TMC - Highlight #5 - Local Church Driven
posted May 9, 2008 by Bob Roberts Jr.
One of the things that concerns me, is how despite the fact that we have all the research in and the stories coming from all over the world, that church planting for the most part in the US is not local church driven. This is not an option. I am grateful for denominations, networks, organizations, etc. that push, promote and try to do it, but the reality is that there is no movement without local churches driving it. The past few years, the focus has been on the planter, now its starting to move towards the network, now the phrase I see a lot is “network of networks” and I even experienced that with Glocalnet. BUT, you can have all of that, if it isn’t local church driven - you will NEVER get to movement status. The key to movement is the mother even more than the planter, and definitely much more than the network or denomination.
Local churches have to own it - not just fund it. It has to be a part of their DNA. Church planting is the tithe of the local church. Tragically, we just don’t think it matters that much - it’s what someone else does. No pastor would be content to never see someone accept Christ, or people tithe, etc. but most pastors turn a deaf ear, a blind eye, a cold heart to church planting. The reason is two-fold. First is turf. Second, they view themselves as a church trying to reach their community. THIS IS ABSURD. No single church EVER reaches their community alone. Pastors need to think more like a missionary trying to “church” the community instead of being a pastor of a congregation in the community. THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF MISSIONAL DNA!
Brian Bloye at Westridge in Atlanta, Georgia last year started close to 10 churches and this year will do probably the same. When the Brian’s and other church planting churches keep planting and connecting at the same time - watch out. . . . . Ed Stetzer’s research last year on church planting churches confirms it. Even on the list, Ed stated many of the churches listed didn’t necessarily represent just the church, but the churches network as well. It just shows the lack of apathy most churches have towards church planting - this must change. I believe the best hope of changing it however is new churches planting new churches.
I get excited not just about NorthWood - but the other 13 churches in our community that we’ve had a part in seeing begin. Right now - we’re working on a plan to see us start 25 churches a year. Will we be able to do it - I’m not sure, but we’re going to try - we’ll see. BUT, we’ll still get close to a dozen this year if it doesn’t work.
Glocalization:
The La
Celebration o
The Divine Conspiracy
The Unshakable
The Prayer Saturate
Engaging God’s World
Worldview: The History of a Concept
Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft
The World Is Flat
The Pentagon’s New Map
Wikinomics
The Book That Transforms Nations
A Billion Bootstraps
My Husband Wants to be a Church Planter (multiple authors, including Niki Roberts, Bob’s wife!)
The Forgotten Ways
Breaking the Missional Code
Organic Church
May 9th, 2008 at 5:02 am
Killer post, Bob!
For our church, this is becoming a reality. We’re definitely a small church, but are constantly talking and praying multiplication–and the first one has happened. However, some of the guys I know who’ve planted churches want their church to be a church planting church, but it seems like they’re waiting until they reach a certain size or (the $$$ thing keeps coming up) they can save or raise enough money. I remember reading that unless small-to-mid-sized churches can’t learn to plant churches, then momentum for a movement will never build. What are some things we can do to overcome this not-big-enough, not-rich-enough obstacle?
May 9th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Aaron, I’m very very very very very proud of you for doing it. It is erroneous to wait until you have enough money and people - you’ll never have enough. To overcome that “not big enough” mentality - you’re doing it - just keep doing it. Weave into your illustrations in your sermons about the new church, and how you are so proud of your people for being the kind of church that plants other churches that is a missionary to your community. Talk about the planter. Make sure you have a commissioning service for him in the main worship service. In the book I talk about how we do that with the St. Christopher medals.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Bob,
How ya doing? Part of Vince’s crew here in the Beach; and we are planting in Penna. next year. I have the same question as Aaron. Additionally, how do we break down those local barriers? I have mailed a couple of churches up there, but no response to date. Is it just prayer and not giving up and just being persistant, at least that is how I am approaching it.
Thanks for all you do man! Blessings to you!
