This is a guest post from David Fitch. David is a friend of Gravity Leadership, a church planter, and the B. R. Lindner Chair of Evangelical Theology at Northern Seminary in Chicago, Illinois.
We also partnered with David and Northern in 2017 to offer a training program in this new way of church planting called Church Planting Institute. If that’s interesting to you, contact us to find out when it will be offered in the future.
Here’s an idea whose time has come: Let’s stop funding traditional church plants.
Instead, let’s fund missionaries to inhabit contexts all across the new mission fields of North America. It’s easy, simple, saves money, and I think it could seed the mission of God in North America for generations to come.
Traditional funding for church plants
Traditionally denominations have funded church plants. They do this by providing:
- A full time salary plus benefits for three years for the church planter,
- Start-up funds for equipment, building rental, etc. to a well-assessed church planter (basically an entrepreneur).
The goal is a self-sustaining church in three years, which means the church pays its own pastor’s salary and assorted costs of running the church’s services internally from tithes and offerings.
But the costs of planting a church this way are astounding. Denominations can invest up to $400,000 or more to get a church plant going (and many of them fail!).
Funding church plants like this is insane
Today, in the changing environments of North American post-Christendom, this approach to church planting is insane, for a number of reasons. Here are three off the top of my head:
- It puts enormous pressure on the church planter to secure already well-heeled Christians as bodies for the seats on Sunday morning.
- It assumes an already “Christianized” population to draw on (who are just looking for a cooler church)
- Because of these reasons, it ends up undercutting the ability of the new congregation to engage the hurting, lost peoples God is bringing to Himself in Christ (because it’s always something “we’ll get to” when we get more established).
Funding church plants post-WWII
So why do denominations do this? Well, this approach “worked” for years. After World War II in North America, denominations were either:
- Feeding off disenchanted Protestant mainline Christians or dormant Roman Catholic Christians who were seeking a more vibrant faith, or
- Planting their “brand” in the ever-expanding suburbs where there were no churches yet, and thousands of young (mainly white) Christians were moving there looking for a certain brand of church.
In either case, a young man (it was normally a man) with preaching and organizational skills could get a church rolling in three years, no problem.
Funding church plants for seekers
A second wave of church planting began in the 1980s with the rise of “seeker-sensitive” churches. These new church plants focused on making church “relevant” to baby boomers who had wandered away from faith.
Hundreds of megachurches were planted. These churches fed off the boomers who had been brought up in church, knew the basic story of the gospel, but had left. These megachurches also picked up lots of dormant ex-Catholics and Lutherans looking for a new kind of church, as well as, surprisingly, a large number of younger Christians who were leaving their staid traditional Bible churches.
Funding church plants in the “old way” was doable in this form of church planting as well. It just required a pastor who had high entrepreneurial skills and organizational talent.
A new way of funding church plants
Times have changed, however. The “market” of these various “Christianized” populations is shrinking and almost completely saturated in North America. We live in a society that is more and more “post-Christendom,” and sometimes outright non-Christian, outside the orbit of the regular church.
North America has become a mission field. I contend therefore we should NOT be funding church plants in the “traditional” way. We should be funding missionaries. Here’s my proposal:
1. Many instead of one
Instead of funding one entrepreneurial pastor/preacher/entrepreneur to go in and organize a center for Christian goods and services, let us fund three or four leaders (or leader couples) to go in as a team to an under-churched context.
(Most often these places are the not rich, all-white suburbs where evangelicals have done well planting churches, by the way.)
2. Bivo from the get-go
Expect these leaders to be bivocational from the beginning. Fund these leaders for two years instead of three, and fund them only with health insurance (in the US) and a reasonable stipend for housing.
This gives them space to get a job on the ground floor of a company, at the bottom of the pay scale, learning a skill, proving themselves. They can be free to do this because they have health insurance and housing taken care of.
3. Extend the “self-sustaining” expectation
The goal here is NOT to have self-sustaining church organization in three years. It is to have three to four bivocational leaders/couples working together that can offer 15 hours of labor each week to work together to organize and form a gospel expression in their context.
