This is an idea whose time has come. It is easy, simple, saves money, and I think it seeds the mission of God in N America for generations to come: STOP FUNDING TRADITIONAL CHURCH PLANTS and instead fund missionaries to inhabit contexts all across the new mission fields of N America.
Traditionally denominations have funded church plants. They do this by providing a.) a full time salary plus benefits for three years, and b.) start-up funds for equipment, building rental etc. to a well-assessed church planter (read entrepreneur). The goal is a self-sustaining church in three years paying its own pastor’s salary and assorted sundry costs of running the church’s services. The costs are astounding, perhaps 300-400,000 dollars or more to get a church plant going.
Today, in the changing environments of N American post Christendom, this approach to church planting is insane. For it not only assumes an already Christianized population to draw on , it puts enormous pressure on the church planter to secure already well-heeled Christians as bodies for the seats on Sunday morning. This in itself undercuts the engagement of the hurting, lost peoples God is bringing to Himself in Christ.
Of course this approach worked for years. In the post WW2 period in N America, denominations were either:
a.) feeding off disenchanted protestant mainline Christians/ dormant Roman Catholic Christians seeking a more vibrant faith, or
b.) planting their brand in the ever expanding suburbs where there were no churches yet and thousands of young (mainly white) Christians were moving there looking for a church.
In either case, a young man (it was normally a man) with preaching and organizational skills could get a church rolling in three years.
A second wave of church planting began in the 80’s with the rise of seeker service churches. We’ll call this the “Willow-creek” effect. These new plants focus on “making church relevant” to boomers who had wandered away. Hundreds of mega churches were planted. These churches fed off the boomers who had been brought up in church, knew “The Story,” but had left. There were also a large number of dormant ex-Catholics and Lutherans looking for church American style. Also, surprisingly, these churches also fed off an amazing number of younger Christians who left their staid traditional Bible churches. Three years was doable in this form of church planting as well. It took a pastor however who had unusual entrepreneurial skills and organizational talent.
Times have changed however. The market of these various Christianized (in some way) populations is shrinking and all but saturated in N America. Instead we live in a society that is more and more post Christian, non-Christian, outside the orbit of the regular church. N America has become a mission field of its own.
I contend therefore we should NOT be funding the traditional Christendom based church plants. We should be funding missionaries.
MY PROPOSAL
Instead of funding one entrepreneurial pastor, preacher and organizer to go in and organize a center for Christian goods and services, let us fund three or four leader/ or leader couples to go in as a team to an under-churched context (Most often these places are the not rich all white suburbs where evangelicals have done well planting churches).
Fund these leader/leader couples for two years instead of three. Fund them only with health insurance (in the States) and a reasonable stipend for housing. This gives them space to get a job on the ground floor of a company, at the bottom of the pay scale, learning a skill, proving themselves. They can do this because they have certain benefits and a place to live for two years.
The goal here is NOT (I REPEAT NOT) to have self-sustaining church organization in three years. It is to have three to four leader/leader couples working together with jobs each that can offer 15 hours of labor to work together to organize and form a gospel expression way in their context. They will be self sustaining in that they all have jobs. They will be committed to this context/neighborhood for ten years.
These leaders will have time and space to then a.) get to know and listen to the neighborhood and the neighbors b.) establish rhythms of life together which include worship, prayer, community, discipleship and presence among the neighbors, c.) discern God working in and among the neighbors and neighborhood, d.)bring the gospel to these places wherever God is working. This includes reconciliation, peace, forgiveness, healing, righteousness, and new creation. D.) develop a way of bringing those coming into faith in Christ into a way of growth and discipleship.
I believe that you put three or more quality leaders together in one place for ten years you will have a new expression of the gospel i.e. a church in each context. Gospel as a way of life will take root. Many will brought into the Kingdom. Imagine what could happen if we funded 100’s of such teams.
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE?
Many will say this is impossible. Where would you find such leaders? Who would sacrifice for such a thing?
My response
a.) More and more “twenty-something” seminary graduates cannot stomach the thought of doing either a traditional church plant or going on staff in a traditional church. They are prime candidates for a new way of ministry engagement
b.) Such students can make more money eventually (give it two years) by going this route, have a lifetime skill, and learn how to be flexible and mobile in the market place. This only looks like hardship to those who still see with the eyes of middle class professionalism.
c.) This is impossible under the current grids of professional ministry. Seminary grads however need to be coached. They need to see they have marketable skills. Skills such as reading critically, appropriating, writing, speaking/presenting in front of people, being able to treat people with grace, respect. They can do this because the service industries (among everybody else) are clamoring for such skilled persons. The employers just need to get to know you. In the current economy then, the highly skilled must be able to start at the lower rungs of employment. By funding missionaries in the way proposed, this affords them unusual ability to learn a skill and develop at these bottom rungs of employment. Within two years their value is proven and they are being paid well enough to be self-sustaining.
So there it is. Laid out in full. To all denominations, individuals, churches that want to plant churches, benevolent organizations: STOP FUNDING CHURCH PLANTS. Instead fund missionaries. We can call it “Mission mobilization N America” or something like that (I ain’t good with names). If anyone is interested in funding this revolution let me know via this website! What do you think? Doable? What are the hurdles to overcome? I’ve got ideas, what are yours? Are people already doing this? Let me know if you would. Let the revolution begin 
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Well David,
Congratulations on a Blog post that actually gets read and discussed…wish I could say the same for my blog. =)
Dr. Fitch,
I have a question about the model you present here. Your prime candidates for this ministry seem to be recent college/seminary grads. You say that they will need help–sort of on the job training and monetary support for a couple years to get them started.
But they world they are entering is made up of seniors, middle-aged couples, young families, young people and children from a variety of political, racial, and economic backgrounds. The world they are leaving (college) is not like this at all–mostly young, middle-upper class singles. The one thing they do have is energy, enthusiasm, and an idealized vision.
