My Heart for Struggling Church Planters

For several years, I helped a church planting organization assess and review the work of new church planters. In the course of meeting with them and their wives, I began to see a pattern emerge for most of them...

The church planter comes up with a great vision that rivals Bill Hybels’ Acts 2 church or Rick Warren’s baseball diamond. He’s got a great website, flow charts, demographic studies and even a facility picked out for when he starts holding services. The church exists perfectly in his mind before he ever steps foot in the community.

Six months later, he’s still optimistic, but he’s taken a few hits from early set-backs. Some potential core group members dropped out; he didn’t get as much funding as he wanted; the worship leader he recruited got another job… out of state.

By sheer optimism, the planter pushes on. It gives him great joy to set a launch date that will most certainly deliver him into the land of milk and honey: a truly effective church. All he wants to do is start meeting weekly, and people will come. He’s sure of it. The vision is too great...

He works up to the launch date by meeting with his core team. They’re clueless about church planting, but he assures them they’ve got the right leader. So he makes them all read Erwin McManus’ new book and learn to run sound equipment. They hand out water bottles with their logo on them at the grocery store and buy down people’s gas at the corner Exxon. Everyone they meet acts interested in the new church, which gives them cause for celebration, but there’s no telling whether they’ll show up on Sunday.

When the grand opening day finally arrives, the planter can’t believe how many friends and family members attend. He’ll have to disclose the number of “illegitimate guests” to his ministry friends later on, but for now, it creates the sort of excitement a first Sunday needs. There’s even a handful of first-time guests that seem to enjoy the service. As they’re leaving, they say they’re planning to come back, and the church planter’s got enough momentum to prepare the second service.

What no one tells the planter is that attendance almost always drops by 50 percent on the second Sunday. The friends and family members are gone. Only one or two guests come back. And the core group begins to slowly realize that the Sunday work-load comes every week.