They will be “self-sustaining” in that they all have jobs, so they’re maintaining a common life together, but the new expectation is that they will be committed to this context/neighborhood for ten years.
The results of funding church plants this way
These leaders will then have time and space to:
- Get to know their context by listening to their neighbors and neighborhood,
- Establish rhythms of life together (worship, prayer, community, discipleship and presence among the neighbors),
- Discern God working in and among the neighbors and neighborhood,
- Bring the gospel to these places wherever God is working (reconciliation, peace, forgiveness, healing, righteousness, and new creation, and
- Develop a way of bringing those coming into faith in Christ into a way of growth and discipleship.
I believe that if you put three or more quality leaders together in one place for ten years you will have a vibrant new expression of the gospel (i.e. a church) in each context. Gospel as a way of life will take root. Many will brought into the Kingdom.
Imagine what could happen if we funded hundreds of such teams!
Is this impossible, though?
Many will say this is impossible. “Where would you find such leaders?” “Who would sacrifice for such a thing?”
Here’s my response:
- More and more young seminary graduates cannot stomach the thought of doing either a traditional church plant or going on staff in a traditional church. They are prime candidates for a new way of ministry engagement.
- Such students can make more money eventually (give it two years) by going this route, have a skill they can use for their entire lives, and learn how to be flexible and mobile in the market place. This makes it the opposite of hardship!
I agree this is impossible under the current grids of professional ministry. But this just means that seminary graduates need to be coached into seeing ministry in a new way. They need to see marketable skills as an asset. Skills such as reading critically, appropriating, writing, speaking and presenting in front of people, resolving conflict, etc.
They can do this because the service industries (and everybody else, it seems) are clamoring for such skilled persons. The employers just need to get to know these bright young people.
What are your ideas?
So there it is! A message to all denominations, churches, organizations that want to plant churches: stop funding church plants! Instead, fund missionaries.
We’d love to hear from you on this topic!
- What questions do you have about this?
- What are the hurdles to overcome if this is going to work?
- Where are people already doing this?
Leave a comment below and join the conversation!
I find myself a non orthodox church planter in that I am a woman 50+, of indian origin and living among wealthy neighbors in a very white city and state. I have lived in this state for only 2 1/2 years, trying to get to know the culture and people. When I moved here it was for a job. After the job fell through, God led me to plant. Not something I had intended. Therefore, I did not come here with 2 other couples intending to plant. It is a non-denominational church plant so I do not have funding behind me. So far, the funding has been from our own tithes. As a woman, I cannot skip my responsibilities of taking care of the things at home, cooking etc. In a sense, as a home-maker- pastor, I am bivocational. My context is the rich, all white demographic that I never envisioned. Nonetheless, they are needy. They have pain, hurt, broken homes and marriages. It is a very difficult mission-field to permeate because they do not think they need God. I am not sure how to permeate the hard shell they have wrapped around themselves. They perception is that they do not need anything or anyone, especially not Church. A very unusual context for someone like me. A pastor in town pointed this out to me – that I am a brown middle aged woman in a very white and male dominated context. How does one proceed? God has to intervene and break through barriers. My prayer is that God will give me creativity as I figure out what it takes to have a successful church plant in my context without much in the way of help.
Thanks for commenting, Vanu. You certainly have an interesting situation! Listening to your neighborhood is one of the first steps, I’m sure – and as you listen, look for God’s grace at work. Then gather energy and resources in that space to proclaim the gospel, and see what happens (which means, look for more grace!). Blessings on your journey!
Love the post! My cousin farms Christmas Trees which is very different than growing corn. Both require soil, cultivating, planting seed, water, sunlight and both yield an annual harvest. The difference between the two is time, about seven years in fact. Today’s Church Planters need to think and act more like tree than corn farmers. How is seminary influencing the “grid of professional ministry”. It seems to reinforce the dependency we have on the ministry professional. Tuition debt seems add to problem not the solution.
Yes! Great analogy, Eric.