May 9th, 2008 at 5:54 am
You just don’t give up Richie - you move forward - find partners but don’t wait on people to determine what you will do - go on and follow God. There’s always enough of whatever you need when you need - if you keep moving forward. On the other hand, if you wait until it’s all in place - where is God in that?
May 9th, 2008 at 6:09 am
I understand Aaron and Richie’s concern. It is hard to overcome the “not big enough yet” mentality, and I am finding that the older the church the more difficult it is going to be to overcome this mentality. So, I agree with you Bob, in that our best hope is “new churches planting new churches”. I appreciate the challenge we received at our last meeting in this year’s interns group: “Plant a new church by the end of the first year of launching” It is a great challenge, and the only way to accomplish that is starting with that goal in mind. Thank you for all the mentoring and challenges we received. Now, let’s do it! Your answer to Richie is an answer to me: “if you wait until it’s all in place -where is God in that?
May 9th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Good stuff. Do you think that there will be an even greater shift in the future from the movement being “local church driven” to Disciple driven? I can’t help but wonder if it’s local church driven if it still won’t place enough “ownership” back into the hands of the everyday disciples. Of course, Northwood is empowering the body, but Northwood is a RARE local/established church. hmmm…just thoughts…I’m working on raising up 20 guys over the next 6 months to go into their neighborhoods here in Vegas and begin living in missional community. These are regular, everyday followers of Christ. They all have jobs. I am trying to equip, and empower them to create a sense of community in their neighborhood. I constantly remind them to reset their default that would let them think they are starting a weekly gathering. There are two other guys in the valley who are committed to seeing something similar happen over the next 6 months. If all goes as planned we will see close to 25 new MC’s developing, all of which have what i call a “revolving door policy” instilled into the DNA. (Everyone is welcome to be a part of any particular community, but if they live outside of the neighborhood they are always encouraged to eventually go back to their own neighborhood and create an outlet for living missionally in the context of community.) Thanks for your guidance that helps me move forward towards the kingdom Bob!
May 9th, 2008 at 10:14 am
we’re one of the churches that westridge helped plant two years ago, and they have infused the church planting dna into us. we’re supporting some church plants now but want to do more. in my observation, church plants that are birthed from healthy churches are more effective in the long run.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
A.Snow–
I like what you’re talking about disciple to disciple, but won’t that always move toward a community of faith? You can’t have a disciple alone or a network alone….they both need the local church (or missional community or whatever other form/model they may morph into), right? And then out of the MC more disciples are encouraged to make more disciples that will in turn naturally create more MC’s. Can we have both rather than either/or? I may be saying what you’re already saying…just in a different way…
May 9th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Hi Bob. You and I had a meal together up in Wisconsin at an Empower conference a few years back, but I doubt you remember. Your quote, “Church planting is the tithe of the local church,” will be cited often in my classes in the days to come. Thanks for your emphasis on churches planting churches. A novel thought! I am excited that many of our best and brightest are passionate about missional, urban, new churches. Keep pushing us to think, assess, and change the world.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
OK, been partying with my wife so here are some responses - got to do this fast - more party to come!!!!
Aaron, intentional gatherings are “churches” in my book - church is no more than a gathering of disciples for the purposes of God. People disciple people, so in that sense it’s disciple driven. Church planting should be a communal response from the people of God. When those disciples reach people and they meet for worship - that’s an expression of “church.” Just my 2 cents worth.
Kevin - hello you dog - buenos dias
Alvin - you should buy a copy of the book for every person on the campus!
May 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I’m still trying to figure out this whole church planting thing, so forgive me if even my questions (let alone comments) seem a bit “old school”. It seems to me that the planters I’ve known who have met with some measure of success - at least in terms of planting significantly missional communities - have generally broken the “rules” of planting churches. Examples: Flood in San Diego (with plants in Sacramento, Phoenix, and now Malawi!); Canyon View Christian Fellowship in San Diego; Imago Dei in Portland, Oregon (where I am now).