After sitting through scores of church planter reviews, listening to these heart-sunken church planters try to sort it all out and watching their wives try to fight back tears, it became very clear to me that a community's need for a new church is not enough. There has to be a spiritual fertility in the community.

~~~~~~

Church planters rarely fail in the first year, and they rarely fail because of money. They hardly ever fail in the second or even the third year. Most church planters fail in year five when their churches have drifted into obscurity, when the luster has worn off, and no one is paying attention to them anymore.

By this time, the church planter is a mess. He’s defeated and discouraged, possibly depressed. And he’s formed all sorts of new conclusions about God that hinder his future walk with God. What’s worse is that the planter, for the life of him, cannot pinpoint what went wrong.

He blames himself - maybe he wasn’t cut out to be a pastor. He blames his circumstances – there simply wasn’t a good meeting location. He blames a bad decision – he shouldn’t have launched so soon. Or he blames the people – there was a deceiving family out to turn everyone against him.

But what he almost never sees is the need for cultivated soil. He showed up with a bag full of seeds to plant, but all he found were dirt clods. It never dawned him that he needed a hoe.

Comments

[Lara Morris]

I was slightly incolved in a situation back home that came to mind as I read this. Only the problem that this particular group experienced was a failure to understand the context they were in...It is hard to do ministry in downtown Chicago as if the people live in northern Michigan. Context, Context, Context.

[Derek]

Interesting post, but I'm not so sure it's our job to cultivate soil. Isn't that God's job alone? The parable of the sower comes to mind, in that our sole job as church planters are to spread seed, and then to cultivate the seedlings: those plants that do spring up, however few.

I think that many church planters, myself included, often place far too much emphasis on what we should be doing, or what we aren't doing, instead of focusing on what God is trying to do through us. We hit the streets with water bottles instead of hitting our knees with prayer beads...and I am way too guilty of this. We need to repent over this...and the thought that we can plant a church in our own strength.

[Pat Gillen]

The chances of becoming bi-polar have to be much higher for a church planter -- that is for sure! You have so many highs and lows.
Ben, I see your point here, but I also wonder about the parable of the sower. We throw the seeds around, but isn't it the job of the Holy Spirit to prepare hearts? The harvest is plentiful... but workers few? I definitely see part of our job in starting churches as 'changing the perceptions' of Christianity to our community - and we definitely have a hand in that cultivation with the Holy Spirit for sure... but I think the trick is finding a place to plant where the seeds have fallen on good soil...
In other places it may not be church planting time, but I would think bringing the hoe out 'way' predates starting a congregation.

[Ted]

Words of wisdom, my friend... I am passing this post on to some friends.

(BTW: on your blogroll you have Scott Hodge as being a pastor of a church Naperville, IL...it's actually Aurora, IL... :-) )

Again, great post!

[Ben Arment]

I completely disagree - cultivating soil is paramount to planting an effective new church. I've seen atheists come to Christ because of the relational groundwork laid in their lives.

Of course God saves people, but he USES YOU!

Why else would Paul say in 1 Cor 3:6, "Paul planted, Appollos watered..." If that's not cultivating soil, what is??!! Oy, I'm dying here...

For the metaphor of agriculture to work - and Jesus knew this - the WHOLE metaphor has to work, not just the part we like.

[Gary]

I understand what you are saying and I do believe it to be true....to an extent.

Where I disagree is that is not where church plants fail. I believe if it is the right guy he can do both.

I have to many thoughts on this so I am going to post a longer response on my blog later today.

Good stuff from you the last few days.

[Tally Wilgis]

Ben I'm with ya. You may however be trying to explain water to fish...

Our generation has a hard time appreciating all of the cultivation that has gone before. We have to be careful to avoid believing our work is done in a vacuum.

The reality is that the folks who disagree with you live in the previously cultivated south. You on the other hand experienced church planting in spiritually dry and pluralistic, independent and highly educated Washington D.C.

A fish doesn't understand the value of water until you toss them on the shore.

[Tally Wilgis]

BTW... Gary's reply hit right before I sent mine. I wasn't replying to anything he said.

[Susan]

You need to write a book my friend. Great post today!

[Gary]

Really Tally? If DC is so hard how do you explain guys there that are doing great works and seeing growth like National Community and McLean Bible?

Are those areas harder? Probably so but there are still guys there doing great works. I think we like to bring up the "some areas are harder" to explain away their lack of growth and the fact that they probably weren't called there in the first place.

I can name that for every area. I met a guy the other day talking about how hard and impossible it is to plant in Miami and I don't doubt for a second that it is hard there but that hasn't stopped Bob Franquiz and Travis Johnson from planting great churches there.

If God is in it, if the RIGHT guy is there, any church plant can be successful no matter the place.

BTW, when I use the term "success" I mean a whole lot more than numbers. I think Ben's church plant was a success. it reached people, has helped other churches be planted, and he was able to leave it to someone else so no one think I am attacking Ben when I make my comments.