Seminary debt is a huge issue and one that I think has the potential to actually kill seminaries. How can we ask pastors to preach with power about believing God and trusting God to provide when we encourage the accumulation of debt and not living within our means? And that is just the financial side. The missional question of the changing face of North America is another whole issue. We need to take this seriously lest, North America, and especially the USA go the way of Europe and lose our lampstand.
If Jesus is the subject, why aren’t we looking at how he did missions and the other good example is the Apostle Paul, who made tents occasionally but not full time. Look at his three years in Ephesus! How can we in the 21st century, not look at those contexts which aren’t any different from our day? He did have a Timothy, a Silas, a few others, but they didn’t stay around for ten years to establish groups of believers. Just saying.
Good questions, Wanda! Indeed Paul had a specific apostolic call, but I think the churches he left behind weren’t very similar to the ones we expect church planters to have after 3 years. He also trained elders to stay in the context to continue to develop the church (into that 10 year mark, probably…)
Interesting. Much to think about here. I am planting non-traditionally and have developed a support network via our denomination and personal contacts to cover a modest salary and benefits. It has allowed me to carry out ministry full time for about 70k per year and still provide for my family. Almost all of the funds are now being covered by people within our congregation. It took about four years to get here.
That being said, I think Fitch’s model has some merit. We could multiply our apostolic labor by a significant factor if we didn’t fund buildings and such. I also think there is value in considering a cathedral/parish approach in certain locations where there are mega churches who could help mobilize local apostolic/missionary efforts.
Lots to consider here.
Thanks for those reflections! Hope you can join us for the webinar where we’ll talk a bit more about it. I’d value your input and questions.
When is it bro?
TODAY at 2pm ET!
https://gravityleadership.com/5-ways-church-planting-needs-to-change-webinar/
Doh!
Thanks Ben. Stimulating content (as always!). I think Fitch is anticipating the future of a culture that has tried out the latest cool/hipster/ mysterious version of church and found it lacking. Perhaps this is about recovering a gospel that is compelling because it’s a narrative about a God who’s taken on flesh to bring us into the life of God and redeem our humanity. Roland Allen seemed to be pointing to this methodology and order years ago in his “Spontaneous Expansion of the Church” and “Missionary Methods.” Paul went into an area and proclaimed this incredible good news. When people responded, a church was formed. But for years we have started with the goal of planting a church. I wonder if the bigger issue is not the loss of funding but the disenchantment by the American consumer culture with our attempts to franchise the church instead of announcing life and culture-altering good news.
Yep!
I think there is something to this, I really like a few aspects of it. I also think there are also some problems, especially if your tradition or ecclesiology is rooted in liturgy and a sacramental understanding of the church. I would think that you would need a pretty thin understanding of the sacraments and or what constitutes a “church” plant to run full-on with this.
I wish I could have made the webinar. I hope to listen or watch it too soon.
And PS: what denomination is giving their planters $400k? I might be feeling called to join them.
This would be SO GOOD to talk about, especially as a “missional Anglican.” We should convene something for our diocese on it 😉
Also – not sure which denomination was giving out that kind of money, but I don’t think anyone does this anymore 😉
Agreed. It is much more common for a church to seed a plant with a hive-off of people who have already been converted. (We did it seven times in 9 years at my first church plant.)
Thanks for the thought-provoking article. It’s been good to read the comments too.
Interesting post by David Fitch,and I think very relevant for the formal church of post-Christendom.We also experience the shrinking of the traditional denomination churches,as there are a number of reasons for this taking place.I think two of the main reasons in our situation was emigration and people leaving the traditional church as a result of the political baggage of the past.I think David Fitch is very well open minded and this is for sure one way to go in the modern world.
Blessings for you and team Ben.
Thanks Werner! Good to hear from you.
I really like the thought about recognizing and valuing the gifts and skills that seminary graduates bring to the marketplace . Please forgive my ignorance but what does David mean by “appropriating”? Excellent article.
Glad you found it helpful, Mark! I think what David means by “appropriating” is the ability to take what’s important out of a text and put it into a new context, perhaps.