And the flip side of that: the ones who have followed the “rules” (demographic research, location, focus on size and funding, etc.) have generally not been particularly successful…or at least the results have been substantially the same as other existing churches following a particular model, be it traditional or seeker sensitive or what-have-you.
Some questions:
Are there particular steps you encourage in the pre-plant process (for mother church and/or planter)?
Are there certain “philosophy” (or, better, ecclesiology) questions that a mother church in particular needs to consider? For example, it seems to me that maybe a church needs to figure out their own “optimal size”, but maybe that is more a question related to managing their own growth, rather than directly related to planting daughter churches.
How much redefinition of “church” is needed as we try to infuse church-planting into our DNA? For example, do we need to move away from defining church as a body that meets in its own building on a Sunday morning?
Sorry, but I haven’t read this book yet, so if these types of things are covered, just let me know!
May 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Randy your observations are correct. YES, there are many steps for “pre-plant” and most of the churches you mentioned went through them in terms of training, etc. HOWEVER, you can do all that, grow a “big” church and still not engage others around you. I don’t worry about optimal size - just get busy- I like what Paul said, one plants, one waters, and God gives the increase. I would say a definite YES we have to move away from defining church as only a Sunday morning event. Google Christianity Today and Bob Roberts - it’ll take you an interview I did on this very thing.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Hi Bob.
I got your new book and getting ready to dive into it. I recommended “Glocalization” to a surgeon I met at my “office”, Panera Bread (church planters office) yesterday. This is an older guy that has a passion for using his medical skills to begin to penetrate UPGs and see CPMs started!
I believe the missional DNA is going to have to come through the new churches being planted now. Dr. Aubrey Malphurs told me a few years ago only about 10% of the 80-85% of churches plataued and declining ever turn around. Another researcher told me the figure is only about 3-5%.
I have had the privilege of being a part of my denominations city-reaching effort in our area from 2003-2007 called “Cleveland Hope”. We saw God do many AWESOME things. But the sad reality was, many of the existing churches were perfectly content to continue on with business as usual, even though there were tremendous resources available for them to engage their communities for Christ. We were blessed to have churches from OUTSIDE our area that sensed God was up to something in Cleveland, and they were willing to invest Kingdom resources in starting new churches. We also have a local church (Cuyahoga Valley Church, Rick Duncan, Pastor), that is passionate about “churching the region” and has planted five new churches in the Cleveland area. We are one of them, and we are only 8 miles from CVC!
My point is, I agree, Bob, the Missional DNA needs to come from the local church. But my experience with Cleveland Hope has taught me God may want to infuse the mDNA through a “local ” church in a region from another part of the country (or world).
May 9th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Something I’ve been thinking about off and on all day while reading and reflecting on the posts–I like what A. Snow says about the “I.G.’s” (the Intentional Gatherings), and Bob’s response to it.
In our first multiplication, we intentionally had our planter use his existing relationships and talk about starting a church. It worked–we’ve got 2-3 “unJesused” people, with several others showing interest.
But what about people who are really turned off to church, but are open to Jesus (I’m working in on the religion saturated edge of the Bible belt)? A. Snow’s post and Bob’s response got me thinking…
What would happen in our next multiplication if we took a new planter through the same process… but instead of talking to people in existing relationships about starting a new church (which may carry some baggage), they start something like A. Snow’s “I.G.”–they start by just focusing on Jesus, discovering who He is, what He does, what He expects of people who follow, straight from the Bible… and doing it as they learn it (serving those who hurt most in the community, learning what worship is, etc.). As this happens, the new church starts to take root and grow (sorry if this term has been overused) organically. Bob is right–this is still church, but in the very beginning stages, the new folks are focused on Jesus… and the planter prayerfully guides the new community into the cool realization that they really are a church… and they need to start new ones.
As I look at this, I realize its no different from what we did with our first new church… with one difference. The new church started by emphasizing church, then introducing people immediately to Jesus. The above would start by emphasizing Jesus, and as the group discovers Him they sprout into the church.
