Two Extremes Resource-Deprived and Resource-Driven Church Planting

Coach's Corner April 2011

The story of two German church planters

Frank Hammand is a corporate lawyer in Frankfurt whose real passion is to plant culturally-relevant, gospel-centered churches throughout the city. His vision is a movement of five churches in 10 years. His commitment is evidenced by the fact that he told his law firm he wouldn't work more hours no matter what they paid him. He and his family of three live in a cramped apartment because of the high cost of living downtown- but they wanted to live in the community. Recently the socialist party leader announced that he was the hardest working pastor in Frankfurt when it came to serving the people. Frank strikes me as a creative church planter, with a credible platform as a lawyer, in tune with his targeted community. My prognostic is that if Frank isn't successful in Frankfurt, who would be?

Yet, as we talked the tension between the big vision and the challenges of the launch of the first church became apparent. Their growth is primarily by conversion and Germans aren't looking to the church for answers. In 2009 they grew by 10% so they aimed for 20% growth in 2010. But, it turned out to be a year of consolidation without new conversions. In 2011 they are pulling all the stops in their evangelism and have started two discovery groups, one in a quaint flower shop and the other at the corner Coffee Fellows (the equivalent of Starbucks). This bi-vocational approach, exemplified by Frank, could be called: "limited investment, slow saturation." My question to Frank was "Are you going to make it? Frank said he couldn't be sure but he wanted to persevere with the bi-vocational approach because, if they can do it, it would be a replicable model and they could find planters for the next projects.

I wanted to stop in Berlin but wasn't able to. But Diet Schindler, Church Planting Director for the EFC of Germany, told me with great enthusiasm about Christian Novatski and the Berlin Projekt. Diet estimates that only 5% of church planters are apostolic (regional movement) leaders and Christian is one of them. He leads a team that is focusing on a disciplemaking movement that will yiled many churches over time. The mother church sent out members to start a 2^nd generation church in a suburb called Pankow and plans are on the drawing board for an immigrant church and an international church. This effort is resource intensive. It takes a special kind of leader and a team who are supported from the start. Diet figures that 350,000 Euros (around $500,000) are needed to plant a high impact church, from start to finish. Christian's approach could be called "big investment, rapid impact" of a city. My question to Diet was: "Is this approach reproducible and sustainable?" He thought that it could be but didn't seem to have a clear idea how 2^nd and 3^rd generation churches could be planted with less external resources and why they would expect any less.

Let's compare the two approaches:

Limited investment, slow saturation		Big investment, rapid impact
Description: Incarnational church planting in a specific community using a bi-vocational church planter and core group.		Description: Catalytic church planting in a targeted region of several communities using a supported church planting team led by an apostolic leader.
Advantages: Not resource-driven, easier to find planters, reproducible model, could be used almost anywhere, bi-vocational worker identifies with community, culturally-relevant, ministry team of local disciples.		Advantages: Strong leadership, team approach from the start, more visibility, more personnel for holistic ministry, more rapid development, greater potential for regional impact, diversity of target groups.
Disadvantages: Church planter has less time and resources, development is slower initially, planter's family makes more sacrifices, higher rate of attrition.		Disadvantages: Requires a special leader, high financial investment initially, not easily reproducible, not likely to lead to 3rd generation without a shift to self-supporting planters.

This is a question of methodology that doesn't require an "either or" choice. But approaches might be effective and efficient under the right circumstances. Frank's approach is common in Latin America and Asia. Nicolas is typical of the planters in the Purpose Driven approach in the USA and the some high invest, rapid impact project in developing world cities.

Here is where I would like to go with this. In both cases there is the danger that multiplication (defined by reaching 4^th generation churches) is never achieved. Sustainability must take into account the DNA of the church, the reproducibility of the model, the availability of the kind of planter that is needed and of financial resources. Would you give this 10 minutes of thought and jot down factors that would contribute to multiplication by answering three following questions:

1. "Which of the two approaches to do you think would fit your region better?"

2. "What would help the Frank Hammands of the world avoid burnout, plant reproducing churches, and achieve multiplication?"

3. "What would help the Christian Novaskis of the world to avoid dependence on external resources, plant reproducing churches, and achieve multiplication?"

P.S. The long term fruit and reproducibility of big investment, rapid impact approach was tested in Lima, Peru. It was called the Encounter with God Project. A Christian business man, R. G. Letourneau, got behind the project with his resources and mobilized others to pray and contribute. They brought in an Argentinean who was a gifted speaker and leader, built an attractive building on one of the main streets and began with a concentrated effort of evangelism and disciplemaking.

As a result, "From 1973 to 1987 the movement grew from one church with 117 members in 1973 to 20 churches and 9,127 members in 1987. By 1997 there were 38 churches with 15,870 members and a weekly attendance of 25,000. A launching grant of $300,000 was provided and a comprehensive evangelistic and church planting strategy, including local refunding of the project, was implemented. Funds were used for evangelistic outreach, advertising, the purchase of properties, and construction of church buildings (Mangham 1987, Turnidge 1999). Though the Lima project inspired many similar attempts to launch church planting movements in other countries, none have matched the remarkable results of the original project in Lima." (Ott and Wilson Global Church Planting 2011).