[shannon]

good stuff. . . . but how do you know if There is spiritual fertility in the community?

[Jesse Phillips]

Ben, I think you should explain or a do post on working the ground - I don't think you and Gary fundamentally disagree. Give us some examples.

In another vein, I think this shows that we're not meant to do Church like this, like a small business enterprise. I think tons of unpaid people have great teaching and speaking gifts. The bible talks about how it gifts all of us for our edification.

Therefore, I think we're severely limiting God's work to just meet on Sunday and have one guy deliver his prepared sermon for us and call that Church. Not to mention the pressure that guy and the team feel to make money.

I think this is evidence that we should be meeting in free venues (homes? starbucks? parks?) and have unpaid leaders who speak, train, facilitate discussion, etc. In a way with much less pressure, worry about numbers, and in a way which is infinitely more reproducible.

[Ben Arment]

Cultivated soil is my way of saying that God had paved the way for a church to be started... that hearts had been prepared.

NCC will be the first to tell you that there was an existent core group that asked Mark to plant the church. That was cultivated soil.

This is not a "we had it tougher than you" debate.

It's about helping planters take the pressure off themselves to start growing churches in places that initially need some missionary activity.

At RCC, I spent 4 of my 7 years there just cultivating relationships and building a core group. Now it's a thriving church plant.

[Tally Wilgis]

Gary,

When we talk about an area like D.C. or Miami we are talking about millions of people. You're absolutely right to say that we can see pockets of healthy and vibrant churches... no doubt. And I agree that the formula you suggest is necessary. I'm simply suggesting that even in those areas much is to be done.

Bob and Travis are great examples. They've both been at it a while.

BTW: My understanding is that Travis replanted his church from the work his father had been doing in the area for years. It's a perfect example of the benefit to cultivation. There is nothing wrong with admitting that many success stories aren't our own... but rather we're standing on the shoulders of those who have done the hard work before.

People have come before us and tilled the ground. Most of us don't even know their names. It's just a fact in our country that much of that hasn't happened in our cities (especially up north).

Look at the number of Christians and Christian Churches [per capita] in any major city in the north vs. any town/city in the south.

In the SBC (our tribe). You know where our seminaries are located. Where are the vast majority of those students from? It's not a knock at all.... just a fact.

You can take the same approach with race. The SBC has a lot of work to do regarding race. There is soil that needs cultivated among that community before we should expect to see great fruit.

To me this is a pretty basic fact.

Another more clear example is Utah. Christianity for a large part had for a long time ignored Utah. It's simply not a hotbed for Christianity. It needs cultivated. Over the years as more Christians go... we'll see more fruit.

I guess I can't see how it doesn't make sense. Do I agree with the ingredients you suggest? Absolutely... I simply propose that we not ignore the ingredient of cultivation.

--- BTW Gary ---
I'm trying to get a hold of you for SOMETHING ELSE. If you want to yell at me on the phone... I'd be honored. I left my number on your blog's contact page. :)

[Gary]

Ben, I have to disagree with you on it is not a debate of who had it tougher.

From the way you are writing that is exactly what you are saying. You are saying guys who have seen success have it easier while giving excuses to guys who don't make it.

The reason these guys don't make it is not because the ground it tougher, it is because most aren't called in the first place, started their church for the wrong reasons, or are clueless on how to reach unchurched people.

Just admit that I am right and you are wrong and I will quit posting :)

[Ben Arment]

Gary, we'll respectfully disagree on this then. =) I know far too many guys who meet all of these qualifications and still struggle.

But I really appreciate your push-back and conversation.

It sounds like you've been accused of having it easy before, which I'm sure has stung. But I assure you my purpose has more to do with encouraging struggling planters than making comparisons.

[Ted]

Well said Ben...

[Gary]

It's cool. When we meet for lunch I am just going to punch you in the face and we'll call it good. :)

[Kevin Bussey]

Ben,

I would have to agree with Gary. Here is why. I was the struggling church planter that met in the same theater he is meeting in now. I just messed up. I didn't take into account the type of people in Canton. When I read Gary's blog--he is Canton. He fits in. We did not and I take the blame for that. I tried to bring in Alpharetta/Cumming where I had moved from. I allowed other people to steal the vision instead of being bullheaded. I'm grateful for what God is doing through Revolution today. I might not have been so thankful 3 months after we left but I am now.

I can relate to all of the feelings you mention in your post. I'm looking forward to Catalyst this year.

[steve carr]

I've been enjoying Ben's posts on this subject because I agree with his assessment of the situation.

We're three years into our church plant in an urban, highly unchurched area of Cincinnati. It has been a struggle at every turn and we still have not amassed the numbers that make people think we're viable. Fortunately, we didn't use a big-bang model and have been able to persevere nicely. I would say that we are still tilling the soil and will continue to do so for years to come.