Do you think that the ideal situation would be to be able to plug them into missional “families” made up of folks in their 80′s who have walked with God for a long time; middle aged folks with credibility and suasion in the area; young families representing the vibrancy of service; and young children hungrily gobbling up all of the “positive infuence” they see modeled in their community?
One of the problems in the church is the compartmentalization of the experience. Young people have little exposure to older people and can develop a sense that they are dry and irrelevant. Older people don’t have exposure to young people and can develop a sense that they are frivolous and irresponsible.
To me, establishing missional, contextualized pockets of missionaries is a good thing–but they can’t all “look the same”.
What think you?
I know you were addressing DF, but I’d like to share my own experience: We “accidentally” became a missional community in our neighborhood with two other key couples. The average age of our core couples is 36 years old (so we’re not 20-somethings needing to establish ourselved – we’re established). I, however, graduated from Div. school at 27, worked as a “staff assistant” at an Insurance company and worked my way up to a solid middle-class salary where I work 40 hours a week and have ample time to be bi-vocational (putting around 15 hours or so into “missional rhythms,” meetings, discipleship, counseling, and probably another few hours “processing”). We do not want to be homogeneous in age and are not. We were most sad when one 40/50 year old couple with teens left our group (on good terms – just not a perceived fit for them). Their wisdom and friendship was so beneficial to us. So now we have the following demographics in a “suburb-that-feels-like-a-village” environment with a mix of blue collar and white collar (but not poverty): three fifty-somethings, one forty-something, eight thirty somethings, 12 kids with ministry to mostly 20-30 somethings and bunch of kids. And we’re being coached by a 50 something.
I personally like DF’s proposal a lot. It doesn’t match exactly what we have done (or our age categories), but the general proposal is, in my view, good for many (not all – but probably more than are even thinking to try it!). It’s my opinion that this post should be read in the context of DF’s posts on: 1.) “Not a Franchise – Seeding Missional Communities”
2.) “Death of a Church Plant – Some Reflections and Hope for the Future of Missional Church Planting”; and
3.) “5 Excuses Seminarians make for NOT Getting A (“Real”) Job”
One quick aside: I mentioned “core” couples above. Our leadership is fairly flat, as we recognize that some of the 50-somethings, especially are more qualified to “lead” in certain situations – even without any sort of title.
By the way, I am conviced that some people don’t have enough time to do ministry because they believe that solo time in front of the television for a couple hours a night (or with their nuclear family) is a God-given right of every American Christian. I’m not saying that television is evil, it just shouldn’t be put on the same plane as the need for sleep when arguing “I don’t have enough time.” I do watch television (movies on DVD, actually), so I’m not “going fundamentalist” on anyone. I’m just saying that I do it strategically (like when I’m ironing or folding laundry) to maximize my time. I’ve got five kids, so I usually get to watch a whole movie while folding laundry!
It’s funny you bring up evaluating how we use our time. It used to be my routine to listen to news radio (NPR) while I ate my breakfast each morning. It was my way of keeping up on the world.
But this week, I decided to eat on my front porch (a home improvement my wife and I made a couple years ago). Since then, I’ve come into contact with the rhythms of 3 of my neighbors who leave/come home from work at the same time. I have plenty of time to listen to the radio on my morning commute.
Such a simple change–eating privately vs. eating publicly–that involved absolutely no cost has given me a brand new presence in my community.
Your community sounds very healthy.
I’ve read most of the posts you mention but I will go back and review them. Thanks.
Simple changes can make big differences. Nice to meet you on here, Bob.
Burly,
Reflecting a bit on your story I think the most significant thing you said is that you “accidentally” became a missional community. I think everyone here sees a lot of good in DF’s proposal–it sounds like it describes the kind of life we’re all looking for–but there’s a problem: it cannot be produced on demand by following a formula. Oh, sure, you can find some folks and try to start meeting together, doing intentional things, working and serving but I think more often than not these things fizzle out within a few months.
Not because the idea is wrong. More because the implementation of the idea was artificial. It was in the foreground.
To me, ideas like this need to stay in the *backgound* with the make-up and rhythm of the community being in the *foreground*. And I think DF would agree with this.
But in order to become conscious of our particular “foregrounds” we have to do certain things–stuff like eating breakfast on your porch–that put you in regular, purposeful, contact with your context.
(Of course, even that can’t be applied everywhere–some houses don’t have front porches, some neighborhoods don’t have street parking or sidewalks.)
The point is we shouldn’t take this proposal as a formula to replicate. We should take its principles as prods to push us towards finding what, in our context, would accomplish the goals.
I’d say some can take it as a proposal and partially replicate it if done so in prayer, etc. I should clarify that I put “accidentally” in quotation marks, because my family very intentionally moved to the neighborhood in which we live even though we were planning to co-plant a “traditional” (i.e. attractional church using missional lingo) church with other friends with whom we moved to this general area (Cleveland-ish). We moved to the neighborhood we did, because some people (who became very good friends) hosting us said we should move to their neighborhood. God had already been bringing families into our neighborhood from the “mother” church that we became involved with and we began exploring what it would look like to see ourselves as missionaries (planting the Gospel) vs. church planters (planting a church service). I don’t mean to say that’s what always happens (planting the Gospel vs. planting a church), I’m saying that was what I was having to choose between. We knew we had to live among the people to whom we were going to minister (and be ministered to! – that was the bonus surprise).
Bob, I’ve been teaching and flying to a wedding … but I just read this and I think there’s some great suggestions here … thanx
DF
[...] STOP FUNDING CHURCH PLANTS and Start Funding Missionaries: A Plea to Denominations STOP FUNDING TRADITIONAL CHURCH PLANTS and instead fund missionaries to inhabit contexts all across the new mission fields of N America.Ur Video: The Succession Dilemma [...]
Late to the party, but I love this proposal. In a small way, this is sort of what we’ve been up to in Fort Wayne, albeit my wife and I are the only ones receiving support (that we’ve raised from our own networks).
