Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
By
Matthew Troupe
Copyright July 2009, all rights reserved
BSOL Cohort #3
By Matthew Troupe
Title: The State of Reformed Baptist Church Planting in North American Vision
Comments: _____________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Signed:
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT v
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
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
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
vi
CHAPTER 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM
This research intends to explore best practices in successful church planting and apply
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
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.
they have two offices, elder and deacon. The pastor/elder functions in a role as a
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
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
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
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
2
that RB churches expend far more effort into planting churches in foreign countries than
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
together and seeking help from an existing church to help organize a new congregation.
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
their mission and purpose statements alongside a number of other core purposes. This
up with the operational reality in the churches? Formal diagnosis centers around the
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”
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
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
structure and function will not be arranged to optimize efforts and resources for this end.
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).
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
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
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.
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
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
One of the operating assumptions of this project is that domestic church planting is a
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.
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.
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
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
purposes.
8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
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
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
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
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
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
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”
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.48-
51).
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
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
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,”
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
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
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
proposes a model (later dubbed the “Nevius Method”) for the “Planting and Development
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
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).
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
Tim Keller (2004), who has helped to plant over 100 churches in New York City,
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
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
“outdated” traditionalism, many of these authors may be unwittingly promoting the same
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
Other conservative Bible scholars like Dr. Stephen M. Davis (2008a) argue that
(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
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.
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
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:
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
(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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Global Outreach, Growing Healthy Churches Network, and Acts 29 Network to name a
25
few. “Leadership Network (2007b) research reveals that reproduction is accomplished
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
• 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
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
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).
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
more prominent than church planting typology. That is to say, there is greater emphasis
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
characteristics among failed churches. The top three factors on this list are:
28
The Vineyard Study concludes with a “top ten weighted characteristics” for a
successful church planter (p. 13). Stetzer (2007b) summarizes an important conclusion
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,
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
Implications
This research presents a number of clear questions that will be used to guide
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
30
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH STRATEGY AND DATA COLLECTION PLAN
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The survey approach has several strengths. First, using an online survey
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
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
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
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
creation, sharing, and utilization of resources in order to increase the number of churches
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
personal email. Since there is no clear database for this information, it will be helpful to
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
39
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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
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
Email invitations to complete the survey were sent out directly through the weekly
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
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.
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,
attendance at the main worship service is only less than 60 for 42.5 % of churches,
Respondents.
42
FIGURE 3 ASSOCIATIONAL TIES OF RESPONDENTS
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 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
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
45
FIGURE 6 SIZES OF THE CITIES WHERE RB CHURCHES ARE LOCATED
very involved, or highly involved. Alternately, this means that 34.6% consider
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
ministry from their church. Finally, a number of churches reported that they have not yet
been involved.
47
Average Percentage of Budget Toward Missions
Median 10-12%
Mode 10-12%
Standard Deviation 8.7%
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
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
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
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, 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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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. 81.4% 48
Cooperating for training in church planting (such as a
conference). 22.0% 13
Contributing to the general funds of an association or
network that plants churches. 40.7% 24
Making specific contributions to an association or
network to further church planting. 23.7% 14
Making contributions directly to support the planting of a
new church. 50.8% 30
Having church officers serve in leadership positions for
church planting organizations. 6.8% 4
Sending candidates to help plant new churches. 10.2% 6
Sending existing members to relocate in helping a church
plant. 10.2% 6
Sending pastors/preachers to help conduct worship
services during the start up phase. 25.4% 15
Sending members/teams to help with work projects (such
as evangelism). 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
4.2 CONCLUSIONS
55
Church Planting Involvement.
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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).
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
Al Mohler (2009) offers a warning to the growing church planting movement: “This
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
However, some examples of the literature that is available add weight to the idea that this
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
…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 Christ-
centered 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
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.
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
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”
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
Locations.
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.
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
Spanish ministry that they hope will become a church plant, and another mentioned
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
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.
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
RB’s need to see the present practice of church planting as a means of gathering
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
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:
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
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,
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
planting multiple churches in big cities, rather than resting content (for example) with a
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
church planting efforts, including failed attempts. The table in Appendix C is fragmented
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
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
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
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
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/contextualization-
theological-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-syncretism-
navigating-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-CMA-
N.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
76
APPENDIX B
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: metroupe@gmail.com. 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