A Conversation that Established Churches and Church Plants need to have

My friend Mike Paget has written a series of blog posts: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 of a conversation that Church plants and Established churches need to have, of which I thought Part 3 was where he was just getting started and getting interesting.  Rather than deal with the details of the three posts I thought I would interact with some of the main themes, hence this is a conversation not a critique.  I should point out that I am writing from my experience as a church planter but more from my own church plant, Soma.  I should point out that Mike is not against church planting and I don’t have a problem with existing churches.  We both simply see a problem in how they are working together.

Obligation to Churches

One of the things that I think Mike and I are on the same page with is that there does seem to be a very loose loyalty that people feel towards churches.  People feel that it is OK to change churches if “it isn’t working for them”.  I agree with Mike, this has been an Achilles heel in our theology and practise.  Church is not a service like a mobile phone contract to change when something better comes along.

Our Protocols

At Soma we do have a formal membership, not for theological reasons, but for practical reasons.   The reason we have this is so we know who is actually a part of our church and who is not.  We formally welcome new people in (with the presentation of a t-shirt!), we say goodbye to people as we send them off.

Without looking at the numbers, about 2/3 of our people have come from other churches, the other 1/3 Soma is their first church.   The reason I know this is because when someone comes across from another church I let them know I am intending to call their minister or pastor, so I am counting the number of those conversations I have had.

That conversation is interesting!  Some pastors are angry at me for allowing ‘one of their people’ to come to my church (like I had a choice in that).  Some are confused, thinking that the person was a committed member of their church, at which point I tell them our process is on hold until they sit down and have a chat with the person about this (that is sometimes a surprise to me because I always suggest the person changing churches have a talk first).  This conversation sometimes means the person does not come across to us.  Some are glad, they think the person coming across, at least one case, was dead weight (not what we found).  By the end most appreciate the call.  I also ask if there are any pastoral issues I need to know about, again this helps me a lot.

The thing is that of the 50 or so people we have sent, only 2 ministers have done the same for me.  The point I am trying to make is we need to stop thinking that people don’t or won’t change churches and we need to have protocols for this.  Again church membership is something we as ministers need to take seriously.

New Stages of Church Partnerships

Let me offer my own fable.  In the old, wild west churches could plot their ground and set up their homestead like churches that offered a complete package.  They had to.  There was nothing else around.  But as more and more people filled into the area, the homesteads became connected into towns and some people stopped farming and started general stores, bars, etc.

My point is this: parochial ministry is good, but it is not enough to reach the whole city.  Of the many churches I have visited, most buildings could seat about 200-300 in a parish of around 12-15,000.  In order to reach 10%  of that parish, that building needs to be full at least 5 times a week.  And frankly I don’t think 10% is a good number to be aiming at[1].  I have always maintained and will again:  We need lots of different churches to reach different people in our city.  We need to be planting at least 12 new churches in our city a year. This means, I think, church plants and existing churches need to be working together in partnerships that may look like small towns rather than independent homesteads.

I currently have the keys to 3 church buildings on my keyring.  We don’t own a building and we aren’t planning on getting one.  I have three keys because we have partnerships with 3 different churches who want to work with us to make the Gospel known.  We have worked out how we can help each other reach people that we could not as individual churches.  This is much easier, I think for small churches to do than larger churches who don’t feel the need.

 

 

[1] Would we be content to know that firefighters went into a building aiming to save only 10% of the people who were in there?

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “A Conversation that Established Churches and Church Plants need to have

  1. Out of curiosity, Pete, do you ask people who come from other churches about whether they were ‘sent’, or what the cost to their old church might be of their leaving?

    I guess I’m imagining that for a lot of people, there’s no great cost to the paid pastor of any given person leaving, except for the financial cost of money they might’ve been giving. That is, a lot of us don’t have much or any contact with staff (and we probably shouldn’t expect to).

    Whether or not we have a relationship with any staff members, however, there may be other relationships — with believers and unbelievers — that could be affected by changing church.

    1. Hi Stuart, we don’t ask if them if they are sent because they never are. We do ask them what ministries will be effected by their leaving. Some have expressed a desire to come and join us but have waited until an appropriate time for their ministries to wrap up (like the end of the year).

  2. I’m thinking out loud, here, but maybe this sort of conversation is the grounds for a good formation in ecclesiology and the Christian life. Things like:
    (a) there’s more to count than the cost of formal church activities, i.e., really, someone else can fill in your roster slot. But are there friendships in which you’re irreplaceable, that will suffer because of this move?
    (b) if so, have you talked about this move with the people who will pay the cost (i.e. your friends)? This doesn’t mean you should never leave, but it does mean that the people who’ll bear the burden should be consulted. Ideally, they might send you because they see the opportunities for you to serve and be served elsewhere. (And of course, if there’s a functional eldership, they should be sending, too. But my instinct is that in our city that’ll be a minority of churches.)
    (c) how do you see this new church being a better context in which to serve and be served? Again, leave aside rosters and formal activities. What’s the benefit in terms of discipleship and mission: how do you think you’ll grow in godliness here? How might you spur others on? How do you think this church will help your unbelieving friends hear about Jesus and see his love in action? How do you think you can help the unbelieving friends of other church members come to know Jesus?

    Would we expect people to be able to answer questions like these, do you think?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s