Power of the Plant
by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 06/28/2007 at 3:33 PM
I'm a big follower of trends in the church. So I found this article on the top 25 multiplying churches in America interesting. The thing to note is these are not the most highly-attended churches (think Rick Warren's Saddleback at 25,000 attendants). Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, which ranked No. 1, boasts a modest 4,800 attendants.
Since its founding in 1989, Redeemer has swelled to 4,800 worship attendants each week and apportions 15 percent of its budget to church plants. Its pastor, the Rev. Timothy J. Keller, is sought after by pastors around the world who want to pick up on strategies of creating effective churches in cosmopolitan cities like New York and engaging an urban and diverse culture.
Redeemer's Church Planting Center, established in 2000, has helped start more than 50 churches of various faith traditions and denominations in New York along with 17 Presbyterian churches.
"Among churches today, the conversation -– a long overdue one -- is moving from church growth to Kingdom growth," wrote Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research, in Outreach Magazine's July/August 2007 issue.
Church planting appears to be a win/win situation. On a practical level, a very large church can not possibly give its members the personal touch (Although an emphasis on small groups can meet some of these needs). From a biblical standpoint, multiplication is encouraged. Paul writes to Timothy: "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others," (2 Timothy 2:2). This model also has less of a tendency to rise or fall upon the work, charisma and witness of one man. Not to mention, it calls up those who ordinarily might remain in the pew but who have gifts, ideas and passions to share.
Really, the proof is in the pudding. Instead of reaching 25,000 people within the walls of one church through the work of one man, Redeemer Presbyterian and other similar churches have expanded their influence to hundreds of thousands through the talents and passions of multiple workers. I think Paul would approve. I'm guessing the Lord does, too.
HT: Justin Taylor
1. Samuel PG said the following at 4:43 PM on Jun 28:
Suzanne,
I am glad to see this post. I never had any idea that church planting existed until 4 or 5 years ago, in a ministry mentor class my pastor had us read through Ralph Moore's "Staring a New Church: The Church Planter's Guide to Success." (Somehow, even though I was preparing for pastoral ministry I never wondered where churches came from). The book really moved me, as did the example of my pastor who has planted churches himself and has had churches planted out of our church. Ever since that time, I have desired not just to pastor a church but to plant one. It is an extremely effective approach to ministry and provides more opportunities for church members to be involved in the church. I am clearly a fan.
With that said, I don't think you were intending to diss Saddleback, but often-times people who especially like a church model will reject other models. I am not a fan of mega-churches myself, but I believe that they can be very successful in fulfiliing the call of the Church. It is great to prefer an approach (I have a preference as well), but we should all be careful to respect the models of other Christians whether they be mega churches, house churches, small churches, large churches, church plants, etc. These different models can reach different people and I think are just one aspect of revealing the One Body of many parts.
2. dave said the following at 9:50 PM on Jun 28:
I am part of a incredible church in St Louis (insert plug www.journeyon.net) that was helped started and is part of the Act 29 network. We are growing like wildwire and are starting our 2nd plant in St Louis. Splitting (when you have the right leaders in place) is a much better alternative both financially and qualitatively than being incredibly huge.
3. Suzanne said the following at 11:11 PM on Jun 28:
Samuel,
You make a really good point. I'm not necessarily dissing the megachurch model. There are definitely pros and cons to each. Still, it seems overall, when it comes to multiplication, church planting reaches more individuals and possibly calls up more leaders. In what ways do you think megachurches can be successful in fulfilling the call of the church?
4. nikki said the following at 9:18 AM on Jun 29:
I don't understand the attitude of the leadership of a megachurch that would keep growing (good thing) without planting more churches (bad thing). I can think of no motive other than pride of the leaders at having such a "successful" ministry. I'm sorry if that sounds judgmental, and maybe there is something I am missing in the equation, but I don't think there is really any excuse. Megachurches are lame, and their leaders need to get over themselves and get their members involved in starting "new shoots."
5. Scott said the following at 11:05 AM on Jun 29:
I was excited to read this for 2 reasons: I think church planting is very important to continue reaching different of the country and the world. I believe it helps to fulfilled the Lord's command to "go and the preach the gospel." Second, my church in Florida, CrossPointe, is #21 on the list. =) Although I've been away from the church for a while, I'm excited to go back.
6. Samuel PG said the following at 1:33 PM on Jun 29:
Suzanne,
Thanks for the response. I believe the main call of the Church is to worship God, which involves going and making disciples of all nations and also things like looking after widows and orphans in their distress (James 1:27). So, worshiping God is the call of the Church and a main factor in that now (though not in the age to come) is seeking to be used to bring His kingdom.
Mega churches often have great missions programs and supply funds to missionaries. They often host large evangelistic outreaches and make big pushes for community outreach. They also are commonly known for supplying food and clothing to the poor of their communities. With a dedicated preacher, they can deliver powerful sermons that can be used by God for the discipleship of His saints. The musical aspect of worship can, of course, be achieved within a mega church. Personal discipleship is often achieved with well-planned cell groups, and some churches (such as Mars Hill in Seattle) achieve this by keeping a huge number of elders in order to do pastoral ministry.
