|
Strategies for |
1. Definition and Theory
a) In this method, the leadership, teachers, and workers of the home church are divided as evenly as possible, hopefully along existing lines of influence in the home church. For instance, if you have two couples leading together, each couple takes their disciples and related friends, groups, ministry houses, and guests, and adds new leadership as needed before parting ways.
b) This model promotes equality between the groups in terms of experience. The conventional model seems to also offer a sense of continuity to the people in that they have some of the same leaders to look to, and usually they have their friends with them as well. The results have, so far, been good. To date, the conventional model remains the most successful model in use.
2. Preparation
a) Unless they are careful, the home church leaders could suffer major disruption of their long-standing relationships when planting this way. After working together with a team for years, separating from them could be difficult for some leaders. In-depth relationships and spiritual community support are just as important for leaders as for non-leaders. Further, while suffering for the sake of the gospel is reasonable and biblical, we don't want leaders to become aversive to further church planting attempts, or to lose effectiveness because of depression.
To avoid such hazards, leaders in a conventional church plant should plan ahead carefully. The leaders need to build deeply into relationships with others (usually their disciples) who will accompany them in the new church, because they won't have their former fellow-leaders with them any more. If we build ministry spheres, and whole cell groups are sent out together, people should already have good relationships in the new group.
(1) Normally, both sides would recognize new home church leaders only when they are ready to plant (although they would have been "sitting in" leaders' meetings for some time). Both new teams should already be looking forward to possible future planting plans.
(2) We prefer to delay recognizing new Home church leaders until time for the plant in order to keep the focus on home church planting. Exceptions would include spouses, where one spouse is a leader and the other is not, or a clear need for more home church leaders in the current home church.
3. Transition
a) After the leaders decide how they will plant the group, go over your plans with the rest of the home church members to make sure they agree to go to the side you envision for them. In the case of those not in a cell group, you may need to discuss their options one-on-one. Be sure everyone decides which side they will attend before the actual plant to avoid a lopsided division or "church-tasting." A taste-test approach could amount to a popularity contest, which would be unedifying.
We think people should be taught that an important basis for deciding where to go is where they can be used by God the most--that is, where they are needed. Other criteria could include relational history and ministry investment. Remember, however, we can't replicate churches and at the same time stay with everything and everyone with whom we have invested. In cases where ministry spheres are clearly defined everyone will know where they belong and little needs to be said. Normally, the church plant should be known to all for months in advance, if not a year or more. But we should never try to compel people to go to a particular home church against their will.
1. Definition
a. In the Mission Church model, the leaders of the original home church stay together, while sending out an all-new leadership team with their own home church.
b. In theory this model has much to commend it, because the new leaders get the opportunity to take the next step in ministry maturity-- taking responsibility for their own home church. This is an opportunity and a challenge that sometimes results in unexpected progress in the lives of the new leaders. This experience sometimes bears out the theory that some people won't learn to swim until the water gets too deep for wading.
On the other hand, be sure the new leaders actually have the ministry power to do the job. To date, the mission model has been problematic, resulting in a somewhat higher proportion of failures, so try to be sure the new leaders are ready. Your home group sphere leader and the elders must agree that your mission church is sufficiently experienced and trained to make success plausible.Also, the new church should plan on remaining in a mentoring relationship with the parent church for a period of months (3 to 6 months or more is typical). The parent church, in consultation with their oversight leaders, should decide when they are no longer needed. One method for insuring adequate supervision is to alternate between separate home church leaders meetings and joint home church leaders' meetings for a period of time after the plant. Finally, if the mission church looks shakey, sphere leaders may call on the planting church to "warrant" the new plant. If it later fails, the sending church would be obligated to receive them back, so planting a failing church is a major waste of time and effort.
2. Preparation
a. The size of the mission church should be adequate. In most cases, this means the actual attendance at the new church (rather than the list of members) should usually be in the upper teens or higher if a student or singles' group, and over twelve if middle-aged. In general, small churches are vulnerable to demoralization during times when a proportion of their membership are missing for vacations etc. or some members are lost. People may feel like the extremely small size of the group signals failure, and may lose confidence. Let the mission group have the larger numbers. The experienced side is far less likely to fail, and therefore can be smaller.
