Why do we need to plant new churches?

Occasionally, a small, struggling church will ask me why so many denominations spend so much money to start a new church when they have numerous small churches that could use those resources. Their theory is that if they had access to that money they could do many more things that would enable them to grow. Unfortunately, that is not a valid theory.

For one thing, many of these struggling are sitting on more resources than they need. I've been told more than once by a person in some of these churches that they have savings of over $100,000. These monies are often in CDs or some other savings instrument and marked as Building Fund. These churches ensure that these funds can't be spent on ministry or anything else by designating that they can be spent only on the building or to build a new building. Of course, their sanctuary may seat 100 people now with an average attendance of 15 so it's unlikely that they will need to build anything soon.

At the same time, these are often the churches that become upset that the denomination won't give them some of the money the denomination is spending on starting a new church. Their anger grows even greater if they view the new church as competition in "their" area.

I receive publications from various denominational groups, and one of those publications is the Baptist Bible Tribune that comes from the Baptist Bible Fellowship. In the current issue a writer begins a series on "15 Reasons Why We Need to Plant Churches." He begins by reminding us of the Great Commission given to us by Jesus Christ and then showing us how badly we are failing to fulfill this mandate.

Eighty-five percent (or more) of our churches in the US are plateaued or declining. I believe the vast majority of these churches are declining. Many of these churches have completed their life cycles, and it may not be possible to revitalize these churches regardless of how many resources are poured into them. The writer, John Gross, points out that of the 15 percent of churches that are growing, only one percent of that growth is conversion growth. The rest is transfer growth.

Studies tell us that only 18.7 percent of Americans attend church on a given Sunday. In the past 13 years there has been a 92 percent increase in the number of unchurched persons in the US. By any measure, the present churches are failing badly to fulfill the Great Commission.

We have known for some time that new churches reach new people. The article tells the story of one new church that began with eight people. Five years later it had seen over 5,600 first-time guests. Over 2,700 have been saved and nearly 450 baptized. The church is averaging almost 400 people on Sunday. Certainly every new church will not experience such growth, but some do, and some exceed this church's experience.

That is why we must plant new churches. Our mandate is not to maintain congregations that refuse to be engaged in ministry but to reach people for Christ and help them grow as disciples. I believe any church that is willing to pay the price to be revitalized should be, but it is poor stewardship on the part of denominational bodies to pour resources into organizations and institutions that prefer their dysfunction over ministry. It is far better to direct those resources to new ministries that will engage men and women with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Do you really need your church building?

This is a difficult article to write, but I think the topic is one that many smaller churches need to discuss. A few years ago I was a speaker and work shop leader at a denominational event. While there I met an organic church planter for that denomination. Rather than taking a more traditional approach to church planting he was committed to planting small churches that would meet in people's homes. Part of his time was spent in trying to convince people that they would be better off selling their church properties and using that money to do ministry in their communities. I ate lunch with him each day of the conference listening to his ideas and vision.

One of his comments has stuck in my mind. He said that anything a church of 30 people does can be done in a home as well as in a building that is used one day a week. Let that thought sink in for a few minutes.

If you are a member of a church of 30 people or less each Sunday, ask yourself how much money are you spending on building upkeep, insurance, utilities, and other costs of owning property. What might happen is you spent that same amount on ministry that touched people's lives? If we are to be good stewards of God's money should it be spent on buildings or people? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with buildings, but if those buildings prevent us from doing ministry with people there is something seriously wrong with our sense of stewardship.

I know we have an attraction to our church buildings. They are the places where we were married and where our children were baptized. Perhaps a family member's funeral was held in that building or our grandparents gave a gift to install a stained glass window that has their name on it. I understand all that, but at the end of the day it is a building. It is not the church; we are the church, it is a building. As I used to remind our congregation occasionally, our building would hold a lot of hay, and if we're not doing what God has called us to do then it might as well be used for that.

The church planter I was talking to encouraged smaller churches to turn their buildings over to their denomination for sale. Once the property was sold the people would begin meeting in homes, and the money would be divided between the denomination and the congregation. The denomination would use that money for new church planting, and the congregation would use their money to do ministry in their communities. If their congregation grew beyond 20-30 people a new group would be formed and meet in another home.