As we’ve thought about ways to plant similar expressions in other cities, this idea resonates with much of what we’ve already talked about. It was really encouraging to read! Exciting stuff if a forward-thinking denomination or funding org wanted to take a chance.
I agree that some funding is necessary to facilitate the intentionality necessary to really establish a new expression of the gospel in a neighborhood/city. This is as old as the New Testament.
I do wonder about the proposed 10-year commitment, though. Would it make more sense for some people to function more like the Apostle Paul: being supported to do more of the “front-end” work and leaving others to establish things long-term with regular coaching and visits? Just an idea.
It would be a great idea for Ecclesia, too, if they had the money to spend
Perhaps it’s worth writing up a detailed proposal of what it would look like, especially if grant money comes available, etc?
Ha! Ben, thought I might see you somewhere in this discussion.
@David Fitch, I would push a couple of books your way. Viral Churches, by Stetzer and Bird, and Exponential, by the Ferguson brothers, if you have not read these already.
Stetzer actually goes to the extent to say that though funding is important to church plantERS (in any model/context, they always say they need/could use MORE), it is actually NOT important to church plantING in reality. The research shows that there is no direct correlation between the amount of funding someone has and “increasing attendance”.
In fact, I would never DREAM of planting in a way even close to what you have described as the “traditional” method. I have seen from experience that all that money simply isn’t necessary. The current church I am serving in and helped plant started with exactly $0.
I think your “missionary” verbiage is the direction the church in N. America needs to be moving, and as I am beginning to move out of my current church to plant, it is the approach I will be taking and replicating in others.
~a
I’m telling you…the ARC is the best way to do this! And it already exists! You don’t have to reinvent the wheel.
http://www.weplantlife.com/plant-a-church/
arrgh…emergent, hipster, anti-materialist post seminarians ought to use a proven model…that works…and that’s the ARC!
ok…I’m done
Dave, should I promote CA here too!
Wayne, you made me curious about ARC so I skrimmed through a number of pages. Looks to me like it has a few systems-oriented innovations, which is good. However, I can’t find anything in particular that shows the ARC approach uses a different paradigm from the conventional “marketing model.” So, I wonder if your assessment tools are the Ridley system or something similar using traditional definitions of “success.” (I already noted weaknesses of that assessment system in my comments of *June 28, 2011 at 4:18 pm* on this post.)
I also noticed that the ARC website seems to emphasize quantitative growth, large churches, mega-churches, multi-sites, etc. To me, that’s an indicator of conventional attractional models. And – - granted – - while that approach may work in some areas of the U.S., I did notice that only about 25% of ARC church dots on your U.S. map are in the Western U.S. (about 50 to 60 out of the 200 mentioned are in the block from North Dakota south thru the western half of Texas, and west to the Pacific).
So … am I missing something here? If it’s accurate that there is far less church-going culture in the Western U.S., is ARC sparse out here because it is a proven model for more strongly christianized regions only? Why are there so few ARC attractional outposts in this half of the country? Has it really had substantial enough attempts and survivals to constitute “proof” that the ARC model absolutely works anywhere – - or just east of the Mississippi? I’m not sold …
… I still think we have a major task ahead if we want to plant sustainable ministries, churches, and non-profits in the cultures that are emerging. The new realities require us to start our start-up systems from scratch based on a very different paradigm than the one that supports conventional, attractional forms of congregational life. I suspect there will be some areas of overlap between old and new paradigms in HOW things get done, but just because they look similar doesn’t mean they come from the same source system.
I myself have looked into ARC as an avenue to explore and resource what I feel is a strong calling to plant a Church. Only problem…they check your credit rating because apparently your credit rating is a prime indicator that you can plant a Church…guess that counts lots of people out who have led flawed yet hopeful lives, made lots of mistakes, and have grown through it. I guess guys like me are castaways.
Wayne,
It is good that your have found something that works for you!
Are you hoping to share your model with “emergent-hipster” types? If so, I hope you will approach them in a way that doesn’t sound like you are writing them off.
Sincerely,
CM
Oh yeah, the tent is wide; but the the model is NOT about “being cool” so much as being “Life-Giving.” No offense to all my friends with low cut v-neck tees, skinny jeans and scruffy beards =) I kid, I kid (old youth pastor talking)
[...] [...]
I haven’t read through all the comments, so I don’t know if someone already picked up on this or not.
As a church planter in his 20′s who would be a prime candidate for this type of church planting (and who would love having that level of support), I would suggest one minor tweak.
Add the third year of support back into the model (as appropriate) and use it to send the church planter to a year-long trade school, giving him a chance to actually get a reasonably paying job. This year can also be used for various forms of assessment and training before he is sent out.
Part-time tent-making is almost undoubtedly the best way to integrate into a community, but the model doesn’t do any good for a guy who has invested 4-6 years (and thousands of dollars) in ministry education and doesn’t know how to “make a tent.”
“Done” … er, I think we should think thru this issue, including offering theological education … with tent making skills. Of course many sems already are doing this …Thanx Raj DF
I agree. A tent-making trade would have been a valuable part of my theological education, especially if it happened early on and could have helped pay for the rest of college.
Though I loved the Biblical part of my education, I found the rest of it woefully lacking in preparation for the real work of ministry with its ups and downs, sense of calling, gaps between ministries, and the way ministry is affected by a bad economy. I left college believing I would be employed at a church until the day I retired or died and that I would be meaningfully serving God’s Kingdom that whole time. Turns out that delusion bore little semblance to reality.
I feel similarly and I’m really stoked that David wrote this article. I’m a wanna-be church planter in her 20′s as well and I keep finding that wherever I go, denominational leaders are really excited about my out-of-the-box, no-building, -grass-roots ideas (which are very similar to David’s) but they realize quickly that there is no real place for me in their existing system. It’s almost like they are saying, “That sounds exactly like what the church needs right now!.. But how is it going to turn into a regular church with a building and a salary that can funnel money back to the denomination within three years?…” So I smack my forehead and move on.