Am I totally off base here (it makes sense to me!)?
May 10th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Randy - a lot of people have to model something very very different from what they are seeing today - so will you. Aaron, if you take that approach - take A.Snow’s approach - he’s not mad angry and most of the people I know tied to him are “happy” Christians not trying to b . . . to everyone about everyone else and what they’re doing wrong. In addition, more than just a “gathering” they are engaging the community in poverty issues, and other issues so it’s far beyond just a meeting or Sunday event. The issue comes in when you begin to grow - and you identified it. Any church, house or school, when it starts will only get off it’s feet by emphasizing Jesus. The value of coming together - is to worship - many house or organic churches - globally - gather to worship. Church is never about Sunday. BUT, you shouldn’t deprive people of communal worship - it’s all throughout the Old Testament, New Testament - and people have an inner-drive to gather in mass for worship even culturally beyond Christianity. One of the best worship services I was in was with a bunch of house church people who gathered for a mass worship experience! I gave them a hard time - but they’re my friends! On the other hand - why should all your time, focus, energy, etc. be on the building, and management of the organization. Let the church grow as it will, as the point person, your job is to keep them on Jesus - let others take care of the “management” just don’t let Sunday define you - that’s worship - there are 7 days for ministry!
May 10th, 2008 at 8:16 am
I’m right there with you, Bob. And our network does get together once a month for (as you put it) communal worship–an excellent time to emphasize Jesus as a larger community, cast the vision, celebrate what Jesus is doing, and challenge to get outside of Sunday (or whenever their weekly gathering is).
My problem (although I’m intentionally addressing it, and its getting better), is spending a little to much time on “management”. But I am taking steps to let go of that.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Well, our first foray into Church Planting took a pretty bad hit. However, we’re going for it again!
Be Well,
Tim
May 10th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Pray for us — at Dallas convention center for global day of prayer Dustn Jones just walked up
May 10th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
KC, you are totally right. We are saying almost the exact same thing. It’s like what Bob says in…i think ALL 3 of his books, that we MUST “FOCUS on the disciple”. My thoughts: If we do that, then “church” or “church practices” will naturally happen. We don’t start with “church practices” and hope that a disciple is produced. We start with the development of the disciple KNOWING that the response of a disciple of Christ will naturally be certain practices (missional living, community, worship, giving, praying, studying scripture, accountability, etc.) And i’ve got to, once again, ask what we are referring to when we say “local church”. You mentioned, “they both need the local church (or missional community or whatever other form/model they may morph into), right?” I would say that the without the disciple there is no local church!=) So, does the disciple need the local church, or does the local church need the disciple? Clearly, they are BOTH important. It’s a both and thing. However, it’s a matter of which we start with. I would submit that ONE (local church/church practices) doesn’t necessarily produce the OTHER (Disciple) EXPONENTIALLY, but the other way around. (Disciple leads to “local church” & “church practices”) It’s a chronological thing. Check out the early church. A person encountered the Spirit of Jesus in the life of one of His followers, they were transformed, and were led to be a part of, or create/start/plant a “local church”. I love this conversation guys! Let’s keep it going. We’re challenging and sharpening one another. KC thanks for the input!
May 10th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I just want to re-highlight what Aaron Saufley said… about starting communities where we just focus on Jesus (which I think includes discovering and sharing in his mission to the world). This is exactly the same issue Bob has been raising about movements: just as nobody starts a church planting movement by trying to orchestrate a church planting movement, we undercut the idea of an authentic community of people in love with God and following Jesus when we make the big goal successfully starting this entity we call a church. It doesn’t mean we never work the mechanics, but we work them as an emerging community of Jesus-followers needs them. Jesus at the center… it isn’t rocket science, but we’ve missed it for a long time in western church planting. I think we’ll make better disciples if we started communities this way, and we’ll set a better DNA in our churches, but a lot of guys won’t do it because they want to start with a big crowd.