Althouth much attention has been placed on the heavy investment in infrastructure the greater part of their success may be linked to the cycle of prayer, evangelism and discipleship they used called "saturation evangelism."

Let me know if you have a question or a suggestion for a future article.

Gene Wilson
www.globalchurchplanting.net

Dialogue: What criteria do we have for selecting a city where an Acts 19 movement is likely to occur?

What is an Acts 19 movement? In my quarterly "Coach's Corner" I suggested this definition.
An Acts 19 movement
is a place where the gospel penetrates deeply and broadly so that lives are transformed and disciples, leaders and churches are multiplied.
One of our staff responded and I found the dialogue that ensued helpful. E. is beginning work among unreached people in a difficult context, yet his vision is BIG. I tried to answer his question but am not satisfied with my answer. If you have something to add, please post it below or email me and I will pass it on.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E. writes:
I am wondering if you have put together, or know of someone/some organization that has put together objective criteria for seeking out an Acts 19 Center?.. I have put it in my 2011 KRAs to travel to at least 3 urban centers… to explore if we could establish a center in the city.  It seems though we have to go beyond a gut level feeling and look with objective criteria.  For example, I wonder if when the Apostle Paul was in Ephesus he saw the spiritual dynamic and hunger of Christians, the tremendous potential for developing strong Christian leaders, the many cities in Asia Minor that were still without the gospel, and perhaps the evolution of his own ministry as an equipper of others that perhaps caused him to set his roots there for a time and create Ephesus as an Acts 19 Center.  In other words, I think there needs to be some objective criteria that can be used as we explore for potential Acts 19 Center locations. 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Gene:
I do believe you are onto something. The selection of an urban center is an important factor… I wouldn't want to establish a set of factors for Acts 19 places. Most occur in urban centers but not all. I think it best to think of it as a process – If you are considering several urban centers ask God "what is the particular Ministry Focus people you have prepared for us?"… Below are some determining factors. It think two key things to look at a people group where God is working in a special way (Iranians for example at this juncture) and the presence of a movement leader (cultural insider) who has a passion to reach his/her them.
The Need Factor - Spiritual Need (Rom 15:20; 10:13–15)
     Communities, people groups, lasses without an indigenous, evangelizing church
     Small percentage of evangelicals
The Responsiveness Factor – Receptiveness (Matt.10:11–15; Rom. 16:9; Acts 14:27)

The likelihood that people will be receptive to the gospel and the church will be able to grow and become reproducing within a reasonable period of time.

The Strategic Effectiveness Factor– Potential for Multiplication & Influence
     Opinion leaders, high credibility persons
     Social groups or subcultures that influence others
     People groups with extended family or relationships through the region
     People groups that are industrious or entrepreneurial.
The Geography Factor – Significant Location (The cities of the Pauline mission)
     Commercial, educational, political, or transportation centers
     Locations of population growth, movement.
     Possibility of launching a regional movement from the location
The Diaspora Factor – Pre-existing core group (Acts 8:1–4; 11:19–21)
     A number of Christians living among the focus people build the core of the church plant.
The Open Door Factor – Exceptional Opportunity
     Exceptional opportunities to preach the gospel and/or exceptional responsiveness to the gospel.
     Ephesus - 1 Cor. 16:9; Macedonia - 2 Cor. 2:12; Prayer for open door - Col 4:3
The Supernatural Guidance Factor – Exceptional Leading of the Spirit
     Acts 16: the Macedonian call; Direct guidance may at time override very well reasoned plans.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E. responds:
I agree with you in that the process is dynamic.  I do believe strongly we need to develop the ability to hear more clearly the voice of the Holy Spirit for certainly Paul did.  And, as you point out, the process is exactly that, a process.  It usually takes time to see God build upon the work we have begun.  It's unfortunately we live in a day of instant successes and gratification for that isn't the Biblical model.  It seems to me a person could find great satisfaction in knowing that what they labored for over many years, even a decade or two could result in a gospel movement among a people group.

 So, a few things mentioned that stick out to me:

1.  Which people do we sense God is working or moving among? Here the stories from others.  There remains though 1,200 people groups that are 'unengaged' so there may be a need for a seed planting ministry via salt & light missionaries.
2. Does He providentially lead us to an indigenous movement leader?  Joseph N. was such a person.
3. Is there a perceived hunger for God, truth, the Bible, or spiritual things among the population?  We see this in the Islamic world but still hard to engage them face to face.
4. Among 'unbelievers' or those of a different faith, does God lead you to a 'person of peace'?  Our church from Virginia going into Cyprus found this. 
5. Does the urban center allow for different ideas through its openness or is it closed & rigid.  I think here that urban centers with universities tend to be more open. 
6. Is there a body of believers to work with in creating a movement?  A good sign but needs much communication in how to partner.
7. What other mission personnel are working in the urban center?  What are they doing to reach the unreached?  I think of two things here: first, they often use ineffective methodology; second, they often don't verbalize the gospel for fear they will be kicked out.  

