I will attempt to keep this succinct, although it will be lengthy. Forgive my over simplifications and generalisations. This is opinion, subject to change, and liable to require amendment.
I see both sides of this discussion.
On the one hand, "Church planting" seems to be all the rage and it feels that everywhere you look someone somewhere is planting a Church, and in some places many different people are trying to plant different Churches.
On the other hand, the largest move of God in the UK right now, in my opinion, is the renewal and growth of some of the established denominations, most notably the evangelical wing of the Anglican church. It certainly is in Shrewsbury. Movements like Soul Survivor, Alpha, Hope 08 and New Wine have had a massive effect on the body of Christ in the UK and spawned myriads of missional activity. More so, I believe, than any Church planting has. But I would hope that Church planters have increased the overall mission of the Church in our nation.
So should we plant new Churches?
I think the first question is "Why would we want to" - what is our motivation.
These motivations do exist, and sometimes great Churches have been built from situations like this, but at the same time I don't think that they provide a strong foundation or mandate for Church planting.
- Because church planting is the new and funky thing to do and if you are not church planting then you are evidently "static" in your faith
- Because we want to lead a church, and frankly, no existing Church will employ us
- Because we have left another Church and have nowhere else to go, so we start our own
- Because an existing Church has split
- Because a Church movement or denomination wants a "presence" in a particular city
- Because we are a particular denominational "type" of Christian and want to go to a particular "type" of Church near us
- Because existing churches suck
- Because existing Churches are under the "Jezebel spirit" or some other weird spiritual warfare sounding piffle
- Because our type of Church is genuinely the only "Hope of the world" because in its model it carries the mantle of Christ himself for His glory in the nations (sarcasm intended)
- You are sold on the scriptural concept of "go, evangelise, disciple, appoint leaders, and go again" which resulted in new congregations springing up
- You have a heart for mission to a particular area and believe that a Church there is the best way of reaching that area
- God tells you to, which can be individually, such as the video here, or together like here under "dare to believe"
- You have a heart for a particular demographic, cultural or racial group and believe an expression of Church geared to reaching them will be more effective in its witness
- You believe in the universal Church, the body of Christ and believe that a new expression of the faith can help support the mission of the overall body of Christ in a particular area by expressing something new or in a different way
- You see a scriptural basis for Church life that you want to live out in practice - either in practice or mission, believer's baptism, spiritual gifts etc and find that a fresh Church environment is where you can do this. Church planting, or new Churches have almost always sprung up from new moves of either theological understanding (anabaptists), spiritual experience (Pentecostals, Vineyard) or mission (Salvation army). It has often been the fresh expressions of Christianity who help to bring renewal to the mainstream denominations, such as Vineyard worship has in the last 25 years. These new expressions of Church life tend to require a new model of Church in which to develop.
God appears to call some to the renewal of current denominations and others to plant new Churches. It is the same process, for the same purpose - being faithful for mission.
So the question goes back to the objections to starting new Churches. I will add my thoughts.
1) "But we already have enough Churches"
I just don't agree with this. Is every person in the UK regularly touched by effective mission? No. Until that is the case there is room for more Churches whose primary calling is mission. Not creating an ever increasing choice for believers, but ever increasing mission to unbelievers.
There are estates on one side of Shrewsbury representing something like 15,000 people for whom there is very little local Church witness. We have lots of Churches in the town - but who is reaching those people? Surely a Church based there seeking active mission there is part of the answer, as it was in North Shrewsbury? The principle can be replicated to every town, such as this church planted 12 years ago in Cambridge. Until we are reaching everyone there is room for more Churches, if we see their role as mission not gathering Christians.
2) "But it creates inefficiency as running a new church takes extra resources"
Duplicity is a potential problem anywhere. Yet the inefficiency is with any organisation existing without fulfilling its primary mission. And in a nation where we are so far from everyone being regularly touched by the mission of the Church then duplicity is a bit of a red herring. The same argument says we should only have one overseas aid agency, one fair trade company, one missions agency etc. In fact the duplicity of existing denominations should be ironed out too. Why do we run a Baptist Church and an Anglican Church in the same village? Why don't we all just join back with Rome? I think each Church needs to analyse itself and ask is it making the best use of its resources, whether it is new or not, and is it being faithful to the word of God as it understands it and following His call.
I do believe anyone wanting to plant a new Church anywhere should go and find the places where there are not many other Churches and aim there.
3) "But it is easier to plant Churches in the UK, if you really wanted to reach people why not go overseas?"
This criticism has got some mileage, but then Peter went to the Jews. Paul preached in the synagogues first. If we share a culture and language with people then we are in a priviledged position to engage in mission with them, with political freedom to do so. But we go back to the millions of unreached people in the UK - and wanting effective mission to them - a community of believers serving them and witnessing to Christ to them. If we should go overseas to plant Churches to reach people, then we should also go to the neighbouring town and plant Churches to reach people.
4) "but setting up your own Church implies others Churches are not good enough"
...and not being welcoming to other believers wanting to reach the lost near you could suggest that you a) have a monopoly on the area because you were there first and b) are reaching everyone so you c) don't need any help and that they should join you instead because d) you are right and sufficient for the gospel where you are.
It works both ways.
I think lots of different Christians have different emphasis and gifts and this is the case within the wider body of Christ and we are actually stronger for it when we look for the positives in each other.
Every "new" movement - the methodists, the baptists, the pentecostals, the charismatics, have planted Churches across this nation and brought increase to the Christian witness, and even sometimes brought something close to revival with them, sometimes locally, sometimes nationally.
