arieljvan.com

We’re hoping to hit up one or both of these…

Last week I got to spend some time with a group of church planters, who provided opportunities to talk shop, learn about vision casting and play a few holes of disc golf. Let me preface this by saying that I haven’t reached championship caliber in disc golf yet. OK, I suck. But I did come up with a few lessons that pertain to church planting. Ready?

1. Effectiveness–not sexiness–is the objective.

“Nice disc purse, dude.”

It was no accident that the best player on the course, Jason Allen, carried his arsenal of diamond-etched, graphite coated, pro-model discs in a bag that looked like a large canvas purse. He even slung it over his shoulder between holes. And he didn’t blink when we gave him a hard time about it, because Jason knew that his disc purse was helping him reach his objective: kicking our butts. In a lot of circles, church planting is the hot item. I always thought of it as the extreme sport of Christianity–and everyone knows that the main allure of extreme sports is the chance to look good while rakishly risking your life. But winners realize that style falls by the wayside when you tackle something as difficult as church planting…or disc golf.

2. Humility is your ticket onto the course.

“I just missed a six foot putt. There goes the only strength of my game.”

Anyone can talk a good game. But a newbie can’t hide on the course. The only way to survive in a pastime with a learning curve as steep as disc golf or church planting is to admit what you know: practically nothing. And then set out to learn as fast and as well as you can.

3. Going long is half the game.

“I think that one disappeared over the curve of the earth.”

My best throws rounded out at around 60 feet. Jason’s best throws measured in at about 300. This made Jason a long distance thrower, and me a sprinter. I always had to use four or five tosses just to get near the hole, while he was usually putting within one or two. In a similar way, stats reveal that a lot of church planters burn out when they should just be settling into their marathon rhythm. Short-term precision is good. But going the distance is better. If you have endurance, you’ll have time to correct your mistakes.

4. Velocity overcomes bad marksmanship.

“You just shaved a branch off that tree.”

While us second-tier dudes routinely watched our discs get hung up on spiderwebs and blades of grass, we watched in disgust as Jason’s throws ripped right through low hanging branches like a circular saw blade. It wasn’t that our throws were worse (every once in awhile). It was just that they didn’t have the mustard to sail through a little resistance. Every guy who wants to plant a church knows he won’t get everything right the first time. The deciding factor is the spiritual velocity behind the vision. If the church planter is hearing from Jesus, getting his vision fed by God, then he’ll be able to razor right through some of those obstacles.

5. Seeing the course is non-negotiable.

“Now we’re throwing in that direction, maybe, I think.”

We spent a lot of time walking around the grassy course, sweating profusely, to figure out in what direction we should heave our discs next. Personally, I never really figured out the layout of the course, or how to read the arcane directional signs–which no doubt contributed to my mediocrity. When the next hole wasn’t directly in my line of vision, I usually opted for the right-angle approach: Throw straight ahead until I could see the flag, then throw straight ahead again. Grasping the layout of the course, the big picture, lets a golfer or planter play with strategy. That’s the advantage of wise, nuanced vision. Alternatively, you can just flail away and hope you’re going in the right direction.

________See also Intro, Part 1, Part 2 & Part 3_________

Place the small groups in proximity with outsider communities-and serve them.

A strength of small groups is their portability and adaptability-they can meet in a variety of locations and take on a variety of ministry tasks. In the church planting context, it makes sense to take advantage of “third places” as well as homes, in order to acclimate core members to the target community and encourage them to rub shoulders with non-Christians. If outsiders become interested in the church plant, a coffee shop or waffle house will likely be a better venue to introduce them to the believing members and make them feel at ease.

Taking this a step further, the leader should look for service opportunities within the community and tackle them as a group-not as a side item on the menu, but as a central part of the church’s identity, even before a public service exists. Working together on service projects (e.g., litter pick-up, food banks, shelters, drug/alcohol recovery) will be instrumental in the small groups taking ownership of their purpose as they generously serve the people they are called to reach.

Statistically, engaging in ministry evangelism is a significant factor in the survival of church plants.[1] On a practical level, it will also keep the groups from becoming ingrown. As Win Arn points out, “Most small groups, in fact, aren’t open to non-Christians…When small groups become the end rather than a means to the end, they distract a church from its disciple-making mission.”[2]

For me, planting near downtown Kansas City, there is an array of involvement options. Lower income areas exist mere blocks from newer, upscale housing. In one context, working at a shelter, boys’ home or mission makes sense. In the new arts district, with its loft neighborhoods, handing out bottled water and picking up trash would fit the bill. One challenge I’ll face is deciding where and how to invest service time. How will serving at a shelter, as opposed to buffing the urban chic areas, help reach my demographic?

________See also Intro, Part 1, Part 2 & Part 3_________

[2] Win Arn, “Small Groups that Grow a Church,” Leadership XV, no. 3 (Summer 1994): 71

________See also Intro, Part 2 & Part 3_________

North America is the home of “big-launch” church plants, celebrity pastors, multi-site campuses, video venues, and a bigger-is-better approach to ministry in general. However, pioneered by church planters and missiologists like Alan Hirsch and Neil Cole, the overlapping categories of small groups, cell groups, and house churches have also gained a degree of acceptability and allure.

