The State Of Reformed Baptist Church Planting By Matt Troupe

The State of Reformed Baptist Church Planting in North America

A Project Report Presented to the Faculty of Azusa Pacific University

In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Degree Of Bachelor Of Science With A Concentration In Organizational Leadership.

By Matthew Troupe Copyright July 2009, all rights reserved

Doctor Tamsen Murray BSOL Cohort #3 June 6th, 2009

This is to certify that the project report prepared

By Matthew Troupe Title: The State of Reformed Baptist Church Planting in North American Vision

Has been accepted by the faculty of Azusa Pacific University.

Comments: _____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

Signed:

Primary Instructor:

_________________________________________ Date: _______

Secondary Instructor _________________________________________ Date: _______

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE v

ABSTRACT CHAPTER 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM Statement of Purpose Setting of the Problem History and Background of the Problem Scope of the Project Importance of the Project Definition of Terms

1 1 2 6 6 7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Philosophical Principles Obstacles The Mandate Challenges Needs Drafting and Supporting Church Planters Drafting Assessment Training Support Finances Coaching Church Cooperation Local Church Practices Implications

9 9 10 12 16 17 18 18 20 21 23 23 24 25 28 29

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH STRATEGY AND DATA COLLECTION PLAN Statement of Objectives Research Model Selection Description of the Intervention Data Collection Plan

31 31 32 34 37

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of Chapters 1, 2, & 3 Summary of Results Conclusions Recommendations Policy Recommendations Recommendations for Further Research

40 40 40 55 63 63 69

iii

REFERENCES

71

APPENDIX A

76

APPENDIX B

77

APPENDIX C

80

iv

ABSTRACT This research explores the present state of church planting among North American Reformed Baptists (RB) adhering to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (BCF). The author hypothesized that RB’s are not aggressively planting new congregations, and that organizational structures are not functioning effectively to promote church planting. The project follows a policy proposal model. Prior to this survey, there has been no known collection of data on RB church planting available. This research maintains the following objectives: First, this project will obtain factual information about RB involvement church planting over the past ten years. Second, it will make several policy proposals that intend to promote the planting of more new RB congregations in North America. An online survey of 18 questions was used to obtain data from 73 respondents including unaffiliated churches, and churches from five different RB associations. The research demonstrated a high level of interest, prayer, and financial giving among RB churches. However, the hypotheses were confirmed by the small number of churches planted (20 in the last ten years from the 73 survey churches for an average annual involvement of 2.74%). Additionally present RB church planting typology focuses on contacting and gathering existing Reformed Christians into new congregations rather than making and teaching new disciples. The research concludes by suggesting four changes in RB policy and practice. First, RB churches need to see the multiplication of new congregations as a core part of the purpose of their churches and associations. Second, they need to plant churches that are focused on making new disciples. Third, RB churches need to target

v

large cities in their church planting efforts. Finally, RB churches need to improve their cooperation in order to multiply worshipping congregations.

vi

CHAPTER 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM 1.1 Statement Of Purpose This research intends to explore best practices in successful church planting and apply them to current RB Church efforts. 1.2 Setting Of The Problem Reformed Baptist (RB) Churches are independent in their church government, and as such do not have a formal denominational structure. However there are several Baptist Associations including ARBCA (the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America), FIRE (the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals), the Founders movement and SCARBC (the Southern California Association of Reformed Baptist Churches) that unite RB churches. Though their relationships are more loosely defined than traditional denominations, there are enough similarities to view these churches as an aggregate organization. RB Church constitutions typically reveal a similar style of local church government: they have two offices, elder and deacon. The pastor/elder functions in a role as a pastor/teacher/ruler within the church. The deacon functions in more of an administrative capacity, but the roles of the deacons are less well defined. RB churches are highly differentiated, that is “there are many subunits” (Griffin, 2008, p. 325) each with its own independent systems, style, and government. This means that there is some variety from church to church in the way that business is administrated. However, there are similarities as well. In most RB Churches, members do serve within the church as volunteers.

1

Relationships between churches are completely voluntary and do not involve any lines of authority. The local church is autonomous, and looks to other congregations for advice, fellowship, and cooperation. The question may be raised, how integrated are these churches? Integration is the degree to which the various departments (or churches) work together in a coordinated way (Griffin, 2008, p.325). Both ARBCA and SCARBC mention church planting in their mission statements, and ARBCA has a church planting committee. However, the committee does not exercise any authority over the independent churches. Years ago in a private conversation Bob Selph, the missions coordinator at ARBCA said, “ARBCA doesn’t plant churches, ARBCA churches plant churches.” This is their policy, and it may be a good one. But this research will inquire beyond policy into practice. What kind of church planting is actually happening? “Normative behavior usually determines whether otherwise technically excellent systems succeed or fail, because normative behavior indicated the degree to which the system as designed meets the needs of the people who have to operate it” (Weisbord, 1976, p. 21). Does current RB structure facilitate church planting? One important and objective answer will be found in the number of churches that have been planted. 1.3 History And Background Of The Problem In diagnosing the state of Church Planting among RB churches there are several considerations that indicate that there is a problem. The most obvious is that relatively few new churches have been planted in the United States in the last ten years. Exactly how many churches have been planted? So far an answer is not available, and this consideration in itself may be an indication of the seriousness of the problem. It is likely

2

that RB churches expend far more effort into planting churches in foreign countries than in reaching their own nation through the establishment of new churches. Moreover, many of the churches that have been planted have not been the result of intentional efforts by existing churches to give birth to new congregations. Many new RB churches have come about by like-minded Christians in a specific region gathering together and seeking help from an existing church to help organize a new congregation. This phenomenon is found extensively in the American church. To borrow a business concept, this is more like “restructuring” of the church rather than real growth through making disciples. The author of this study performed a “six-box” Weisbord analysis (Troupe, 2008) and suggested that factors contributing to the shortage of church planting extend through all areas of RB organizations. It is likely that there are many factors that contribute to the problem. However, it may be that the greatest factor is found within the RB understanding of the purpose of their organizations. Most churches and associations within the RB movement mention evangelism, missions, or church planting as part of their mission and purpose statements alongside a number of other core purposes. This raises an important question: Do RB statements of concern about church planting square up with the operational reality in the churches? Formal diagnosis centers around the written documents and statements of an organization, whereas normative diagnosis attempts to evaluate what people actually do (Weisbord, 1976, p.21). According to Pastor Steve Hartland, “our commitment to church planting is usually not defined…” He suggests “our real purpose is to establish a certain style of ministry, and attract people

3

who are already Christians to our churches… What is on paper is not our real purpose” (personal communication, June 16, 2008). Additionally, the current climate of American Christianity also provides an important consideration for this discussion. Many American Churches have compromised the message and methods of Scripture in order to foster growth. John Macarthur (1993) surveyed twelve of the most popular books on church growth and found that not one of them made reference to the instructions of the Apostle Paul to Timothy in the Pastoral Epistles (p. 27). In this context, Christians who are concerned about Biblical fidelity rightly react to this trend, and may even put themselves in danger of over-reaction. In an attempt to avoid worldly methods to obtain “relevance” there may be a danger of becoming irrelevant just to make a point. Also, RB churches tend to be smaller churches with membership fewer than 100 people and have limited resources. This fact presents a serious challenge for churches that want to be aggressive in their domestic church planting efforts. If a poorly shaped sense of purpose is a major factor in the dearth of church planting among RB churches, then it follows that other elements of organizational structure and function will not be arranged to optimize efforts and resources for this end. At present the accountability and leadership structures within RB associations and churches are not built to mobilize resources for church planting. RB Churches have a long and distinguished history of usefulness in domestic missions. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the renowned nineteenth century British pastor from London was an RB who held the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (BCF).

4

According to Michael Nicholls (quoted in Stetzer, 2006), Spurgeon helped to plant 27 churches between 1853 and 1867 with students from the pastor’s college (p. 67). Nicholls says that, Spurgeon joined with two other London ministers, Landels of Regent Park and Brock of Bloomsbury, to found the London Baptist Association, with the goal of building one new chapel each year. Both Brock and Landels had planted their churches and started local missions, but Spurgeon's vision was London-wide (p. 6). In America, the RB movement gained traction in the 1960’s with the growth of a variety of publishers such as the Banner of Truth Trust and Soli Deo Gloria that greatly increased the availability of reformed and Puritan literature. Since that time many Christians have come to see the truth of Scripture in a different light, and this has led them to form new congregations. In the subsequent decades there was a vibrant effort at helping these small groups form churches. However, since the 1960’s there has not been a focused or sustained effort to view North America as a mission field to which missionaries must be sent to make disciples and plant churches. RB Churches display significant overseas involvement in missions. For instance the ARBCA website (2009) lists seven foreign missionaries, and two French-speaking Canadian Missionaries on their Website. Is it possible that RB’s have not done enough to reach their own neighbors with the gospel? Furthermore, most RB churches are often located in the small towns of North America. Even though half of all the people in the U.S. and Canada live in just 43 urban areas with populations over one million people (Davis, K., 2007, p.2), it is suspected that most RB churches (and most Bible-believing churches for that matter) are located in

5

suburban and rural areas effectively limiting the scope of their contact. Additionally, the majority of RB churches are English-speaking and comprised of middle class white Americans. Little has been done in America in the area of cross-cultural ministry to reach the growing number of ethnic minorities and immigrants found within American borders. 1.4 Scope Of The Project This research project will investigate some facts pertinent to the current state of church planting in RB churches within the last ten years. Obtaining concrete data will help to provide compelling information regarding the state of the problem and identify contributing factors. In order to limit the study, this project will seek out a representative sample of churches that hold to the 1689 BCF. To further limit the study the project will investigate practices within the last ten years. In order to recommend best practices, this study will evaluate current church planting efforts and propose those practices that have proved successful, while maintaining fidelity to the message and methods of Scripture. The project will not seek to evaluate church growth methods per se, but rather to learn from other churches the most effective ways to bring the gospel to North America with the purpose of creating new worshipping congregations.

1.5 Importance and Significance of the Project One of the operating assumptions of this project is that domestic church planting is a fundamental expression of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) and an important 6

means of spreading the glory of God on earth. The Great Commission was given to the church, and fulfilling this mandate is the church’s mission. The principal imperative however, is not to plant churches but to make disciples, which are then gathered into churches. If it is the will of God for existing churches to become the means whereby new churches will be made of new disciples, then any information that will help to demonstrate where churches are out of step with this purpose has obvious significance. The importance of this project is that it may help to show areas of needed repentance and correction, and by evaluating current church planting methods it will propose some specific actions that may help RB’s to get in step with the purpose of the head of the church. 1.6 Definition Of Terms Best Practices: techniques and methods that provide more effective means toward successful church planting. Within this project there will not be a focus on mere pragmatism, but an attempt to understand the best ways to implement Biblical norms and principles within the present cultural context without compromising the message or Biblical methods.

Accommodation/Contextualization: the process of bringing the message of the gospel into a specific social and cultural context so that the members of that culture understand it, and are endeared to it by those who are delivering it. Biblical accommodation adapts the communication of the gospel and the behavior of the messengers without compromising the message.

7

Gospel: the good news of salvation through Christ that acts as the exclusive remedy to the problem of sin in the world, and acts as the means whereby God reconciles sinners to himself.

Church planting: the process of making new disciples and gathering them together to bring new churches into existence.

Association: voluntary ecclesiastical organizations where churches unite for specific purposes.