But spending so much time in theological education has left me feeling a little lacking on marketable skills and people only want to pay me to do a job that is called “pastor” but includes none of the pastoral gifts God has given me. Dave, if there was anyone willing to fund this kind of thing, I’d jump at it tomorrow. Until then, I’m going to waitress and go without adequate health care so I can be a part-time missionary in my city. A girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do.
Very cool.
AMEN Raj. I’m looking for that tent-making gig, too.
CM
[...] their budget and mismanaging their leaders. I highly suggest checking out this entire post David Finch’s blog | “This is an idea whose time has come. It is easy, simple, saves money, and I think it [...]
I am amazed that the men that come up with these ” new ideas” always have them for other people. Are you willing to be one of these missionaries that moves into a low income place and receives health insurance and minimum housing? I also love the way they “get” to take a job to make their living. May I ask what you do for a living?
John, if you read through the comments, you will see that David is far from just a theoretician. Further, many of us who agree with him (in full or in part) HAVE tried (or are trying) what he is suggesting in some form.
John,
worked in financial services for many years, while nurturing an intentional community in Chicago, then planting a church in the suburbs. Have helped/coached several church “plantings” in recent years. In my later years, became a professor at a seminary … took a pay cut … continue ministering in a church … DF
I think it is definatly over due. We fund missionarriess to do the same things over seas and dollar for dollar your ultimate return on investment will be higher bthe that of a church plant but my district would never support it.
I think the 2 yrs from bottom to a career path in most places is unrealistic. More than likely, after 2 years, such folks will find themselves pretty much where they started, short of switching companies…. What you are saying might make some sense over a 5 or 10 yr time frame, assuming the entity they are working for remains viable.
The other thing is, and I think some commentators alluded to it, is that if you go out of suburbia, survival may well entail a 50-80 work week with multiple entry level jobs. There is an aspect of clericalism and privilege with your proposal that I’m not convinced will be as successful as might appear on the surface. There is also the time availability aspect… diving things up amongst 4 leaders so as to provide 50 hours/week and a margin of 10 or 20 hours doesn’t provide for continuity, no matter how well the leaders communicate amongst themselves. The 100-120 work week of resident physicians of old was not just a matter of dues paying, but was a matter of training and continuity…. I’d gather such is as nearly critical in church leadership as it is in the medical profession. History seems to bear this out somewhat as far as the church planting of generations ago. (at least in the midwestern prairies that is).
I see the above as two huge hurdles… I’ll think on this a bit more and see if I can propose any workarounds. I do like the concept, the implementation aspect is the problem.
Ron,
I think the hurdles are greater in the upper middle class suburbs. But that’s where all the evangelical mega churches are. I proose this works best in mid-lower middles class suburbs… where housing etc. is affordable. There also has to be a commitment to live beneath one’s means, where extra measures may be needed for a time (like two or more couples living in one house etc.) … On the two years, this may be, but my experience is you start on the bottom rung … in two years you often have grown into a sustainable living (although this may take some coaching) … I don’t gwt what you’re referring to when you talk about continuity. Our experience is that continuity is increased with multiple leadership … despite turnover … we’ve never lacked leadership at “the Vine,” and we’ve sent out many leaders in our church seeding endeavors ..
Blessings … thanks for speaking into this blog psot
What you’re talking about here are not much more than glorified small groups with an evangelistic / holistic / community / social justice bent. God bless you, but I think we can accomplish these type of cells within the more stable context of a strong, life-giving church. And, in answer to your comments, the ARC is strong down south because that’s where it started, but it’s long-term partnership with EQUIP could have us planting these churches all over the world. And, btw, Nickels and Noses are one of the legitimate metrics for spiritual growth, like it or not. But most ARC pastors would say there are also at least 8 Other essentials for church health that are also very important (I.e. Natural Church Development).
Hey Wayne,
I’d like to hear you address more specifically Brad’s questions concerning ARC. Specifically, a main part of what this blog post was arguing is that traditional means of church planting (like yours) create pressures/motivations … so that only Christians or Christianized people (people with a Christian background and proclivity already) are reached. You come from Colorado Springs. Many of your churches are in the south. Does this inform your outlook? I guess we want to know, truthfully, how many people coming into your church plants are already pre-existing Christians or Christianized (former Lutherna sor Catholics etc.) … This was the primary point of the post which youi seem to gloss over which Brad Sargent is interested in engaging with you on … peace DF
Well, honestly. I’m not here to defend the ARC, it’s processes are already proven (with an over 98% success rate in planting churches). You’re here to defend your premise that we should “stop planting churches” and start sending “North American Missionaries” (an idea that has NOT been proven or even tested to your exacting specifications). Oh wait, maybe it has been tried already and is already BEING DONE by groups like; YWAM, Campus Crusade, The Vineyard Movement, the Jesus People back in the day or like a lot of the “Independent-minded-RELEVANT-Magazine-Hipster” crowd, like my friend, Michael Gungor at Bloom church in Downtown Denver. Bro, your idea has been done, and is being done already…with only marginal success. I would say, like one of your other Posters already has, “Y’all go ahead and do it.” You could be right, this might be the next great move of God in our generation. I hope it is. But, I think we need more movement in ALL AREAS of the kingdom. Not an Either/Or choice like what you propose in your original blog post (which has stirred a great conversation).
However, I think I know what you’re getting at with your initial post and what your “church planting comment are directed at.” Let me qualify my point of view this way, I am an Evangelical, (a Two-Point Calvinist…I’ll let you guess which two) and I would say, the Baptists and Charismatics have been the most effective Soul-Winning Christians that America has ever seen (which is also a statistical fact, American Church in Crisis). You mention the Lutherans, Methodists and mainliners. It is doubtful that many of the people populating many of those mainline churches are even Christians in the true biblical sense (many of them are only nominal in their commitment to Christ).