An exception to this would be cases where ad-hoc Bible studies have been started by members in the sending church, and growth has justified planting them off as a new home church. Such groups may be quite small.
b. The new (mission) leaders should already have their own cell groups before the planting attempt occurs, and the people in those cells should have demonstrated real life-changing growth before the planting attempt. This is the best proof of readiness on the part of the new leaders. Be sure each cell group has "top-end" and "low-end" potential (i.e. potential future leaders, and potential outreach to new people).
c. Try to build a "church within a church," in the sense that all of the functions of home church life and growth are evident within the sphere of the new leaders before the planting attempt. In this way the leadership can determine that the new leaders are sufficiently mature and experienced in Christian work to succeed in their own home church. Also, the new home church will already have a structural and relational basis for carrying on its ministry with a minimum of disruption.
3. Leaders' Meeting Experience.
a. The new leadership should have been sitting in on leader's meetings for at least a period of months learning how to lead a home church, how to think about ministry, and how to relate to other leaders.
b. In addition, try having the new team meet with each other separate from the old leaders periodically. This enables them to get used to taking initiative and working with each other without help. They should evaluate their own ministry sphere, and determine what action to take in various ministry situations. Then, they can report to the old leaders on their conclusions. This should provide an opportunity for a fairly realistic look at the ministry dynamic in the mission church before actually taking the risk involved in planting.
When the new leaders report on their ministry decisions they should also explain their thinking. In cases where judgment is involved, encourage the new leaders to implement their own decisions, and note the outcome. The older leaders should only overrule the new leaders' judgment in cases where they see clear evidence that serious damage might result. Until we can trust the ministry judgment of the new leaders, we can't really have confidence in their ability to lead a new church.
Note: These measures are also good for conventional home churches
4. Teacher/Discussion Leader Preparation.
a. At least two good teachers must have been raised up among the new Mission Church leaders. Here again, we see the need for planning. These teachers should have taught several times each in the Parent home church with consistency before planting.
5. Building Composition
a. Adequate evangelistic and discipleship potential must be sent out with the new leaders. Their sphere of ministry should show ability to attract and win new people, and to counsel, teach, and disciple the old.
b. Potential upcoming leaders should be present in both churches. The ideal is to have potential leaders present in each cell. These should be known and agreed on by all.
c. The new home church should also take some fringe people, but should not be saddled with too many problem people. The assumption is that the parent home church leaders will be able to rebuild even after suffering heavy personnel loss. Normally, the formation and respecting of ministry spheres will automatically lead to these results
1. Definition and Theory
a. In some cases, you can cooperate with another home church to produce a new home church. This is the so-called "Three for Two" planting attempt. This is to be distinguished from a reorganization, which may involve more than one church, but does not result in an actual gain in numbers of home churches. We have also seen 4 for 3 or 5 for 4 arrangements, especially when opening up a new geographical area or special field (age group, special affinities, etc.).
b. In most situations, a "three for two" planting attempt is the result of an inequity in growth, either at the upper, or lower end. In other words, a home church may have grown in terms of numbers without having raised up adequate leadership (excessive low-end growth) or has developed leaders without having grown very much in numbers (excessive high-end growth). Both of these situations are problematic.
I) In the case of the "low-end only" church, why has the church increased in numbers but not in leaders? Has there been an activistic focus that might result in a superficial understanding of community and maturity (i.e. evangelism is the only thing that matters)? If so, such a group needs to grow up into the fullness of Christ, and build real depth, or they will always need to depend on others to supply their leadership. The leadership, in consultation with their supervision, need to determine whether it might be better to wait in a no-growth situation, using the crowding as incentive to complete the work of discipleship.
ii) In the case of the "top-end only" church, a different question arises. Namely, if the leaders are so mature and numerous, why is no one interested in listening to their message? Are there moral or ideological problems (such as an unbalanced tribalism or search theology) which will make them ill-suited to lead a group of new Christians? Is their concept of maturity limited to a "Bible club" mentality? Generally, if a home church needs more members, the first place to seek them is in the world, not from another church!