8

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW A revived interest in church planting in America has produced extensive literature in recent years. There are at least three studies that specifically seek to identify vital practices for the success of new churches. First, The North American Missions Board (NAMB) commissions an annual study on the health and survivability of new churches (Stetzer, E. & Connor, P., 2007). This study surveyed over 1,000 churches from over 12 denominations and networks to evaluate the characteristics consistently present in successful church plants. The criterion for “survivability” was church attendance and the number of baptisms (p. 2). Stephen Gray (2007) published a survey of 112 church plants and evaluates and interprets the data to demonstrate important factors involved in the success and failure of new churches. Finally, though dated, the “Church Pathology” report from the Association of Vineyard Churches is instructive. Todd Hunter (1986) reviewed information from numerous successful and failed church plants to render a kind of collective autopsy to identify commonalities between failed church plants which are contrasted with the common characteristics of successful church plants. The data from these studies is extensive and some of the findings will be included in the review below. This review will summarize the literature under four headings: Philosophical principles, drafting and supporting church planters, church cooperation, and local church practices.

Philosophical Principles A significant majority of the literature deals with the philosophical and theological foundations for church planting. This is intuitive, as later practices generally

9

grow from these first principles. However, because of the common and overwhelming obstacles to church planting, these principles act as an important force to overcome the inertia that hinders the best efforts of church planters. What are these obstacles? Obstacles Authors frequently note that the greatest obstacles to church planting are found within existing churches. Andy Williams (2005) speaks of the need for church leadership to die to the idea of being the biggest church in the area (p.3). This requires great sacrifice. Quoting well-known church planting pioneer Wayne Cordeiro, Williams says that in order to plant new churches, leaders need to feel comfortable watching “1,500 people and 1.2 million dollars walk out the door to become a church plant” (p.4). Greg Kappas (quoted in Brown, S., 2007a) stresses the importance of being emotionally “secure” to become a church planting church. According to Kappas, this means that leaders must not see new churches as competition. They have to be able to release their “kids.” He says they have to be able to enjoy the success of others and even hope that they exceed their mentors (p.9). Other leaders in church planting also employ the analogy of childbirth. Brown (2007a) relates the words of J.D. Pearing, who likens church planting to family planning. According to Pearing, some churches will never give birth to a new congregation; they are “on birth control” (p.2). Gary Rohrmayer of the Midwest Baptist General Conference proposes a philosophy of “birth before you build.” According to Rohrmayer, new churches in their movement must commit to plant a new church before they build a building for themselves. “If churches don’t get in the

10

multiplication process quickly, they can easily get established and get comfortable and not spend the energy to start a new work” (quoted in Brown, S., 2007a, p.12). Tim Keller (2003) mentions that one common objection to church planting is the impression that our country has plenty of churches, and so many of them are in trouble. Wouldn’t it be better to work on fixing existing churches rather than plant new ones? Keller answers this objection in several ways. First, he points out that existing churches are very often not successful at reaching their communities. Second, he presents the statistical reality that new churches are the best way to reach “(1) new generations, (2) new residents and (3) new people groups…Studies show that newer churches attract new groups about 6-10 times better and faster than older churches do” (part I, p. 3). Third, he suggests that the best way to revitalize older churches is through the creation of new congregations that may inspire the existing churches (part I, p. 3). In support of the idea that new church plants can invigorate the advancement of the “kingdom at large,” Robert Forsyth (2004) reports on the goal of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney that 10% of the city’s population would be in “Bible Based Churches” within ten years (p.38). In this case, the goal established by Archbishop Peter Jensen stretched beyond their own denomination. It would require a growth of 500%, and includes an aggressive church planting strategy that abandons the traditional “parish principle” of one church per area. This plan is deliberately broad because Jensen believes that it will take a variety of churches to narrow the “cultural distance” between the gospel of Christ and the many different kinds of people in their city (p. 39).

11

The Mandate Throughout the literature, the Biblical mandate for church planting plays a prominent role. For example Michael Raiter (2005) explains that the Biblical concept of “missions” is about the sending activity of God. “Historically [missions] was understood as the propagation of Christianity…. today the emphasis has shifted from the human activity of propagation or evangelization to an emphasis on the missio dei; the recognition that mission is primarily God’s mission and all that we do emanates from the prior sending of the Son by the Father” (p. 12). Again, “Paul is not just someone who recognizes that God has sent him, but is himself a sender of others” (p.18). Raiter argues that the Biblical usage of “mission” is tied up with “gospel proclamation,” and has as its ultimate goal the “bringing of men and women into God’s Kingdom so that they might be holy and blameless before him on the last day…” (p. 20) This language may not sound controversial. However many authors note that Americans have subtly accepted the notion that “missions” happens overseas, and that discussions about the Great Commission often have little to do with church life on the home front. However, Raiter aptly concludes that “mission is all about what one does, not where one does it” (emphasis his, p. 21). Ed Stetzer (2006) provides an excellent summary of the Biblical basis for church planting in chapter three (pp. 33-52). He argues for church planting from the commands of Jesus and the example of the New Testament church, and especially the Apostle Paul. Stetzer identifies four key texts in which Christ commissioned the church to disciple the nations (John 20:21, Matt 28:18-20, Luke 24:47, Acts 1:8) (pp. 38-42). Finally, he

12

outlines the book of Acts in terms of the missionary/church planting mandate as an authoritative example of how early Christians carried out the commands of Jesus (pp.4851). If this mandate is clear from Scripture then it has implications for the life of the church. Tim Keller (2003), former director of church planting for the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and Westminster Seminary Professor, explains the implications of this mandate. He suggests that the ministry seen in the book of Acts shows that church planting is “not a traumatic or unnatural event. It is not a something odd or once-in-a-lifetime. It is not forced on people by circumstances. Church planting is woven into the warp and woof of things, it happens constantly, it happens normally” (part I, p.2). He says that it should be “natural and constant” not “traumatic and episodic” (part I, p.2). Church planting is not only an ideological and historical implication of the Great Commission; it is also the most effective way to spread the good news. He maintains that this is due in part to the fact the goal of a church plant is to reach sinners with the gospel instead of trying to keep long time members happy. He also observes that it is easier for young people to get into leadership in new churches. But how does this work out in “real life?” Tim Keller (2003) contrasts “natural” and “unnatural” church planting. According to Keller, there are two kinds of unnatural church planting: First, “defiant,” which is a form of church split. Second, “reluctant,” when leaders give in to or move with “begrudging permission” because of commuting members, outgrowing a building, or conflict in the vision of the church (part I, p. 4). Hunt, J. (2006) confirms this idea and says that church splits, though ugly and not

13

intentional, are “perhaps the single most common source of new churches in America” (p. 5). Obviously “unnatural” church planting is an unsatisfying answer to the Great Commission or the needs of the lost. It is not one of the “best practices.” C. John Miller (1986) describes the “ingrown church” as a church that is more concerned with its own affairs than with the spread of the gospel. He argues for the missionary character of the church and says with sharpness that the introverted church is not “partly out of line with the divine will, but radically disobedient to it” (p.28). He also makes an extensive argument throughout his book on the role of the Holy Spirit in the work of making disciples. “An act of faith lay[s] at the heart of any obedience to the Great Commission” (p.22). According to this reasoning, the failure of churches to engage in missions may be found in their refusal to trust the promises of God. Keller (2003) suggests three important elements of “natural church planting” (part I, p. 5). First, “the ability to give away and lose control of money, members, and leaders.” He says this is one of the hardest obstacles for most churches. Second, “the ability to give up some control of the shape of the ministry itself. This is scary especially to people who care about Biblical truth. But it’s a simple fact that the new church will not look just like you.” Third, “The ability to care for the kingdom even more than for your tribe” (part I, p. 5). He concludes that all of this is not about trusting other people or leaders, but about trusting God. If this doctrine of “natural church planting” is an accurate reflection of the will of Christ then it has implications for every church. Neil Cole says “a church multiplication movement requires that each church have the capacity within itself to multiply

14

spontaneously. Even then it is not church multiplication unless the churches themselves multiply.” (Quoted in Brown, S., 2007, p. 5) This concept is not new. An older book by John Nevius (1886), a reformed Presbyterian missionary to China, explores the dangers of foreign mission churches becoming dependant on western financial support. He proposes a model (later dubbed the “Nevius Method”) for the “Planting and Development of Missionary Churches” by suggesting that every church is called to be “self-governing, self-supporting, and self-propagating” (p. 10). When Nevius’ book was reprinted in the 1950’s, Bruce F. Hunt points out in the introduction to the small volume that the perspective that each church be self-duplicating led the Presbyterian Church in Korea to grow from 100 communicants in 1899 to over 800,000 in 1958 (p. 12). Though he cautiously warns us to look to God as the source of success and not rest on methods alone, the point is obvious. The best way to spread the gospel of Jesus is for each congregation to feel the weight of the calling to make disciples, to be a sending agent for future missionary efforts, and to give birth to new congregations. If churches are to fulfill this high calling, then their organizations must be chartered and structured with this in mind. A report on “Who Plants New Churches” from the Leadership Network (2007b) states that aggressive parent churches have this conviction included in their DNA, their purpose documents (p. 6). Furthermore, the study reports that successful parent churches also function differently than their inactive counterparts. Aggressive churches often hire staff to further the planting of new congregations. They also ensure that the new congregations are forged with similar DNA (p. 6).

15

Challenges In addition to arguing for the missionary mandate, numerous authors document the significant changes that have occurred in our culture over the last 50-100 years. Ed Stetzer (2006) characterizes our culture as “emerging” and “postmodern” (p. 124-143). “Postmodern” because it is a reaction against “modernism” (p.30); “emerging” because the cultural shifts are incomplete (p.128). He also warns against generalizations, adding that “postmoderns” cannot be “neatly categorized” (p.125). What this means is that the church in North America no longer finds itself in the “Christianized” culture of the west. Consequently new churches will continue to face the kinds of challenges that were common to foreign missionaries in the past. Our communities no longer share a common language and worldview that are shaped by the assumptions of the Bible. Brown (2007) identifies the important characteristics of churches that successfully plant other churches. These churches learn to speak the target group’s “heart language” (p.3). The heart language is more than just their native tongue; it is the language, culture, and set of assumptions in which a person’s worldview is expressed. It supplies their beliefs and fundamental questions about life (p.3). Tim Keller (2004), who has helped to plant over 100 churches in New York City, presents a strong focus on “contextualization” (pp.1-3). He graciously critiques the majority of church planting material, pointing out that many resources teach church planters a very limited view of this key principle. Specifically, he says that most authors “outline how to plant a particular kind of church—either a particular denominational model or some other kind of model that works in a specific environment” (p.1). Simply

16

put, much of the literature presents information from the perspective of what has worked in other circumstances. Oddly enough, in trying to break free of the constraints of an “outdated” traditionalism, many of these authors may be unwittingly promoting the same problem with a different face. Without understanding the principle of contextualization, church planters in pursuit of “success” and “growth” may fall prey to a new kind of traditionalism, which attempts to bind leaders to each new author announcing a “proven” method to grow the church. Sadly, few of the method-driven approaches call for church planters to take inventory of their context with the gospel in view. Other conservative Bible scholars like Dr. Stephen M. Davis (2008a) argue that contextualization, also called “indigenization,” is a necessity for all missionary efforts (pp. 1-5). Davis explains the history of the concept and the varied nuances that different schools of thought have ascribed to it (p.2). In another essay (Davis, S. 2008b) he defines his terms and aims to show that it is both necessary and possible to do this while avoiding any kind of “syncretism” or compromise of the essential characteristics of the gospel (pp. 1-4). Needs Church planting literature also weighs in heavily on the desperate need for new churches. Ken Davis (2007) has provided a helpful online summary of much of the research indicating the great need for new churches. He argues that a shrinking cadre of inactive churches is not reaching our rapidly growing, multi-ethnic, urbanized population. Ed Stetzer (2006) also summarizes research pointing to the receding presence of the church. He quotes census information showing that in 1900 there were 28 churches for

17

every 10,000 people. This number has declined to 11 churches for every 10,000 of our population in 2004. “The number of churches increased just over 50 percent while the population of the country has almost quadrupled” (p.9). This is consistent with older studies as well. A report from 1990 (Hadaway, C. K.) showed that between 1964 and 1975 the United Methodist Church lost 3881 congregations (p.377). Similar declines or plateaus have been common across denominational lines. According to Phil Newton (2008) an additional 29,000 Southern Baptist Churches in the “deep south” would need to be planted in the next 20 years just to maintain the current ratio of churches to people in terms of the expected population growth (p.3). Researchers confront these statistics with the evidence that new churches are the best way to bridge this growing gap. Hadaway (1990) also reported data demonstrating that, “new churches not only add members when they come into a denomination, but they tend to grow faster than older churches” (p. 376); “new churches are more likely to grow among all size churches” (p. 373); and new churches “have a great potential for rapid growth, but that this “window of opportunity” only lasts for ten to 15 years (p. 372).