So as a pastor and planter, I believe that “The Bible is the Word of God, That Jesus is the Son of God, and that you must be Born Again to be a Christian.” If a movement or local church doesn’t agree with those 3 essentials then it’s doubtful if they’re authentically Christian at all.
As a gentlemen, I’ll address your questions about the ARC but I’ll raise a few questions of my own (with some qualifiers) to stir your thinking, if you don’t mind.
You said, “Hey Wayne,
I’d like to hear you address more specifically Brad’s questions concerning ARC. Specifically, a main part of what this blog post was arguing is that traditional means of church planting (like yours) create pressures/motivations … so that only Christians or Christianized people (people with a Christian background and proclivity already) are reached. You come from Colorado Springs. Many of your churches are in the south. Does this inform your outlook? I guess we want to know, truthfully, how many people coming into your church plants are already pre-existing Christians or Christianized (former Lutherna sor Catholics etc.)…”
—————————————————————-
First of all, ARC is not “traditional church planting;” (the proof of that is in our success) but anyway, when you say “pressures/motivations” I’m assuming you’re talking about attendance and offerings again. And yes, isn’t the “money pressure” what you’re trying to eliminate by making your planting teams Bi-vocational? The money question has to be answered one way or the other, either by fundraising or by the planters committing to a long-term strategy. Either way it takes extravagant giving.
My church, Summit Church (planted in Douglas County) south Denver has seen over 500 Salvation commitments since we opened doors, and we established the church in one of the most unchurched counties in the US (Douglas County, COLORADO). 380,000 people (US Census Bureau stats) and only 88 “Bible-Believing” churches in the county (80% of which have 100 people or less, (American Church Lists, and InfoUSA stats) meaning only 3-5% of the county are being reached by local churches. From my informal surveys of my church of 200, I would say over half of them come from a totally unchurched background and another 30% are DeChurched (coming back to Summit Church after being away from their churches for 3 or more years of time). The last 20% were my leadership team or transfer growth from other churches.
————————-
I believe that your “proposed model” has merit, but it’s already being done, and honestly it’s not that revolutionary. You just need to get out more =)
The Vineyard Churches plant just like this: you and ten of your closest friends move to the city “that you’re called to,” get jobs, start a bible study, do water-bottle giveaways, free car washes (etc), AND OH YES, the MOVEMENT gives you $3,000 start-up cash. “God Bless, Good Luck & Tell your wife and kids we’re sorry we couldn’t do more.” It’s being done. And about 1 out of 10 Vineyard plants are a great success. It’s what we call the “Reptillian Method” of Church Planting.
This is why the ARC is different, it’s the “Mamillian Method.” (Most Bears only have 2 Cubs). So we launch strong, we grow big and we give those New Church Planters every chance of success by using proven methods and systems for success. And we do it for only $30k-$50K. NOT the astronomical $300-400K as you’ve suggested (and as I know Andy Stanley’s Group and the Mainline churches are famous for over-spending). The ARC is highly evangelistic, missions focused (all churches give a minimum of 10% of their budget to world missions) and are “incarnational.” You really should check it out further, and talk with more guys like me =)
http://www.MySummitChurch.com
http://www.ARCchurches.com
Sorry this is so long, but all these replies and your questions deserved and exhaustive response.
David,
I read your post a few days ago and now have read through all the comments. Now I just read your post again. It’s funny…I read a lot of apologetic for what people are already doing, a few good questions, but mostly what seems to be missing the point. You’ve talked about this sort of thing from many angles on this blog and have sparked a lot of good conversation for “those who have ears to hear”. But that’s the problem with this conversation…most Christian leaders – particularly the ones who have the resources to do this – don’t want to hear that we should stop “planting churches”. It’s offensive. Particularly when you say things like, “The goal here is NOT (I REPEAT NOT) to have self-sustaining church organization in three years.” To most, that just doesn’t make sense.
But there is a growing minority, most like me who have little influence and resources, who are completely on board. We are the ones who have been living this for the past ten years and are now trying to give away what we’ve learned. I don’t have a huge organization behind me (don’t really want one), but I’m going to help people do what you describe above with whatever resources I have. Chances are that it will go mostly unnoticed. But I’m not after recognition.
The main hurdle I see to denominations / seminaries / church planting orgs adopting this proposal wholesale is the difficulty quantifying results. I looked over ARC’s website on Wayne’s recommendation and I find it hard to believe they would fund a group of people being missionaries in their spare time. I think this sentence says it all: “We show you how to build your launch team, raise funds, form a worship team, develop your children’s ministry and gain momentum – so you can open your doors with excellence. If you start strong, you have a greater chance of growing strong.” Sorry Wayne, this is not the answer to David’s question.
Perhaps there will be large, existing organizations with the guts to help people in this way. But my guess is that it will happen more locally and personally. Friends helping friends.
Peace,
Mike
yep. Thanks. Let’s stay in touch. Many blessings on your labors for Christ and His Mission. DF
[...] continues to decline, many are asking if current models of church expansion remain appropriate. David Fitch’s blog calls on denominations to cease funding of church plants and instead begin supporting missionaries [...]
[...] Reclaiming the Mission » STOP FUNDING CHURCH PLANTS and Start Funding Missionaries: A Plea to Denom… [...]
Very late to the party having just been linked to this- but thanks DF Currently writing a thesis on bivocational church planting and its possible relevance to Irish Presbyterians. There is little out there academically (or in terms of praxis) but i’m sold on the need for it. Cheers
I really like this blog post! There is a certain ring to it, it sounds a lot like the GCM movement. If someone wants to support missionaries in Charlotte, NC, let me know. If there are any denominational needs in Charlotte for a community like the one described in the post, we would love to talk to a representitive. My wife and I are already working service jobs in the city and are currently involved in an internship program within a local church plant we are members of.
Daniel Ray
daniel.ray@carolinacarpetone.com
[...] was recently taking part in a discussion at David Fitch’s blog, and was posed the following question: Why is that twenty-something seminary types (such as myself) [...]
