What is the goal of church planting?

It might seem like a rather obvious kind of question to ask: surely the point is to build a new local congregation in an area where there wasn't one?!! But as I think of it, that can't really be the goal because it would seem to imply that any old congregation would do. As long as people are gathered together in 'church' that is enough.... though there is much sin, heresy and unbelief! It's helpful to see this because it clarifies what we are really about in church planting: we are about the glory of God. We want to see the worth and wonder of God displayed to the local area through the congregation. What does this mean? It means that gathering people (i.e. the growth of the congregation) is no really a true indication of whether the goal is being reached. Yet, how often are church plants are assessed on that issue?! The real question is whether the gathering is glorifying to God. Do we have a congregation that is mature and holy and pure? Do we have people who honour God in their attitudes to Him? Do we suffer with joy? Now, of course, people are 'allowed' to mature and many have to hear the gospel many times before they trust in Christ. But, the big point is that the success of a church plant can only be assessed by the spiritual fruit it produces in the lives of new people, and not simply by the presence of new people. Thus, numerical growth might, at times, be a bad thing and it may well be good for a congregation to diminish in numbers so that Christ will be honoured. For people in big congregations this is much easier to practice. But believe me, when your congregation is small and you're desperate for it to grow there is a very subtle pressure to compromise on this. You just want to show that something's happening where you're working!!! Those of us trying to pioneer new work need to learn to bite the bullet on this and trust God for His church. We want real spiritual growth and not artificial growth through numbers.

Church planting and surfing

It struck me about 6 months ago that church planting is a bit like surfing. The big thing with surfing (I imagine!) is that you can't control the waves. The size and frequency of the waves are created by things outside of your control. In the same way, there are many things you can't control in church planting and many challenges/opportunities you have no responsibility for and which you can take no blame/credit for. Your are dependent upon the waves God sends you. On the other hand, when the waves do come in surfing you have to get up on your board and surf. They don't magically flip you up and balance you on the board. In the same way, in church planting you have to grasp hold of the things God gives you. You have to do the best you can to get up on the board and 'surf'. You can't just sit back and think things will 'magically' happen. God calls us to act - and His sovereignty works itself through our acting.

A simple analogy, I know, but this has really helped a number of times. When I look at my ministry it:

1. humbles me (when I think I've made things myself) because every 'wave' is in God's hands
2. comforts me (when I feel 'nothing is happening') because I can patiently wait for God to send a 'wave'
3. challenges me (when I become apathetic and lazy) because I need to 'get up on my board' and do the best I can to stay on.

Evangelistic Inspiration

Watch this video from "Way of the Master" (an evangelistic outreach group). A very cool inspiration to evangelism.

What's my ministry perspective?

I caught myself about 18 months ago while I was thinking about the work I'm involved. I suddenly realized that my perspective upon church planting was amazingly small and self-centred: I only thought in terms of 5-10 years. I was focused on what I achieved and what God did through me. Immediately I was struck by a strange thought. How about if I took a 100 year perspective?!! Let me commend the benefits....

If I think in terms of a 100 years everything changes. I might fail to really grow a church but the next guy will improve upon it, and then the guy after him. My failure does not mean the failure to impact the culture.... I'm just too short-sighted.Thus I can persevere in something because I don't have to 'win' now. Someone else down the line can 'win' by building on what seemed small and pathetic now. Ultimately, I can be patient with slow change in a community because taken over a 100 years it might be part of very Big Change. The real goal is not my life-span, my ministry and my success but God's glory - if I'm thinking 100 years ahead it gets my mind off myself to the true goal of history: Jesus Christ and His repute. How liberating this is! I recommend that every ministry have a 100 year plan.

A crazy church planting idea

Can I make a rather absurd and ridiculous suggestion? How about if conservative evangelicals stop planting any more churches in the suburbs or with middle class congregations? How about if we say that for the next 5 years we will ONLY plant churches in the inner cities and on council estates?