Well, just some thoughts to help me process more.  As you come across ideas of your own or from others please pass them along to me.  Thanks much!

Acts 19 Movements – What can we learn together?

 
Coach's Corner



Greetings and blessings in your kingdom endeavors.


We value and are involved in church planting of many types: pioneer works in difficult places, rapid multiplication in a few places, and often coming alongside national movements to help them multiply churches. We also long to see 100 Acts 19 places or movements.


What is an Acts 19 movement?


An Acts 19 movement is a place where the gospel penetrates deeply and broadly so that lives are transformed and disciples, leaders and churches are multiplied.


We want to learn from each other and from what God is doing around us. My question to you is this: Are there any emerging Acts 19 places in the country where you live and serve? Please let me know if you are involved in one or know of one – whether it is a partner or just a movement you are aware of. Thanks.


If you have any question or comment about Acts 19 movements, please let me know as well.


Suggested reading: Movements that change the world by Steve Addison. If I can help you get a copy, please let me know.


Also: Check out Darren Patrick's clip "Church Planter"  You might want to share this great challenge to be part of a movement with supporters and partners..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnN2PrIQijw&feature=player_embedded



I look forward to hearing from you.

Serving you to multiply kingdom communities,

 

Gene

Dr. Gene Wilson

Church Planting Director

 

gene.wilson@efca.org

www.goreachglobal.org/church-planting        

www.geneandlindawilson.blogspot.com        

www.churchplanternetwork.org

H: 954-915-8085 

Conversion – What is the Turning Process in Your Context?”

"You turned to God from idols" (1 Thess. 1:9). Conversion is a significant life change, either from non-belief to faith or from one major faith to another. Sociologists of religion don't use the term for a change in religious affiliation within a major religion. Church planters know that theologically conversion is the turning point in the conversion process of coming to Christ. The Holy Spirit, the internal agent, uses many external forces – primarily the good news about Jesus. It is point zero on the Engel Scale – often the most difficult step in becoming Jesus' disciple. In many cultures seekers approach Christ but stop short when they get to baptism because it signals a point of conversion from which there is no return and a step that could lead to total rejection and persecution. In Western democracies conversion is just as important but it is rarely talked about. Church planters will do well to understand
patterns of conversion and identify obstacles to it in their context.

Patterns of Conversion in Individualistic Societies

In Quebec among French Canadians a study of conversion was done among people in Evangelical churches. Although I no longer have the details of the study, I remember three conclusions:

1) They found that about 80% said the primary influence in their coming to Christ was a friend or family member who had recently come to Christ.

2) The new believer had, on average, heard the Gospel eight times in some shape or form before making a decision; and finally;

3) over fifty percent made their commitment to follow Christ in a group context after they had observed Christian community (i.e. seen the kind of group they would be part of if they converted).

Someone joked "Let's share the Gospel eight times in a hurry so this person can decide!" All jokes aside, this study shaped our evangelistic efforts. We realized we had to sow the Gospel frequently, sometimes in a group setting, and at appropriate times call for a response. We also started preparing the new believers to share their faith as early as possible.

This Quebec pattern is pretty typical of individualistic societies. In collectivistic societies, gospel penetration often hinges on the response of the family patriarch, tribal leader or other group gatekeepers. In individualistic societies relational evangelism is the most reliable gospel conduit. A relationship of trust and friendship functions like that tribal gatekeeper! "The effectiveness of any evangelistic method is in direct proportion to its personal (relational) context." The following applications are suggested to develop an effective ministry of evangelism in individualistic cultures - not only Western ones, but most democracies and cities with urban professionals on any continent.

 

1. We must see evangelism as a process.

We want people to come into relationship with a credible Christian; but that is just the starting point. They must come into relationship with a credible community of believers, with the Word of God and with the reality of prayer. No friendship ever saved anyone. The gospel saves but often the process goes like this:

    – Relationship to credible witness

    – Experience of change through prayer

    – Discovery of truth in the Word

    – Exposure to compelling Christian community

    - Discovery of the One behind it all - Jesus the Messiah

 

2.     We must establish credibility with the people we are seeking to reach. (I Corinthians 4:1)

When we try to share the gospel with someone the first two questions that come to his or her mind are: "Who is he/she?" and "Who or what does he/she represent?" Until these questions find a satisfactory answer, the person will filter out the message we are trying to share. The right to share the gospel is not earned by friendship as much as by authenticity. If the friendship is not built on authentic identity, the hearer will feel he/she has been deceived. We must establish credibility as someone who represents the Jesus' message, as well as trust as an honest, well-intentioned person. This is of the first tasks of the cross-cultural missionary upon arriving in a new culture. Here are some things that may help:

• Demonstrating an understanding of their religion or belief system
  
• Showing a sincere interest in people.
  
• Praying for people's needs and asking them how God answered.
  
• Quoting Jesus appropriately and accurately.
  