It seems to me that your assumption of a church plant is merely the establishment on a group of already existing Christians (“it .. assumes an already Christianized population to draw on … secure already well-heeled Christians as bodies for the seats”). I got the impression that a church plant could not be evangelistic and gospel-centered. So I was a little confused reading your post because that is not my understanding of church planting. It sounds as though you are protesting something other than the establishment of faith communities that are reaching people who do not know Christ and helping to make them disciples (which could be ‘missionaries’ or church planters).
Sorry Aaron,
Don’t know how you got that impression? It’s landing a three/four Christian leader/leader couples to reach a neighborhood with the gospel … as opposed to setting up an organized entity to attract people into a goods and services for Christians.
Thanks for clarifying, David.
So what you want to stop funding are not “church plants” per se, but church plants that are a one-man, “attractional” show, offering “goods-and-services” Christianity, built for immediate rapid growth and financial stability. Agreed.
However, the funding of “missionaries” as you have described could be understood as church planting. So, basically, you are averse to the continuing formation of the prevalent *concept* of modern church (one-man show, etc.). Instead of redeeming the terms “church” and “church plant”, you are advocating a changing the terminology (missionaries) to introduce a new concept. Hence, the provocative title of this post.
[pardon me for butting in on your conversation with DF] “Provocative” is @fitchest’s middle name! Maybe that’s why people say that he reminds them of a young Jack Nicholson.
For me (not speaking for DF), sowing [very intentional] seeds of the Gospel + discipleship precedes any talk of planting a church. In our own Gospel community outside of Cleveland, we really do see ourselves as missionaries, as we are aiming to serve and love those who are outside of a dynamic relationship with Jesus. Many are entrenched in “religious activities,” so inviting them into our lives together must [for us in our context] precede inviting them into an official worship space. Those of us who are part of the core in our local community consider ourselves a “church group,” but we present ourselves as a group of people who follow Christ together and invite others to do the same in word and deed. We don’t want nominal[fill-in-the-blank -- Catholics, Methodists, etc.] to avoid identifying with us if we artificially “plant a church” with a label with which they don’t want to identify like – say – evangelical! We’re not hiding our commitment to Christ, but we don’t want labels, expectations, etc. to get in the way of representing Christ as a community to our local community in our “infancy” (we’ve been doing this missionary-thing in our community for about three years).
Thanks Burly,
Glad you jumped in. That is my point exactly regarding the avoidance of the term “church”.
From what you described, it sounds like you want to be a church (“…consider ourselves a ‘church group’”) in a community, and do things that a church does (“sow seeds of the Gospel…discipleship”), you just don’t want to use the terminology (“label”) of “church”. You do so out of fear that calling yourself a church would prevent people from being a part of your community.
I understand the impulse. But at what point if what you are doing is planting a church (which I believe you are, if indeed you are sowing the Gospel and making disciples) will you admit that that is what you are doing? At what point will you confess to those whom you invited into a dynamic relationship with Jesus and into your “Gospel community” that what they actually became a part of was a church?
Thanks again, for responding.
Aaron,
This is a reply to your comment below mine (my computer didn’t allow me to comment below your comment for some reason).
You said:
“From what you described, it sounds like you want to be a church (“…consider ourselves a ‘church group’”) in a community, and do things that a church does (“sow seeds of the Gospel…discipleship”), you just don’t want to use the terminology (“label”) of “church”.”
Me:
Yes.
Then you said:
“You do so out of fear that calling yourself a church would prevent people from being a part of your community.”
Me:
Actually, with the people we know who are not part of our community, we are clear that we are “doing church” in our community. It’s the “churched-interested-in-a-new-church” people we’re wary (wrong word, but close enough) of. Not because they’re bad people, but because the laundry list of expectations behind what “church” will be is too much to respond to! “Where’s your building? Who’s the Senior Pastor? Why don’t you have a worship band?” etc.
We do “fear” that those outside the “church” would immediately dismiss us as a church group (not as individuals!) were they to attach a label to us.
You then said:
“I understand the impulse. But at what point if what you are doing is planting a church (which I believe you are, if indeed you are sowing the Gospel and making disciples) will you admit that that is what you are doing? At what point will you confess to those whom you invited into a dynamic relationship with Jesus and into your “Gospel community” that what they actually became a part of was a church?”
I think that once we are known in the community and the community is grateful for our existence, we may “come out” as a church. When baptisms, baby dedications, etc. are happening regularly. I’m not sure “when” exactly. When multiplication happens among the community groups where we sense the need to begin gathering a a regular-to-semi-regular basis to share what God is doing among our Gospel communities.
Bottom line: I don’t want anyone to confuse our “church” for the “church machine.” Some can handle the church machine. I can’t!
Thanks for commenting so I could clarify. Feel free to disagree! I can handle it. If you’re right, I need it!
This sounds like an outstanding idea. I am a twenty something just coming into seminary, and I agree that most of my generation, myself included, don’t feel completely comfortable with the old model.
Additionally, my generation, and the one behind it are scared off by the big church buildings, liturgy, and everything they perceive to be disingenuous. I believe this model will put God’s people where the people are. After they have been reached a church would be appropriate for fellowship, service, and Christian growth, but that church might look different than the traditional American church.
where does the commitment to a local church factor in to all of this within these communities of people and the leaders/missionaries that would be sent out? is there any church structure present?
Great stuff here David! I appreciate the provocative proposal and am curious what it would look like if we pushed it forward 20-30 years. What will be needed at such a point in the distant future that we can begin to address right now? One question that comes to mind is “What’s the minimum in terms of skills required to be an effective missionary-disciple in one’s neighborhood/workplace today and how can those skills quickly be attained by/passed on to new followers of Jesus so as to spark a movement at the grass root level?” Granted, one’s “training” as a missionary-disciple is never complete but what is the bare minimum that would allow church leaders in the future to say “Go!” to those so empowered and equipped?