Now, of course, someone might ask why I would make such a suggestion. The answer is this: we are already so overwhelmingly white, culturally conservative, middle class and highly student/graduate-focused that if we don't do something soon we will become incapable of reaching our nation (which is mainly not this, and certainly not in London). To reverse both the trend of church culture and to develop pastors/evangelists from different backgrounds we will have to do something pretty radical. We will have to do the uncomfortable, sacrificial and potentially very slow work of reaching people WHO ARE NOT LIKE US. I suspect that if we did something as foolish and silly as this we would find ourselves in the midst of tremendous spiritual renewal as we encounter the gospel afresh and as God pours out His blessing upon us. What are we waiting for?

A Crazy Idea

I had dinner with some American pastors the other week and they were telling me how they had started up businesses to help fund their churches. I think they were mainly internet businesses. It was really interesting to hear how they were using the money from the businesses to run their ministries. Now, that struck me as brilliant entrepreneurial spirit. We might murmur about how that's a distraction and how we need to focus on the right things - all the while we're strapped for money to do new stuff. So why not? I got thinking about how we might start up a business where profits might be turned back into church planting in inner city areas. Anyone out there with business acumen who knows how that might be done?

Being word-centred and church planting

It's obvious that church planting has to be Word-centred if it is to do any good. Without the Word we're just starting up a new religious club where we share our thoughts and insights - really our own words instead of God's Word. And how on earth are any lives going to be transformed without the Word from the Lord God? How am I gonna have any power without it? In a big, word-centred church this might sound a bit like a truism and would really be taken for granted. But one of the biggest encouragements to me in trying to plant a church is the Parable of the Soils (Sower). There you can see that the impact of the Word - and its rejection. You can see how something very small, weak, even pathetic-looking like the 'seed' has the power of life in it. There are many other much more impressive things in the world, but you won't get life if you plant them. Nothing will result unless you plant the one thing that brings life - the seed of the Word. In fact, it doesn't just give life, but it multiplies itself beyond all expectation. Whole harvests and forests result from one seed. And the fact that the seed is rejected does not undermine its power. The resultant harvest is much bigger than the rejected seed. It is good to know this when you meet apathy and rejection. The Word is the power of God to plant a church.

Missional community

Do mission weeks and evangelistic events work? Well, I don't mean to say they don't, but I can't help feeling that they are increasingly ineffective in the culture we live in. We tend to pour in a lot of energy and resources into them but actually see very little fruit in terms of real conversions. I think they are decreasingly effective for several reasons.

1. Such approaches seem to work better in a culture of Christendom where much of the basic Christian worldview is still present and 'decisions' become easier. Our culture is not like that any more.

2. They tend to implicitly compartmentalize gospel communication (even though we don't want to) to a certain parts of a calendar.

3. They tend to focus explaining the gospel in doctrinal, systematic ways only.

4. They abstract gospel witness from community life and relationships.

5. Gospel communication becomes an event rather than an ongoing witness.

6. The vast majority of people need a long time to become Christians and so they will need to have much more significant contact than simply a mission week.


In contrast to this approach is the idea of church as 'missional community'. This means:

1. Gospel communication to outsiders/insiders is a part of everything you do and every gathering. We are always addressing the issues of our culture and objections of our culture - they are often our hidden issues as well. The gospel is not just seen as systematic doctrines to be believed but a hermeneutic that shapes all teaching and activity.

2. This communication is grounded in community life, so that people are invited to see the community in action and relationships in action. This means that the quality of our community life is actually a key apologetic and context for the gospel. We don't therefore just need to invite people to events but simply invite them into what the community is doing together. Hospitality is something the whole church does as a body. The goal if for gospel communication to occur at every point and in every context - both formally and informally.

Why we don't want big churches

Ah, yes, I thought I'd stick my nose into this controversial topic. The statement may seem rather stupid because, after all, don't we want churches to be REALLY big? Well, of course, we want there to be lots of Christians. But this does not mean big churches, for it can also mean lots of Christians in lots of churches. Let me give some reasons why I think big churches are a bad idea.