Drafting and Supporting Church Planters Drafting. According to the NAMB study “The most critical factor for the success of a church plant is the church planter or planters” (Stetzer, 2007, p. 4). If a qualified planter is the linchpin for success, the next question is where to find them. Gary Rohrmayer (quoted in Brown, S., 2007) is constantly scouting for potential church planters. He looks

18

for people with four characteristics: A burden for the community, passion for evangelism, entrepreneurial spirit, and the ability to gather people (p. 11). Andy Williams (2005) says that creating a “farm system and readiness assessment” is one of the best practices of effective sending churches (p.6). Billy Hornsby advocates the approach taken by the Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain, which interviews applicants 15-17 times before selecting franchise owners (Quoted in Williams, 2005, p. 6). In the same interview, Hornsby speaks plainly: “Unless you get a capable leader, you can invest a million dollars in a group and they’ll never start a thing” (p.6). Williams also suggests that training events may attract potential planters, and that this should be followed with formal assessment (p.7). He also details the interview strategy, proposing that applicants should not be questioned about what they “would do” in a given situation as much as what they have done in the past (p.7). In a research report on “Finding Church Planters,” Josh Hunt (2006) admits that most of his advice comes from people who have made “lots of mistakes: (p.2). He offers five main principles to follow when trying to find the right church planter: (1) “Familiarity”—Work with those you already know (p. 2). (2) “Benchmarking”— Church planters should be measured against “objective standards” (p. 6) such as the Ridley Scale (see below). It should be noted that even though many of the elements of the standards he suggests reflect Biblical wisdom, there is sadly no reference to the fact that Scripture actually provides divine standards for leadership (I Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). Quite humorously, the author (Hunt, p.6)

19

makes reference to Neil Cole. Cole is a leader in American church planting who failed the Ridley test the first time he took it. These tests are obviously not fool proof! (3) “Asking the Hard Questions” (p. 8)—He suggests that the process of examination needs to include penetrating questions. He says that past experience is the best measure of future potential. Rohrmayer and Kappa (quoted in Hunt, 2006) have produced a list of “25 Questions” that is an aid to help church planters through all phases of recruitment and training. However, the initial questions face the candidate before the selection process. Hunt also reports that many church planting networks perform extended assessments that last three to four days, and include psychological profiles, interviews with spouses, group problem solving, and opportunities for candidates to preach (p. 12). (4) “Hanging Out”—There is no substitute for spending time with people (p. 13). Hunt reports that many in the church planting game weigh heavily on this element to see how prospective planters speak and act outside of the formal assessment process. (5) “Is God in it”—According to Hunt this step is presented as an acknowledgment that God answers our prayers and sends “divine accidents” to show us the way (p. 14). It also involves evaluating the role of the church planter’s faith in God as the source of blessing on the building of the new church. Assessment. Williams (2005) also recommends the Charles Ridley assessment tool (p. 8), and he indicates that other church planting networks use psychological scales to evaluate the planter and spouse. None of the authors presented information on the consistency of

20

these instruments at predicting leadership ability or success. The consistent message is that the characteristics of a church planter involve more, not less, than simply being a qualified pastor. Others suggest a minimum age of thirty, following the example of Jesus (p. 8). The Ridley Scale (2007) evaluates church planting candidates on the basis of “13 Essential Characteristics.” 1. Visioning capacity 2. Intrinsically motivated 3. Creates ownership of ministry 4. Relates to the unchurched 5. Spousal cooperation 6. Effectively builds relationships 7. Committed to church growth 8. Responsive to community 9. Utilizes giftedness of others 10. Flexible and adaptable 11. Builds group cohesiveness 12. Resilience 13. Exercises faith The consistent message in the literature is that spending time to find a qualified candidate is one of the most important steps in successful church planting. One study reported that church planting networks spend more time in assessment than in training (LeadNet, 2007, p. 4). Training. The issue of training is also prominent throughout church planting literature, but this is not to be confused with formal education such as seminary. Though formal education is not disparaged, some offer caveats. Ed Stetzer (2006) identifies formal education as a potential obstacle to church planting due to what he calls the “professional 21

church syndrome” (p.9).

He relates that seminary trained ministers are often reluctant to

engage in bi-vocational ministry or volunteer service to see a church planted because of the expectation of a full time salary and debt from student loans. Stetzer (2006) also quotes Roland Allen who suggests that “evangelistic growth in new churches is often inversely proportional to educational attainment…. the more education a pastor had, the less effective he likely would be in the evangelistic task” (p.9). Typically, church planter training takes on other forms. Andy Williams (2005) describes church planting training sessions and boot camps as common means of training for planters (p. 11). Darrin Patrick, senior pastor of The Journey in St. Louis, and one of Acts 29’s regional leaders says: These young leaders are really hungry to focus on the substance of their ministry is built on, and theology is becoming more important to them than methods. Young pastors are tired of a ‘25 steps to grow your church’ approach. They crave right ecclesiology which will lead them to proper contextualization. (Quoted in Williams, A. 2005, p. 11). Glenn Smith (2007) gives a broad survey of the kinds of training methods used to prepare church planters. First, “intensive approaches”—a boot camp or two to four day seminar (p. 2). Second, “training classes”— extended training over a longer period of time, such as one Saturday per month over nine months (p.3). Third, “internship or apprenticeship” over a long period of time, but not paid (p.5). Fourth, a “residency”— in which the planter usually receives a salary. Part of this time may involve the seminal work of preparing the new church for launch (p.6). Fifth, “Informal training”—where a church planter just comes and hangs out for six to nine months getting familiar with the ministries and learning on the job (p.9). There isn’t any evidence to suggest which of

22

these is the best, and several networks provide training that is a combination of these methods. Support Finances. Authors and leaders who have written on church planting consistently point out that the greatest obstacle to church planting in America is not lack of funds. Andy Williams (2005) comments on what he says has been recognized by church planters all over the world. “Overfunding is not productive and almost always produces meager results. Underfunding is irresponsible and puts church planters and their families in precarious situations” (p. 9). According to a survey on how new churches are funded (Stetzer, E., 2007a), the average church plant receives around $172,000 over several years (p.3). Furthermore, it is rare for a church planter to be fully funded; only 7% have this luxury. The majority of church planters (82%) either have to raise all or part of their support through their own networking. Church planters affiliated with networks are expected to raise one-half to one third of their own support. (p. 3). Additionally, church planters affiliated with aggressive church planting churches may have to raise 50% to 80% of their own funds. This additional support can come from a bivocational pastor, family and friends, or cooperating churches (p.3). Not only is it common for church planters to be involved in fundraising for a new work, according to several authors it is actually desirable. Matt Hannan, founder of the Northwest Church Planting Center, says: “Put $200,000 in a plant if you want to kill it…

23

Money is never the determining factor. If a church planter can’t gain his own funds, he’s not going to be able to start a church. When you start a church, you are asking people to give up their life. You can’t do that if you can’t ask for their money” (Quoted in Williams, A. 2005, p.9). Another approach to funding a new church plant is to “transplant” a group of committed people from an existing church. Stetzer (2007a) says that some networks place a heavy emphasis on having large groups of seed families relocate in order to give the church a kick-start (p.3). For example, Sovereign Grace Ministries had 100 people relocate to Denver for a church plant, with the idea that these families would provide $60,000 to support the church in addition to the $70,000 provided by the denomination (p.3). Stetzer concludes his report on “Funding New Churches” (2007a) with a summary of the best practices for paying the bills. He proposes that, “It is best for an agency or denomination to fund a qualified and well-trained church planter with a modest funding package over a relatively short period of time (3 years or less)” (p.5). This approach will help the church planter to aggressively build the church and avoid creating an unhealthy dependency on outsiders. What is the best way for planters to raise their own funds? Stetzer proposes that in fundraising, the main issue is vision and relationships. Planters that can share a well-developed plan and develop meaningful relationships will have the best success at raising money for a new church (p.6). Coaching.

24

In addition to financial support, church planters need an ongoing relationship of training described as “coaching.” In a study on the factors increasing the health and survivability of new churches, the coaching practice of the Foursquare Church is offered as an example (Stetzer, E., 2007a, p. 7). A coaching relationship lasts for at least 18 months, and involves a fee for the service (p.8). Presumably, this helps to hold both planter and coach accountable. Glenn Smith (2007) proposes that the best coaching models “build on the principles of adult learning” (p.10), which incorporates the life experiences of the student in process.

He also reports that some experts recommend that

the coaching should be distinct from the planter’s source of funding in order to promote honesty and transparency in the accountability process (p.11). According to Williams, (2005) church planters often experience loneliness and isolation (p.12). To combat this and improve outcomes, most high volume church multiplication centers create coaching systems that lead to monthly contact (p. 12). Mark Driscoll (quoted in Williams, 2005) says that coaching should also include the spouse, “the barometer of the health of the man is not his church, but his wife. You don’t just want to coach the man, but coach his wife” (p. 12). Church Cooperation Some research has shown (LeadNet, 2007b) that the more tied into a denomination a church is, the less likely it is to engage in church planting (p.4). For this reason, and perhaps others, numerous collaborative groups and networks have been established to cooperate in church planting. These groups include: Stadia, GlocalNet, Global Outreach, Growing Healthy Churches Network, and Acts 29 Network to name a

25

few. “Leadership Network (2007b) research reveals that reproduction is accomplished well among church planting networks because of an overwhelming emphasis on team planting” (p.5). This research also demonstrated a number of factors in successful church planting partnerships:

• Increased success rates in church planting are tied to a well-defined process for developing church planting strategy. Successful churches, denominations, and networks have deliberate strategies that include assessment, training, and coaching (p 2).

• Networks spend more time on assessment than on efforts to train candidates (p.4). • Most networks do not prescribe a formula or style for the church, but encourage their churches to be a local expression of their communities (p. 5).

• Successful networks also demonstrate that they are not simply concerned with planting a church, but with planting churches that will carry the vision of promoting a church planting mindset (p.6).

• Churches that plant other churches often have paid staff assigned to further church planting efforts (p.6).

• Size matters, but in surprising ways: “Churches of 200 or less are four times more likely to plant a church than churches of 1,000 or more” (p.6).

