a response to tallskinnykiwi’s 9 reasons not to plant a church
I won’t make it much of a secret that I love Andrew Jones’(tallskinnykiwi) blog. It’s always interesting to read what he’s experiencing and the thoughts he’s sharing. Today, he posted a list of 9 reasons not to plant a church in 2012. It’s well worth the read, but I wanted to offer a few thoughts in response to further this, so go read it, then come back and take a look at my responses.
I’ll post a summary of each of his points and a little feedback as well(this feedback is a little nervewracking for me as I have great respect for Andrew), so here goes:
1. Traditional plants have 1 strong leader who then gathers people into the Sunday event he starts. I absolutely agree that this is not a good way to go. That’s why in Sacred Roots we launched with a team and our gatherings did not initially look like a Sunday service.
2. Church plant measurements usually focus on attendance rather than transformation around them. Once again, I’m in total agreement. It’s incredibly hard to talk about church planting without talking numbers because this is so engrained in our thinking, but this must change. We need to realize if a group is big but isn’t really impacting the area around it in a Jesus way, it’s failing to be what the church is to be.
3. Since most people who join have already been a part of churches we tend to duplicate what churches already do. At this point I find myself partially in agreement and partially worried. Absolutely, we don’t want to just carbon copy the best of other churches. This has a tendency to produce church connoisseurs who just want the best of each possible ministry. BUT neither do we want to throw away something just because it’s been done before. A context with church history is sadly lacking with many church planters and we end up creating “innovative” ways of doing things which also have a tendency to create a form of church connoisseur as well. One of the things that we often talk about in leadership at Sacred Roots is embracing that if people just want an awesome Sunday gathering, they’re going to be disappointed because we don’t have the best music and we don’t have The Greatest Sermon You’ll Ever Hear(tm). But we also believe that there are things that the church has done traditionally that are good things that we ought to continue. We believe that it’s important to be connected to the rhythm the church has developed over time. This can still end up looking differently and needs to be contextual, but there are some things that we do because we don’t believe we always have to reinvent the wheel.
4. When the focus is on replicating the existing church we tend to just swap people from other churches. I agree with this, it’s why I hinted above that we need to give up on doing things just for that thing to be cool. In fact I wrote what I think to be one of my best blogs to date on this topic (take off the skinny jeans and put on your carhartts)
5. Asking people to commit to a gathering rather than Kingdom activities is counter productive to mission. I think this point has been hinted at already in a few of the others, and I agree. I can say however, even in a city like Portland when we only call people to missional activities and not also a worship community, people tend to view it as “I do mission with _____ and I worship with _____.” I don’t believe that this is a healthy thing, particularly when the missional community is trying to orient their time spent to allow people to have time to be on mission. This is part of the reason that Sacred Roots gathers together every Sunday to worship - it looks a bit different than a “church gathering” but it shares a lot of similarities, because we are wanting to create people who proclaim the story of Jesus in both word and action.
6. New church plants create higher institutional visibility that causes problems. I understand this point and agree with it to a certain extent, but I also know, when problems are going to be caused, they’re going to be caused regardless of how things are done. The early church when it gathered borrowed heavily from the synagogue model in some places, but we see over and over in Acts that something about Christians churching together ends up being disruptive and riotous to the people around them.
7. Funding traditional church plants isn’t sustainable or realistic anymore. This one I greatly agree with. It’s part of why I believe for better or for worse, teams of bi-vocational folks and business as mission will be on the rise. (Andrew mentions missional entrepreurial activities as part of this. Bravo!)
8. Traditional church planting thrives in wealthy places but ignores the poor. Absolutely. I think many times this is because we lack imagination for what the Kingdom is doing and so our actions are subverted by a drive to be cool. My blog post I mentioned above gets at this, but I agree and think as we embrace bi-vocational teams, this becomes much easier to accomplish.
9. In contexts where the church already has a bad rap for being greedy, asking people to give to a church comes off poorly. I agree. And I think this is because usually so much of the money we raise goes to the Sunday gathering. If we are clear that a large majority of our money is going to Kingdom projects, I think we can actually use this as a prophetic means of being.
In all, I find myself in a lot of agreement with what Andrew has to say, but I worry a bit that there’s some ekklesaphobia (read David Fitch’s excellent piece on ekklesaphobia) involved here too. How do we press into being the church without being overly conscious of being the church? I’m not sure but I believe it’s similar to my struggles as a leader in moments where I apologize for being a leader - it’s counter productive to what is actually desired to be accomplished, and I wonder how we do that.