My new friend admitted that very few people were excited about his vision for new church planting. It requires a major paradigm shift in how we define what constitutes a church. Just as many denominations struggle trying to identify their bivocational ministers I would imagine they would struggle with recognizing these house churches as real churches.

Despite the resistance many people would have to such an idea, I think this is a conversation many smaller churches and denominational leaders need to have. Many smaller churches have neglected building maintenance for years and will soon face some major expenses making needed repairs. These churches face growing challenges finding pastoral leadership, and even with the increased numbers of bivocational ministers some find it very difficult to find a pastor. The church is also facing an uncertain future with many questioning the tax exempt status churches now enjoy. Governments at every level are constantly looking for new tax revenues. Forcing churches to pay property taxes would add multiplied millions of dollars of new tax money to their coffers, so I think it is dangerous to assume that we will always enjoy the exemptions we now have.

More important than any of these reasons is that it would force us to think differently about what it means to be a church. It would require us to think about what God's purpose for the church really is. It would cause us to be a community rather than an organization.  Caring for one another would become more important than Robert's Rules of Order, and we could learn what it means to minister to one another and to those outside the church as a community of believers. Rather than waiting on the paid professional or someone else in a position of authority to do something we would each use the gifts God has given us to minister as we see the need.

Yea, I think this is a conversation many of us in smaller churches need to have.

Wandering in the wilderness

I find myself often preaching from the life and ministry of Moses.  There are so many lessons to be found in Moses that are applicable to both individuals and to churches.  When we think of Moses we often think of him leading the Israelites through the wilderness for 40 years, but not many people realize that the actual trip should have taken no more than just a few days.  The reason for the longer journey was due to their refusal to enter the land God had promised to them.  God had brought them out of slavery to a land he had prepared for them, but they trusted the negative report of the spies more than they trusted God.  As a result of their disobedience none of that generation was allowed to enter the Promise Land but were forced to wander in the wilderness.

This story has many applications to churches today.  Just as God had a purpose for the people of Israel, he has a purpose for churches today.  Unfortunately, many churches will not even seek to know that purpose much less fulfill it.  Much like the spies did, there are people in these churches who loudly insist that the church cannot achieve the purpose God has for it.  They describe all the giants the church will face if they attempt to live out God's purpose for their church and the huge walls that stand between them and their dreams.  When churches decide to trust the negative reports more than they trust God they soon find themselves wandering in the wilderness while God seeks others who will follow him.

Many of these churches have been wandering in a wilderness of their own making for decades.  They cry out to God, they complain about their wilderness experience while watching other churches being used of God, they insist they want to have a positive impact on their communities, but they repeatedly refuse to be obedient to the vision God has for them.  I've seen some of these churches approach the Promised Land time and again only each time to turn away because of the perceived giants that live there.

Because of their refusal to obey God he is raising up new churches to do the work existing churches will not do.  Established churches often complain about their denominations providing resources to start new churches while their churches struggle.  "Give us that money and we'll be able to do more," they claim, but it's not a matter of resources.  It's a matter of faith.  Your church already has all the resources it needs to fulfill God's purpose for your church.  Do you really believe that God would have a vision for your church that you did not have the resources to achieve?  God will achieve his purposes, and your church can either be a part of that or continue to wander in the wilderness.

Tough words, but this is the decision the early Israelites made and it's the decision that many of our churches are making today.  Are you content to live in the wilderness or are you ready to be a part of what God is doing in the world today?  It really is your choice.

The need for church revitalization

Eighty percent of the churches in America are either plateaued or declining.  Some put that number even higher.  Personally, I believe most of those churches are declining as the plateau level on a life cycle is really a rather small period of time.  It is estimated that 4,000 - 5,000 churches close their doors each year.  The number of churches per capita continues to shrink meaning that our churches are growing at less than the rate of population growth in this country.

Many denominations are focused on planting new churches which are greatly needed, but we are not starting enough new churches to make up for those that are closing.  It is critical that new church planting continues, but we also need to find ways to bring new life into our existing churches.

