Shrewsbury Baptist Church

We have a new baptist church here in Shrewsbury, called, unsurprisingly, Shrewsbury Baptist Church!

It was formed by an amalgamation of two baptist Churches to make use of the facilities of one of the Churches with the vision to reach both areas served previously by the congregations.

The Mission Shrewsbury united service last night was a celebration of the formation of this new Church, with much prayer for the new initiative.

It was also interesting that Martin, our lead elder was invited to preach. He spoke on the hallmarks of the Church at Antioch. I have heard versions of that talk many times and each time it grips me, and in this case it was so, so relevant for the situation.

Claremont Baptist Church planted Crowmoor Baptist Church. Barnabas (my church) started when Crowmoor outgrew its building at the time and a new congregation was formed (which did not join the baptist union, although twelve years later we joined newfrontiers).

Last night, the lead elder of the grandaughter church spoke at the joining celebration of the grandmother and mother church. I sat near Phil Whittall from North Shrewsbury Community Church. They are our daughter church - making that four generations of churches in one room!

In 1620 a group of baptist Christians started meeting in Shrewsbury. It is a rich heritage we are part of, and was a delightful display of unity with leaders and members of local churches standing together with a vision to reach of town with the gospel.

AND there was cake!

Do I want a "full" Church?

An interesting discussion has cropped up on several blogs I read written by Methodist ministers.

I picked it up here, and then here, here and here.

I found the different strands of the discussion interesting, and from outside that denomination it was interesting to see where the conversations led them.

It also left me analysing my own heart and asking myself: do I want a "full" Church building?

Do I want our Church building to be "full" on Sundays?

The answer is a hearty "no", for a wide variety of reasons. This may seem odd, as our Church building is regularly, well, full.

• A full building is unfriendly for new people. It gives the impression that there is no space for them.
• A full building makes it hard to welcome new people, as there is little room to mingle
• A full building is a nightmare to steward. We have something like 360 chairs and at a baptism service in February we had 417 people. It was uncomfortable and gives us a major headache for our fire risk assessment.
• A full building makes disabled access more difficult, and makes life difficult for people with pushchairs.

In fact, the biggest challenge facing our Church is a lack of room at our main Sunday worship service. For this reason we are seriously considering having more than one main service, and will discuss this at our members meeting later this month. The elders are going down to Catford early next year to pick Steve Tibbert's brain about multiple services.

So do I even want the Church to be bigger? The answer is a wholehearted "yes", I certainly do. Well actually - to define things a bit clearer, I would like more people to be saved. When more people get saved those people often become part of the Church so the Church grows. And we could do with a bit of help reaching out to new people in new areas that more people can be saved. Jesus encourages us to pray for more workers to help us collect the harvest so I am happy to do so!

If that mission to proclaim the gospel means the building is now "full" on Sundays then so be it. That is the cost, not the goal. But it does now give us a bit of a headache.

Some people have said "Buy a bigger building" but we have not heard from God on that score.

Others suggest "plant another Church" but again, we have not heard from God on that score. We heard clearly from God when North Shrewsbury Community Church was launched. We heard clearly from God when Beacon Church Whitchurch was launched. In both cases we sent about 30 people to establish something new and if God calls us to that again we will do it, but not out of convenience, not as a management decision. We will take the hit of sending out a Church plant if God asks us to, and in order to reach a specific town or area of town, but not because of expedience.

Last week we had two baptisms. Both people had come on our Alpha course. Both have joined our Church. The weekend before it was our Alpha Away Day and three people made first time commitments to follow Jesus. Last friday our youth alpha countinued and two teenagers made first time decisions to follow Jesus. That is what we are living for. That is what we are serving for. That is how I want a bigger Church. I don't want to attract more Christians necessarily, unless they are joining us on mission to reach our town. In 2009 we will probably have to make a radical change to our Sunday services to help us continue in our mission to reach out in our town.

Looking at our membership list there are something like 50 out of 250 adult members who have come to faith within our Church. 20% will do but I would like more! I want our Church to be a net contributor to the growth of the body of Christ, not just a better attraction for local Christians.

So when I come to think of it I am glad our services do sometimes feel "full". I certainly do want our Church to grow. If that means more people making the step of repenting of their sin, putting their faith in Jesus and commiting themselves to follow Him with their whole heart.

That is what I am living for, and why I think we need two services, and why I want those two services to be "full" before long.

Should we plant new Churches?

A good question, and one my brother and I are having a good discussion about presently, as you may see on various posts on his blog.

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)
  

Below are reasons, which are utterly fallible and are still subject to human frailties and relational issues but I do believe give a good mandate to plant a Church, or many Churches.

• 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.
  

The thing about these reasons - is that they don't always need a new Church to do it, an existing Church can often do the same. Often renewal or missional movements seek to renew and equip the Church as it is, like Alpha or Cell UK. Others plant Churches as God speaks to people about starting new Churches and new Churches reach new people, on new estates, or the same people in a new way.

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.