As a 2 time planter and professor, I agree with much of what you write.. I argue in my latest book that we need a new approach to church planting that abandons the the Pastor as CEO model for a shared leadership Elder plurality that does not have the financial burden on the church. In addition, it creates more opportunities in low income communities and overseas. I hope you will check it out. Would love to hear from you. Blessings. http://www.morethancake.org/elderslead
Agree with lots of that! Thanks J.R.
David,
The article makes some great points. Thank you.
The reason for my comment is invite you to change the language you use. Use of the word “insane,” as you have done in your second section heading and the following paragraph, can be hurtful and stigmatizes folks who live with mental illnesses.
Thanks.
Hi David,
some good and interesting thoughts here.
Just on your point about traditional methods of funding of churches being by “tithes and offerings”, I think this is something that also needs re-thinking by church leaders taking a much deeper look at the subject as by Russell Kelly PhD in his book “Should the Church Teach Tithing? A Theologian’s Conclusions about a Taboo Doctrine.” It is available as a free pdf at his website.
It closely examines all contexts of every mention of tithes in the bible and shows that the ideas of tithing commonly propagated by many churches these days show a superficial, cherry picked, and now man made tradition which is are not helpful to the body of Christ.
I would hope any churches that are eventually formed not teach tithing.
All the best, and thank you for the opportunity to make a comment.
Ben and Dr. Fitch,
A friend shared this article with me, so I’m unfamiliar with the background of Gravity Leadership and the bloggers here. So I feel in some ways, that I’m cautiously approaching my comments here.
I’ve spent my adult life and ministry planting churches, sending planters, and pursuing knowledge about church planting and disciple making. I’m no expert. Just a motivated student.
A few observations I’ll mention after reading Fitch’s article:
* What he is talking about is not new. For ten years, things have been moving towards more diverse methods of planting churches in the Western world. Bivocational church planting is definitely important here and now, and will continue to be important in the future.
In the US, especially in low church traditions like historical Methodist, Baptist, and Pentecostals have always had a large number of bivo church planters. That has never stopped, I think we just don’t write or talk about them much because they don’t have time to show up to meeting and be counted.
We might even say that the more institutionalized and professional we see a movement become, the slower the expansion of the movement is.
* I’m not familiar with any group that gives a full time salary plus benefits in the US. I suspect those who did at one point were either very small denominations or denoms with a liturgical or high church leaning.
Now here is a slight problem with the article:
* The author suggests that seminary students with large debt and dissatisfaction towards current ministry opportunities might be great candidates for planting bivocationally.
I think that notion is problematic and unlikely.
After being involved in assessing church planters for a number of years, I don’t recommend sending a church planter that has big debt, under any circumstances. Church planting is too weighty. Too hard. Too risky. Like being on the spiritual frontlines.
If the author wants to send more qualified candidates to plant churches without the massive financial support – then groups need to be considering: alternative education and alternative credentialing.
I am not opposed to seminary in general.
But the paradigm of an on-site professional seminary with a high bar required for credentialing and education DIRECTLY opposes the desire to see more bivocational church plants start.
In fact, in 24 years of church planting training and sending – I can only think of one or two seminary trained planters who were effective bivocationally.
I understand that a seminary professor can hardly critique his own institutional paradigm. So I don’t take issue with the author’s writing – but for the sake of those reading I think it’s important to realize: It’s unrealistic to think that expensive, traditional, on-site, seminary training can work hand in hand with a movement that wants to see more grass roots and bivocational church planting.
We need more bivo planters who are professionals in other fields or tradesmen or… you get the idea.
Blessings to you and thanks for the conversation.
Steven Earp
http://www.Elevate.church
http://www.WhereWasGod.com
Steve,
I think we might be in agreement on alot of things.
For instance, when we think of sending/planting a church planter, we ask them to get a job. Get situated. get one’s finances into order with sustainability. By year two often (not always) the church planter is making much more money that he or she would be in a traditional church plant. (BTW I can name at least 3 church plant organizations that require funding in the bank that will pay a full time salary plus benefits plus church rental costs etc. I talked to one just yetserday). My main point here is that if one has high debt from school (which Northern’s program works against) … the traditional route towards church planting I suggest presents as big if not bigger problems financially.