These are the painful questions that have to be asked and resolved in the case of a "three for two" church planting arrangement. In cases where they can be resolved, the "three for two" model has proven to be a successful model, answering many of the needs for sharing resources. Upper level leaders, like the elders, Pastoral, Student Ministries, or Adult Ministries staffers should get involved in making this judgment.2. Procedure
a. The elders or other overseers should be approached first with a proposal, or with a request for help. The home church leaders must demonstrate 1) real need or opportunity, 2) that the people they propose to send include good workers and members, and 3) that only a reasonable number of marginally involved people are being sent to join the new group.
b. Your sphere leader will undertake a search for a suitable home church before that home church's leaders are approached. This is to prevent friction between home churches as well as wasted time. It is not our policy to have home churches canvassing the fellowship for "three for two" arrangements, as this would waste much time, and cause unnecessary stress on the part of home church leaders. Besides, one home church is rarely in a position to assess what is happening in another, still less the overall needs of the fellowship.
c. If the supervisory staff find a possible home church partner, the initiating home church leaders or sphere leader should approach the other home church leaders only in confidential discussion. They should carefully avoid the appearance of applying pressure to the other leaders by agitating the members of the other home church. If the proposed partner church is interested, negotiations can begin.
d. The elders or supervisory staff should be informed of the outcome of the negotiations. When everyone agrees, the workers and members of the home churches should be approached. All who join the planting attempt must agree freely to go. Leaders should avoid compelling or pressuring people to go on the planting attempt. We may plead and persuade, but not pressure.
e. Before the plant, make sure the people from both sides who will be in the new group meet with each other socially and in other ways, so the first meeting of the new church is not the first time they meet each other. Try to build community before going out.
V. Deciding on A Church Plant
1. Who makes the decision about which model to follow?
Factors to consider include:a.
b.
VI. New Home Church Leadership Composition
1. Personality/temperament mix-
2. Types of composition to avoid.
a. The all-passive leadership.
b. The all-aggressive leadership.
3. Other factors that need to be checked for balance are:
a. Subjective vs. objective leaders.
b. Male vs. female strength.
d. Tribal vs. diffuse
e. Low-end vs. high end ministry
Note: Many of these factors will automatically be balanced if the aggressive-passive balance is present.
4. Timing--
5. Temperamental Balance not to be understood as preference.
VII. Time Needed to Plant a Church
a.
b.
VIII. Other Considerations
1. Consider the time of year.
2. Your sphere leaders should be informed of your planting plans.
3. New leaders must have character requirements.
4. We prefer to bring spouses together into leadership.
IX. Execution
Your objective is to move from one meeting to two meetings in a way that is edifying and motivating. With adequate preparation, you can usually avoid any of the likely problems, and make planting a time of high excitement and vision.
1. Lack of understanding-
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
3. Disturbing supportive relationships.
a. If clear you have built ministry spheres, this problem should be at a minimum.
i)
ii)
iii)
4. Unfamiliarity with the new meeting place and/or the suddenly small home church meetings.
5. Sluggish outreach.
d. Harvest Meeting
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
6. Recognizing the new leaders
X. Failure in Church Planting
Regardless of how much we prepare, home church planting always contains the risk of failure. This is a reasonable risk, and if you handle it in a godly way, failure will do little or no harm.
1. Attitudes
a.
b.
c.
d.
2. Recovery
a.
b.
i) The sending home group-
ii) In most situations, the leaders will need to step down from leadership.
iii) In some cases, leadership may recommend recombination or dispersal of the home church.
Conclusion
The multiplication of home churches poses a mortal threat to the kingdom of Satan. No one knows this better than the enemy himself. Yet, in spite of the most vicious counterattacks, the church should be able to continue to advance if careful planning and sound theory animate their actions.