We actually need each other. UK evangelicalism would have been shipwrecked without the scholarship of the Anglicans, period. Worship would be very different without the Vineyard. Spiritual gifts would not be as accepted without the pentecostals. Now newer postmodern movements or movements from the charismatic renewal are trying new ways of doing Church, other missional movements are focussing on building missional Churches, and right across this great patchwork quilt of creative vitality that is the body of Christ more people are being reached with the gospel.
I was speaking to a methodist recently who said his Church had considered the area of town I mentioned earlier with a view to starting a Church there to reach those people. A local Anglican Church has planted two new congregations into different estates near them. Fantastic!
5) New Churches don't offer anything different
Some do. Some don't. All should. Reaching new people with the good news of Jesus is something different. Serving new people in mercy ministries. There is room for all of us, not a new aisle to choose from in the great Church supermarket for Christians but a new battallion being sent out onto the frontline of mission. Until we are sufficient in witness there is always room for more.
A new Church plant in Shrewsbury should not be a negative concern because if they are engaging in mission to our town then they are joining us, not competing against us.
There are areas which need active Christian witness within our own borough, and planting a Church there may be part of God's plan in the longer term. If we don't do it I expect someone else will. If someone else does it we will bless them. It is all the same process. If we do it we will do is our way, according to how we understand scripture. But if they do it their way it won't stop us blessing them and their witness.
The whole process needs people to hear from God, show a bit of humility, show a bit of common sense and partner in mission. I think we can pray for renewal in existing churches and new church planting initiatives in equal measure, as they both add much to the overall mission of the Church in the UK. I am for Church planting and I am for renewal - each to where they are called.
6 comments:
Another good reason for planting a new church, which is happily more or less true in my part of my town, is that there is no room in existing churches for expansion and new believers. Our church building is full on Sunday mornings, and so is that of the old village church. Neither building can be extended very much. But we are reluctant to take the necessary steps to make space for new believers.
not being welcoming to other believers wanting to reach the lost near you could suggest that you a) have a monopoly on the area because you were there first and b) are reaching everyone so you c) don't need any help and that they should join you instead because d) you are right and sufficient for the gospel where you are.
Valid point.
But setting up a new church instead of investigating whether you can work dynamically/ missionally in an existing church, does seem like you are prejudging existing churches to have failed in points b) and d), and be so irredeemably institutionalised that they can't fulfil those missional functions. That may be the case, but surely a more efficient way of meeting those targets is to extend the reach of current churches where (if) that is possible.
On an idealistic level, I'm pro church planting. Pragmatically, though, I still think we should be able to question whether a particular church plant will reach those ideals. In fact - asking whether new church plants are being specifically set up simply because they genuinely desire to reach the lost in our area, which you assume in your statement quoted above.
And if you suspect there's other motivation at work, should you still be welcoming?
Really valid points Jon.
asking whether new church plants are being specifically set up simply because they genuinely desire to reach the lost in our area, which you assume in your statement quoted above
Yes, I do assume that.
I would look at any church plant or any existing church on that criteria.
The whole "renewal / starting again" thing will never be truly resolved. It rests on the motivation of the individuals and how they have heard from God - both are totally subjective and very difficult to judge.
That may be the case, but surely a more efficient way of meeting those targets is to extend the reach of current churches where (if) that is possible.
Again, this is such a fine line and often depends on previous experience. You have to find a Church where you can be released to serve, be looked after etc. In Nottingham they have gone from 5 to 1200 since 1999 and hundreds of those are people who have come to faith in the Church. A posse of them want to replicate that mission somewhere else, they "get" each other, they know how each wants to "do" Church. Is it not more efficient for them to just crack on with it? Or do they need to go and try to work within another system? That is a difficult call. My pass out is "each to their own call". That is an act of grace for everybody.
And if you suspect there's other motivation at work, should you still be welcoming?
As welcoming as you would be to other believers who may have all sorts of motivations! You will have more in common with the guys moving down from Nottingham than you will with many of the other Churches in Cardiff in terms of mission, doctrine and practice of Church life. I assume you aren't unfriendly to them?!!
But I do agree that the whole issue of Church planting can be very messy indeed. I personally would not have encouraged a new Vineyard there so close in time to what happened before, not least because of how it looks to the other Churches around, who have picked up the pieces and the people of a difficult situation.
From what I remember of James he is a great guy and I would trust his motivations. But the timing is certainly unfortunate at best.
Peter Our church building is full on Sunday mornings, and so is that of the old village church. Neither building can be extended very much. But we are reluctant to take the necessary steps to make space for new believers.
These are good challenges! The question then becomes multiple services, or multiple campuses, or new Churches. Thinking back to North Shrewsbury and them being an independant church plant did require a lot of redundant hard work just being a Church that Jon discusses. I wonder if multiple services with shared administration in a locality is not more efficient?
We are certainly looking at multiple services, and indeed that is the medium term plan. We are also looking at possibilities for a larger building. But that still means restricting our activity to one location. By planting we can move into another part of our parish, where there are no existing churches. Doesn't that make more sense?
Yes that definitely makes sense.
"Come here to us and find Jesus!" has some mileage - but when we start to go to them, to new people, that's really exciting.
The anglican church I linked to in the post set up a satellite congregation on a new estate in their parish and that church must be close to 100 and is really visible in the community centre with an outreach cafe etc.
It rests on the motivation of the individuals and how they have heard from God - both are totally subjective and very difficult to judge.
Yeah. That's the old evangelical trump card, isn't it. "God told me to do it..." End of discussion.
One day I'm going to find a better response than "Whatever..."
Post a Comment