On a statistical level, I agree that church plants tend to reach more non-Christians (mega churches often receive a lot of transfer growth) and definitely open up more ministry opportunities for those in non-vocational ministry. Like I said, I favor church planting, but I think that mega-churches can fill some roles that smaller churches cannot.
7. Samuel PG said the following at 2:30 PM on Jun 29:
Nikki,
You should probably be careful in your statements about mega-churches and their pastors, especially as they are brothers in Christ. Many ministers you have probably heard of and loved (and if you have not heard of them, you will love them if you hear them) have pastored mega-churches. Adrian Rogers of Bellevue Baptist Church: 27,000 members; the worship team of Hillsong Church; Bill Johnson of Bethel Church: 1800 members; John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist: 3000 members; Chuck Smith, Sr of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa: 16500 members; Jack Hayford of Church on the Way: 5100 members; John Hagee of Cornerstone Church: 8000 members; C.J. Mahaney of Covenant Life Church: 3200 members; Tom Nelson of Denton Bible Church: 5000 members; Charles Stanley of First Baptist Church: 6000 members; Max Lucado of Oak Hills Church: 4000 members; and T.D. Jakes of The Potter's House: 185000 members, to name just a small sampling.
While we are in no position to be judging other Christians for their motives (of which we know nothing), experience with any of these ministers will not lend itself to thinking that they maintain mega-churches for the sake of pride. Many mega-churches actually do church plant as well, but still remain mega-churches because they have so many members. Perhaps many ministers maintain mega-churches because they sincerely believe that God has given them such a large audience (as He probably has) and feel responsible for sharing the truth with those people. Perhaps many of the members of the church are unwilling to leave the church as part of a church plant, leaving that for "the other members" to do.
My first instinct is always to judge a ministry or a pastor, but we cannot allow ourselves to get caught up in that. For example, I really want to judge Joel Osteen's ministry, but that is not my place and beyond that I have no real knowledge of his ministry beyond a couple of sermons I have seen on TV.
We must learn to live by Romans 14:4, "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand."
Criticism of other believers can sometimes be beneficial, but only in the right circumstances. If I complain to you about some other Christian, no good is done at all but I am guilty of slander. If I could talk to a pastor of a church sensitively about a problem in the church that I think needs correcting, that could be beneficial. There is such a thing as constructive criticism, by speaking the truth borne out of love. We (or at least I) tend to lump too much criticism into this category when it really does not belong there.
8. nikki said the following at 8:49 AM on Jun 30:
samuel PG, thanks for your reply. i probably am being too judgmental and i thank you for your correction. i still do not think that grossly inflated churches are *best* for the congregation. what is a pastor except a shepherd? he can't truly guide that many sheep because he is entrusting their care to under-pastors/elders/deacons/whatever they are called. i know they have names and large churches; i know they are brothers in christ. i just cannot see how a church that size could function well. sure it can work, and obviously it does. it just seems that is cannot be the best model. and there might be superficial reasons they still function this way but i see no good reasons why they should not splinter off.
on the other hand, the inherent fact is that thousands upon thousands of people DO attend these churches, and they obviously like it... :)
still thinking...
9. Joy W. said the following at 10:32 PM on Jun 30:
Just a quick thought about the apparent argument regarding megachurches vs. planting churches: I don't think it's an either/or situation.
The church I attend, and am in the process of becoming a member of, would generally be considered a megachurch, with an average weekend attendance of 7000-8000. They've planted nine churches since 1979, and are currently working on the 10th church plant.
It is true that the senior pastor doesn't know me by name, but I've gotten involved in a couple of ministries, and I've found a connection there. It just takes a little more effort.
10. CJ said the following at 2:10 PM on Jul 3:
I'm currently part of a church that was a church plant and is currently in the process of planting our second church. I think one of the benefits of this model is that it frees up resources. We don't build a bigger building, we just send some people away (in the best possible way) to make room for more! It also allows us to be a community church, catering to those within 10 or 20 blocks. Finally, our church is not personality centric. One pastor isn't the be all/ end all.
Even great pastors aren't Jesus. Even weak and broken people can point others to Christ. The church plant model allows young pastors to grow in the safety of our body, then move out and lead their own church. As a congregation we here from about 3 pastors a month, with turnover of about 1 a year. New leaders are trained and if one leader needs a break, or feels called someplace else, the church doesn't dissolve.
Having not much experience with mega churches, what will happen Max Lucado or John Piper are called home? Do you think their churches will disintegrate? How will they stay together without someone so powerful and passionate (and celebrity like)? Do these churches create enough of a community to keep the body together post mega-pastor? Or is that the point the split into smaller churches? What happens to all the investment in the building?