• Introducing them to other credible believers.
  
• Using methods of communication indigenous to that people group.
  

 

3.    We must learn conversion indicators of the people we are trying to reach.

When we begin to identify our main target group we need to understand conversion factors, including ages and types of people that more often turn to the Lord. The best way to do this is to question people of that group who are already Christians. These factors fall into two categories:

•     Interior: These are the factors that push people to a decision, and are usually related to felt needs. The needs that people feel do not necessarily represent their basic needs, which are related to sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8-11). Felt needs are related to the sinful heart just as fever is related to infection. Though sin is universal and repentance is necessary to conversion, sin is felt in different ways by people of differing cultures.

•    Exterior: These are the factors that draw people to the Lord. Exterior factors of conversion are usually related to people. Most people are drawn to the Lord through relationships with other people.

In Quebec people were searching for meaning and hope. They were moving from a religion of laws and restrictions, looking for something that set them free. They wanted to know what a life as a Christian would look like and what life within a Christian faith community would be like. They valued family.

 

4.    We must create relationships that have value from the perspective of the local person.

Rodney Clack affirms: "By now dozens of close-up studies of conversion have been conducted. All of them confirm that social networks are the basic mechanism through which conversion takes place (Clark 2006:13)." In secular and post-modern cultures people usually come to Christ through three steps:

a.    Developing a personal relationship with authentic Christians.

b.    Seeing God work in a group situation,

c.    Seeking a personal relationship with God.

Not all relationships are equal! The relationship must have value in the eyes of the local people. One missionary in a Muslim tribal context used friendship evangelism but discovered he could not live up to the local expectations of friendship. He was spread too thin and could not practice hospitality as well as locals did. There are two basic types of relationships that serve as conduits to the gospel:

•    Valued Individual relationships tend to establish credibility and may lead to relationships with the larger group. As credibility grows with the individual, it often can he transferred to the group.

•    Attractive Group Relationships, whether small and informal or organized, provide relational bridges between the individual and the church, and allow the unbeliever to see God in a community situation.

Both types are important because people are asking themselves: "Who will I become and what kind of group will I belong to if I make this decision?"

 

5. We must remember that conversion is a life change in response to an encounter with Jesus

We want to present the Person before we explain the Plan! The goal of evangelism is to lead men and women into a personal relationship with God as revealed though Jesus Christ. It is not merely achieving agreement on theological maxims. It is the process of coming to know a Person (John 4:10; Acts 4:12). One of the most common errors in modern evangelism is the emphasis on the mechanics of salvation (commonly known as the Plan of Salvation) without adequate time invested in revealing the Person of Salvation. We must avoid presenting "How to know Jesus Christ" until an adequate foundation has been laid concerning "Who is Jesus Christ."

 

6.    We must use home grown ways of presenting the true gospel

This message must be communicated in words and thought patterns that are meaningful to the hearer. The effective church-planter learns that language is used on three levels: the language of words, the language of meaning, and the language of feeling. Most of us have been trained in the second level, the language of meaning. However, to reach many people today we must become skilled in the language of feeling. Stark (2006) affirms that throughout history few have been converted through doctrine. Doctrine fills the decision they have made with meaning and structure so that they become stable and effective disciples.

Most effective ways of presenting Jesus are developed in context. Thus we are not speaking of a "canned presentation" but rather an adaptable way of presenting Jesus. That may be by telling a personal testimony, by asking existential questions, or demonstrating care and following up words of witness. The starting point varies but the climax is Jesus Himself. In secular and postmodern contexts the slow progressive approach is better than the "rapid release." One of these is Chronological Bible Narratives – the use of Bible stories to convey the key concepts necessary to making a decision for Jesus. Other methods involve reading the Gospels and following a prepared series of evangelistic studies. Finally for visual learners there are DVDs that stick to the text of the gospel word for word and are followed by a discovery study. Whatever the approach you choose, it is imperative that your plan:

• Listen first! Seek to understand, then to be understood. (Prov. 18:13)
  
• Take into account the level of spiritual understanding and misunderstanding of your contacts, beginning where they are and providing an adequate foundation for understanding of Biblical truth.
  
• Provide systematic exposure to the Word in such a way as to create the expectation that God will reveal Himself through the Bible to the person who seeks Him.
  
• Be simple enough so that the approach is reproducible. We must evangelize in such a way that new converts truly believe that they can successfully employ the same methods with others.
  
• Be careful of the patterns you set! During the evangelism stage, patterns are being established that may affect the believer during his entire Christian life. Use the Bible in such a manner as to convey to people that if they are willing to seek God in it, He will speak to them. Avoid providing any answer that the person can find on his/her own. Pray with them in a simple, straightforward manner.
  

7. We must learn from each other.

The disciples worked together and learned together. When Jesus said "I will make you fishers of men," they practiced a type of fishing that required several people to prepare the net, cast it, drag it and pull it in. Jesus was addressing them together. "Personal evangelism" is less fruitful when it is too personal. We need each other to pray, to encourage, to hold one another accountable and to help each other in special projects. Evangelism is not a program but part of who we are as believers and as a church. One of the effective contexts for teamwork is the small group or cell group because they can use both relational networks and neighborhood outreach. When we know some of the same people, we can work together to reach them, attacking obstacles with corporate prayer.