In additon, I agree with you, that most historic denominationla seminaries prepare pastors for doing the 7 or 8 things pastors do in established traditional churches. They are not prepared for church plantings or bi-vocationality. Of course, as I see it, seminary education is more needed than ever in regard to the cultural issues we face and how to navigate them for God’s mission. But the kind of leadership needed and approaches to ministry is vastly different than the traditional corner church leadership. For this reason we have been developing these programs.
Blessings to you and your ministry!!
Hey Michael B. ,
I lean in your direction on this with you. I generally agree that tithing is not a NT principle of Christian life. Too often tithing is preached for the self preservation of the church maintenance organization and thwarts the mission dynamics of a church, never mind the beginning of mission in a community planted. Rather we gather as a people submitting all things to God giving of our entire lives into His mission. This often means we give more (than 10%) … because we have more … and the need is more. Having said that, I have found the ‘principle’ of tithing as a solid beginning point to understand the practice of daily recognizing the first 10% goes to God which signifies all is His. And it helps me trust God for my finances and the finances of the Kingdom demands that lie before me. Blessings .. thanks for the good words
Hi David,
I am so grateful to have come across this post. I am currently getting ready for exactly this type of Church plant. There are 3 couples (friends I went to school with and our mentor) who are moving to a new city. We found no real support from Churches/denominations, but we have built what we believe to be a strong bi-vocational model. We have found a simple business model that when built up can provide a steady income while also freeing up our time.
I strongly believe in business ownership for bi-vocation. It goes hand in hand with an entrepreneurial gifting, and allows the planter to make their schedule. Working for a company that makes your schedule for you, especially trying to find a good part time job has so many drawbacks.
We hope to test this and hopefully other business models out, and one day teach them to others to be able to reproduce more Church planters. Eventually we can hire on students, have them work and learn in the business and have them work and learn in the Church plant. Get them fully equipped for the ministry and send them off.
Unfortunately, without proper training on how to do bi-vocational successfully, many may not find the income they need to pay off their student loans, or risk burning out.
Thanks for the article, I’m glad to see others are catching on.
Scott
Fresh Expressions (of Soul)
I’ve been wrestling with this idea for a few years…we even completed the MSM course, which looks at aspects of fresh expressions in a deeper more formal way.
Writing this was catalysed by watching Episode 5 of The Killing a US TV show. A couple’s daughter was murdered and they were in a large church talking to a Priest about…well, their spiritual needs. They were most certainly not met, and the producers seemed to take a point that despite the grandiosity of the scene, this was a major fail.
Long story short, I’m finding it helpful to categorise church history (well, from Constantine’s co-option of Christianity and the long slow blending of The (Jesus) Way with unwelcome bedfellows like political hegemony, the cultural elite, and plain old ‘church as usual)…this is a top of the head taxonomy that took about 20 minutes – not an MA thesis, so yeah it’s holey. But hey, please tell me what you think!
You’ll notice I’ve not attempted (yet) to distinguish the key theological themes and suppositions within each wave (good luck with that you say!)… Anyways, written with all due respect to and about the Bride, critical thinking not judgemental critique. We want to stress – we are not in opposition to church, ‘inherited church’, church as usual: we love the Body of Christ. But we long for it to break out of the historically formed, culturally binding chrysalis. Gloria a Deus!
As Paul wrote to Timothy –
14 I am writing these things to you now, even though I hope to be with you soon,15 so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
16 Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith[f]:
Christ[g] was revealed in a human body
and vindicated by the Spirit.[h]
He was seen by angels
and announced to the nations.
He was believed in throughout the world
and taken to heaven in glory.
Three Waves of being the Christian Church
pre-Reformation – The Rock
Bricks and mortar imposes a sense of geo-spatial power and authority.