Before planting this church, I was an associate pastor at a burgeoning megachurch in the suburbs of the same city. While their ministry model is pot-pourri they continue to grow because of the area they're located in.

I honestly believe that the context of the plant plays a more critical role than the planter. As more planters get bold, realizing that there are highly unchurched areas that need to be reached, they assume that the same church planting principles apply in every context. But gas giveaways, community concerts, and free water bottles just won't work everywhere. Eventually, what Ben describes as occurring comes to pass and the church closes its doors.

This is not to say that guys in certain contexts have it "easier;" there are always different difficulties in any church situation. But I would offer that the reason I don't have to fight off other church planters for space in our community is because our context is a tough nut to crack and they'd prefer to find success in the 'burbs.

[Ben Arment]

Kevin, I didn't think like a Restonite until I had been there 4 years. We course corrected numerous times to fit the culture, and eventually, some ground had been cultivated. Sorry to hear about that experience... I have a compassionate heart for guys like you.

[shannon]

can I ask the same question twice? I'll rephrase: What are the indicators of spiritual fertility in a community?

[matt]

love these posts...and this discussion. i'm with ben on this one. sitting in the seat of leading the church that he started, i can really see the fruit of ground that he cultivated here. i can also see that there is much stony ground still to work.

i fully believe in the Holy Spirit doing the work, but God uses us for different purposes. our success will be found in our obedience to the kind of agricultural work that he puts before us.

[Pat Gillen]

I too would like Shannon's question answer. Honestly, I think this may be a semantics issue. Your comments brought up the whole 'sower' thing to me.. which is not at all what you intended.

Also, Gary I'll bring my camera and we'll put that punch on youtube. Catalyst ticket sales will skyrocket.

[Nick Blevins]

Sometimes plants fail because of what Ben mentioned, sometimes because of what Gary mentioned, sometimes both, and sometimes neither. I would definitely agree that church planting is harder in some places than others, and in general you can map that by geographic region.

I believe I remember Andy Stanley saying North Point did a survey and one question they asked was how often people went to church before attending North Point. He said that in the south people will say they go to church more than they do, because they want to appear "good". In the Northeast they would fear being "crazy" and wouldn't lie about their lack of church involvement. It's just the opposite.

[Derek]

I'm agreeing with Gary here, mainly because I think he's agreeing with Scripture. God doesn't tell us to bring a hoe. All of our work is accomplished after the groundwork is laid by God through circumstances and culture. As far as it being "easier" to plant a Gospel-centered church in the south versus the north: I disagree. It may be easier to bring people to a church, sure. But I've always wondered how many churches here in the New South are just people gathering on Sunday because it's their culture. We're trying to fight that at our church...fighting the over-normalcy of church is one of the hardest things to do, right up there with establishing the normalcy to begin with in the Northern part of the US. Having been in both places and experienced both cultures, the obstacles are daunting in both the south and the north.

It's our own terms of success (numbers, giving, attendance, percentage in small groups, etc) that define if a place is "easier" to plant or not. But in Scripture, it's all God's grace that defines success: some harvest grow up thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and a hundredfold (Mark 4:8). Note that these different "yieldings" are on the SAME soil: the good soil.

Everytime we see the cultivation of the soil playing a part, it's God's doing, not a 'previous church planter'.

For instance, in Acts 17, the church there is established because of Paul's use of the idol (previously established by God), Paul's use of literature (established through Aratus and Epimenides by God), Paul's relationships with the influential (God brought those people to the marketplace), and Paul's being there in the first place (waiting on the brothers). All of the cultivation that prepared the way for the church plant (which took place in a day, by the way) was done by God. Paul merely spread the seed, the Word of God. The soil just happened to be ready.

Gary hit the nail on the head on this next point. When we think that we cultivate the soil as church planters, we are able take credit for successes (because we cultivated, planted, watered, fed, raked, pruned and harvested), and we can shift blame to our predecessors (the ground wasn't ready when we started planting). We, like the sower in the parable, are only called to spread seed: the Gospel of Christ.

My two cents. Great discussion.

[Ben Arment]

Derek, your comments aren't based on my original idea, but rather Gary's misunderstanding of my argument (I never brought up the south). So I'm ending the discussion here before we veer too far off course.

That said, I completely and thoroughly disagree with you because you fail to see relational work as that of spiritual cultivation. Yet you credit "circumstances and culture" for spiritual preparedness? Hmmm...

It's clear we look at evangelism differently, and we have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of salvation. From there, we part ways, but thanks for writing my friend.