1. They obscure mission. Large churches give a feeling of success and size and 'we are many' and therefore do not engender a thirst for mission. If you sit in a church of a thousand you feel like there are loads of Christians in London, if you sit in a church of 30 you feel like there are loads of people to be reached for the gospel. Small churches remind us constantly that 97% of our nation are not evangelical Christians. It's harder to feel that in a large church.

2. They undermine mission strategy. Large churches develop strong Christian subcultures which are difficult to penetrate, and which insulate Christians from the 'world'. They hinder communication with our culture and are more likely to be overly self-confident in their proclamation.

3. They are less evangelistically successful. The percentage number of unbelievers in a large church is much less than in a new church plant. Large churches draw Christians by attraction and transference. Small church plants can't do that and so don't. Instead they have to 'make do' with unbelievers.

What do you think?

Homogeneous churches?

I thought I would venture a post on this most controversial of topics. It is, obviously, highly relevant given the fact that so many people are thinking about church planting these days. As an initial point, I guess we have to be clear about the difference between "natural" and "prescriptive" homogeneity in a congregation. "Natural" homogeneity (NH) means, here, the fact that any community tends to attract certain kinds of people and develops a certain kind of ethos depending upon the leader, music, preaching, location etc. This arises naturally and probably gradually but is not an overt philosophy of ministry. It is not intentional. "Prescriptive" homogeneity (PH) means, though, a designed and intended strategy leading to a mono-cultural congregation. The justification for this is the need to better evangelize and disciple certain groups of people. It follows on from an approach that assumes 'target groups' - in a way not dissimilar to marketing strategies.

Now, I fully agree that the gospel needs contextualization and culture needs to be taken very seriously in mission, but these are my problems with PH:
1. It's in great danger of generating spiritual apartheid. It will simply reproduce existing social distinctions in churches. Isn't it actually a point that the gospel generates counter-cultural communitites that overcome these distinctions? PH has a strong tendency, therefore, to cultural conservatism and thus worldliness.
2. PH sees the witness of cultural relevance to be more important than the witness of a diverse community united by the gospel. It has a very weak ecclesiology and fails to see that a unified, loving community is our greatest evangelistic tool.
3. PH is in danger of distorting the gospel in that the meaning and implications of the gospel can only be fleshed out in community. If that community is monocultural there is a greater danger that it confuses its own values/approach with that of the gospel. Christians from backgrounds different from me teach me something more about Christ.
4. PH, though it seems evangelistically-motivated, will ironically quash a missionary spirit. Certain groups will be reached but others won't. Churches trapped in one culture will often only 'see' their own group. Further, they will be poor at training up people to relate to the Other!

Postmodern culture Pt 2

More thoughts on contemporary postmodern culture....

12. Spirituality is important, though remains undefined. Spirituality must not require commitment. Want experiences. usefulness of eastern religions, though superficial engagement with them.

13. Globalization – freedom to travel, immigrants, aspirations to see world, feel small

14, Media and information culture. Increased access to information via internet, but also information overload from massive number of sources. Lots of advertising, lots of ideas. "What can I do about it?" Massively literate culture.Visual, stories/values connected to that. Massive influence on people’s thinking. Speed. Image more important. Truth unclear. Emphasis on surface, appearance.

15. Experience – emphasis upon experiential confirmation. Feelings are key. We want to be moved. Aesthetics are very important i.e. beauty is truth. Importance of art, poetry, story. Reaction to the scientific – seen as cold, remote and not solving humanity's problems.

16. Socially mobile – old differences not so marked, though new differences emerging in relation to urban poor and socially disenfranchised.

17. Consumer culture – choice is key. Self-realization through buying. Lifestyle, identity connected to things. Leads to a culture of debt – debt is big issue. View myself as customer who can make demands. If not like sth else can go somewhere else.

18. Emphasis on the now, present – present is an ever shorter period of time. Fashions, vogues pass very quickly. Ideas need to be manufactured.

19. Strong pragmatic bent – relevance is key to everything! Listen and do things not cos of tradition or cos think should, but cos seems relevant. Truth is demonstrated pragmatically.

20. Scepticism about language – language has no real meaning in and of itself and can easily be a mask to hide the truth. Words are superficial, they must be demonstrated in action.