Complex hierarchies of authority and distant decision making
Pyramidal authority structure (papal, bishopric, diocese, local congregations, monastic and religious orders)
Scripture – elevated and distant from everyday believer (authority and/or insight oriented)
Mystery and ritual (‘bells and smells’)
Acquisitive and expansionist (buildings, schools lands…investments) financial model
expansionist and service oriented (hospitals, schools) missions strategy
believe/belong
High forms of worship expression (Chants, Chorale etc)
Generational transmission
Pre-modern
(spatial orientation to be) Inside.
Artistic and, much later – scientific.
‘proudly Christendom’
culturally – ‘invaders’ or syncretisers.
Owned or supported both the tea and coffee plantations (read on!).
Patriarchal
Aligned with political power and moral law (generally…)
Sabbath oriented (but replaced sabbath with Sunday!)
Candles. (metaphor)
Inherited post-reformation church – The Word
Generally simpler forms of architecture (intentional rejection of iconography at the cost of losing visual cues. Artistic expression marginalised.)
Simpler binary forms of leadership (elders/shephard) – Union or associative oversight
More collaborative or participatory model of decision making (AGMs, congregational votes)
Scripture – translation, distribution, teaching focus (knowledge oriented), adherents are bible holders
Cerebral and quasi-liturgical.
Tithe orientated financial model (‘safe stewardship’, expansionist model, ‘wise use’ ‘conservative’)
believe, behave [especially children and youth], belong
Hymnody, songs and lay participation (e.g. William Booth through to Jesus People and Hillsong) – journey of commodification of worship.
Evangelism-Conversion transmission
literate
ecologically agnostic
Inside.
generational transmission, but much less so
Patriarchal
Modernist
‘more apologetically Christendom’
Culturally invasive. At least initially.
Sabbath oriented (but replaced sabbath with Sunday!)
In recent decades, programme centric.
Preferred tea.
Aligned with political power and moral law (mostly but certainly not always, and some very notable exceptions…)
Light bulbs. (metaphor)
…link to next wave is that missions strategy (missiological theory) shifts from expansionist and service oriented (hospitals, schools), then scripture translation then TO social justice, unreached peoples, ‘culture sensitive’ evangelism.
Affinity groups (such as – Christian Bikers, Arocha, Christian Surfers, Techno Mass (etc), Christian Aid organisations, Liberation theologies, and in particular missiological strands that prioritise language and culture acquisition amongst actors signal both the perceived and understood need for, and transition to, next wave church). In that sense, understanding what is changing at the vanguard is instructive to what will later shift in the mainstream (I’m sure there’s a marxist analysis in there somewhere).
In my taxonomy outlier groups with breakout or breakaway positions regarding Deity of Christ, necessity for glossolalia or other so called power manifestations, advocacy around same sex relationships, religious unification (hard ecumenicalism) are another branch in the tree completely, and often best fit under the first two waves classifications anyway…
Reformation 2.0 church – The People (question mark simply reflect the jury being out on various desirable features!)
re-purposing of old forms of architecture – through to absence of or desire for any formal architecture
high gearing – short-loop receipt of giving to distribution and use (non-aquisative and generous(?))
scripture use supports or feeds ‘experiential and relational’ social tendency
ceremonially fluid…what seems to work in context, experiential
belong then believe…then behave
subtle, friendship or service orientated Evangelism-Conversion transmission
ecologically informed
Outside. – celebrate arts, gardens, trees, oceans, Creation – actively!
literate
non-Patriachal(?)
see children as active participants not just receptors
‘post-modern’(?)
music as seems apt…(?) – lack of differentiation between Christian and non-Christian music.
seeking distance from ‘Christendom’
culturally insightful
agnostic on programmes
7 days to be a believer, none take precedence (no sabbath hangovers).
It can smell the coffee.
solar LEDs. (metaphor)
And we agree with the general thrust of these quotes:
“The aim of God in history is the creation of an all-inclusive community of loving persons with God himself at the very heart of this community as its prime Sustainer and most glorious Inhabitant.”