The sheer weight of the task before the church drives the formation of networks and alliances. Brown (2007b) details the story of the Houston Baptist Association, “a group of more than 630 Southern Baptist Churches in the metropolitan Houston area…” (p.9)

26

However the group included more than just Southern Baptists. Over 50 church planters and denominational leaders came together. The group gathered in response to estimates that the population of Houston would grow from 5.5 million in 2006 to 8.2 million in thirty years; this group got together in January 2007 to write and sign a church planting manifesto (Union Baptist Association, 2007). This kind of a declaration helps to give purpose to the unity between churches. On the importance of having a unifying purpose, Neil Cole remarked: “Groups that come together just for prayer and unity will never find unity. Without a mission, without bullets flying over your heads, there will be no unity. When you watch each other’s backs you will find unity” (Quoted in Brown, S., 2007b, p.9). Some churches and networks have created Church Multiplication Centers (CMC’s) that combine many of the best practices in order to create a pipeline leading to “high yield” church planting. Andy Williams (2005) identifies a number of best practices for networks interested in doing “high volume” church planting. He provides an example of a group ten churches that have pooled their resources to help plant 1,093 churches in the United States (p.2). Furthermore, he notes that ten of these CMC’s planted 466 churches in the U.S. and 266 overseas in 2004 (p. 3). What are the keys to the success of these CMC’s? First, according to Williams, is making a shift in priorities to “sizeable recommitments of resources that could have been used in-house” (p.3). This means that churches that established CMC’s agreed that their priority could not be to simply build up their own ministry but focus on the multiplication of churches. Second, creation of a “farm system” and “readiness assessment” (p.6) for future planters. Third, creating strong

27

systems for training so that candidates are adequately prepared (p. 10). Fourth, finishing the effort by providing ongoing support for planters through coaching (p.12). Local Church Practices There is a considerable amount of discussion about the different “models” and approaches currently used in church planting (LeadNet, 2007c., pp.1-2 see also Stetzer, 2006, pp. 53-76). However, this discussion usually takes a backseat to the idea of the overall mandate for Biblical church planting. Most seem to agree that there are a variety of different of ways to successfully and Biblically plant new churches. Ecclesiology is more prominent than church planting typology. That is to say, there is greater emphasis on what a church should look like than how it is formed. In a survey of 1,000 church plants from various denominations Stetzer (2007b) reports on the top factors correlative to the health and survivability of new churches. Out of the 100 factors measured, thirteen were found to be statistically relevant (p.3). The Vineyard Pathology Study (Hunter, T., 1986) is a report on 22 failed and 20 of the most successful church plants in this denomination. The study identified 21 common characteristics among failed churches. The top three factors on this list are: 1. 2. 3.

The pastor/planter could not identify, recruit, train, deploy, monitor and nurture workers and leaders. The pastor/planter had no clear plan from which he was working. The pastor/planter used ineffective gathering and/or evangelistic methods (p.3). The top three positive characteristics in the Vineyard study were:

1. 2. 3.

They [the pastors] were hard workers. The church did not suffer from ‘ethnicitis.’ They had a proven track record under supervision (p.12). 28

The Vineyard Study concludes with a “top ten weighted characteristics” for a successful church planter (p. 13). Stetzer (2007b) summarizes an important conclusion from this study: Low success church planters are simply predisposed to a more passive approach to ministry that focuses on nurturing those who naturally come to them rather than aggressively seeking to penetrate the community and gather those who could be leaders for the kingdom. They prefer to nurture existing relationships rather than recruit, evangelize, plan, or research their community (p.5). The findings can be summarized under several broad headings. First, new churches and planters must intentionally orient their ministry toward reaching out to their communities in evangelism and service with the goal if becoming independent. Second, church planters must focus on developing people through discipleship, leadership training, and delegation. Third, to be successful, church planters must engage in aggressive planning and leadership activities for the group. Fourth, several authors include suggestions for how to “launch” the new services for the church plant. For example, Searcy & Kerrick (2006) provide a detailed sample procedure for how to launch a new church, including “preview services” and procedures for pulling together a launch team (pp. 141-160). Implications This research presents a number of clear questions that will be used to guide subsequent research. Do RB’s have adequate theological and philosophical foundations to support aggressive church planting? Do RB churches and associations have adequate systems for recruiting, training, coaching, and funding prospective church planters? Are

29

RB associations structured to carry out the Great Commission in North America? And do RB church plants effectively practice the kinds of Biblical methodology that will allow them to reach their communities with the gospel?

30

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH STRATEGY AND DATA COLLECTION PLAN 3.1 Statement Of Objectives This research intends to explore best practices in successful church planting and apply them to current RB Church efforts. The first objective is to increase the number of RB Churches being planted in North America. This will take place through repentance, renewed faith and obedience to the Great Commission, and adoption of strategies described as the “best practices” in church planting. For this research best practices are defined as philosophical and methodological practices that are: First, Biblical, and second, proven to be successful. This research will propose policies that will lead to the planting of more churches in the U.S. and Canada. Effective strategies for change must begin with a reliable assessment of the current state of church planting efforts among RB’s. This assessment should be based on fact rather than anecdote or personal experience. An accurate evaluation is necessary to diagnose the extent of change that is needed, and to make dependable recommendations. Accordingly, this research will attempt to provide a fact-based picture of the present state of RB church planting efforts and explore any connections between the best practices identified in church planting literature. Once this information has been obtained, the research will provide information for any needed changes. The second research objective is to make recommendations that will improve church planting efforts among RB’s. Additionally this research will attempt to promote a change in RB associations within three years so that churches will pool resources and

31

personnel to plant ten new churches in the U.S. and Canada in the next ten years. The effectiveness of these proposals could be evaluated by (1) measuring (counting) how many churches are actually planted; and (2) by measuring the effectiveness of RB’s to recruit, train, and support church planters. Specifically, this will mean counting the actual number of men sent out to plant new congregations. 3.2 Research Model This research has followed the policy proposal model in order to design a possible intervention for RB church planting. In line with this approach, this project has attempted three things: first, to gather information that will support the extent of the need for change; second, to provide a factual basis for the proposal; and third, to render several recommendations of best practices to promote aggressive church planting. The policy proposal model provides an approach that is exploratory and descriptive. This approach follows the “descriptive” research methodology proposed by Leedy & Ormrod (2005, pp. 179-216). Data was obtained primarily via a survey of existing RB churches (most often pastors) and church plants, and supplemented through analysis of existing RB documents and reports. Accordingly the research also references the constitutions, by-laws, policy documents, and publications of RB churches and associations for relevant information. These surveys have attempted to gather factual information about the nature and extent of RB church planting rather than gather the opinions or beliefs of these church leaders. The survey approach has several strengths. First, using an online survey (Surveymonkey.com) has provided wider access to a large number of respondents, thus

32

increasing the sample size. Second, this electronic survey method has lowered the financial and time commitment needed to gather the information, thus making this research project possible. Third, since the survey was gathered online there will be no direct contact between the researcher and respondents allowing a greater level of anonymity. Hopefully, this has helped to increase the number of survey responses and improve the truthfulness of the answers by attempting to limit any shame associated with the answers. This approach also has several potential weaknesses. First, as with any survey, if the questions are not carefully written, the survey may not provide the desired information. Leedy & Ormrod, (2005) make several observations about the limits of the survey method. For instance, “…the survey design makes critical demands on the research that, if not carefully respected, may place the entire research effort in jeopardy” (p.184). Second, since the survey depends on “self report,” it will face the natural frailty of those responding to the questions. Survey data may be compromised by the failing memories of respondents, their opinions, or the falsification of information (p. 184). Third, surveys can be affected by a low response rate, which could jeopardize the size or construction of the sample (p.185). Also, there is the possibility that those who choose to respond may do so because of their own bias in favor of the survey subject matter. Fourth, according to Leedy & Ormrod, survey questionnaires can gather only limited information. Written surveys have a limited number of questions and this may cause the researcher to miss out on some information that would have been gathered if follow questions were available (p. 185). Because of this, the present survey has included several

33

open-ended questions to gather additional information. Finally, using the survey method presents a unique challenge in determining what a representative sample is. This is complicated by the fact that there is little objective data on RB churches available for comparison. The policy proposal model provides a reasonable expectation for success for several reasons. First, this approach allows for the project to be completed by June of 2009. Second, the online survey method only requires a limited amount of financial commitment. This is important because the author of this research is providing all of the funding. Third, pilot surveys have been given to some RB pastors and there has already been a reasonable response. Fourth, the idea of proposing significant changes to our Baptist associations is feasible in theory, because church planting is included in the stated purposes of these associations. Also, other evangelical associations and networks are cooperating in similar ventures with successful outcomes. 3.3 Description of Intervention The intervention proposed in this research project involves organizational changes and commitments to increase the number of RB churches that will be planted within the next ten years. Theses changes are aimed at improving the general function of RB organizations. Specific changes will also be recommended in order to improve the creation, sharing, and utilization of resources in order to increase the number of churches that are planted. RB associations are built on the premise that cooperation between churches can help individual congregations reach goals that would be too difficult to accomplish on 34

their own. And that this can be done in a way that supports rather than diminishes the importance and authority of the local church. Accordingly, the policy proposal recommended by this project will focus on fostering and organizing RB churches and associations to work together to give birth to new congregations. One hypothesis of this study is that RB organizations are not presently functioning effectively as evidenced by the small number of new churches that have been planted in recent history. At the time of the study, the author is not aware of any comprehensive attempt to measure or monitor these efforts. In all likelihood, the goal of seeing ten churches planted in ten years cannot be accomplished by individual churches acting in isolation. However, several churches have already been planted by the informal cooperation of small congregations. Review of the literature suggests that there are a number of discrete activities that need to take place to create a successful church-planting network. These activities range from recruiting and training church planters to sharing resources and funding. According to these findings from the literature, the proposed changes will be focused on four major areas: How church planting relates to the purpose of RB churches and associations, church planting typology, location of planting efforts, and cooperation among RB’s. Many of the resources necessary to plant these ten churches are already available but remain unused or poorly coordinated. For instance, there are several ministerial training programs functioning in RB churches or in cooperative ventures. However, these training programs do not seem to have a clear focus on recruiting or training pastors with the unique role of church planter (entrepreneur/missionary) for those with such a

35

call. Additionally the author is aware of anecdotal reports of independent churches choosing not to join RB associations because of perceived inactivity and ineffectiveness among these associations. It is likely that a clarified purpose in associational activity may attract more churches and resources toward cooperative efforts. In order to implement these changes, a core group of church leaders would need to subscribe to the recommendations and support their adoption as policy. This important first step is necessary for both the adoption of these structural changes and their implementation. Most associations of independent Baptists function through the voluntary involvement of member churches. In light of this, it is conceivable that formal changes could be adopted by the association but remain unfulfilled due to lack of support. Church leaders would need to donate time, church resources, and funding to fulfill this vision. Early steps in the execution of the proposed changes involve the author presenting the research to church and association leaders in order to gain support. Once local pastors and association leaders agree, the next step would involve serious planning. In the planning phase, a road map would be created to help guide the organization through implementation. Additionally, after planning has begun, the next step would be to designate a leader with some kind of authority and accountability to help accomplish specific goals. It is possible that these changes may appear insignificant during the planning stages. However, the proposed changes will amount to a redefinition of the purpose of our RB associations. For example, military training takes on unique importance if the

36

new recruits are going to be immediately sent into battle. Similarly, a new focus will be brought to ministerial training if pastoral students are going to be sent into the domestic mission field to bring the message of Jesus to unreached Americans through church planting. Presently there are a number of church planting networks that are successfully sharing resources to see large numbers of new congregations planted in the U.S. and Canada. In light of the success of these organizations, these changes are feasible. However, since many of these networks were created “from scratch,” their success may be due in part to this clear sense of mission from their inception. The recommended changes will involve philosophical and theological commitments, structural changes in the documents and functioning of RB associations, and accountability to reach specific goals. Because of the personal and organizational investment required to carry out such changes, it is not known whether the proposed recommendations will be accepted within existing associations or if new organizations will be called for. 3.4 Data Collection Plan This project has followed a policy proposal design. Information was gathered for the purpose of understanding the current state of RB church planting and recommending policy and practical changes in order to increase the number and health of new RB church plants. The information will help to display the level of need and the feasibility of the proposed interventions. The population that has been surveyed consists of RB churches that meet several criteria. First, they have the 1689 BCF as their statement of faith. Second, they must be

37

churches that currently exist or have been worshipping within the last ten years. This will allow the inclusion of churches that may have closed. Third, these RB churches are located in the United States or Canada. Surveys will be limited to one response per church, and only one response will be collected from each church. The project was distributed by email on February 23rd, 2009 (see Appendix A for the text of the email). The survey was anonymous and no personal information was requested. Reminder emails were sent out in the weeks following the initial request. The last survey response was collected on April 22, 2009 and the survey was closed. Data from the survey was subsequently imported into a statistical software application (SPSS) for analysis. The survey included several demographic questions that were used to help delimit the study and investigate some variables described in the literature in connection with church plant. The survey also included questions about involvement in domestic church planting over the life of the church and within the last then years and an evaluation of how existing churches came into being. A copy of the survey is attached in the Appendix B. The survey was anonymous and respondents were encouraged to give honest and unbiased answers. The online instructions clearly stated that the survey is anonymous. The requesting email, and the online survey stated that the results will be posted at the completion of the project at the author’s website (matttroupe.blogspot.com) and by personal email. Since there is no clear database for this information, it will be helpful to have several avenues for follow up.