Postmodern culture Pt 1

I thought I'd jot down some thoughts on characteristics of postmodern culture. I'm trying not to be too evaluative.

1. Emphasis upon identity, self-worth. Life is project. I need to realize and fulfil myself in constant new ways as there is no one way to realize myself. Live for free time – hobbies, experiences.

2. Image – appearance, clothes, body = expression of who I am.

3. Change – fragmented identity and discontinuity in who I am. I live out a number of constantly changing roles/contexts. Highly mobile i.e. moving from one job to another, from one geographical location to another. Left unsure about how to live. No real sense of a link or common thread in who I am.
Relationships short-term, ever-changing.

4. Friendships. They are more important and self-defining than family.

5. Personal sense of freedom is the greatest good - even if I have to sacrifice other freedoms to get it. Choice and the power to make own decisions is crucial. I decide how I want to live. Develop my own identity through my choices (one of major objections to God is that He denies my freedom, crushes me. He's despotic. Or the church will control me, judge me).

6. Scepticism to absolutes. Open-mindedness is key. Rebelliousness and distrust of established authorities. Suspicion with regard to power relationships, dislike of ecclesiastical control(at times verging on paranoia). Dislike of 'them.' Pessimism about grand narratives – politics not do anything. Cynicism. Concern with the local, immediate. People open to new stories. Leads to fragmentation – lack of coherence in my own stories or understanding of what I believe.

7. Nihilism with a smile e.g. The Simpsons. Irony is everything, we mustn't take ourselves too seriously. Playful. Dislike of cliches.

8. Unsure about goodness, morality. There is though an unself-conscious new morality based on freedom to choose. Values that are particularly valued: self-irony, humility about own assertions, empathy, love, respect for others, tolerance, openness.

9. Sexual liberation is obvious. No real boundaries for sex apart from non-consent from other and abuse.

10. A desire for relationships. Want romance, love that lasts... though paradoxically no-one wants to commit. Deep contradictory attitude to relationships. Tendency towards narcissism. High level of individualism though also wanting community.

11. Pressures of modern life – demanding jobs, children, less time, expectation of being good employee, parent etc. Demands to care for world – environment. 'Compassion fatigue'.

Some more are coming soon....!

What is a missional church?

I've had a growing awareness, for a while, that our evangelism reaches, for the most part, only a semi-churched/religious segment of the population. This is basically because the culture of church, the way we preach and the questions we raise do not adequately connect with the culture, idolatries and worldview of a post-Christian, post-Christendom society. I can't help feeling that our evangelism is often like a hand-grenade lobbed into an enemy bunker which the enemy left a long time ago. The segment that we are reaching is shrinking all the time, while there are huge swathes of people completely unengaged with church or the gospel. As a result, our culture is becoming increasingly removed from the gospel and the Christian worldview.

The idea of being missional is really about trying to be more radical in the way we engage with our culture in proclaiming Christ. It says that something more profound must happen to church if we are to reach the world. Now, it's easier to critique than it is to give an answer, and I confess that I'm really finding my way forward here. But I want to share some thoughts about what it might mean to be missional:

1. We address the culture's felt needs, stories, questions and preoccupations properly with the gospel. And we take their objections to the gospel seriously.
2. We use normal, everyday language and concepts.
3. We make everything we do (i.e. every service) an opportunity for unbelievers to come in and understand. So, there is an 'evangelistic authenticity' about everything that we do.
4. We see that the gospel is always relevant to believers and unbelievers.
5. We do not make 'Christian assumptions' in church and preaching.
6. We train Christians to live out their faith in every area of their life i.e. work, culture etc. We show how Christ is Lord of the whole of life.
7. We seek to develop a counter-culture (i.e. we have social/community ethics about racism, justice, power etc), and not just Bible studies and 'Christian meetings'.
8. We are humble i.e. repent of derogatory, arrogant ways of referring to non-Christians and the non-Christian culture.
9. We don't define ourselves primarily in relation to other churches/groups, but in relation to 'the world.'
10. We engage in concrete acts of love/service to our community.

