a few bizarre church planting thoughts
I’ve been doing some thinking lately about church planting in Canada and thought I would share some of my thoughts (ideas) with you.
It is my premise that the way we church plant in Canada has not really changed over the past 5-10 years even with all the emergent hope/ activity. Very little has been changed in the church model itself. It appears that we have encompassed the same model with a hopeful/ new message… yet for many of us it didn’t seem to work, and so in the end we have reverted back to the “good old days,” keeping with the same old model. (This is not all bad, in fact I appreciate those that did this for many reasons).
So I have thought this through and think I might have an idea that could encourage more innovation. It’s centered around trials and experiments. Encourage many church plant experiments and trials, as many as 100 different ideas, no cost, and many may fail, but the best work out.
You see, in the past a church planter needed: 1) to be part of a denomination, 2) a large amount of funding, 3) to pass a strict application process in order to be sent as a church planter. I have a feeling this is no longer necessary. What if we just sent out 100 random experiments? This freedom could lead to more people trying things out. In the past only a small percentage of church planters would be funded after getting through the denominational filters. That means that the denominational gurus decided who can attempt to church plant, so if they had 5 applicants, maybe only two were sent out due to available money and skill set. But in this new wave of information, resources, etc. 100 church planters can go out into the world and do this. There still may end up only being 2 left at the end of it all, but I have a feeling they may not be the same 2 that had to go through the vigorous application process as in my previous example and might be perhaps even more successful… (without going further as I wish to write more about this in my next post, this success may not look anything like Sunday morning, FYI).
I think money is a hindrance for innovation. Money will be necessary and needed to be able to continue to fund existing church plants in the more traditional bent as they will still be needed, but unless planters/ innovators/ leaders are passionate before they get paid there will always be the tendency to do whatever works for the sake of getting paid.
If we are able to really give enough freedom to thee planters, the 100 ideas may not necessarily be church look-a-likes. Instead they could be new expressions of the church in our world that many of us have not thought of yet. And it might be this wording that changes our expectations. Active church rather than big “C” church.
I also have a feeling that innovation will be stifled by those with a more traditional theology that is not open to changing. (This might alarm those of you with a certain bent towards orthodoxy). It is this more traditional theology that ends up producing a church that in most cases looks like a large public gathering, fueled by smaller groups that grow the larger one, which in turn determines success.
I also have the feeling that it might be the case that in order to truly be experimenters, church planters will have to come into their context with more of a blank slate… we can’t have our name, look, etc. of our church already determined before we land in the city that we wish to plant. We have to welcome more people (experimenters) with an entrepreneurial heart and allow them to run wild without having it all together.
How would we determine who can come? I guess if money wasn’t involved it would be easier? Maybe it would be harder at first. Remarkable needs to be emphasized and encouraged, even if they fail immediately.
I have also been thinking a lot lately about transaction costs; the cost for us to attend, or contribute to a church. Use of twitter, meetup, facebook have made it easy for people to come to a gathering. In the past being involved with a church type event was a form of commitment because it was harder to come. Getting people to come is actually easier these days. Having them stick (consistently) is the problem. The type of people that come in many cases are not committal. I was reading that in the past 1 hand written complaint letter to the government used to mean that 200+ people were represented (or had they same concern) due to effort it took to hand write a letter and mail it off… this is no longer the case. Writing an email or having a pettiton signed takes minutes, just have a look at how many groups people join on facebook. It is easier and people do not make the same commitment.
I think for me it might be nice to visit a few new church plants just to get a feel for the type of people that are showing up.
Lastly, (and thanks for bearing with my random thoughts) i’ve been thinking about user generated church content versus leader generated content. The leader of the church in most cases is paid to create content for the church (sermons, bible study material, etc.) But I am starting to see more clearly that leaders should create environments, not just content. I am imagining what it would be like for laity (in groups) to create the programs, activity of the church versus the majority of the decisions being made by a few people such as the paid staff. This will involve more patience and waiting for the users to create and generally “patience” isn’t successful. It’s hard to wait on people, but I think if we could be more patient we might see some serious life giving examples of church in the world… at least in Canada.
Please comment and help me develop these further, these are random ideas and i’m excited about working them out.
Tags: canada, church, church planting, experiments, innovation, the open house, Vancouver
Some of this reminds me of Kester Brewin’s line: we need to get to something different, but we’ve no real idea how to get there from here, so it takes people going down into the valley and exploring until we find it. This still rings true to me, and you know me well enough to know that I’m all for new and creative ways of following Jesus in the world. Blessing and helping 100 creative new ventures sounds good to me.
