very effective pastor in our association who is fond of saying, "I'm too old to play games; I want to be about the work of the Kingdom." That statement may be the watchword for the association of the future which remains conscious of its heritage, its traditions and its denominational connections-but not at the expense of its Kingdom-consciousness. It will support and encourage Kingdom-focused churches within the context of their particular denomination and outside of that context. It will work unceasingly to forge new relationships and partnerships with a variety of churches of like faith and practice. Why? Not in order to grow older gracefully or peaceably. And not so they might grow bigger. But, so that God's Kingdom might come on earth as it is in Heaven!

May God grant Baptist associations the courage to cooperatively "seek His Kingdom." May God grow us older…and make us better…for His Kingdom's sake.

Closing the back door

While churches place a great deal of effort on attracting new members, many find that keeping them is a challenge. In a recent survey, LifeWay Research asked formerly churched adults why they left. Here are the top four reasons for leaving.

59% Changes in life situation

37% Became disenchanted with pastor/church

26% Church not fulfilling needs/reasons for regular attendance

22% Changes in beliefs/interests/attitudes toward church

The results indicate while some losses may be inevitable, opportunities exist for churches to hold on to members who are headed for the door. Two-thirds of the formerly churched are open to the idea of attending church regularly again. For ideas on how to close the back door, check out "Closing the Back Door" by Ed Stetzer.

The Real Christian Divorce Rate

It's commonly believed Christian marriages end in divorce just as often as non-Christian, but according to a recent survey by the University of Connecticut's Bradley Wright, this is not true. Christians, especially those who frequently attend church, have relatively low divorce rates. The divorce rate among Christians who attend church once or more per week is 32% vs. 41% among all Christians and 48% among non-Christians. The church is making a difference!

Source: The Foster Letter, January 25, 2007 and http://brewright.blogspot.com

Evangelism vs. Outreach

A new Ellison Research study finds 39% of U.S. pastors aren't highly interested in offering more community outreach programs. They prefer to focus on their own congregation and on spiritual needs rather than physical needs. When asked what was holding their church back from being more involved in their communities, at least half of all pastors cited these four reasons: lack of sufficient volunteers (58%), lack of sufficient staff (56%), lack of sufficient lay leaders (52%), and insufficient funds (50%). Despite the lack of interest for increased community outreach, 97% of churches report doing something specifically for the purpose of evangelism over the past year.

Source: Facts & Trends, January/February, 2007