Church revitalization is not easy work because it requires that churches are willing to change, and change does not come easy for many churches.  It requires that their primary focus is no longer on themselves but on those not yet reached with the Gospel.  A few years ago I talked with a church about some changes it needed to consider making in order to bring new life into their congregation.  I cautioned them that if they began making some of those changes they might lose some of their existing membership.  One person responded she didn't see anyone in their church she was willing to give up, and the rest of the congregation agreed.  What these folks failed to realize is the impact that decision will make on future generations, their children and grandchildren.  Change is not easy, but neither is seeing a church lock its doors for the last time.

Church revitalization is also difficult because it demands courage from its leadership.  Everything rises and falls on leadership.  Several years ago when I was a pastor I read a book on church turnarounds.  One of the statements in the book was that every church turnaround was prefaced by a change in pastoral leadership.  The church I pastored needed to change, but if the author of the book was right such change could not happen under my leadership.  I didn't feel led to leave the church, but I also didn't want to be a stumbling block to its needed transformation.  I decided that I needed to change how I led the church.  The church would have a new pastor because I became committed to changing my ministry.  As my ministry changed so did our church, and many positive things began to happen.

Unfortunately, too many pastors are not leaders.  Some have admitted to me that they don't really know how to lead; they've never been taught how to lead; and they really don't want to be a leader.  They are managers.  They are comfortable maintaining the status quo.  Such pastors are unlikely to ever bring new life into a church.  Often, they are little more than hospice chaplains tending to a dying patient.

Unless a pastor is willing to lead the effort church revitalization will not happen.  He or she must have the courage to challenge the tunnel vision that has led the church into its current situation and a vision for how to lead the church in a different direction.  The lay leaders of the church also need to be people of courage willing to follow the pastor's lead.  Only when the pastor and lay leaders demonstrate their commitment to turning the church around will it experience new life.

We cannot afford to lose any more churches.  There is so much spiritual confusion today in our nation and world, and they need a healthy and revitalized church that can bring them the clear message of hope found only in the Gospel.  Our children and grandchildren need to hear that message, and where will they hear it if not from the church?  Is your church growing or is it in decline?  Where do you see your church ten years from now if it continues its current trend?  If your church is in need of revitalization now is the time to contact your region or denominational leadership and ask for their assistance.

Can every church be a church planting congregation?

In yesterday's post I addressed the efforts of many denominations to plant new churches in large cities while seemingly ignoring the many rural churches that dot our countryside.  My question today has to do with who should be involved in planting new churches?  Is this the work of denominations or is this the role of churches?  My personal opinion is that planting new churches is primarily the task of the local church.  The role of denominations is to assist these churches by helping provide needed resources and training, but the primary work itself is done by the local church.

Healthy churches should be reproducing themselves by starting other healthy churches.  Jeff Iorg points out in his book The Case for Antioch: A Biblical Model for a Transformational Church that "The people in Antioch progressed from being an object of missionary outreach to a church sending missionaries while still first-generation believers."  And what did these missionaries do?  They started new churches.  And who were these missionaries?  Barnabas and Paul (Acts 13:2-3).  Their leaders!  This young church sent their leaders out to plant new churches!  Iorg states it this way, "Antioch sent its best leaders to carry the gospel to new cities, plant new churches, make disciples in new places, and later appoint elders in those churches."

Compare this to what happens in most churches today.  We take our best leaders, appoint them to every committee and board they will agree to, and bog them down in the maintenance tasks of our churches.  We do this because we lack the vision to see the ministry possibilities that exist in the planting of new churches and because we are afraid of losing the leaders we have serving in our churches.  We've done such a poor job of developing leaders and have so few in the pipeline that we want to keep the leaders we do have for ourselves.

I occasionally ask churches to consider starting a new church in a neighboring community.  Although I am always promised by the leadership that they will consider it, not once has a church followed through and actually attempted to start the new church.  They are so bogged down in their own church business that they never discern a vision for how their starting a new church in another community could advance the Kingdom of God.

A few years ago our judicatory was involved in a church re-start.  After the church was closed for a couple of years it reopened with people from several neighboring churches serving as a core group who could provide leadership.  Although the re-start struggled for a few years, today it has grown to the point where it is near capacity and needs additional space.  Nearly all the core group has returned to their churches, and the church is operating with new Christians.

Every church, regardless of size or age, can be, and should be, involved in planting new churches.  Perhaps your church is too small to start a church by itself, but it can cooperate with other churches to start a new church in a nearby community.  And who should you send?  If you follow the example of the church at Antioch you will send some of your leadership.

