What does the phrase, “church planting,” bring to mind? Having worked as a “church planting missionary” for many years now, I am convinced that many church leaders, denominational workers, pastors, and church planters have co-opted this phrase to describe what amounts to little more than starting a new franchise. Here’s the Wikipedia definition of “franchising” with my comments in brackets:
Franchising (from the French for honesty or freedom) is a method of doing business wherein a franchisor [the denomination or sponsoring church] licenses trademarks and tried and proven methods of doing business to a franchisee [the church planter] in exchange for a recurring payment, and usually a percentage piece of gross sales or gross profits [contributions to the denominational missions fund] as well as the annual fees.
Some church planters no longer see their primary mission as simply proclaiming the Gospel—trusting Father to bring people to Himself and then gathering those new believers into a new community of faith—because we expect them to successfully launch a new franchise operation. They must be entrepreneurs rather than evangelists, marketers more than missionaries, and effective recruiters of like-minded Christians instead of infiltrating the lost for the glory of God.
Obviously there could be many who disagree with my observations. And others will say that franchising is only a means to an end; that many people can hear the Gospel once the franchise is securely in place; that church planting is expensive and could not be accomplished without the franchisors (large churches, associations and denominations); or that there is no way to go back to a simpler, more biblical approach.
Let’s talk about this! No, really, I would love to know what you think. I’m not looking for a debate or an argument (I just don’t have the time or the inclination), but it would be great to hear your views.
Bill,
I believe that the simple church approach is the most effective and inexpensive way to plant a church. Church planting has become expensive because of the corporate, business mentality in most churches. This model is fed by a professional ministry, whose income depends upon it.
Simple, relational, Biblical, churches—who are not relying on anyone but the Lord and are led by elders who are not depending on the church for support—are the means by which the great commission is going to be accomplished.
Aaron: Thanks for chiming in, Aaron!
I’m reading the book “The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative” by Christopher J.H. Wright. I’m becoming convinced by his argument that we’ve been conditioned, particularly in the western church, to largle misapprehend the meaning of mission.
He suggests that we think in terms of “God has a mission for the church in the world” (which we read as church planting, evangelism, going to far away lands, etc), which we are bound to systematize and structure as we do things like businesses and communities and clubs. He says it is better to think in terms of “God has a church for His mission in the world.” Writes Wright, “Mission was not made for the church; the church was made for mission – God’s mission.”
It shifts our focus, it seems, from what we do (task) to who we are (identity). We, the church, are collectively on mission – the mission of God.
When, in the contemporary conception of the missionary enterprise, we standardize church, we end up imposing things, thus eliminating the necessary diversity that is characteristic of God’s creation. In the McChurch model, uniformity and conformity become the high virtues, and the Home Office serves as a Nebuchadnezzar, who can, in the end, make any demand it desires because the local church franchise depends upon the denomination/convention for its identity and survival.
I agree with Aaron: “Simple, relational, Biblical, churches—who are not relying on anyone but the Lord and are led by elders who are not depending on the church for support—are the means by which the great commission is going to be accomplished.”
I’ve also just started reading “The Next Christendom” by Philip Jenkins. It seems that the church is in transition from the north and west to the south and east anyway. In another hundred years, the converstion we’re having is moot.
I would agree with your assessment that some church planters “must be entrepreneurs rather than evangelists, marketers more than missionaries, and effective recruiters of like-minded Christians instead of infiltrating the lost for the glory of God.” If you dig into the statistics of many denominations, both with their “leading baptizers” and their missions/ church plants, you’ll find that the vast majority of growth taking place is not Kingdom growth but transfer growth. When it comes to mission churches the “franchise” mentality should be completely absent. However, when you are molded primarily by denominational structure — a structure which may be, and often is, out of line from Scripture — then you have a franchise in the making. Another issue is that of “success.” Franchises are established for success. Missions should always be established for faithfulness, regardless of “success.” Do we want church plants to grow and expand and produce more church planting congregations? Certainly!!! But only if they are the kind that are dependent on God (not the denomination) and bringing honor to Him (not personalities).
In a recent blog post of an old Tabletalk article, Doug Wilson says:
“Too often we are too quick to dash off to an evangelistic field which is exciting, fruitful, distant. How many churches think seriously of their duty to fulfill the Great Commission in their neighborhood? And even when we think ‘locally,’it is too easy to think about establishing a ‘ministry’in a town with a sufficient population to provide the new church with its “market share.†Thus we are selective in our local ministry. In order for this system to work we cater to our market niche. The church functions on exactly the same principles as a new department store. This also mitigates against true community. Community will never arise from groups with ‘special interests,’whether those interests include ham radio, square dancing, or the five points of Calvinism.”
Someone say, “Amen.†Go ahead. Testify.