38

This survey was initially developed during the literature review phase of this project. It was discussed with Dr. Tamsen Murray, and a paper version was submitted to six RB pastors from Southern California for field-testing. These pastors were later invited to take the revised online survey. As results became available and the author learned more about research methods, the survey was modified to make data collection more simple and measurable. Also several questions were rewritten to avoid bias or to provide clarification. The survey information was analyzed to arrive at factual picture of the details of RB church planting, and to provide statistical averages that will help to support the need for the policy proposal. Finally, the data was also evaluated for statistical significance using SPSS software. The samples may have been affected by some degree of volunteer bias. For instance, pastors who are wary of statistical research, or who have not been proactive in church planting may have been less likely to respond than those who are actively promoting the growth of new congregations. In order to limit this bias, the purpose of the research has been clearly stated, and the invitations have stated that the results would be made publicly available.

39

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of Chapters 1, 2, & 3 RB churches and their associations in America have experienced growth within the last fifty years, and yet there is little data available on the efforts of these churches to plant new congregations. This research intends to provide a fact-based picture of the state of church planting among RB’s in the U.S. and Canada within the last ten years and make several recommendations that can promote a commitment to church planting that is both Biblical and effective. Within the recent years various branches of the American church have produced a body of literature identifying practices that can improve the effectiveness of church planting efforts. This literature has been reviewed in Chapter 2 to set the stage for the present investigation. An online survey was used to poll RB churches from independent and associational circles in order to provide a clear picture of the efforts of RB churches and their cooperation in the area of church planting. This data was gathered in early 2009 and analyzed to provide a description of the situation in terms of Biblical truth and present literature in the field.

4.1 Summary Of Results Demographics Of The Study. Email invitations to complete the survey were sent out directly through the weekly ARBCA Update to their 63 churches, and through Farese.com, which maintains a distribution list of 400 emails that connect to RB churches throughout North America and

40

around the world. Doubtless, these emails were also forwarded to others as well. The author also attempted to make direct contact with FIRE leadership, and the director of the Founder’s Ministries without (known) response. There were a total of 73 responses, and several cases had to be removed because they did not fit the parameters of the research. There were several churches that were removed because they do not hold to the 1689 BCF, and this puts them outside the study population. Additionally one response from a church in New Zealand was also removed. A number of respondents left questions blank, and most often the blank responses were removed when analyzing specific questions to increase accuracy of the sample size.

FIGURE 1 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP SIZE

41

FIGURE 2 AVERAGE ATTENDANCE AT MAIN WORSHIP SERVICE Figure 1 shows that 52.1% of Churches that responded are less than 60 in number, with a scattering of churches throughout the spectrum. Figure 2 shows average attendance at the main worship service is only less than 60 for 42.5 % of churches, indicating that attendance is usually greater than the church’s membership. Respondents.

42

FIGURE 3 ASSOCIATIONAL TIES OF RESPONDENTS Eighty-one percent of the responses (59 of them) came from Pastors in RB churches. The remaining responses came from deacons (1%) and 13 responses from “other” positions within the church. Since pastors are usually more aware of the details of church policy and practice this increases the likelihood that the responses given are accurate. Additionally, the survey represents RB’s from at least five RB associations (See Figure 3). Furthermore, 56% of the responses come from unaffiliated churches. Seventeen of the responses come from churches that belong to ARBCA (includes churches with multiple affiliations) representing almost ¼ of the 63 churches that belong to this association (ARBCA, 2009). The remaining churches that responded make up a small fraction of the study, and a small portion of their associations. For instance three 43

churches from FIRE responded, yet FIRE has a membership of 75 churches (FIRE, 2009). Consequently, the study data seems most representative of unaffiliated and ARBCA churches.

FIGURE 4 AGE OF RESPONDING CHURCHES Figure 4 displays the average ages of churches from the survey, and Table 1 shows that the median year established is 1982. Figure 5 shows that close to 2/3 of responding churches were formed more than ten years ago. In ten of the surveys the question of church age was left blank. Figure 6 shows the population size of the city where RB churches are found, and 60% of surveyed churches are found in towns less than 100,000.

44

TABLE 1 AVERAGE AGE OF CHURCHES Year Founded Number of Responses

66

Missing Responses

10

Mean

1982.9

Median

1989.0

Std. Deviation

25.9

FIGURE 5 CHURCH AGE IN TERMS OF THE LAST 10 YEARS Several tests were performed to measure statistical significance, and these tests revealed that the data has a high probability of statistical reliability. This information is available from the author on request.

45

FIGURE 6 SIZES OF THE CITIES WHERE RB CHURCHES ARE LOCATED

RB’s Are Interested And Involved In Seeing New Churches Planted. The survey asked participants to rate their involvement in church planting as demonstrated by Figure 7. Of the 52 responses to the question, approximately 38.4% consider themselves to be participating in church planting by efforts that are involved, very involved, or highly involved. Alternately, this means that 34.6% consider themselves to be involved a little, and 26.9% not at all.

46

FIGURE 7 DEGREE OF INVOLVEMENT IN CHURCH PLANTING The survey also collected open responses, which allowed respondents to describe their congregation’s participation in their own words. For example, one church allowed another church plant to use their facility at no cost. A few churches described how they have been involved in repeated efforts. Others provided details about giving, prayer, or current involvement. Numerous churches are involved in church planting overseas. Four churches indicated that they had been involved in efforts that were not successful. Other responses indicated that they were open to involvement or actively looking for opportunities to plant. One church reported attempting Spanish translation/outreach ministry from their church. Finally, a number of churches reported that they have not yet been involved. Cooperation in Church Planting.

47

Average Percentage of Budget Toward Missions Median 10-12% Mode 10-12% Standard Deviation 8.7% FIGURE 8 PERCENTAGE OF BUDGET DEVOTED TO MISSIONS Just how are RB congregations participating in church planting? In addition to the act of planting a church (see following discussion) RB cooperation is shown in the table. Seventeen percent of churches say that they have not cooperated with other churches in any of the ways listed. The most common acts of participation are through prayer (81%), giving money either directly to church plants (50.8%) or through associations general fund (40.7%) or specific funds (23.7%), and giving advice/oversight to church plants (52.5%). This last figure shows that most of the churches giving

48

advice/coaching on church planting have no direct experience in church planting from which to draw. The percentages are smaller in areas that involve human resources leaving their congregation. Only 10% of churches have sent a candidate to be a church planter, or members of their church to relocate in order to help a church plant. Only four churches (6.8%) have had their church officers serve in leadership positions in church planting organizations. According to Ronsdale, S. & J. (2005) the average giving of churches in the U.S. towards missions was 2% of their budget (p.4). In contrast to this, the present survey data shows RB churches exceed those numbers with average missions giving at 10-12% (see Figure 8). This is remarkable, because many of the churches reported giving even more than this. It is noteworthy that the question does not distinguish between domestic or foreign giving. However, RB churches seem to provide a strong example of sacrificial giving to missions efforts. Clarity on Reformed Baptist Associations. RB’s documents and constitutions include church planting in their statements of purpose. The ARBCA constitution (2001) lists eight purposes including “home missions” (p.1). FIRE (n.d.) also states its purpose as including “cooperation in ministries and missions” (p. 1). SCARBC (n.d.) has ten purposes in its constitution, including: “To cooperate in the spreading of the gospel both at home and on foreign soil” (p. 2). Founders Ministries (n.d.), however, does not include church planting or missions in their purpose statement.

49

TABLE 2 ASSOCIATIONAL OFFERINGS TO ASSIST CHURCH PLANTING If your church is a member of an association, what has the association done to promote domestic church planting? Indicate all that apply. Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count I don't know 25.6% 10 Offered training for church planters 53.8% 21 Offered/Provided funding for new churches 35.9% 14 Established a system for recruiting church planters 17.9% 7 Offered formal help in assessing church planter qualifications 30.8% 12 Provided coaching/accountability for church planters 28.2% 11 Set goals for church planting 20.5% 8 Other (please specify) 33.3% 13 As depicted in Table 2, survey responses also reveal that RB Associations have numerous mechanisms in place to promote church planting that reflect “best practices” from the literature. However, 25% of associated churches are not aware of the resources available through their associations, which may be an incentive to improve the flow of information. Most respondents (53.8%) reported that their association offered training for church planters. Only 17.9% were aware of a recruitment system, and 20.5% were aware of any associational goals for planting. The data also reveals that even though only a few churches have actually planted, many more have supported the efforts of those churches both independently and through their associations. Two open responses indicated that they believed any of these associational activities would violate local church autonomy. Also, open responses indicate that churches support overseas missions through their associations.

50

RB Church Plants In The Last Ten Years.

FIGURE 9 PERCENTAGE OF CHURCHES THAT HAVE EVER PLANTED ANOTHER CONGREGATION How many churches have become a “mother church” in bringing a new congregation into existence at any point in their congregation’s history? According to Figure 9, 27% (16 of the 59) of responding churches have planted a church in North America; And 14 of those 16 have been in the last ten years (Figure 10). This means that 23.7% of churches that answered this question have planted in the last ten years, with several churches planting more than one church. These 14 churches planted a total of 20 new congregations. However, if taken as a percentage of all surveys (14/73) the percentage is smaller showing that 19.2% of churches have planted. This information indicates limited involvement, but a positive trend since almost all of the church planting activity that has happened has been happening in the last decade. The survey collected a fragmented list of 45 known churches that have been planted in the last ten years in RB

51

circles. See Appendix C for this table. This question asked respondents to provide information about any RB church plants that they were aware of, including efforts outside their own congregation. Because of this, the responses include information that is incomplete.

FIGURE 10 THE NUMBER OF CHURCHES PLANTING WITHIN THE LAST 10 YEARS AND THE DEGREE OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT Clarity On The RB Church Planting Efforts The survey reveals some important information on how RB churches have been planted in the past. Question four asks, “Describe how your congregation began (indicate all that apply).” Ten of churches (13.7%) used the assistance of an existing church to help in their beginning regardless of the other conditions present. Also three of the churches gave dual answers to question 4, considering themselves to be “a small group interested in a reformed expression of worship” even if their church began from some of 52

the other listed circumstances. Figure 11 gives priority to the four categories listed for the sake of clarity.

FIGURE 11 HOW EXISTING CHURCHES WERE FORMED Many of the existing churches, and church planting efforts have focused on gathering people who are already share RB convictions into new congregations as the principal strategy (See figure 11). In answering how their own church began, only eight of 73 (13.3%) of the churches came into existence as a result of the deliberate efforts of a mother church in sending out a church planter. The vast majority of RB churches surveyed came from groups of Christians that were dissatisfied with existing churches. Twenty percent said it was a reform of an existing church (which is not strictly the planting of a new congregation), and 26.7% reported that their congregation began from a

53

church split. Though church splits are sometimes necessary and even beneficial, this too is not kingdom growth in the strictest sense. The largest response group shows that 40% of the churches were a small group of believers that were interested in a reformed expression of worship. Open responses add weight to the data: “It was a small group interested in solid preaching.” “…Tired of fighting doctrinal battles in existing churches. Started a Reformed Baptist church with myself and wife and then had others join upon mutual agreement.” The church’s growth was “…one of reforming rather than reformed.” Additionally, the responses to question eight “How has your congregation been involved in domestic church planting?” reveal a similar vein of thought: “Helped two other local churches to form who were splits off of a larger church that fired the pastors for being Calvinists.” In describing how one failed plant proceeded: “We also gathered addresses from Trinity Book Service and Cumberland Valley book service [reformed book vendors] of people in that area who ordered books from them. We sent letters to these people informing them of the effort.” Cooperation.