What would being involved in planting a new church do for your church?  I believe it would create a sense of excitement that is not always found in some smaller churches.  They would be involved in the birth of something new and exciting rather than wondering how long they will mange to keep their own doors open.  It would energize the younger people in your church as they witness your commitment to the work of the Kingdom and as they hear the stories of changed lives through the ministry of the new church.  It would encourage new persons to be interested in developing as leaders as they see the leaders of your church involved in more than maintenance activities.  It would lead to increased giving as people could see the important work their money was funding.  I believe a church that is committed to planting new churches would see a transformation that would take place in their church that would be every bit as exciting as seeing the new church take off.

Should your church be involved in planting new churches?  Yes.  Look around you and find communities that are underserved by good Bible-believing churches.  Talk to your denominational leadership to see if they have identified areas that need new churches.  Begin to pray about where God would have you start a new church and start talking to your leadership and congregation about how your church can be involved in this work.  Today is not too soon to begin.

Let's not ignore the rural church

In recent months I've read numerous blog posts and articles about the new church planting strategy of many denominations.  That strategy focuses on large urban areas in an effort to reach the largest numbers of people.  As more and more people are moving to the large cities it just makes sense that denominations will focus their church planting efforts and resources on those cities.  The problem with this strategy is that it ignores the rural areas and small towns that dot our nation's countryside and acts as if the people who live in those places are inconsequential to the Kingdom of God.  As you might imagine, I don't agree with that at all.

Sixty percent of all Protestant churches in America average 60 people or less on Sunday morning.  Many people look at these churches as dead or dying with little to offer, and for too many of these churches this is true.  But, there are other ways of looking at many of these churches.  They are well positioned to have an impact on the lives of people far larger than their size might indicate.  The missing element in these churches has often been a lack of good, long-term leadership and a lack of any kind of God-given vision for ministry.  Without these two things most churches will drift along without purpose or impact including the smaller, rural churches that too many want to write off today.

Studies have demonstrated for several years that many pastors refuse to serve in such churches.  For numerous reasons seminary trained pastors view these churches as beneath them.  They do not offer the facilities, the opportunities, the prestige, and, let's admit it, the salaries and benefits these pastors are seeking.  When the smaller, rural church comes calling they can spiritualize their reasons for refusing to go there, but in reality they often never really gave that potential call any real consideration.  Denominational leaders do not encourage their better pastors to consider these churches either, and in fact may discourage them from going to such churches as it could harm the pastor's opportunities for further advancement in ministry.

As the pastor of a small, rural church for twenty years and now a judicatory leader for the past thirteen years I have seen the problems and potential of smaller churches up close and personal.  I have seen the problems that result from inadequate leadership and the absence of vision, and I have seen the amazing potential some of these churches have achieved when both good leadership and vision were present.  I know of churches sitting in the middle of corn fields that continue to experience amazing growth year after year.  To ignore the possibilities that exist in the rural and small town communities is a mistake.

I've begun reading Transforming Church in Rural America by Shannon O'Dell.  It tells the story of his reluctance to accept a call to a small, rural church in which he saw few possibilities and how that church has now grown to become a multi-campus church of several thousand people with national and global outreach.  I've only started the book, but so far it has been a fascinating story of challenges, resistance, and reluctant change on the part of the congregation.  I'm looking forward to reading of the obvious breakthroughs that allowed such a transformation of that church to occur.

Do I believe every small church can accomplish what O'Dell's congregation has achieved?  No, and perhaps that demonstrates a lack of faith on my part.  What I do believe is that many of the smaller churches found in rural and small town communities can transform into significant ministries in their communities in accordance to the plans that God has for each church.  I also believe that serving in these churches is a worthy calling of God on a person's life that should not be ignored just because it appears to be an insignificant ministry, and I further believe that denominations must not ignore these churches either.  Put resources into planting new churches in the larger cities if you choose, but if denominations continue to ignore the possibilities many of their smaller churches offer they will find that God will do an end-run around those denominations and raise up ministries in those churches they did not believe possible.  When that happens, those denominations that ignored their smaller churches for decades should not be surprised when these churches ignore them in the future.