Missional character

I've always been very intrigued by Jesus's words from the Sermon on the Mount, " Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." I take Jesus to mean what he says, which means here that our actions/behaviour cause the world to turn to God and praise Him. Now, I guess we would normally say that it is very important that Christians live holy lives that validate the preaching of the gospel. Yet, it seems here that it is the actions themselves that cause the faith/praising in others. The actions themselves are a form of preaching.

Now, what kind of actions are these? It would seem to me they must be actions that are so unusual, so unique, so different, that onlookers must say as a result "wow, this can only be explained by there being a God and this God working among them." This is not just Christians being nice and good. This behaviour must be beyoned ordinary, natural explanation - otherwise unbelievers would not be convicted into praising God. This is unnatural virtue - or supernatural virtue.

What might this be? Well, we find out in the Sermon on the Mount itself. It is love for enemies. It is real forgiveness. It is the courage to take a slap and be mistreated for love. It is the life of the beatitudes and of mercy. These things cannot be explained in any ordinary kind of a way. There is something unworldly about them. This is not natural virtue found simply because we're made in the image of God. It is behaviour that has a gospel shape to it. It reveals extraordinary grace to a world that lives by works righteousness. It is so extraordinary that it preaches the reality of God and the gospel. It causes people to praise God for my life!

I am in no way saying we do not need cogent, clear, powerful preaching of the word, nor am I saying our lives are a replacement for preaching the word, but it would seem to me that we also need cogent, clear, powerful preaching of Christ's grace through our character. And it also seems that we should not underestimate the power of our character to preach the grace and mercy of God. Of course, that will happen only when we demonstrate extraordinary character shaped by extraordinary grace.

Missional Preaching

Some thoughts about how normal, weekly preaching might win people to Christ.

1. Preaching needs to see an unbelieving world with all its objections and questions as its context, and not just the 'church'. We need to preach 'as if the whole unbelieving society was sat there listening to us'.

2. We need apologetics to be integrated in preaching i.e. taking objections to various elements of a sermon seriously and dealing with them in the sermon.

3. We need to be regularly dealing with the range of objections people have to Christianity.

4. We need to deconstruct the (post) modern world and show how its thought systems, attitudes etc do not work and are incoherent.

5. We need to show how people's longings and stories are truly met only in the gospel.

6. We need to listen very well to our culture before we speak. We need to understand who we are talking to and what their thinking is.

7. We need to show how the gospel defies people's assumptions - and so be counter-intuitive in our approach to people.

Planting a church in an ugly city

There is a huge difference between what we see as beautiful, and what God sees as beautiful. That is why so few evangelicals are seriously willing to reach the inner cities (i.e. live and work there). And until we get that straight in our heads we will never reach the inner cities for Christ.

"God is far more concerned with a crowded bus queue than a glowing sunset, a noisy market-place than a starry galaxy, a towering tenement than a snow-capped mountain, a bustlling city than a sequestered retreat. God is far more concerned with people than with anything else He has created..... We tend to associate the presence and the power of God with the glory of the heavens and the beauty of the countryside. But God's highest creation is more in evidence in the bustling din of a city rush-hour than in the relaxing peace of a rural landscape.... God is more concerned about 'people' than about 'places', and more concerned about re-creating beauty of character than merely admiring beauty of nature." (Roy Joslin, Urban Harvest)

What will change our hearts? Look at Jesus....

"When Jesus Christ came down to earth form heaven He 'moved' from a 'very desirable residential area' to live in a 'very undesirable residential area'....He lived in a neighbourhood which had gained a bad reputation: 'Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?'" (Roy Joslin, Urban Harvest)

He made this incredible move for me. When I see that then moving into the inner city and seeking to reach people there for the Lord Jesus will not seem like a sacrifice. I will be able to do it with joy - for I am a restless sojourner in this world. I am looking for a beautiful home, not here, but in glory with Jesus.

Great Resources

Here are some great written papers by Tim Keller on church planting and general church life.

Here are samples of free talks by Tim Keller on various topics. I think it's great stuff from one of the best preachers I know of.