54

TABLE 3 COOPERATION AMONG RB’S IN CHURCH PLANTING How has your church been able to cooperate with other churches in domestic church planting within the last 10 years? Select as many as apply. Response Response Answer Options Frequency Count Our church has not worked with other churches.

16.9%

10

Prayer for church plants. Cooperating for training in church planting (such as a conference). Contributing to the general funds of an association or network that plants churches. Making specific contributions to an association or network to further church planting. Making contributions directly to support the planting of a new church. Having church officers serve in leadership positions for church planting organizations.

81.4%

48

22.0%

13

40.7%

24

23.7%

14

50.8%

30

6.8%

4

Sending candidates to help plant new churches. Sending existing members to relocate in helping a church plant. Sending pastors/preachers to help conduct worship services during the start up phase. Sending members/teams to help with work projects (such as evangelism).

10.2%

6

10.2%

6

25.4%

15

16.9%

10

Giving advice/counsel to church planters.

52.5%

31

Providing oversight/coaching to church planters.

27.1%

16

Table 3 shows how RB’s are cooperating in church planting. Many churches are partnering together through prayer, giving money, and advice. The numbers are smaller for churches that have sent leaders or members out with less than six churches (10.2%) sending pastors or members to relocate, and even fewer (Four churches at 6.8%) sending out church planting candidates. 4.2 CONCLUSIONS

55

Church Planting Involvement. The survey requested respondents to supply information about any known RB church plants within the last 10 years. Survey responses listed about 45 new congregations including churches planted outside the efforts of the respondent churches (Appendix C). It is likely that there are a number of church plants by RB’s that have not been listed here, including a number of attempts that did not result in an abiding congregation. But if the numbers from this study are representative of RB church planting efforts at large then several conclusions may be suggested. First, RB’s as a group are interested in church planting and involved in a variety of ways and have brought new congregations into existence. Second, this means that an average of 4.5 churches have been planted each year over the last 10 years. However, there is a larger pool of RB churches that may have a limited involvement in church planting. To put this figure in perspective, it would be helpful to compare the number of churches planted to the total number of existing churches in this larger group. For instance, Founders Ministries has 1,045 churches. Their numbers were not widely represented in this survey, yet many of the church plants mentioned are from these congregations. However, to arrive at a modest estimate, the total number of Founders Ministries churches will not be included in the number of total churches in the analysis (the denominator in Figure 12). If the unaffiliated churches in this survey (42), the number of ARBCA Churches (63) and the number of FIRE churches (75) are added this gives a total of 183 churches. This is an average of 2.45% involvement rate per year (See Figure 12). If this conclusion is accurate then it supports

56

both of the hypotheses of the present study. Specifically, RB’s have not been aggressively planting new congregations, and that RB structures and practices are not functioning effectively to promote the planting of new churches. FIGURE 12 YEARLY INVOLVEMENT OF RB CHURCHES IN CHURCH PLANTING

This conclusion is further supported by the small number of churches that have planted by churches from within the study. If the same equation is used to evaluate only North American congregations planted by the pool of 73 survey respondents, then 20 Churches have been planted in the last ten years (see Figure 9). This is an average of 2.0 churches planting per year. The conclusion can be seen in Figure 13: FIGURE 13 YEARLY INVOLVEMENT OF SURVEY CHURCHES IN CHURCH PLANTING

The survey also reveals that a significant number of churches are “not really involved at all” (26.9%), or only “involved a little” (34.6%) (See Figure 7). It should also be considered that 72.9% of churches have never planted in their history (see Figure 8). This seems to indicate that a small number of churches are doing most of the church

57

planting. This means that a large number of RB churches should consider whether they have taken seriously the implications of the Great Commission for their church. These figures also suggest that many RB churches do not see deliberate multiplication through church planting as the goal of every assembly of believers. Instead, the planting of a new congregation is often unintentional, and brought about circumstances outside the purposes of the church and its leadership (e.g. church splits). Another important conclusion involves the nature of RB church planting. Only 13.7% of church plants (Figure 7) were the deliberate result of an existing church sending out a church planter. The way in which most RB congregations have come into existence is by reshuffling existing believers into new congregations. This means that 89% of existing churches were created to provide people who were already followers of Christ better church conditions. This conclusion seems to comport with some of the statements listed above about the reasons for planting and how growth has been fostered. It appears that RB church-planting efforts may have selected a “target demographic” which is comprised of reformed Christians rather than making disciples. Could this be a contributing factor for why so many RB churches remain small (see Figures 1 and 2), because they stop growing once they have attracted all of the Calvinists in their town? Certainly there are many reasons why churches fail to grow, but this is an important question for RB churches and leaders to ask themselves. The author does not want to suggest that the reformation of existing churches or Christians is an unworthy aim, only that it is incomplete if it does not lead to a robust commitment to follow the example of

58

Jesus, who “did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (NJKV, Matt 9:13). In making an individual appropriation of these principles each church should examine their own history and practices with these and other questions. Could it be that focus of some churches has not been on fulfilling the Great Commission, but rather providing a distinct religious venue to Christians frustrated with American Christianity? Al Mohler (2009) offers a warning to the growing church planting movement: “This movement must complement—not castigate—existing churches” (para. 17). Is it possible for a church to achieve a “critical mass” of members through efforts to gather theologically mature Christians, and then shift its focus to a missionary community that is welcoming to lost people? Is it possible that several decades of this approach has produced a network of churches for which evangelism has become an optional or secondary church function? The literature by RB’s on church planting is neither prominent nor prolific. However, some examples of the literature that is available add weight to the idea that this approach (gathering Reformed Christians) is a common strategy. A series of seven articles on the Reformed Baptist Fellowship Blog (2007) titled “A Layman’s Guide to Church Planting” gives advice to laymen who find themselves in a town without an RB church (Reeves, S.). In encouraging others the author writes: …We longed for a church that was more in keeping with our convictions about the nature of the church and at the same time focused on Christcentered preaching and teaching from a Reformed perspective. We dreamed of the possibility that someone would start a Reformed Baptist church in our area, although we knew of no one else in our area who shared our convictions and saw no promise of such an effort. Untold 59

numbers of others find themselves in similar or more discouraging circumstances. They long for a biblically sound church but cannot find one in their area or even the prospect for one in the near future. (part I, para. 1) The series of articles goes on to offer suggestions about how to find other interested reformed Christians in the area who might help to form a core group. To be fair, Reeves provides a humble perspective, links to other church planting networks, and mentions evangelism at several points. These articles provide valuable wisdom that is sure to help people in the circumstances that he describes. However, the emphasis is clearly on providing an RB church for Christians who are dissatisfied with their current circumstances. This research suggests that this approach constitutes the lion’s share of church planting efforts among RB’s and is Biblically deficient on that account. Pastor Steve Hartland (2009) confirms this by describing his church’s involvement in a failed planting effort. He says that he counseled with two “flag ship RB churches” that advised him to work on gathering a group of committed Christians who understood reformed theology and to provide them with pulpit supply once a large enough core group had demonstrated commitment to RB distinctives (S. Hartland, personal communication May 20, 2009). What is lacking in this approach is the priority of making new disciples. Sadly, this approach was also the method previously employed in two previous planting efforts by the church where the author pastored from 2003-2006. Additionally the author has had discussions with several pastors who described their exploration of church planting opportunities by asking, “if there was a need” for a “reformed witness” in the city. Church leaders with this perspective may have unwittingly accepted the idea that only a small percentage of Christians in a given locale

60

would attend a reformed church. Also, this approach places a high value on the “needs” of believers, and neglects the “needs” of the lost. Dr. James Renihan (1999) describes the evangelistic emphasis of early RB’s in England and Wales. He says that in the 75 years following 1641 the number of RB churches grew from zero to 220, and that this happened by the deliberate action of churches sending out evangelists to “dark corners of the land” (p.2). He also says that Benjamin Keach “argued that ministers should be active in preaching in the towns and villages near where they were located, so that new churches might be planted” (p.3). In arguing against methods of evangelism that do not lead disciples into churches Renihan says, “The Baptists could not conceive of evangelism apart from church planting” (p.3). RB’s involved in church planting should ask if they have fallen into the opposite error of conceiving of church planting apart from evangelism. This data may come at an opportune time as there is an increasing interest in church planting, and a number of congregations that want to participate. Locations. This strategy (of gathering reformed Christians) likely contributes to the geographic distribution of RB churches and their recent planting endeavors. If church planting efforts were primarily focused on reaching lost people and making and training new disciples it is hard to imagine that the cost and sacrifice of such efforts would be focused on such small towns. Only nine of the 45 church plants in the last ten years have been located in any of the 55 largest towns (with populations above 370,000) in the U.S. and Canada (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, see also Appendix C). Furthermore, 34.2 % of

61

RB churches are found in towns with less than 40,000 (Figure 6). Churches in larger urban areas tend to have access to more lost people, and as a result have more access to evangelistic opportunities. It is noteworthy that there was little mention of efforts by English-speaking congregations to plant churches that reach lost people of other languages or cultures in North America. Though not a primary focus of the survey, when respondents provided answers in their own words they mentioned only limited involvement in this arena. One church mentioned several plants in French-speaking Quebec, another mentioned a Spanish ministry that they hope will become a church plant, and another mentioned supporting two African-American congregations. Is there a connection between the model of gathering existing Christians, being located in small towns, and limited efforts to reach “the nations” in America? Could it be that ethnic populations are not receiving attention in church planting because they are less likely to already have reformed Christians in them? Cooperation. Finally, the study reveals that though RB’s are cooperating, that they are not cooperating as effectively as they could. This conclusion follows from several considerations. First, from the small number of churches planted. Second, 16.9% of churches have not cooperated with other churches at all in church planting (Table 3). Third, 25% of churches that identified themselves as members of an association are not aware of what the association offers to promote planting (see Table 2). Fourth, many RB churches are comparatively small and do not have the resources to plant on their own. If

62

aggressive church planting is to be done, it will only happen through cooperative efforts. Finally, though the various associations have a number of mechanisms to promote planting, these mechanisms have not resulted in the effective and sustained addition of new congregations (Table 2). For example, as of the 2007 ARBCA Church Planting School the Association had not adopted a church plant in America, in spite of the fact that several ARBCA churches are involved in planting new congregations. With all of the resources that are available to RB’s and their associations, there should be some investigation as to why more churches are not taking advantage of these resources.

4.3 Recommendations 4.3.1 Policy Recommendations. The Multiplication Of Disciples. RB’s need to see the present practice of church planting as a means of gathering dissatisfied believers into churches rather than as a means of making disciples as inadequate. This means that there should be repentance where necessary. Existing churches and church plants should change their focus from simply helping their communities have a “reformed witness” to winning the lost and gathering them into Biblical churches. This will require hard work and self-denial, as it is often easier to find Christians than do the hard work of reaching lost people. RB churches should see any practice that places most of its efforts into finding Christians who are already reformed as unbiblical. Instead, they should seek after real kingdom growth. This is not to say that existing Christians have no role to play in church planting, just that their role should be to

63

support the establishing of a church that will be the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world” (Matt 5:13-16). Any worthwhile change in this area must come from an application of the Great Commission and its corollary commands. This means that the church must see the multiplication and training of disciples to the glory of God as the mission of the church on earth. Strictly speaking, Jesus Christ gave His church a command to make disciples (Matt 28:18-20), and disobedience to this command must be displeasing to the head of the church. The 61.5 % of Churches that have not been involved at all or only a little (Figure 7) should examine the reasons why they have been unable or unwilling to participate and make a plan to address those reasons. RB’s should also begin by loving the lost people that are closest to them. The real work of Acts 1:8 (i.e. being a witness to Christ in Jerusalem, all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth) in our churches, as in the rest of that book, should begin in our own city and then work out in concentric circles to the ends of the earth. As American culture emerges into a more post-modern and post-Christian society, American churches should pay more attention to the methods and priorities of foreign missionaries. Eric Ramsey has said, “North America is the only continent in the world where the church is not growing” (quoted in Mohler, A., 2007). RB churches should examine the activities of their churches and missionaries serving overseas and be willing to change their methods as they work to see America as a mission field. RB’s should also make sure that their view of the sovereignty of God is not hindering obedient faith in the promised power of Christ (Matt 28:18-20) to fulfill the missionary mandate.