Grace and peace,
Jon
We have planted some 600 churches in 50 nations around the world in the Some largely unreached nations and post christian nations. These have mainly been self sustaining financially with equipping and support from the sending church. These are mostly missional as described above. But there can be no magic formula only the word of god and the power of his spirit
I’m game. Where do I sign up? (read: donate). Preferably something itemizable in tax deductions. The less the government takes from me the more I can give.
[...] via Reclaiming the Mission [...]
I am a church planter and can identify with much of what is being said here. Maybe someone mentioned this, but I have an idea. However, this proposal requires humility, trust, and, as with all things in the church that are meaningful and lasting, a work of the Spirit.
What if you could have a team approach to planting a church that looked like this:
First, 1 full time pastor (sort of the exact approach you are speaking against)
Second, recruiting 2-5 couples who are seminary trained and excited about a bi-vocational approach to ministry that MAY or MAY NOT lead to another plant that they lead. This is tricky and goes back to a need for humility, trust, and a work of the Spirit.
My experience so far in trying this has been challenging. We had a wonderful guy who worked with me for three years but ultimately realized that we weren’t going to plant anytime soon and so he moved on. But he was rocking the house with serving our church and making a living Truly, I value him and miss his presence. I considered him a pastor of our people and a real benefit to his neighbors and community. I hope he comes back! And don’t even get me started about his family … each of them served our church faithfully and I miss them as well.
If you could call a full-time staff member and then 2-5 other staff members who were bivocational then I think you could really do some great things. In fact, I am going to try and recruit some! Thanks for this post and forgive me if someone else has already said it. IF they have, then we may be on to something.
Don’t forget the singles!
And … every single pastor/Christian needs to see themselves as a missionary. I tell our people all the time that we are part of “Mission to North America” or we are part of what God is doing among the “peoples of North America”. That is why we are here! For you and your neighbors!
Or, you could say it this way,
“Just as we insist that a church which has ceased to be a mission has lost the essential character of a Church, so must we also say that a mission that is not at the same time truly a Church is not a true expression of the divine apostolate. An unchurchly mission is a much a monstrosity as a unmissionary church.”
Lesslie Newbigin – The Household of God
David,
Prehaps I missed this in the comments already, but your thoughts related to the video venue multi-site movement. Do you see any difference from the traditional church planting? As a better alternative?
[...] via Reclaiming the Mission [...]
Wayne- your arrogance and judgementalism toward other denominations and Christian groups is astounding! If you truly represent ARC I can honestly say I am now led to think less of that movement.
Gary- sorry to offend. If my views as an Evangelical about mainline denominations are wrong, I’m happy to hear your defense. However, I don’t think it’s arrogant to rightly assume that most mainline denominations have strayed far from orthodox Christianity and drifted (in large part – NOT ALL but many) into Nominal Christianity. If you read The American Church in Crisis, you’ll see that what I’m saying is not an Evangelical bias, but a statistical fact. I’m sorry to offend you, please don’t let it reflect poorly on the ARC, as they have been very open to planting along with Evangelical Lutherans and Many other denominations as well. However, orthodoxy and orthoPRAXY cannot be faked or glossed over. If you mistook my confidence in the ARC and it’s methods as arrogance then I am truly sorry. It was not my intent to offend you. Please forgive me.
Seminary Graduates are mostly people who feel a calling to full-time vocational ministry. They aren’t going to be so keen on working at starbucks with some vague idea of building organic christian community with several other couples.
This sounds to me like it’s coming from someone who thinks it’s a great idea for someone else, but never for him or her.
How about some ideas that you could get behind and do yourself, instead of just passing it on to someone else to deal with your strange church plant experiment??
Was this some sort of ambiguously tongue-in-cheek comment or did you ignore the multiple comments above from those of us who are doing very similar things to what DF has proposed?
For full disclosure: I am not really asking you if it was an ambiguously tongue-in-cheek comment. I know it wasn’t.
Mitch, as Burly mentioned, many of us ARE doing this and David (the blog author) has been a part of many such models. A quick read through the comments and the blog would get the information you need. Hope it helps!
Mitch,
For I think the fourth time on this one post, if you want my full job history I’ll be glad to give it to you via e-mail. But up front, I put forth for anyone’s examination .. there isn’t one thing I’ve proposed on this blog post that I haven’t done myself. I got out of seminary, got a non religious related job, … worked part time on a church, led a community built on relationships in chicago .. then did it again in the suburbs. I did this for twenty years!!!
So … just curious … what did I say that would give anyone the impression … I havenot done this myself …? Now that I’m older… it’s true ..I am a professor … in fact … all of my past is what led me to the call to teach and shape the future. I’ve never said that missionaries who start out in the fashion proposed here … couldn’t some day be asked to be full time … but then again .. we should all be prepared to go part time … bi-vocational at any moment … Even today … tho … I still pastor and coach church plants …
Blessings Mitch …
DF
I believe it is wise for anybody in ministry to be as prepared as possible to go part-time at any given moment. Especially given todays economic climate, this can provide useful flexibility for gospel centered communities. Nothing against full time ministry work, but making full time work absolute places a lot of pressure to achieve “success” in ministry. Being flexible puts your money where your mouth is: I’m committed to this cause whether I’m paid or not. It also provides more financial options for local congregations which can help them achieve more gospel-prioritized stewardship and budgeting, as opposed to a corporate modeled church. Nothing against learning from corporations and integrating their ideas into the church, with wisdom, but it has sort of become an absolute, and these ideas provide a way to get out from under that when it’s necessary. Oh, and it will be becoming increasingly more and more necessary. The writing is on the wall.
[...] David Fitch, a church planter and seminary teacher in Chicago, has done a lot of reflecting on church planting. David has been specially interested in the increasing number of failed church plants and has asked, “Why?” What has changed? He recognizes that in the post-Christendom world, we can no longer count on simply opening our doors and attracting large numbers to a service. Moreover, the percentage of people that we are able to reach with our typical methods is shrinking daily. Something must change. [...]
