Why Another Church?
| See sidebar "Top 10 Objections to Planting Churches" |
 |
A pastor was emphatically registering his concern. "A new church is not needed in this part of the city," he exclaimed. "My church will be affected negatively by a new church coming here. We have this area already covered."
This pastor was reacting to our district’s Home Missions Department’s decision to plant a church several miles from his assembly, but in the same general area of the city. This was not the narrow response of an inflamed pastor. This was a man with integrity, who sincerely believed that planting a new church was the wrong thing to do, especially when his church was struggling.
His concern cannot be discounted. Why should new churches be planted when many of our existing churches are struggling? Is it wisdom to keep adding churches when present congregations have plateaued or are declining?
Elmer Towns observes that "God’s primary method of evangelizing a new community is by planting a New Testament church to reach the area with the gospel."1 A study done by Fuller Theological Seminary draws these conclusions:
 |
• In a church that is 1 to 3 years old, it takes three people to evangelize one person.
• In a church that is 4 to 7 years old, it takes seven people to lead one person to Christ.
• In a church that is 10 years and older, it takes 85 people to win 1 person to the Lord.2
New churches are far more successful in bringing people to conversion than established churches. Even if none of our existing churches are struggling, we should plant churches for the sake of winning souls. That is the mission of our Movement–reaching a lost world for Christ. We concur with C. Peter Wagner who says, "The single most effective evangelistic methodology under heaven is planting new churches."3
If this is true, why would any minister object to church planting, even in his or her city? Several issues create problems for pastors when confronted with a new church planted not far from them.
COMPETITION VS. MONOPOLY
The word competition more properly applies to the business or sports world, not the church. As church leaders we are not inclined to admit we view a neighboring church as competition. We are quick to affirm our yoke with fellow ministers in a common cause. We do not speak in terms of having a monopoly on a community or specific geographical area of a city. But let a church planter invade our territory, then both words–competition and monopoly–come sharply into focus. Like my pastor friend mentioned above, we may not initiate a frontal assault on the church-planting project, but we will do what we can to influence the decision to plant that church somewhere else.
Living in greater Seattle where Microsoft is located, we are deluged by media reports concerning whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly. The Justice Department alleges, and the judge has agreed, that Microsoft has developed into a monopoly by squelching competition, undercutting other companies, and buying out competitors. In other words, Microsoft wants to be the only computer game in town.
If pastors develop the Microsoft mentality, if they view their communities territorially, if any new venture is viewed as competition, then that pastor will oppose church planting no matter how effective it is in reaching people. That pastor’s turf-consciousness overrides his understanding of biblical mission.
EFFECTIVENESS
No matter how effective and fruitful our churches might be, they are still no match for the thousands, even millions, who still need Christ. Since some churches are not effective and fruitful, then the need is even more overwhelming. More and more churches are needed to bring about the harvest for which we so earnestly pray.
When talking to objecting pastors about church planting, I often ask these questions:
-
How much has your community grown in the last 5 years?
-
How much has your church grown in the last 5 years?
-
What is the projected growth for your community in the next 5 years?
-
Based on your growth rate from the last 5 years, how many do you expect to win for Christ in your growing community in the next 5 years? Five years from now, will there be anyone in your community left to reach for Christ?
If the answer to the last question is, "Yes," then maybe church planting is an option that needs to be considered.
|
I do not ask these questions to put pastors on the spot. I am trying to get them to understand that no matter how effective a church is, no matter how fruitful a group of churches may be, there are still more people to win than we are winning. If we can plant one more church where the gospel is preached, the lost have one more venue where they can hear the good news that Jesus loves them and died for them.
Some ministers believe that one large, effective church is better than four or five church plants that are just muddling along. That is probably true, but it speaks more to our methods of church planting than to the principle of whether they should be planted. The fact "50 percent of all Assemblies of God church plants close within 5 years of opening"4 tells us we can be more effective in our church-planting methodology. But that does not annul the fact more churches reach more people.
PASTORAL INSECURITY
Pastors can live at high levels of denial. They can oppose church planting from a demographic perspective, base their case on Assemblies of God policy, and argue for quality not quantity. But they have yet to come to grips with the inner realities. They may deny it, but their objections to church planting are rooted in threats to their security. They may be concerned about:
- The loss of people. "Maybe the new pastor will be so charismatic that he will draw some of my people away from my church."
- The loss of reputation. "Is the district planting a church in my area because they think I haven’t done a good job?"
- The sense of failure. Perhaps their church is struggling and declining, and the new church simply adds to their frustration over lack of growth.
These concerns are not invalid, but the Lord must help us see that Kingdom issues are more important than you and me. Church planting is not about us, but about the lost. Our own insecurities dare not inhibit what God wants to do in building His church. Our sense of failure and loss must be brought to the Cross for release and acceptance. Our security rests in the One who was nailed to that Cross and has now been raised from the dead. We trust confidently in Him.
One further question remains. As a district superintendent, I have often heard it: "Why not help the struggling churches instead of planting new churches?" Or, "If I received as much money, personal attention, and help as the church planter, my church would do just as well as his."
From my perspective it is not an either/or situation, but both/and. It is not a matter of only planting churches and doing nothing for those who are struggling. We must do both. But turning a declining church around is often more difficult than planting a new church. Both require sacrifice and hard work, but the payoff comes much faster in the new work.
Our district has had some success in mothering struggling churches. Just as a larger church would mother a new church, we ask a larger church to take an existing church under its wing and nurture it to health. It requires commitment of ministry and financial resources. It may, but does not always, require release of people to that smaller church. It may even mean a change in pastoral leadership. This is why the adoption by the mother church may be best completed during a pastoral transition.
 |
The biggest challenge in this process is getting the smaller church to accept the mothering of the larger church. This is especially true when the smaller church is sovereign. In some cases, the congregation would rather preserve its independence than submit to help from a nurturing church. Consequently, the church continues to fossilize and becomes a great argument for a new church plant. However, when both of the churches and pastors agree on the mother-daughter relationship, it can provide the means to develop a struggling, unhealthy church into a thriving, healthy church.
Both planting churches and helping struggling churches must be done. If we do one to the exclusion of the other, we can become unbalanced and lose focus.
When we consider the lostness of humanity, the numbers of people yet to be reached for Christ, and the nearness of Christ’s return, we don’t have time to quibble over how to extend Christ’s kingdom. If church planting is the answer in a certain city, let’s do it. If undergirding and strengthening an existing church is the answer, let’s do it. If doing both is what’s needed, let’s do it. Let’s cooperate in fulfilling Jesus’ promise, "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18).
| See sidebar "Top 10 Objections to Planting Churches" |
 |
ENDNOTES
1. Elmer Towns, "The Great Commission and Church Planting," in Church Growth: State of the Art (Wheaton: Tyndale House), 143.
2. Division of Home Missions, "Fuller Theological Study" in American Horizon (Vol. 8, No. 4), 13.
3. C. Peter Wagner, Church Planting for a Greater Harvest (Ventura: Regal Books), 11.
4. Jim Allen as quoted in American Horizon, (Vol. 8, No. 4), 13.