~ Dallas Willard
“In the beginning the church was a fellowship of men and women centering on the living Christ. Then the church moved to Greece, where it became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome, where it became an institution. Next, it moved to Europe, where it became a culture. And, finally, it moved to America, where it became an enterprise.”
~ Richard Halverson
Lesslie Newbigin once said, “Our business is to go outside the church walls, become aware of what God is doing, and cooperate with Him.” That’s what Marsden and the Clapham Sect did. I think that’s exactly what we need to do too.”
Thanks for posting. I reposted a link to the article on my own blog.
I hear a lot of people talking about bi-vocational church planting as the future of ministry. I just want to insert a few thoughts that I haven’t heard addressed. (note: I’ve lived that type of ministry.)
1) We need to realize the pressure that this puts on church planters. The responsibilities for this type of ministry include working a 50-60 hour a week job (I’ve never actually heard of a 20 hour per week job that paid much) , spending time with Jesus to grow in godliness, spending time with your family, developing the systems and leadership for a ministry, and spending time in the community. That’s a lot of pressure, and only the most gifted leaders can do that for very long. I think that we might shrink the pool of potential leaders when that is required.
2) When I worked in the corporate world, the major corporation I worked for told us, “The higher your are promoted, the more you are paid to think and less to do.” The bi-vocational model might pay leaders to do more, not to think and grow and develop people more. There just isn’t time to do those things.
3) We tell people that we can tell what you value by where you put your money. Does it say anything about us for us to switch our money model? (I think it was switched around the year 2000 to the bi-vocational model because I do not know any church planter who got full funding) Maybe it is right for us to value efficiency and success and utility.
I just suggest asking some church planters who have lived this to explain how this affected their family and their walks with God and their long-term ministry. My experience doesn’t represent everyone but I don’t know a church planter with a different experience. The people I know who made it just tell stories of barely making it through.
Thanks for commenting, Joe. I agree that bivocational ministry needs to be talked about a LOT more – there are lots of different ways of doing it – some healthy/helpful and others not so! I do think we need to wrestle with it and accept that it will probably need to become more prevalent as Christendom culture continues to fade, but I never want to romanticize it as the Promised Land of church planting or anything. It definitely requires specific a skill set and a new mindset that takes awhile to train people into.
A year and a half into a bi-vocational plant with some financial support from our home church I’m recognizing the need for a multi-person (or multi-family) team with gifts that are complementary to my own to fill out the fivefold gifts of Ephesians 4. It seems that the model David is promoting above would be even stronger with these 5 giftings represented in the proposed missionary team.
I also appreciated the consideration given to how some models might tend to focus on recruiting other Christians to solidify the new plant vs. enabling a strong focus on engaging the lost and hurting in our cities. I admit that this has been a temptation in the last few months … perhaps to have a greater sense of “success”. Eric Lerew’s analogy re: tree farming above was helpful to me in that regard.
Thanks for the thought-provoking and encouraging article!
Hi Dave, I think you’re spot on in thinking that bivocational approach also necessitates thinking more intentinoally about assembling a “missionary team,” and the fivefold gifting is a great way of thinking about it. We actually just finished a series on discipling immaturity in the fivefold, if you want to take a look: https://gravityleadership.com/apest/
Ralph Ellison penned a novel about the early 20th-century Black experience, The Invisible Man. As a Black Evangelical, I feel that men and women who love God, believe in the necessity of being born again, are committed to the Word of God, know that man can only be reconciled to God through the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ but, who are not white are invisible. As I read about church planting in my backyard, urban area and among people who look like me in articles by Evangelicals, I have never seen any reference to the fact that the dominant faith of African Americans could be defined as Evangelical but, most African Americans would never use the term. Why are African Americans, who have an evangelical set of beliefs, invisible to the Evangelical movement? I can only speculate and in doing so would probably miss the mark but, we are invisible.
Let me give you a few examples of our lack of visibility. I am a Baptist who was ordained by a Progressive National Baptist Church. This denomination is primarily an urban Black Baptist denomination has 2.5 million members and 741 churches. That is an average church size of almost 3,400 members. If an organization that consists primarily of African Americans who have about 5% of the net worth of average white Americans has hundreds of churches in major cities and even had Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr. as one its founders, how can it be invisible?