64

The changes that are called for are consistent with RB heritage. C. H. Spurgeon (1889) disparaged those who criticize other churches while remaining disconnected from evangelism: ...they maintain their churches by converts from other systems. I have even heard them say, 'Oh, yes, the Methodists and Revivalists are beating the hedges, but we shall catch many of the birds.' If I harboured such a mean thought I would be ashamed to express it. A system which cannot touch the outside world, but must leave arousing and converting work to others, whom it judges to be unsound, writes its own condemnation (p. 275). The Need To Be Deliberate In Church Planting Efforts. Another recommendation of this research is that each RB church should be making deliberate efforts to plant new churches. Each church should be self-supporting, self-governing, and self-duplicating (English, D., 2001, see also Nevius, J., 2003, p. 12). This means that it should be the prayerful and diligent goal of every congregation to give birth to not just one, but many churches. At present there are a few RB churches that are heavily involved in planting churches. Many other churches have not been involved at all (See Figure 7). Each local church should see itself as a sending agent to further the kingdom. RB’s should add this consideration into what it means to be a healthy, Biblical church. Each new church should be planted with this DNA and goal. Practically this means that the leaders of each congregation should avoid having a mindset that wants to “gather and keep” its people and resources to become a bigger and stronger body in any way that prevents sacrificial multiplication. Churches should be regularly praying and looking for opportunities to send away money, members, and ministers to further the gospel and see new churches planted. This also means that

65

existing congregations will need to live by faith that the Lord will provide for their needs when they make sacrifices. For instance, the desire to have a plurality of elders should not automatically preclude sending out qualified church planters. Churches should also consider setting benchmarks for financial involvement in church planting. Most RB churches are already giving generously to missions, and this is commendable. Those that are not should set goals so that a fixed amount of their offerings leave their church to advance the gospel. Finally, many RB churches are “regional” churches in which many of the members drive more than 30-60 minutes to worship. Church leaders should see groups of traveling families as core group members for their next church plant. They should make plans to begin outreach efforts and Bible studies in those neighborhoods. The church should publicly pray for the day when those families will be a part of a new mission work in their own local communities. This should be a priority for any church that has multiple families commuting from the same town, even if it means eventual sacrifice for the mother church. Need To Focus On Large Cities. RB’s should focus their church planting efforts on larger cities. At present there is a disproportion in this regard. Most RB churches are in small towns, and most RB church plants are in small towns. Strategically planting in larger cities is consistent with the example of the Apostle Paul who usually targeted cities like Ephesus, Phillipi, Athens, Corinth, and Thessalonica. These cities were usually large population centers that possessed access to commerce, government, and trade. Urban areas provide more access to multitudes of people, and more cultural diversity than small towns. According to the

66

United Nations Urban Population Fund (2008), by “2008, for the first time in history, more than half of the world’s population will be living in towns and cities,” and this number is expected to reach five billion by 2030 (para. 1). The population of the world is increasingly found in urban centers. Additionally, efforts should be made toward planting multiple churches in big cities, rather than resting content (for example) with a single RB church for a city of a million or more people. Additionally RB churches should focus their church planting efforts on the unreached people groups represented in America. Many of the ethnic groups of the world have large communities in major American cities. The Need To Cooperate In These Efforts. Finally, RB’s need to maintain and improve their cooperation between churches in order to carry out the mandate to multiply disciples and plant churches. The Biblical warrant for such cooperation is well known and already reflected in the documents of RB associations and churches. This recommendation is even more acute for many churches that are small and may not have the resources to plant on their own. Groups of churches in the same region should gather regularly for the purpose of praying, planning, and seeking God’s guidance for shared ventures. Churches should look for ways to diffuse the burden by adding together a number of small investments to get the job done. RB associations should consider setting aside personnel to coordinate domestic missions work. RB’s should look for ways to increase the cooperation in existing associations, and look for reasons why these existing organizations are not functioning at full capacity.

67

Hopefully, these issues can be resolved in a way that allows fellowship and cooperation among the churches. However, if disagreements over secondary issues cannot be resolved, there may also be the need for committed churches to forge new alliances for the express purpose of church planting. Churches and associations should also make a determined effort to make church planting the focus of their conferences and invite experienced church planters from overseas and outside organizations to speak at these venues. RB’s should recognize their limitations in the area of church planting as well. This research has demonstrated that there are only a few examples of committed churches in North America that are planting churches with a missionary focus. It may be that RB’s are simply following the examples that they have. Churches without experience should partner and support those who have already planted. The limited number of aggressive churches should also encourage RB’s to look outside of their own circles for help and partnership. In a lecture on “Whitefield and Catholicity,” Iain Murray suggests (2005) that the schism and division characteristic of 17th century British Christianity gave way to the 19th century missionary movement and its character of cooperation in large part because of George Whitefield’s willingness to work with Christians of many stripes to advance the gospel. Churches with this sense of humility will realize the wealth of teaching and experience in other ecclesiastical circles, both reformed and evangelical. Cooperation should focus on joint ventures in training and conferences. Seminaries and schools should give consideration to including modules on missiology and church planting, and give resources to recruiting planters. Additionally, churches

68

should be willing to adopt models that may be considered more “apostolic,” where a single gifted church planter or evangelist works with a number of smaller groups until they have their own leadership and an established congregation. RB missionaries use this approach commonly overseas (e.g. the Dominican Republic, Personal Correspondence Guzman, F. 2005). Finally, RB’s should not allow the fear of failure or attainment of success to slow these efforts. Churches should come together to discuss what they have learned from both of these outcomes, and begin making plans for the next church plant as soon as possible until the return of Christ. Maranatha!

4.3.2 Recommendations For Further Research. Undoubtedly this research is limited and has its flaws. In particular, this survey intended to evaluate efforts in the U.S. and Canada, but survey responses include limited information about Canadian RB churches or their efforts. Additionally, the research does not include information about the efforts of non-English speaking RB congregations. Additionally, more research is needed to provide complete information regarding all RB church planting efforts, including failed attempts. The table in Appendix C is fragmented and only provides partial information as provided by the respondents. Several other issues should be pursued by further research. What are the perceived reasons why RB churches have not been more involved? What is the difference between foreign and domestic missions efforts? Beside the evangelistic focus in church plants, what is the nature of evangelism and outreach in existing churches? Is growth in existing churches from conversions or simply transfer of membership from

69

other churches? How many church plants have been started and failed? What lessons can be learned from the successes and failures in RB Church planting? What are RB views on contextualization in gospel ministry? How does the practice of contextualization differ among RB’s outside of the U.S. and Canada? Which non-English speaking RB groups/churches are there in the US/Canada, and what is the nature and quantity of their involvement in church planting? In the area of cooperation further research is also needed. When associated RB churches have planted outside their Baptist associations, what have been their reasons for working outside of those organizations? What is the current level of commitment among training institutions for church planting? Finally, RB’s need to begin to publish their own literature in this area.

70

REFERENCES Acts 29 Network (2009). Proceedings of the Acts 29 Network San Diego Boot Camp. Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America-ARBCA (2001). ARBCA Constitution. Retrieved May 20th, 2009 from http://www.arbca.com/index.php/arbca-documents Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America-ARBCA (2001). Foreign Missions. Retrieved June 1st, 2009 from http://www.arbca.com/index.php/foreign-missions Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America-ARBCA (2007). Proceedings of the ARBCA Church Planting School. Bartlesville, OK. Appleton, J. (2008). Preparing to Plant: Calling, equipping and enabling church planters in Europe. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp Barnes, F (2009). When the Pastor Says It's 'A Time to Sow.' The Wall Street Journal (3.19.2009) Retreieved May 19, 2009 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123751393100191463.html Bevans, S., & Scherer, J. (1992, July). Mission statements: How they are developed and what they tell us. International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 16(3), 98. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Brown, S. (2007a). Becoming a Church Planting Church: Issues pastors address when leading a church to birth a network of new churches. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp Brown, S. (2007b). Creating Strategic Alliances And Partnerships For Planting New Churches. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp Butler, R. (2009). Largest Cities in North America. Retrieved May 16th, 2009 from http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/North_American_cities.htm Crouch, A. (2007, April 1). African Planter: Nairobi chapel castor Oscar Muriu on starting churches, mission trips, and working well across cultures. Leadership, Spring 2007, Retrieved November 1, 2008, from Christian Periodical Index database Davis, K. (2007). Ten Reasons for Church Planting. Sharper Iron. Retrieved on December 1, 2007 from http://www.sharperiron.org/2007/01/22/ten-reasons-for-church-planting Davis, S. (2008a). Contextualization: Theological and missiological necessity. Sharper Iron. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://sharperiron.org/2008/08/11/contextualizationtheological-and-missiological-necessity Davis, S. (2008b). Contextualization and Syncretism: Navigating a course. Sharper Iron. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://sharperiron.org/2008/08/25/contextualization-and-syncretismnavigating-a-course/ Davis, S. (ND). The Challenge of Missions in the Twenty-first Century. Retrieved September 4, 2008, from http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/perspectives.php/924?pg=all Driscoll, M. (2006). Confessions of a Reformission Rev: Hard Lessons from and Emerging Missional 71

Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan English, D. (2001). Paul's Secret - A First-Century Strategy for a 21st Century World. Retrieved on June 2, 2009 from http://www.globalopps.org/articles/index.htm Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals- FIRE (n.d.). FIRE Brochure. Retrieved May 20th, 2009 from http://www.firefellowship.org/resources.shtml Founders Ministries (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved May 20th, 2009 from http://www.founders.org/ info/about.html Foulke, B. (2003, November 2). New Churches, New strategies, New Harvests. Christian Standard, Nov 2, 2003, Retrieved November 1, 2008, from Christian Periodical Index database. Forsyth, R. (2004, January). Evangelism and Ministry: The '10 per cent mission' in the city of Sydney. Transformation (02653788), 21(1), 36-40. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Gray, S. (2007). Planting Fast Growing Churches. St. Charles: Church Smart Resources Griffin, R. W. (2008). Management (9th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Hadaway, C. (1990). The Impact Of New Church Development On Southern Baptist Growth. Review of Religious Research, 31(4), 370. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Hartford Institute for Religion Research (2006). What’s the Size of U.S. Churches? Retrieved on May 16, 2009 from http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html#sizecong Hesselgrave, D. J. (2000). Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: North America and beyond (2nd ed.) Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Hunt, J. (2006). Finding Church Planters: Discovering and discerning those God has called to start the next generation of churches. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp Hunter, T. (1986). “Association of Vineyard Churches Church Pathology Report.” Retrieved on November 7, 2008 from: http://www.sebts.edu/NACP/Resources/demographics/ Jackson, T. (2003). Urban Church Planting with Power. Christian Standard, Aug 24, 2003, Retrieved November 1, 2008, from Christian Periodical Index database. Johnson, T. (2008). Core Values for Church Planting. Retrieved on May 19, 2009 from http://www.ipcsav.org/article/core-values-for-church-planting/ Keller, T. (2001). The Missional Church. Retrieved from http://www.redeemer2.com. July 22nd, 2008. Keller, T. (2002a). Why Plant Churches. Retrieved from http://www.redeemer2.com. July 22nd, 2008. Keller, T. (2002b). Evangelistic Worship. Retrieved from http://www.redeemer2.com. July 22nd, 2008. Keller, T. (2002c). Christ and the City. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from http://theresurgence.com Keller, T., & Allen, J. A. (2002). Church Planter Manual. New York: Redeemer Church Planting

