On Church Planting versus Church Reforming
Nine Marks Ministries has recently launched a new group blog called "Church Matters." Not surprisingly, it has been a very active blog in the three weeks or so that it has been up and running. I have particularly enjoyed a recent discussion that took place at Church Matters concerning whether it is better to plant new churches or attempt to reform existing churches. See the posts here, here, here, here, here, and here.
I am torn on this question. On the one hand, I am a huge fan of church planting and have several good friends who are planting churches in various places. Furthermore, I teach at Southeastern Seminary, where we put a great deal of emphasis on North American church planting. I have heard Dr. Akin remark on a number of occasions that his advice to seminarians is to plant churches where there are few rather than pastor existing congregations, especially close to the area where you grew up. So I greatly appreciate church planting, particularly in areas that are in great need of a gospel witness like New England and the Pacific Northwest (see Greg Gilbert's post, which is the final link above).
On the other hand, as an historian I appreciate churches with longstanding traditions of gospel faithfulness, even if some of those churches have strayed from that heritage in recent days. The church I am a member of was an absolute mess as recently as 15 years ago, and it took two different pastors and several explosive business meetings to get the church to the place it is today. We are now a gospel-driven, Great Commission congregation. If the lay leadership of our church, circa 1988, had succeeded in making their agenda normative, we could have become a gospel-denying, leftist social justice outpost. So I have a great appreciation for reforming local churches according to God's Word.
What think ye? As you formulate your response, try not to equate "reform" with Calvinism. Though Nine Marks is committed to Calvinism, I understand many (perhaps most) of our readers would not consider themselves "five point" Calvinists. So in regard to planting versus reforming, consider the latter to represent whatever you believe constitutes proper church order and a biblical approach to gospel ministry. Unless of course your convictions look a lot like Nine Marks, in which case it is perfectly acceptable to equate "church reform" with "Reformed church!"
I will take the middle road and claim that God is calling men to both plant new churches as well as reform established churches.
While most of the passion is for church planting, there is a huge need for church reformation. The only other option is the slow, painful death of a local bride of Christ. Surely, this cannot be pleasing to the Father. Reformation is a necessity.
Reforming a traditional, congregationally governed, steeped in tradition, program driven church is an art form. It requires a special skill set that can both appreciate and love the saints that built the church while leading them in a new direction. Not many pastors have the patience and thick skin required for such a task. Furthermore, there is not always a good chance of success; in fact, the odds are in favor of failure.
But, if we don’t find a way to fight this fight, we will see 20 to 30 THOUSAND churches close their doors in the next 20 years (my estimate with no statistical proof). This will spell a major problem for the funding of the IMB.
Todd Pylant
Three years into our church planting endeavor I certainly see both the need for church planting in areas with no gospel churches and the advantages of church reform.
The CMR report on church plant survivability reveals many of the problems with NAMB church planting methods. The drastic increase in mortality rates post years 3-4 (the point at which NAMB funding dries up at precisely the point that church plant is starting to crawl, but cannot yet feed itself) leads one to wonder if much of the church planting methods is not more about producing impressive numbers than lasting churches.
In my analysis, if a church exists that can be reformed, then that church is more likely to be alive and on the right track ten years down the road than a church plant birthed at the same point.
Brad Guenther
I would say that I am definitely in favor of both. There is at the same time need for older, dying churches to revive and new works to be planted. I think that's something we can see in the NT. I am currently in a church reform situation, pastoring an older church in need of new directions. I agree with Todd that it is very challenging, but there is a need.
Jon
I am discouraged about the future of the typical church- like the one I pastor. We seem to be stuck in a longing for the 1950's to return. When we pray for revival, it is as though we are asking God to restore 'church' to the place it had in post WWII culture- when mom stayed at home, dad went to work, family lived nearby; school, family, church, and neighborhood were the priorities in most families lives.
Today, single parent families, the majority of children being born to single parents, the failure of the educational system, the scattering of family ( one writer-I think it is Ruby Payne, suggests that children no longer can draw family tress, but must rather draw family bushes- mom, biological faither, current dad/boyfriend, current dad/boyfriend's children from his previous relationships, biological parent's parents, who are more than likely divorced and remarried…mom's siblings who are more than likely involved in similar relationshis…), and the devolution of common culture, all create an environment that is not being touched by our current structures of ministry.
What hope is there? (I';m not ready to quit-I'm just weary of the battle)!
Steve