The Narrow Path Ministries

There's a huge movement to plant new churches in already-churched but growing areas in an attempt to evangelize those areas in response to the growth in primitive countries/regions compared to the US. The idea seems backwards to me. Organized church seems to be what should come in natural response to groups of believers already existing (or separately evangelized) and looking to enable their fellowship and worship and not to attract unbelievers.

Does anyone have any critiques or analyses of this new movement in the US?

Any thoughts as to the "missional" vs. "evangelical" vs. "attractive" labels being used for these "church plants?"

Hola:

Church Planting : As in everything there is a right way and a wrong way. The normal , traditional way , is the wrong way. It normally goes in three steps.

1. Get together a large amount of money , and some missionaries. Go into an area and begin to gather a congregation. Provide for their every need create a number of programs to attract people , pay someone to become a pastor. Build them a Church.

You get really fast results , and can pat yourself on the back. You've created a lot of dependents , "rice Christians" , and perhaps a few real Christians as well.

2. The bad drive out the good.The missionaries begin to realize they have created dependents , and try to get the church to support itself. The "rice Christians " begin fighting over the resources , and driving out the good people.

3. As the money leaves , so does the congregation. At some point there is not enough money to pay the light bill and the church closes.

I am in a foreign mission that is in step 3 , so I know what I'm talking about. There is a right way to do it , however.

The right way:

Find a good and faithful servant in the area you wish to evangelize. Train and support (but don't pay) him. Send him out and let him build a congregation. If they need something , let them do it themselves. If they want a church , let them build it themselves. Your support is training , and only through the pastor you are helping.

This takes a long time , and you don't get a lot of flashy results , but in the long run it works.

The bottom line is , you shouldn't be planting churches. You should be creating disciples , and letting them plant churches.

I'm only acquainted with foreign missions , but I suspect the principles are the same. The growth of the church in the "third world" is a movement of faith , and thats not something that can be force fed throwing money around.

Thomas

Hello Thomas,

In your experience with unpaid pastors, do you find that many disciples seek the opportunity to shepherd congregations and do you see behavioral differences in paid vs. unpaid pastors there?

Thank you for commenting.

livingink

Hola Livinglink:

In your experience with unpaid pastors, do you find that many disciples seek the opportunity to shepherd congregations and do you see behavioral differences in paid vs. unpaid pastors there?

Most of the "sheparding" is done by the unpaid disciples , though they do not seek to become pastors. A disciples do things because of Christ.

Pastors most certainly should be paid. It should be the highest priority of a congregation to pay the pastor. If the congregation cannot afford to pay for a full time pastor then the pastor will have to work on the side. Of course a pastor who is doing it for little or no money is highly motivated for other reasons. The problem is when money comes in from outside the congregation , as in church planting.

First off , when planting a church , the pastor must come from within the culture of the area where the church is planted. A person seen as an outsider will not work out. Often in the states there are cultural differences.

This is what happened here. A major denomination decided to plant churches , they had a small congregation of locals and an old church left over from the Canal Zone days. They also had allot of money. They were able to plant six congregations , and even build four new church buildings , in a short time. They needed local pastors. So they offered full time scholarships to anybody willing to become a pastor. They got seven students.

Then they graduated , the scholarships ended , and they had to work for a living. One was fired for sexual misbehavior , another for theft , others left when the money ran out. Only one ended up being a successfull Pastor. It became painfully obvious that with one exception , they were in it for the money not the faith. (one pastor was brought in from Brazil , another from Nicaragua)

So here we are , one four year old church sits empty , four congregations are without pastors.As it is , maybe two will survive the year , out of the original seven.

This is the second time this has happened , in 20 years , with this same denomination. Others have experienced the same result.

It all revolves around the motivation of the pastor/church planter. They have to be doing it out of faith in God. They have to do it for something other than money. It really goes back to the same method that was used by Christ , the Apostles , and the early church. Make disciples and send them out. I can site examples from Nicaragua and the Philippines (same denomination) where this was done. It really works.

Thomas

Hello again Thomas.

Has it been more beneficial to the congregations to have one recognized "pastor" or have they been as well off being shepherded by several disciples whom have volunteered their time? Is there some barrier to the locals leading the congregations?

Going back to Darin's original post, I find some discontent in the already churched areas as I speak to people. There's a group out there, and some here at this forum, whom have tried the organized church but have found it lacking in instruction. That seems to be the one consistent complaint that I hear. They have fellowship at some level, they may like the pastor, they like the singing, etc. but they aren't learning how to read and exegete scripture and that's what they want. So, I'm wondering if that is a function that is essentially being farmed out to small groups meeting outside the building in homes, for instance. That would seem to require that several disciples, maybe volunteer, would have to have the knowledge, time and interest to serve the rest by teaching.

GOD bless.

livingink

Hola livinglink:

There can be only one leader more than that will lead to a split. They must be local. A missionary is not stable enough , they eventually will leave.

Is there some barrier to the locals leading the congregations?

The culture does not produce mature , responsible adults. Panama is a party town.

Thomas

Hello Thomas,

If someone like myself, an outsider, would wish to support the pastors in your area, what would be the better way to do it? If I understand correctly, you are saying that simply sending money would be a poor effort at stewardship.

livingink

Hola livinglink:

Just sending money is a bad idea. Try to direct any help towards Theological Education/semenary or donate Bibles or other study material.

I'd also recomend supporting missions in your own immediate area if possible

Thomas

Sorry about the slow reply. My computer went "bellie up" so I had to get a new one.

Hello Thomas,

Thank you for that suggestion. Don't worry about the slow reply. As you can see, I sometimes don't get to check the forum for a week or two. I went through about a 4 month lull recently when we had a fire in one of our businesses and I just didn't have time to converse with anyone at even a reasonable level. I'll be looking for a suitable mission project.

livingink