arieljvan.com

This Planting w/ Small Groups “series” has kinda faltered, due mostly to a preaching class that drained my time and energy like a Christian vampire. The class is over (and I’m officially a graduate now, ha!), so my plan is to wrap up this series in short order. Look for Part 8 in the next day or so–that’ll be the final installment.

_See also Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 & Part 6_

Keep small groups relationally connected so that corporate services can happen.

When fast growth is concerned, small groups (35 percent) are a better strategy for planting churches than preview services (10 percent)-but when both are used together, the likelihood of growing fast rises to 55 percent.[1] Healthy small groups multiply, and three or four groups (roughly 50 people) will likely be necessary before the church plant has the personnel to develop a preview service.

However, such services wnot be possible unless the groups are convinced of the legitimacy of the “church gathered,” aware of each other, and prepared to pool time and resources to make the service a reality. Such cooperation would be aided by steady visioneering by the planter and regular “mixer” events where cross-pollination between groups would occur.

If the various independent small groups will eventually act as a united corporate body, the expectation will need to be built in while they are meeting separately. When the church grows, this strategy will also pay dividends in the relational health of members, as the stage will be set for the plant to become healthy, networked, “church of small groups” rather than a “church with small groups.”[2]

[2] Donald D. Owens, “Building a Church of Small Groups,” Missiology 32, no. 1 (January 2004): 106-107.

Here’s the next installment in Church Planting with Small Groups…look for 2-3 more. In some ways, this item could be the most controversial, based on the very different approaches I’ve heard suggested. Feel free to push back on me here or give your take.

________See also Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 & Part 4________

Give at least ten percent of income to missions via responsible stewardship.

Almost every church planter would agree in principle that, As a church, we want to support the Great Commission from day one. Up for debate is when day one begins. The rub is that the new church can’t support new evangelistic efforts if the people aren’t supporting the church. So when the church starts via small groups, the question becomes pointed: At what point in the church’s life should “tithing” (or generous giving) begin? Answer: As soon as people buy in to the vision and commit to being part of it.

Generous donations to missions are indicative of a strong, sacrificial missional ethos, and cash flow sends a clear message to core members: We may be small, but we are confident in God’s ability to provide to grow his church and to provide for our needs; God is generous when we are generous, and we want to love lost people like he does. It is no accident that of churches that give ten percent or more of income to missions, 80 percent grow quickly.[1]

What constitutes a “church?” Simply put, the church is the people of God. A local church is a group of believers who commit to doing life together for the glory of Jesus and furtherance of the gospel in a given context–even if there are just a dozen of them. It follows that if your “church” can easily fit on three sofas, they should still be invited to give their time and resources.

The goal of giving generously and missionally presupposes that the church planter has taught his people to do these things. Money follows vision–so the planter will need to cast a kingdom vision that encompasses all of life and justifies the donation of wealth. On a nuts and bolts level, a long-term stewardship development program will enable the church to eventually become self-sufficient–which is in itself a significant factor contributing to the health and survivability of church plants.[2]

Discussing money in a small group setting may seem more difficult, but the leader will need to have a plan to transparently put finances on the table from day one. This is a topic that could be discussed individually with core members as they consider the prospect of the new plant, e.g., “We are looking for people who will help set the tone for our community: people who are humble, others-focused, and ready to generously support this new gospel work with time and money from the beginning.”

________See also Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 & Part 4________

[2] State of Church Planting USA: Improving the Health and Survivability of New Churches, 3.

________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.

Over the next several days I’ll be posting a series on Church Planting with Small Groups. These posts are drawn from a research paper I wrote last semester, and as such, they represent a shotgun approach to the diverse (and sometimes ambiguous) world of “best practices” in church planting.

However, I made a concerted attempt to combine missional, incarnational thinking with advice that pertains to all or most “small group” church plants (which I define). You’ll also notice that I weighted statistical research from guys like Ed Stetzer and Stephen Gray fairly highly–but I tried to cull the findings for insights that had special relevance for plants that begin with small groups.

As a disclaimer, I should also admit that I wrote the original paper near the end of the semester, when I was running on espresso fumes and would have hired someone to write the paper for me…if I’d been able to find a qualified ghost writer…and if that person had been willing to work for about $2. Just kidding, but you get the gist. I’m very invested in this topic, since it likely represents the nuts & bolts of what I’ll be doing in a few months–but I also know that my findings represent a humble and overly caffeinated perspective, and I hope to learn a lot more.

With the intro out of the way, look out tomorrow for Part 1 in Church Planting that Starts with Small Groups.

Marty Schmidt is taking Stephen Gray’s 21 characteristics of fast-growing churches and walking through them, commenting on how each factor effected his planting experience. I like it when active planters talk about praxis with this kind of gritty practicality.