I am no sociologist of conversion but Stark's (2006) book helped me reflect on my experience and pull some resources together. The most valuable lessons I have learned come from the pain of beating my head against a wall and thinking "there must be another way!" Would you answer the following questions?

• What is the conversion pattern in your context – including unique bridges and obstacles to the gospel?
  
• Could your approach best be called: "trial and error," "dogged determination," "reflective obedience?"
  
• Do you have people to discuss the patterns of conversion with? Every planter should have a learning community and a coach. If I can help you with either, please let me know.
  
• Would you consider helping other by sharing one of the following?
  

1. An evangelistic tool and how you found it to be effective (give the context).
   
2. A segment of the population you have found to me more responsive. Please tell us how you discovered this.
   
3. A question or struggle you are having right now in evangelism. We can relate!
   

For more resources see Contextual Evangelism Tools http://www.churchplanternetwork.org/flex/downloads/bin/downloads.html?siteid=9125

 

Do Best Practices Apply to Church Planting?

Best Practices for Church Planting and Multiplication – Is the concept helpful or even valid?

A best practice is a practice that, through experience and research, has proven to reliably lead to a desired result. A commitment to use best practices in any field is a commitment to use accumulated knowledge that comes from experience to improve the chances of effectiveness and success. Is the concept valid in kingdom ministry?

The argument against using best practices

In the sciences and technology we are dealing with closed systems and best practices make a lot of sense. The research team conducts comparative studies to show a correlation between practices and results. Once the research is done, practitioners can be relatively confident about best practices. In kingdom work even the best practices can't guarantee results. Only God gives birth to new believers and churches. Only He can multiply them into church planting movements. Besides we serve in such a diversity of contexts and cultures that best practices have a narrow sphere of relevance at best (Muslim ministry, same-culture ministry).

The argument for using best practices - If we believe there is a human element in ministry and our practices have a bearing on results, we may find that some practices are preferred to others because they are typically more fruitful. They must of course be adapted to culture and context. In 2007, 300 workers from 34 agencies involved in the formation of communities of Jesus-followers among Muslims –met at a consultation to explore specific practices that seem to contribute to fruitfulness. During this five-day event, they shared lessons learned and insights gained through case studies, surveys, ministry profiles, small group discussions and interviews. They used a survey to come up with seventeen contextual factors affecting fruitfulness. Here is an abstract of what they found:

Abstract: Research from church planting field practitioners in the Arab Affinity Bloc demonstrates a relationship between fruitfulness in ministry and the following categories of Fruitful Practices: communication (including fluency, using the heart language, integrating learning preference into their strategy); encouragement of seekers and new believers; modeling life as a follower of Jesus; equipping new believers to share and defend their faith; and persistent prayer (If you would like the full article just email me).

Wise use of best practices - There is a third option. I believe we should learn from mistakes and successes. If we don't learn from ours we are fools. If we learn from those of others, we become wiser. Isn't one of the purposes of Proverbs and the narrative texts of Scripture to learn the lessons of life from those who have gone before us? That is one of the presuppositions behind coaching – that novices can benefit from reflective practitioners who identify fruitful practices. Would you agree with this statement? Wise church planters flesh out biblical principles by applying fruitful practices from similar contexts, prayerfully adapting them to their context under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

The wise use of fruitful practices - We are learners and are just scratching the surface here. Please give us your feedback on these.

• Prioritize biblical principles. If the fruitful practice has biblical precedents you are much safer.
  

• Major on the majors. Focus on practices that have stood the test of time.
  

• Use them as starting points or reference points - not rules. We give others pointers about raising their kids. But every child is different. They have to figure out the details.
  

• Don't extrapolate. Fruitful practices are only relevant in similar contexts. Avoid copying specific strategies or methods. Understand the principle behind the practice and adapt it locally.
  

• Fruitful practices are confirmed corporately when church planters find common patterns of effectiveness. The broader the consensus the greater the confident you can have.
  

• Remember your mission. Fruitful practices are closely linked to a goal or end product. Fruitful practices for church multiplication will be different than fruitful practices for an urban holistic ministry.
  

• Don't trust in best practices. Always seek God's direction. He may be doing something atypical and totally new.
  

1. Any feed-back on these ideas?
   


2. Would you like to be part of a discussion of fruitful practices in your area?
   


3. Can you help? Would you help us identify fruitful church planting practices? Please respond to the 12 minute survey attached if you know at least one church planter you would consider fruitful. If you would extend this invitation to others on your team that would be a real blessing.
   

Shaping the Local Church – Who Decides?