[...] something that, even if it doesn’t exactly fit my context, opens up my mind and heart. This post by David Fitch does just [...]
Gary- sorry to hear that as well. The ARC’s assessment and preparation process is quite thorough. But as a leader in the movement, I would say this, your credit rating may have DQ’d you right now, but if you keep your nose clean, u could re-apply in a couple years and be accepted. Don’t get discouraged, just walk through the process in Gods timing. And just because the ARC didn’t send you doesn’t mean you shouldn’t plant a church. If God has put a vision in your heart, go for it man!
[...] I read David Fitch’s post, this image of friends gathered around the table connecting to an ancient–but ever-living [...]
Another great model. The Kingdom needs good new models to join all the others, but not necessarily to replace them. Both/and. A hundred years ago in our tradition, church planters started churches “any way they could.” They were far too “inside the box.” Let ‘s be as creative as the Holy Spirit wants to be.
I love the positive side of what you say should be funded. But I’m concerned about your shouting out (in all caps that is) STOP FUNDING CHURCH PLANTS.
My argument isn’t really about whether the attractional model works anymore. Instead, it’s about the multiplier effect. Funding church plants that become megachurches usually results in a secondary wave of funding for missions well beyond the Bible-belt context.
We propogate this image that every megachurch is a Walmart, consuming and never giving, but this is an unfortunate stereotype. I would say, fund church plants IF they are willing to build unselfishness, multiplication, and cross-cultural missions into their DNA from day one.
[...] An entirely sensible proposal to re-imagine the church-planting industry [...]
[...] Fitch makes too much sense. Way too much sense. Which is the reason why his idea to stop funding church plants will never fly. But oh, how I agree with him in this. Your [...]
This is fantastic! I just graduated from seminary and wrote my thesis on bivocational ministry in missional communities as the best option for reaching the unchurched.
Bravo…I am in the process of implementing your proposal in a slightly modified way. I am attempting to join a MTW TEAM that is going to Panama this Spring. I am a Physical Therapist, and intend on practicing in Panama 30-40 hours a week, so I could then assist the “plant” 15-20 hours a week. Thanks for the encouraging article, the only thing I would “tweek” is to get Seminary stuidents to think in terms of a paying profession for their undergrad degree, and for your potential bi-vocational missionaries to include guys like me. There are alot of us out there, call it a mid-life crisis if you will….at this point in my life (I wish it happened sooner) I just want to be about my Father’s work. And now I can!
[...] from http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/stop-funding-church-plants-and-start-funding-missionaries-a-plea… [...]
[...] the end of an era–the one size fits all era. The author, Jason Hood, is responding to another article by David Fitch on how our changing culture requires changing strategies for funding and planting [...]
I am that seminary graduate working in a service job. I graduated only a year ago. In this economy, I did interview after interview that began with: “So, M.Div. What are you doing here?” Interviewers looked at me like I was crazy 1. for getting an M.Div. and 2. for daring to apply for the job.
Needless to say, I was only hired full-time two weeks ago. I will have been without health care for four months by the time I get health coverage. I work as a customer service representative. I do about 100 to 150 emails per day and I talk to anxious and angry people on the phone from 9-5.
In addition to that, I have to go get food for myself and my spouse on the bus. I cook it, clean my apartment, do the laundry, go to church, and work through my ordination materials. I have one hobby: I sing.
If I were to accept such a position as a “missionary,” I would have to drop my ordination work and my hobby in order to find 15 hours per week to do missionary work. I would have to be less involved with my local friends and my church’s young adult ministry.
Not to mention, service jobs are incredibly draining. I get home and have no mental energy for even my ordination paperwork and my hobby. I just want to chill with my husband because my brain is fried.
Would I be interested in such a venture? Sure, it sounds good on paper. In reality, there would be no room in my life for both missionary work and my sanity. Too bad.
[...] Reclaiming the Mission David Fitch appeals to Christian denominations to “STOP FUNDING TRADITIONAL CHURCH PLANTS and instead fund missionaries to inhabit contexts all across the new mission fields of N America.” His model? “Instead of funding one entrepreneurial pastor, preacher and organizer to go in and organize a center for Christian goods and services, let us fund three or four leader/ or leader couples to go in as a team to an under-churched context.” Fitch suggests that this team settle in, get jobs, get to know their neighbors, and devote a certain amount of time outside their work obligations to planting seeds of the Gospel and beginning to gather new believers together. This for at least an initial ten-year commitment. Sounds almost Pauline. Let’s go! [...]
[...] the idea presented in David Fitch’s article, “STOP FUNDING CHURCH PLANTS and Start Funding [...]
Hi David, would you comment on my post pls?
)
Few things
PRO:
1.Team based planting vs. “One Man Show” (even if the man is extremely gifted)
2. It is a great way for evangelism – “making” people Christian
3. It is a great support idea for people who want to go in the full time ministry to make sure it was God has called them too.
CONS:
1. Why to support me in the new area if I could do it around where I live now to my unsaved friends and coworkers?
2. Seminary Graduates with 40-50K in debt to live in a lower standards for 2-3 years would make them more desperate.
3. Nothing is said about what is after 2-3 years – traditional church with a building and salary, than why not do it from the beginning like ARC or others? (make sure your credit is good
4. The children would benefit more from good established program and environment.
5. It seems like there is always a need in a good alive church in every community. If people don’t want to be “be-churched” it means churches around were not real churches, right? May be worth mention how to be or keep the church relevant, kind sincere and alive.
[...] » “Stop Funding Church Plants…” discusses David Fitch’s article, “stop funding church plants and start funding missionaries.” The thrust of it: [...]
[...] The Mission – STOP FUNDING CHURCH PLANTS and Start Funding Missionaries: A Plea to Denominations – Actually, we need to split funding to equally fund legitimate church plants stateside as [...]
[...] Church Plant Funding. This is an idea that David Fitch shared several weeks ago. Fitch suggests that rather than using the traditional funding model for [...]