72

Center Keller, T. (2003). Advancing the Gospel into the 21st Century Parts I-IV: Retrieved July 22, 2008 from http://theresurgence.com Keller, T. (2004). Planting a Church in the City. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from http://theresurgence.com Keller, T. (2006). A New Kind Of Urban Christian: As the city goes, so goes the culture. (Christian Vision Project). Christianity Today, May 2006, Retrieved November 1, 2008, from Christian Periodical Index database. Leadership Network. (2007a). Church Planting Overview: State of church planting USA. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp Leadership Network. (2007b). Who Starts New Churches? State of Church Planting USA. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp Leadership Network. (2007c). Church Planting Typology Report Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp MacArthur, J. (1993). Ashamed of the Gospel: When the church becomes like the world. Wheaton: Crossway Books. Mahaney, C.J. (1999). Proceedings of the PDI Worship Conference ‘99: Cross Centered Worship. Gaithersburg, Maryland. Martin, R. (2005, July). Urban Mission. Expository Times, 116(10), 358-359. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Miller, C. J. (1986). Outgrowing the Ingrown Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Moore, R. (2002). Starting a New Church: The church planter’s guide to success. Ventura: Regal Books. Mohler, A. (2007). Church Planting Movements and the Great Commission. Retrieved May 19, 2099 from http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_print.php?id=1016 Murray, I (2005, May). George Whitfield and Catholicity. 9 Marks Ministries. Retrieved on October 10, 2007 from http://media.9marks.org/?s=whitefield Nevius, J. (2003). The Planting and Development of Missionary Churches. Reprint of 1886 edition. Hancock: Monadack Press Newman, R. (2004). Questioning Evangelism: Engaging people’s hearts the way Jesus did. Grand Rapids: Kregal Publications Newton, P. (2005, October 1). Musings On Church Planting. Founders Journal, Fall 2005, Retrieved November 1, 2008, from Christian Periodical Index database.

73

Newton, P. (2008). From Planting to Reforming. Provocations and Paintings, retrieved May 19,2009 from http://timmybrister.com/2008/06/27/nfc-x-phil-newton-on-from-planting-to-reforming/ Plummer, R. (2006) Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission: Did the Apostle Paul expect the early Christian communities to evangelize? Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers Raiter, M. (2005). Sent for This Purpose: 'Mission' and 'missiology' and their search for meaning. International Congregational Journal, 5(1), 11-25. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Reeves, S. (2007). A Layman’s Guide To Church Planting (Parts I-VII). Reformed Baptist Fellowship Retrieved May 19, 2009 from http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com Renihan, J. (1999) Church Planting and the London Baptist Confessions of Faith, Founder’s Journal Issue 37, 1999. Retrieved May 19, 2009 from http://www.founders.org/ journal/fj37/article1.html Ridley, C. (2007). “13 Essential Characteristics.” Retrieved November 5, 2008 from: http://www.churchplanting4me.org/ridleyfactors.htm Rohrmayer, G., & Kappas, G. (2002) “Twenty Five Questions for Planting Healthy Churches: A comprehensive workbook for church planters and their teams.” Retrieved on November 7, 2008 from: www.midwestbap.org/docs/TwentyFiveQuestions.pdf Ronsdale, S. & J. (2005). The State Of Church Giving Through 2005. Retrieved May 15, 2009 from: http://www.churchexecutive.com/article.asp?IndexID=1052 Searcy, N., & Kerrick, T. (2006). Launch: Starting a new church From scratch. Ventura: Regal Books. Self, B. (2007). Proceedings of the ARBCA School of Church Planting. Bartlesville, OK. Smith, G. (2007). Models for Raising up Church Planters: How churches become more effective through intentional leadership development. Retrieved November 6, 2008 on: http://ubahouston.org/100836.ihtml Southern California Association of Reformed Baptist Churches- SCARBC (n.d.) Constitution. Spurgeon, C. H. (1889) Lectures to My Students. New York: Robert Carter and Brothers Stafford, T. (2007a). Go and Plant Churches of All Peoples. Christianity Today, 51(9), 68-72. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Statistics Canada, (2001). 2001 Census: Population and Dwelling Counts. Retrieved June 2, 2009 from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/popdwell/Table-CMAN.cfm?T=1&SR=1&S=3&O=D Stetzer, E. (2006). Planting Missional Churches: Planting a church that’s Biblically sound and reaching people in culture. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group Stetzer, E. (2007a). Funding New Churches. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp 74

Stetzer, E. (2007b). Improving the Health and Survivability of New Churches. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp Stetzer, E. & Connor, P. (2007). “Church Plant Survivability and Health Study.” Retrieved on November 7, 2008 from: http://www.namb.net/ Tame, K. (2005). And Finally … Focusing on a Mission. Expository Times, 117(2), 88-88. Retrieved June 14, 2008, doi:10.1177/0014524605059919 Thomas, S., (2007). The Planters Ultimatum. Retrieved November 5, 2008 from: http://www.acts29network.org/acts-29-blog/the-planters-ultimatum/ Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. (2007, December). Missions. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Troupe, M. (2008). Why Don’t Reformed Baptists Plant More Churches? Unpublished paper, Azusa Pacific University. Union Baptist Association. (2007). Church Planting Manifesto. Retrieved on November 6, 2008 from: http://ubahouston.org/100836.ihtml United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (2008). Linking Population, Poverty and Development. Retreieved May 22, 2009 from http://www.unfpa.org/pds/urbanization.htm U.S. Census Bureau (2007). Cities and Towns: Places over 100,000: 2000 to 2007. Retrieved May 20, 2009 from http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2007.html Vokurka, R., & McDaniel, S. (2004). A Taxonomy Of Church Marketing Strategy Types. Review of Religious Research, 46(2), 132-149. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Walker, K. (2007). Ghost Growth: Baptist Report--Some 'Failed' Church Plants Never Existed. Christianity Today, Jan 2007, Retrieved November 1, 2008, from Christian Periodical Index database. Weisbord, M. (1976). Diagnosing Your Organization: A “Six-box” Learning Exercise. Manalapan: Flying Starship Enterprises. Williams, A. (2005). Church Multiplication Centers: Best practices from churches that do high-yield church planting. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/ resources_downloads.asp White, D., & Simas, C. (2008). An Empirical Investigation Of The Link Between Market Orientation And Church Performance. International Journal Of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing. 13(2), 153-165. Retrieved September 8, 2008, doi:10.1002/nvsm.314

75

APPENDIX A EMAIL INVITATION TO THE SURVEY February 23, 2009 Dear Friends, Thank you so much for all your support and prayers. Many of you have been praying for our efforts to plant a church in Fresno CA. Thank you so much for being fellow workers with us and with God for the glory of Christ. In addition to being a church planter I am also trying to learn as much as I can about this subject so that I can help promote the establishment of new congregations. I am currently completing a research project on church planting and I am doing a survey of churches in the U.S. and Canada to gain information on this subject. I have asked a number of pastors questions like "how many churches have been planted in the last 10 years?" and the first answer is usually something like, "I am not really sure," followed by a short list of a few church plants that they are familiar with. I would like to gather factual information that is inclusive of the efforts of RB's in the U.S. and Canada and information about the churches that are planting/being planted. Please take a few moments to complete this online survey. For most people it will take about 10 minutes and includes questions about your congregation and its involvement in church planting. This survey is intended to be taken one time per congregation, and a pastor/elder is probably the best candidate to take it. But if you are not sure, feel free to complete the survey. Please follow the link below to find the survey. I will be publishing the results in several months for anyone who wishes to have the information. I hope that this information will help us to serve Christ more effectively in the cause of domestic missions. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, Thanks! http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9nMAL2G42uwcFCa5nDB6dQ_3d_3d Matthew Troupe [email protected]

76

APPENDIX B TEXT OF THE ONLINE SURVEY INTRODUCTION TO THE SURVEY Thank you for taking the time to complete this brief survey. I am collecting this information as part of a research project in the completion of an undergraduate degree from Azusa Pacific University. Hopefully this information will help to provide factual information about the state of Reformed Baptist church planting, and provide suggestions that will help improve the successful planting of churches in the U.S. and Canada. I decided to do this research because I could not find answers to important questions like, "how many churches have Reformed Baptists planted in the last 10 years?" Please provide answers to all the questions, and in the case that you do not have exact figures at hand, please provide your best estimate. Several of you (pastors and seminary students) completed the pilot survey and assisted me with clearing up any problems with the questions. Thank you for your help. Feel free to complete this survey even if you already helped with the pilot survey. The goal is to have no more than one survey completed for each congregation. So please do not take the survey more than once. If you have any questions feel free to email me at the address below. The information is confidential and no personal information will be collected unless you choose to include it in your response. If you would like an email copy of the results of the research when it is complete please send me an email at: [email protected]. Additionally the research will be made available on the internet when it is completed (some time in May-June 2009). You can find more information on my blog as it becomes available: matttroupe.blogspot.com, Thanks, Pastor Matt Troupe Free Grace Church of Fresno SURVEY QUESTIONS 1. Does your church hold to or confess in any capacity the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith? Yes or No 2. What is your position at the church? 3. What year was your church founded? 77

4. Please describe how your congregation began (indicate all that apply): a. It was a reform of an existing church. b. It formed from a church split. c. It was a small group interested in a reformed expression of worship that gathered together to form a church. d. It was formed by the intentional efforts of a "mother" church in sending out a church planter. e. It was formed with the assistance of an existing RB church. f. Other 5. Approximately how many members does your church have? 6. What is the average attendance at your main worship service? 7. What is the size of the city where your congregation is located? 8. How has your congregation been involved in domestic (the U.S. and Canada) church planting in the last 10 years? Please briefly list things that you have done. Open responses 9. Has your church ever planted another church in North America (the U.S. or Canada)? 10. If your church has planted another church, how many of those have been in the last 10 years (since 1999)? 11. How has your church been able to cooperate with other churches in domestic church planting during the last 10 years? Select as many as apply. a. Our church has not worked with other churches. b. Prayer for church plants. c. Cooperating for training in church planting (such as a conference). d. Contributing to the general funds of an association or network that plants churches. e. Making specific contributions to an association or network to further church planting. f. Making contributions directly to support the planting of a new church. g. Having church officers serve in leadership positions for church planting organizations. h. Sending candidates to help plant new churches. i. Sending existing members to relocate in helping a church plant. j. Sending pastors/preachers to help conduct worship services during the start up phase. k. Sending members/teams to help with work projects (such as evangelism). l. Giving advice/counsel to church planters. m. Providing oversight/coaching to church planters. n. Other o. 12. Is your church the member of a Church/Baptist Association? Indicate all that apply. 13. If your church is a member of an association, what has the association done to promote domestic church planting? Indicate all that apply. 78

a. I don't know b. Offered training for church planters c. Offered/Provided funding for new churches d. Established a system for recruiting church planters e. Offered formal help in assessing church planter qualifications f. Provided coaching/accountability for church planters g. Set goals for church planting h. Other (please specify) 14. How involved has your congregation been in church planting? Please indicate your opinion. a. 1- Not really involved at all. b. 2- Involved a little. c. 3- Involved. d. 4- Very involved. e. 5- Highly involved. 15. What is your annual budget (approximately)? 16. To the best of your knowledge, what percentage of your annual budget is designated for missions (foreign or domestic)? Choose one. 17. How Many church officers do you have? 18. Please list all of the Reformed Baptist Churches that have been planted in the last 10 years that you are aware of. Please include any information that you have, including the location (city/state), date, and any contact info you may have to obtain further information.

79