There is a proliferation of models out there. In their book, "Eleven Innovations in the Local Church" Towns, Stetzer and Bird list the following sampling:

• Organic house churches
  
• Recovery churches
  
• Multi-site churches
  
• Ancient-future churches
  
• City-Reaching churches
  
• Community Transformation churches
  
• Cyber-Enhanced churches
  
• Nickelodeon-Style Children-Focused churches
  
• Intentionally Multicultural churches
  
• Decision-Journey churches
  
• Attractional churches
  
  • And then they have an appendix with "Extreme Churches!" Yikes!
    

Now I love to dream about the ideal church that will multiply, transform, and reach a city. But other cross-cultural church planters didn't always share my idea of the ideal church. Tom Steffen, Missions professor at Biola University has found that the primary factor influencing the future shape of a church plant is still the dream in the mind of the church planter(s). By determining shape I mean deciding what a local church will look like (model, design) and how it will gather and function.

Church planting models tend to reflect the history, goals, and aspirations of those who develop them. One could say the same of the models church planters select—they tend to reflect the history, goals, and aspirations of those who select them. Church planters who prefer to take a more controlling role throughout the church plant will select a model that reflects such a philosophy… Those who seek to phase out, i.e., gradually turn the ministry over to nationals, or take a subordinate role under nationals, will select models that support such aspirations, e.g., Patterson's model. Models and church planters tend to find themselves intricately intertwined.

My question is whether missionaries should be the prime movers determining church shape cross-culturally. What do you think? What about indigenous factors like the ministry focus group, receptivity, worldview, and cultural patterns of family and voluntary gatherings? So who should decide what the church should look like? There aren't too many options:

Local Believers - Many would say the best human agents to shape the new church are biblically-informed cultural insiders. Free from outside control and imported designs they can, under the Spirit's direction, become the natural contextualizing community – the group that interprets both Scripture and context to make decisions about how the church will function. "Wait a minute," someone objects. "Have you met the core group in our church plant? Even if they were capable of making weighty decisions about the future of the church, don't they have more pressing things to be working on as new believers?" The problem is that in pioneer settings it may take a while before local believers can make those types of decisions; first they need to understand the church, its nature and purposes.

Expatriate Missionaries - Missionaries bring much to the table: their theological training, experiences and models from other cultures, and (in most cases) teamwork and critical thinking skills. As students of culture they may have insights that a local person might overlook. Besides, sometimes the best approach is counter-cultural. For example, hospitality to people outside one's inner circle of family and friends is biblically important even it is not part of the cultural norm. But obviously, new missionaries may lack cultural savvy. And even veteran missionaries have been known to be ethnocentric and unable to put aside their personal preferences – or to see them as such.

Expatriate and local believers together – Do local believers really need to be mature to be cultural mentors? Some instinctively know what a good cultural fit is. It does not take theological training to anticipate how unbelievers will respond to evangelistic approaches and types of gatherings. A recent convert needs only to remember how he/she reacted or check out how friends and family respond to an idea. Why shouldn't a bi-cultural group be formed- church planters who are growing in their understanding of the culture and local believers who are growing in their understanding of the Scriptures and the church? Missionaries can begin with a simple family-style Christian community until biblically-informed cultural insiders join them in the shaping of the church. Then they can teach about the local church and empower and advise local believers toward structures they can embrace together.

If we agree that both have significant pieces to contribute, how should they proceed together? Let us explore some best practices for shaping a church plant in a cross-cultural context.

Toward Best Practices for a Bi-Cultural Strategy Group

Here are some ideas to start with. Please respond by sharing your own experience or opinion on who should decide and how to decide. Very little is written on this. We need to learn from each other.

1. Select those who decide church structure carefully. Sometimes local believers become a Christian subculture out of touch with the contemporary culture. Local contextualizing agents should be believers who understand their neighbors and are able to be relevant while remaining biblical. Also if they have the support of the other believers then the decisions about church shape. A missionary may have a hard time distinguishing between what is a biblical non-negotiable and a cultural expectation. Anyone – local or expatriate – who is unable or unwilling to distinguish between the two should sit it out. One pioneer church planting team formed an advisory board of mature, sympathetic and likeminded nationals – some from within the church plant and some from without - to advise them in the work in the initial stages.

2. Missionaries should be advisors. They should avoid excessive influence or unilateral decisions for three reasons: (1) the local church and its ministry ultimately belong to local believers under Christ. Missionaries lay a foundation and pass the baton. (2) If they impose their preferred model they should not be surprised when that community sheds their idea to adopt a design that seems more natural or promising. (3) If the design is "owned" by the local leadership team it is more likely to follow indigenous lines, draw local people, grow and reproduce.

3. Study Scripture together to understand biblical purposes. The Scriptures allow much discretion as to forms but the biblical values and functions should be clearly identified and understood by the local believers. This will require much corporate Bible study and discussion. In cross-cultural church planting it is especially important that the believers come to their own biblical understandings and convictions about the church so that it is clear to them that the church is not merely an imported idea of the church planter. This will position local believers to discern how those biblical purposes can be fulfilled in culturally appropriate ways.