The purpose of this series is to explore the mechanics of planting a church via a small group strategy–but with the caveat that there is no hypothetical growth cap or “preferred size” for the growing church. For our purposes, a “small group” will be understood as a missional community of eight to twelve people who meet weekly to pray, study the Bible, grow in Christian fellowship, and work on ministry tasks.

A third category of church plants exist: those that “launch small,” adopting a small group dynamic to get off the ground, while maintaining the expectation of sustained growth-growth that, if it culminated in sprawling mega church services, would provoke no feelings of regret.

Frequently, when large services and small groups are pursued within the church planting context, they represent a demarcation between contrasting ministry philosophies and cultural streams. Planters who build large churches are comfortable working within a church bureaucracy and expect to wield considerable authority. Meanwhile, practitioners who prefer a decentralized, postmodern ethos readily embrace a ministry approach that aims small and stays small (sometimes even microscopic).[1] However, a third category of church plants exist: those that “launch small,” adopting a small group dynamic to get off the ground, while maintaining the expectation of sustained growth-growth that, if it culminated in sprawling mega church services, would provoke no feelings of regret.

Frequently, the governing assumption in church planting is that if a church planter intends to build a large church, he should start large, and there is statistical warrant for this, since only 20 percent of churches that begin with 1-25 adults grow rapidly, exceeding statistical norms.[2] The difficulties faced by churches stay small are well documented. [3]

However, many healthy churches trace their origins back to a small group of people who were inspired by a unifying vision. Today, church plants continue to grow and become established, even when they begin with the odds dramatically stacked against them: “About ten to twenty people a week were showing up for our Sunday service, which had outgrown the living room of my rental home and was now being held in one of those epically awful youth room, complete with the golden shag carpet on the floor and the Christian rock posters on the wall…”[4] The question is, how can a church plant be positioned in such a way that “starting small” and “growing big” are both feasible? We will attempt to briefly identify seven “best practices” that can contribute to building a healthy church plant via small groups.

________See also Intro, Part 2 & Part 3_________

[1] Gibbs and Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger document a “church” in England that is composed of 12 members and does not intend to grow further.

[2] Stephen Gray, Planting Fast-Growing Churches (LifeWay.com, 2007). 3 May 2008, available from [2] Stephen Gray, Planting Fast-Growing Churches (LifeWay.com, 2007). 3 May 2008, available from LifeWay.

[3] Ed Stetzer, Small Church Research (LifeWay.com.com, 2008). 3 May 2008, available from [3] Ed Stetzer, Small Church Research (LifeWay.com.com, 2008). 3 May 2008, available from Ed Stetzer’s Blog.

[4] Mark Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 38.

In Water from a Deep Well, Gerald Sittser makes the following suggestion:

Never before has the church had such opportunities for influence. The biggest problem it faces is its own complacency and worldliness. Here church leaders must take charge, not by doing more but by doing less. They must surrender all desire for political, economic, social and cultural influence in larger society to devote their energies to enabling the church to become a community of belonging. Church leaders are called to serve the church; the church in turn is called to serve the world. (emphasis mine)

I agree with the main drift of Sittser’s thought here. Leaders in today’s churches will usually be better served by slowing down to speed up, cutting programs and expenditures in order to do a few things well. In the sentence I italicized, I don’t think many people would question Sittzer’s first two entries–political and economic influence. In fact, decrying Christian Republicanism (equating Christianity with Conservative values) and Corporate Christianity (running the church for profit, like a business, with the lead pastor as CEO) is commonplace these days, and rightly so.

However, there’s currently a groundswell of interest in the church exerting cultural and social influence. Consider the social/cultural agendas of guys like Donald Miller and Shane Claiborne, the popularity of Relevant Magazine (and various similar publications), and books like Andy Crouch’s Culture Making. Renewing culture and transforming society are rallying cries in many circles right now–and I’m usually one of the guys yelling.

I think the church does have a mandate to live in such a way that there’s an outward ripple effect. But Sittser’s comment, which I hope he elaborates on, does make me pause. Twenty years from now, will people be shaking their heads at the way the Western church became obsessed with becoming new monastics and finger painters for Jesus? Kind of like the way we shake our heads now at the way an earlier generation became obsessed with politics and successful business models?

We need to remember that whatever effects an honest Christian life has on the surrounding people and culture, our primary job is spiritual transformation. Love and service are the hallmarks of Christian community. To the extent that that job description is embraced, new artistry and social justice will emerge. Jesus changes lives and heals sinners before he transforms society and stirs creative juices.

An anemic artistic subculture and the lack of involvement in social causes are signs of a deficient church. But the New Testament doesn’t equate vibrant Christianity with a Web 2.0 Renaissance or New Urbanism. We have to be careful not to make secondary effects like Art and Activism the primary goal.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?