A North American Mission Board Send executive was discussing church planting in New York City. He did not address the perception that the two major Christian voices in New York City are Tim Keller and Jim Cymbla. He just spoke to the large amount of money the thousands upon thousands of missionary manhours NAMB had invested in New York City and had a few members to show for it than exist in one congregation, the Christian Cultural Center, started by a lone minister in his garage. Why is the A.R. Bernard not mentioned in the same breath as Jim Cymbla or Tim Keller? Why is his church largely invisible to most Evangelicals?
From my perspective, no place shows the reality of invisibility better than Philadelphia. When most Evangelicals think of African Americans involved in successful urban ministry in Philadelphia, one name comes to mind, Eric Mason. Dr. Mason has a BS in Psychology from Bowie State University, a Master of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a Doctoral degree from Gordon¬ Conwell Theological Seminary. He is the founder of Epiphany Fellowship in Philadelphia. There is another prominent Black preacher in Philadelphia, Alyn Waller. Dr. Waller Bachelor’s Degree in Music Business. Dr. Waller earned a Master of Divinity Degree from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky and a Doctor of Ministry Degree in Ministry to Marriage and Family from Palmer Theological Seminary. They both got their undergraduate degrees from state universities. Mason’s theological degree was from Dallas and Waller’s from Southern. Mason’s doctorate from Gordon-Conwell and Waller’s from Palmer. On the surface it is amazing how similar their backgrounds are but, their churches and ministries are very different. Waller has over 15,000 members, my guess about 20 times what Mason has. Waller is president of the largest and old Black mission’s organization, Lott Carey. Waller’s church, Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church belongs to the National Baptist Convention. Why is Enon Tabernacle and Waller invisible to Evangelicalism? Isn’t it conceivable that Evangelicals could learn something about planting the gospel among people of color who share their commitment to Christian orthodoxy but do not identify with the Evangelical movement?
In a cursory look at Protestant church membership, I was surprised to find that 23% of the denominational protestants belong to historically Black denominations. These denominations such as the Church of God in Christ, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the National Baptist Convention are more than 90% Black in their membership. Although they are not mostly Republican and conservative like most Evangelicals, they are committed to Christ. They need to cease being invisible to Evangelicals, especially those who would want to see the Gospel flourish in an urban context. I cannot imagine the angst that would exist if the Korean church thought that the Gospel was losing ground among suburban American whites and sent missionaries to Dallas, Little Rock, Charlotte, and other major urban areas to plant churches in the white community but never considered or even talked to the Evangelical church in those areas. We are brothers too. We are not invisible. Come work with us. Come and learn from us and us from you. See us as Christ sees us.
Thank you, Norman. You’re exactly right – the white evangelical church has (predominantly) ignored black evangelical voices for too long!
Some really good thoughts but I think it starts with a straw man. So few denominations are investing that kind of money. The high end of subsidy for denominations that I interact is between $125-$150K over 3 years. The planter may raise another $25-$50K over 3 years for a total of $200,000 – half the price that Fitch says is normal. Other denominations are offering $25K per year on the condition that the planter raise a matching amount.
You’re right – funding has changed quite a bit in the past few years (also the original version of this blog post from Fitch is probably 8-9 years old, perhaps?).
This article certainly challenges us to rethink how we might fulfill the Great Commission in North American. I also think it’s interesting that many mission agencies are moving to a bi-vocational approach due to necessity. My wife and I are exploring how to do bi-vocational missionary church planting on the Front Range of Colorado, and the recommendation he gives to have a team from the start is affirmed by most mission agencies (we wish that we had a team to start with). The one challenge I’d like to give, to his suggested support time frame, is that it may be necessary to support them for longer than two years (especially if they have debt like student loans). Church will look different in the future and the having full time staff will become rare unless something changes drastically.
Thanks Jamie, for those reflections!