4. Consider this a spiritual journey. Iron may sharpen iron but where there are too many sparks, fires can break out. Rather than considering these strategy discussions perhaps they should be seen along the lines of the Acts 6 and 13. Those leaders sought God's leading to determine ministries and select people. Prayer and listening skills are needed to come to consensus about God's leading. The group should be united but unafraid to ask tough questions and able to disagree graciously.

5. Put into practice before you decide. The group can discover what it means to be a kingdom community in their context as they live out the biblical purposes and functions of the church. For example while designing small groups they can function as a prototype and evaluate their experiences. A church planter decided to take the entire embryonic community (of about 20 new believers) to visit other more established churches before beginning public worship. They experienced various forms of worship and small group meetings and met to discuss what practices they found were most biblical, edifying, and culturally-appropriate. They identified elements that they decided they would certainly avoid and others they enjoyed. This may sound too existential, but it is extremely practical. The starting point is always "biblical purposes." But the way they are fleshed out is tested before being adopted.

6. Consider shaping the church an ongoing process. Some value tradition and others prefer innovation. But because cultures are always changing, the church must continually reinvent itself while remaining faithful to her divine calling. She must always seek to be more missionally-effective. Shaping the church contextually takes ongoing reflection, dialogue, experimentation and evaluation. It is a refining process because as the local church grows it will need new structures and leaders. Thus missionaries must hold their favorite structures very loosely and trust God to continue shaping HIS church.

Is there a suggested best practice you disagree with or have questions about? Please share that. But also add any words of advice from you reading or experience. Thanks.

Endnotes:

[1] Towns, Elmer, Ed Stetzer, and Warren Bird. 2007. 11 innovations in the local church – How today’s leaders can learn, discern and move into the future. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.

[2] Steffen, Tom Missiology: An International Review, Vol XXII, No. 3, July 1994, 366-367[1] This decision making body is sometimes called a “hermeneutical community” (Hiebert 1987, 1994).

[3] This decision making body is sometimes called a “hermeneutical community” (Hiebert 1987, 1994).

Missionary Roles in Church Planting – Jay Pinney

Missionary roles in Church Planting

A Dallas seminary grad was interested in pursuing the mission field as a possible place where he could be involved in church planting. As we discussed various options, he was adamant. He wanted to plant a multicultural church along with his wife. It didn't matter if multicultural churches were struggling in the city he was interested in, or if American missionaries had yet to produce much fruit as direct church planters in the area, or if there were church planting coaches and trainers needed. He felt he had received a clear call to plant a multicultural church himself, either on the mission field or somewhere in the Dallas area. I do not know where this young man and his wife are today, and I do not want to call into question his call or conviction of what he sensed God wanted him to do. But his story does help introduce the topic of missionary roles in church planting. As we move toward multiplication, what are some roles which missionaries can assume which contribute to indigenous, self-supporting, and reproducing local churches led by national leaders? The roles listed below carry with them the potential to impact a number of churches or even denominations. Often national church leaders have great difficulty filling these roles. This list is not exhaustive. Would you please let us know if you have any comments or have seen a missionary contribute to church planting in other ways?

1) Church Planting Researcher: The research role is undervalued amongst most evangelicals. At a 2008 European church planting institute, a young Slovak pastor showed other attendees a map of his country in which cities and regions were color coded in such a way as to designate areas which had the most and least evangelical churches. It was even coded to distinguish between charismatic and non-charismatic groups. Two missionaries had worked to produce the map and the accompanying statistics. The map was having an important impact across the country, according to the young pastor. The need for new churches was clearly evident and nationals were responding to the need by mobilizing themselves for church planting. Two missionaries put in the work and the national church was inspired to take up the task. In Canada, a database with information about all evangelical churches is generated using a mapping program. Denominations can pinpoint areas where there is significant population growth and few evangelical works exist. This research has demonstrated how the number of new churches is now increasing in Canada and how Canadian church attendance as a whole is now on the rise after dropping for decades. This has encouraged all denominations to continue their progress in planting new churches. They can see tangible results.

2) Church Planting Coach: Church Planting guru Ed Stetzer's PhD thesis was a study of those factors which positively influenced the growth of newly planted churches. One of the factors he noted was the importance of each church planter having a coach and meeting with that coach on a regular basis. Stetzer's data suggested that instituting regular appointments was one of the most effective ways to increase attendance in new church plants. This coaching function should continue through the first four years of the church plant. Stetzer's statistics showed a 25% higher attendance for churches by year four whose planters had received regular coaching over against churches whose planters had no coaching. Coaches keep church planters on track and accountable and encourage them as they go through difficult or discouraging periods in their ministry. They also keep their ear to the ground for potential resources and try to spot potential problems before they grow to affect the church plant negatively. Several denominations in the U.S. have committed themselves to not plant churches without providing a coach of some kind for their church planters. Yet on the mission field, unfortunately coaches are the exception, rather than the rule. It would seem obvious that a great missionary role would be to help national church planters, those who have a greater understanding of the language and culture, become more effective through coaching.

