Large churches are indispensable to church planting

FSSL

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
532
Points
113
Location
Gulf Shores, Alabama
Thank God for providing us with large churches! Seriously. Large churches have the resources (people/finances) to provide support for church plants.

If you don't have a large church, you usually end up having a group of smaller churches working together to start other churches. Unfortunately, those groups end up losing focus within a decade. They may establish one or two churches, but typically (not always), they get bogged down in the politics.

Large churches have an advantage...
1) The mission / philosophical direction has already been established. Politics are diminished.
2) They can "lose" a few families to the new church plant without sacrificing important resources of the mothering church.
3) Finances. A large church has more finances. Advertising/Marketing budgets out to include a large portion to outreach. What a better way to outreach but to replicate in a different location?!

Big potential, and unfortunately all too common, problem with this approach... a large church can be led by a large personality. Those personalities can be so large, that there is not a church PLANT but a church SATELLITE. These large personalities who establish satellites have not built a sound, mature congregation from which to provide a solid, mature leader.
 
In our state, the state fellowship, made up of mostly small churches, band together and have started many churches.  They provide funds, supplies and even no-interest long-term loans.
 
In the SBC, we've been doing church planting for decades.  Churches of all sizes cooperating together to help build the Kingdom. There are many good methods to do church starts, we are not in competition, we are working together.
 
T-Bone said:
In the SBC, we've been doing church planting for decades.  Churches of all sizes cooperating together to help build the Kingdom. There are many good methods to do church starts, we are not in competition, we are working together.
Click to expand...

Compromiser!  :mad:
















;)
 
Many churches these days are in survival mode, not expansion mode.
 
I agree with the OP's premis.
Large churches, who plant churches 'on their own' are more effective and more successful in planting churches. By successful, I mean the churches they plant tend to survive at a much greater rate than churches planted 'by committee'...although there's nothing wrong with either method.

For two decades I served on the board of a church planting co-op. And we helped to plant many, many churches. However, in my experience, a single church can be much, much, much more effective in planting and nurturing church plan

 
From a church planter's perspective, he would want to be accountable to only one church/pastor.

I am not saying that the association/cooperative approach is wrong. I think the singular mother church concept is less prone to problems.
 
FSSL said:
Thank God for providing us with large churches! Seriously. Large churches have the resources (people/finances) to provide support for church plants.

If you don't have a large church, you usually end up having a group of smaller churches working together to start other churches. Unfortunately, those groups end up losing focus within a decade. They may establish one or two churches, but typically (not always), they get bogged down in the politics.

Large churches have an advantage...
1) The mission / philosophical direction has already been established. Politics are diminished.
2) They can "lose" a few families to the new church plant without sacrificing important resources of the mothering church.
3) Finances. A large church has more finances. Advertising/Marketing budgets out to include a large portion to outreach. What a better way to outreach but to replicate in a different location?!

Big potential, and unfortunately all too common, problem with this approach... a large church can be led by a large personality. Those personalities can be so large, that there is not a church PLANT but a church SATELLITE. These large personalities who establish satellites have not built a sound, mature congregation from which to provide a solid, mature leader.
Click to expand...

You need to define terms.  What is a "large" church? over 50? over 100?  over 300? over 500? over 1,000?


Moreover, seriously large churches have their own issues; it is SO easy to get into the mindset that "we are big because we are doing something right than no one else is doing" instead of the simple "God has blessed us".  Such churches want to remain big and focus on building themselves up; young people coming up dream of being "on staff" -- they are seldom challenged to go out and start a new work.

Clearly, a church can be too small to plant a new church; even if only one family is leaving, if they are a key family, and the church church is too small, the church may not be able to recover.  The resources may also be an issue, of course.
 
I look at it this way, the most successful church plants I have been involved in (and witnessed) had 5 strong families with various skill sets (finances/teaching/outreach).

A church, I know, was running 300. They sacrificed way too much in letting 5 families go. Sure, they were ultimately successful, but it took years for that mothering church to rebound. I doubt another plant would come from it.

So, the idea is "large" or "mega." The number is determined by gauging the mother church's fiscal and ministry soundness to make that sacrifice. I cannot give you a specific number--this is a case by case issue.
 
FSSL said:
I look at it this way, the most successful church plants I have been involved in (and witnessed) had 5 strong families with various skill sets (finances/teaching/outreach).

A church, I know, was running 300. They sacrificed way too much in letting 5 families go. Sure, they were ultimately successful, but it took years for that mothering church to rebound. I doubt another plant would come from it.

So, the idea is "large" or "mega." The number is determined by gauging the mother church's fiscal and ministry soundness to make that sacrifice. I cannot give you a specific number--this is a case by case issue.
Click to expand...

But a church running 300, instead of losing 5 families, could lose one man to be a pioneer and send no one with him.  That's very hard work, but it has been done successfully.
 
Sure. You can do it that way. I have seen it happen and have helped a family in that situation.

Expect that to take about a decade for a viably strong self-supporting church... IF you have a very gifted individual.
 
Binaca Chugger said:
...said the apostle Paul never.
Click to expand...

Paul had the built in advantage of starting with mature men who knew the Bible and already had an allegiance to Jehovah. Say what you will, by beginning in the synagogues he was leagues ahead from the get go. Church planters who take years to replicate what Paul did in weeks must needs remember that.
 
Our working vision/plan is based on the number 800+ (cue for the scorners who hate "numbers").

With a regular attendance of 800+ in a (new building with a 1000 butt capacity) we would be at our 80/20 carrying capacity as well as have the critical mass to send out a selected, trained, motivated planting team, without gutting the mothering church. It would also leave enough resources "back home" to provide financial and volunteer (when reasonably close) assistance to the church plant.

As the church plant is growing into a self sustained congregation the home church is rebuilding back to the 800+ level. At that point the process is done again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

We are around 300 and growing.
 
FSSL said:
From a church planter's perspective, he would want to be accountable to only one church/pastor.

I am not saying that the association/cooperative approach is wrong. I think the singular mother church concept is less prone to problems.
Click to expand...

Usually, the co-op method has a centralized accountability point, and I agree with you that this method is certainly working.

If a larger church plants the new ministry, the new church has a much better chance of becoming a self supporting church, in my opinion and my experience.
I think the difference is in the proven methods used in the plant....the church DNA that is used to birth the new church. I think that multi-site moving to an autonomous church is THE most effective way to plant.
 
Binaca Chugger said:
...said the apostle Paul never.
Click to expand...

That comparison to today's culture is hardly apples to apples.
Paul began the church and appointed a Pastor.
Again, I can only speak from my experience, but 'handing off' pastoral leadership in a church of any size is tenuous. I'm sure it would go more smoothly today if the church was founded by an Apostle!  :)
 
FSSL said:
Sure. You can do it that way. I have seen it happen and have helped a family in that situation.

Expect that to take about a decade for a viably strong self-supporting church... IF you have a very gifted individual.
Click to expand...

My only point was that you don't HAVE to be a large church to plant a church.

I'm sure it is easier when a church of 800 can send a pastor off with some families that live in that new area to start a work.

But I've also seen successful works where a man goes out as a pioneer with only his family, and starts a church in a new area.  As he plants the seed and waters, God sends him families.
 
Walt said:
My only point was that you don't HAVE to be a large church to plant a church.
Click to expand...

We agree. Perhaps the title gives that impression.
 
The Home Church model works well for church planting as well.

After a few months, if your new members start to get on your nerves, you can send them home to start their own church. Once a month you can drop by and check on them but otherwise they're on their own.

No finances needed, a few months training & they're good to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top