You’re correct about denomination/funding/application for fully or even half-funded planters, but the reality is, at least in our tribe, all you’ve ever really needed to plant a new church is the blessing of an existing church, so long as you were willing to forgo denominational funding. You speak as if lifting any and all evaluation would produce more or better, but I’m not so sure. That local church blessing thing still seems important to me. First off, it tends to be much more relational than denominational aptitude tests, and is based on life observation rather than a questionnaire. Next up, it’s got Biblical precedence in the sending of Paul and Barnabas. Lastly, it offers a layer of protection. Don’t hear me wrong, I’m not interested in protecting us from failure; if we only get 2 out of 100, that’s fine. It’s protecting everyone else. Frost and Hirsch talk about gospel inoculation as a result of poor evangelism. Practices like randomly ringing doorbells and trying to force a confession on the spot can result in people who were oblivious to the gospel forming a whole new barrier to it. They’ve got just enough of it to decide that they don’t want it and become resistant to it, without ever really getting the whole thing. The same can happen with thoughtless, careless, poorly executed church plants. I’d hate to send out people who will walk into an area and make it more difficult for there to ever be a church in that place. Somewhere along the line, there needs to be some form of accountability that still encourages exploration and newness.
Don’t confuse traditional with orthodox.
Love what you’re saying about leaders creating culture and enabling others to produce content. However, the leader still must create content. In Andy Crouch’s words, we don’t create culture, we make omelets, interstate highways, computer networks. language, and customs. We create artifacts, and those create culture: some intended and some not. As a leader, to create “environment” and web 2.0 user content, you’re still going to need to create content, but a different kind. You’ll need to think through what sort of content it will be.
Thanks for the good thinking. Looking forward to the next post. Defining success is an important step.
Great thoughts Nick. I always appreciate your wisdom, objective look into this.
I really appreciate the freedom in the tribe. The truth is, it seems, the people who look to enter planting, generally are looking for the free culture (words of Ian Buntain), which are not all available in the CNBC, unlike our US counterpart and aren’t willing to just go in many cases. They need the security to make it happen. I know I struggled with this. This makes me skeptical that we can even find 100 people in this regard.
I also want to see our church be a local church that sends and blesses others to plant. We would like to see some new and innovative ways, but bless it all the same.
Also I couldn’t agree more with the “poor evangelism” or “poor church planting equivalent” there would have to be some sort of guidance, but I see it more as people engaging a need in the city, helping some people out and if it never grows into a big “C” church and it blows up, at least it blessed some people along the way.
Oh, I am not confused about orthodoxy. I used traditional a lot and assumed orthodoxy would be understood in light of those with more traditional theology. But good reminder.
In terms of content, I do believe I am stuck here, but you’re right about needing to create content (but I am hoping it is shared, and not all the leader) I think we can have too much leader generated content and not enough laity involvement.
An interesting discussion. These kinds of topics are fairly difficult to workout. I know we are currently going through that at our church. Upon reading your posts Kyle, the first thing that came to mind was what Jesus said; that the harvest fields are ripe, all is needed are harvesters. Rick Warren says in his “Purpose Drive Church” that it isn’t for us (either the leaders or the members) to make the wave grow, it is our job to look our for it and ride it when it comes. As a counterpoint to that, I know something that Anna said to me many years ago has stuck to me. It is that God gives us the freedom to choose how we get involved with him (John 15 — you know, if we remain in him, ask what ever we wish and it will be given to us). My guess is that the problem that we have when w send planters, is exactly what you mention Kyle — money. Not the having it, but the depending on it. If God is calling us somewhere, or we see a great need to do God’s work, what or how we respond shouldn’t be based on financial resources, but on faith. If God can create the world, surely he can provide for a new church. Of course that is easier said than done.
And I think that is where we are stumbling. If our faith is great, and our love is deep, how would those around us deny God? If we healed the sick, feed the poor, and moved mountains we couldn’t keep people AWAY.
The leaders job in all this isn’t necessarily to provide “content” (though to be honest, I’m not 100% sure I understand what you guys mean by that). God creates content, through people that come to the church. So for example, having many people who are former alcoholics in the church may mean helping them to minister to other people struggling with addictions. Or to the people of the church, and how we care for, pray for and love one another. So the leaders job is to keep everyone on task (and maybe motivated)?
And by the way, your thoughts were far from “bizarre”