3) Church Planting Catalyzer: Catalyzers are people who use systems, structures, or resources to increase both the number and viability of new church plants. These catalyzers can operate on a national or regional level, with a single association or inter-denominationally. Many denominations in North America have recognized the need for someone to catalyze church plants for them and have placed someone in charge of development for the denomination either nationally or regionally. Some denominations have set up church planting committees, composed of pastors and other leaders who have a heart to see the number of church plants increase and the attendance in new churches increase more rapidly. Catalyzers can operate in a variety of ways, either formally or informally encouraging and supporting church planting through promoting church planting, training church planters, seeking funding for new churches, recruiting candidates to become church planters, or in creating training resources for church planting. In France, a number of denominations and missions are coming together to form a network with the goal of promoting best practices. In order for a denomination to establish someone as a catalyzer, there needs to be an important commitment to church planting already in place and some funding available for such a position. Until the resources are available for a national catalyzer, a missionary could fulfill this function. Some associations (EFC Brazil and Germany for example) use the term Church Planting Director for this role.

4) Church Planting Master Trainer/Professor: In Quebec, leaders from all major denominations have come together to partner in training church planters. A yearly church planters' boot camp is offered with segments being taught by five or six experienced church planters from different denominations. This approach has enabled all the denominations to have high quality church planter training accessible to them on a yearly basis, taught by national church planters. A missionary coordinates the training and updates the French church planting manual yearly with the help of the Quebec trainers. The same missionary works to organize training events in which best practices and their practitioners are given a platform to speak from. In Africa our sister mission ReachAfrica has launched their church multiplication training. But they believe they will not be able to contextualize and distribute the training to meet the needs of the African continent without also training Master Trainers. These master trainers select and coach trainers as well as handle the training.

At times a theological educator with experience in church planting can contribute significantly by teaching church planting and/or using Biblical and theological training to strengthen national movements. As denominations or associations of churches grow, they need leaders who have greater training and understanding of the Scriptures and missiology to keep their movement on track. In Latin America, ReachGlobal has developed Masters-level training which combines sound practice with biblical training in leadership and ministry. This is a great use of missionary personnel as a long term help to depth and stability among the churches of a nation or people group.

5) Equipper of Evangelists: In many places where ReachGlobal works, the greatest challenge is the slow rate of conversion. The key to seeing large numbers of newly planted churches is effective evangelism. But who is helping equip and train evangelists? What methods and means of presenting the Gospel are most effective among various people groups? Who is helping promote the most effective methods? Who is recruiting evangelists to work with new church plants, to help them grow and become stable? Again missionaries could have a dramatic impact on a nation through the training of evangelists. The Billy Graham association offers on occasion large gatherings for evangelists to come and be encouraged in their ministry. There is a great need for training at the grass roots level for those who want to share the Gospel effectively. In countries where post-modernism or agnosticism reigns, there is great need for training to be given so that those who are gifted to share the Gospel can respond intelligently to the rebuttals they receive to the claims of Christ. An equipper of evangelists could see multiplied thousands of conversions take place through their influence and ministry.

6) Church Co-Planter: In Quebec, American missionaries working alongside national church planters are seeing better success in their church planting efforts than those who have taken on the church planter role alone. By working closely with one or more national church planters or on a team, the individual church plant does not depend on the missionary. This also avoids the frequently difficult transition from missionary leadership to local leadership. In one Quebec case, the missionary was called back to the States for a six month period and the church continued to grow in his absence. The national 'co-planter' was more than able to shoulder the additional burden with some help from the mother church. Having missionaries 'go it alone' was discouraged by two French denominational leaders who felt that missionaries have a tendency to experiment by using 'fresh new ideas' which seldom seem to work in their culture. They much preferred pairing missionaries with French church planters, thereby providing some further direction on what was most effective in planting healthy new churches in France. A missionary who steps up into a direct church planting leadership role, becoming the "up front leader" for a local church, creates an entire set of expectations and certain dependencies. Without knowing it, this missionary may well hamper the growth of the church due to his status as a respected outsider. This can take place even if the church initially grows quite quickly under missionary leadership.

Conclusion: These six roles are by no means exhaustive and they are not meant to rule out a missionary doing direct church planting in pioneering situations where there are no local church planters. Which approach will bear the most fruit over a missionary career - working to directly plant one church over a period of ten to fifteen years or impacting dozens of church plants or whole denominations as a catalyzer, coach, master trainer, co-planter or researcher? This allows a missionary to move on more quickly and see more churches planted over their career. Missionaries can have a
greater impact over a longer time frame in a given culture or region by investing in roles which nationals often cannot assume and allow nationals to assume direct planting roles for which they are often better prepared. And isn't this closer to the Pauline model? From a biblical perspective, the missionary role is an apostolic role, not a permanent leadership role in a given church. Before taking on a direct church planting role, missionaries need to consider the possibilities and the multiplied impact of indirect roles which have been effective in impacting larger numbers of people for the Gospel and in creating greater numbers of healthy churches.

Jay Pinney

ReachGlobal missionary,

Montreal, Quebec

September, 2009