There’s been a lot of talk about church planting the last few weeks. Heaps of people have spoken to me about it, indicated an interest in it. I think Driscoll’s talk to MTD has convinced many people that we (Sydney Anglicans) are not doing enough in this area. How should things change? Here’s one suggestion.

I think we need to harness the enthusiasm and energy of our 20-somethings better, especially in the area of church planting. I reckon Moore should create a 1-year Diploma of Church Planting (would probably be very similar to the existing Diploma of Bible & Mission).

Men completing the course (and whatever other personal assessments seem appropriate) would then be authorised to plant a church at an appropriate location. They would be responsible directly to the bishop of their region, not to the rector of the parish they are in.

They would be provided no money for the initial plant. They would either have to raise their own funding or be bi-vocational. This would get rid of the time-wasters. They would also have to raise the core team. If and when the church grew to about 50 people, the diocese would kick in some funding (on a sliding scale like the current regional grants).

I would expect that about 90% of these plants would fail, and the planters would return to college with bruised egos and some valuable experience. Some of the remaining might turn into very good churches. But every attempt, whether a success or failure, would contain valuable lessons for local mission.

Craig Schwarze - 08 September 2008 12:42 AM

I think we need to harness the enthusiasm and energy of our 20-somethings better, especially in the area of church planting. I reckon Moore should create a 1-year Diploma of Church Planting (would probably be very similar to the existing Diploma of Bible & Mission).

Hi Craig,

Thanks for your note regardng church planting and it is very important to note of them.

That sounds like a very good idea - lets hope a diploma course on church planting does come forth.  Do you reckon they should do it evening part time? That way students also have the opportunity to actively serve in the ministry areas in the church they are at, whilst studying at the same time. 

For instance, I am presently working in the corporate world and am presently completing the 4 year part time evening Diploma of Biblical Studies at Moore as well as serving at the ministry at St Johns Park in many areas and have found this very useful.  Although, the course I am doing does not teach much on church planting - it certainly helps gain knowledge and grows you to a deep conviction to the Gospel of God in ministry.

Thanks Greg, I think a part-time course would be a great idea. Moore will get more flexible in regards to these sorts of things - it is inevitable.

Over on the SolaPanel, Gav suggested that the “Recognised Churches Ordinance” (2000) already provided all the mechanisms for church planting within Sydney, that it effectively abolished parish boundaries, and that a lack of church planting zeal was more to do with a lack of willingness on the part of our young men.

I’ve had a bit of a look at the legislation (ammended in 2004), and it seems to me that it was more aimed at recognising para-church organisations - UniChurch being the obvious example.

Does anyone know how many churches have actually been recognised under the legislation? I know that between 2000 and 2004, it was only UniChurch and Cherrybrook, but I don’t know what has happened since then?

Craig Schwarze - 09 September 2008 09:22 AM

Does anyone know how many churches have actually been recognised under the legislation? I know that between 2000 and 2004, it was only UniChurch and Cherrybrook, but I don’t know what has happened since then?

Christ Church St George is another church that was recognised.  As a layperson at the time - it didn’t seem to be an easy process.  Not so much the legislation (which seems to be good), but due to institutional resistance to church planting.

Mike

I don’t think this ordinance (RCO) helps church planting at all.

What it helps is church plants move from the seedling phase towards life as a mature and independent church entity separate from its mother church. The theory here is that in maturity the church plant will then seed other church plants.

Lots of Syd Ang congregations (50+) were planted in the decade 1996-06 - I can only think of the three mentioned that have become recognised churches. As far as I am aware none of these three have reached the stage to plant their own churches (maybe too early in their life cycle?)

A number of other church plants have been subsequently ‘replanted’ into struggling or dying parishes. CiTM at Annandale is a classic example. (That model works well in inner urban areas - there would be a dozen examples in the eastern suburbs, inner west and lower north shore - but not so well in the outer west.)

Nevertheless, the RCO has been a failure in taking church plants to maturity where they can subsequently become mother churches themselves. Only three church plants have become recognised churches.

Why this is so, is a very interesting question.

Was the bar set too high to become an Recognised Church?
Are we Syd Angs too wedded to a ‘welfare’ mentality that stops our church plants separating from their parish/mother church as Driscoll suggests?

On the other hand - In western Sydney, a number of large regional churches (eg Springwood, Carlingford) have planted half a dozen congregations each - . So does it matter that these church plants are still ‘suckled’ by their mother?
(ie Its both inefficient and a pain-in-the-neck for church plants to set up their own organisational structures like parish councils etc)

Any thoughts?

Jeremy Halcrow - 09 September 2008 11:49 AM

Was the bar set too high to become an Recognised Church?
Are we Syd Angs too wedded to a ‘welfare’ mentality that stops our church plants separating from their parish/mother church as Driscoll suggests?

On the other hand - In western Sydney, a number of large regional churches (eg Springwood, Carlingford) have planted half a dozen congregations each - . So does it matter that these church plants are still ‘suckled’ by their mother?

Without going into details - I don’t think the bar is set too high and I don’t think it maters that these church plants are still “suckled” (there are positives and negatives here).  Perhaps we do have too much of a “Welfare” mentality (though the church plant I was part of was completely independent).

And I think the real problem is one of culture and institutional lethargy.  Don’t forget - it was only very recently that church planting was seen as a very negative thing.  And I think whilst officially there’s a green light - there’s still an undercurrent of “not in my territory”.  That’s why it’s OK to plant in an unused (or underused) church/parish, but not so much in someone elses territory.

Mike

Hi Jeremy,

Interestingly, down here in Canberra/Goulburn there have been around the same number of churches (aka ‘communities of faith’) started during the same period.  However, given the lower starting base (around 60 parishes compared to 200+ in Sydney) you could argue the rate of church planting (as opposed to transplants or re-potting) has actually been quicker down here.

Mind you, I think there’s a lot more we all need to learn to do....

Mark

That sounds like a great plan Craig.

Jeremy

I think you are right in much of what you say. Basically any church planting is assumed to always be under the administration of another parish. That can (not always) prove to be a major problem).

To go it alone, because a local parish is not interested, may involve such barriers as:
Can’t rent buildings without insurances
Can’t affiliate with a small number
No insurance cover for accidents etc
No legal protection
Open to cult accusations within the home
And all the persecution that may come with church planting (from churches)

Even starting an evangelistic bible study group in your home/neighbourhood can be problematic, unless your rector/pastor approves

Di

On reflection I would suggest that ‘evangelists’ are handcuffed in many churches rather than released.

And yes I am passionate about this matter!

I’m interested as to why we’d limit the Church Planter’s training to 1 year? As a church planter I can definitely say that the best two pieces of training I received were a 2 year ministry apprenticeship, and a 4 year BD at Moore College.

The training I received at Moore College in theology, Biblical studies, ethics, pastoral issues and church history all provided me with an invaluable foundation when I was being faced with the vast range of questions faced by a church planter. It would unfortunate that in the enthusiasm to get out there and plant a church (which I am all for) we somehow undercut the depth of training that we so highly value.

Part of it is about releasing some young men into church planting more quickly than is possible currently. But that’s not to disparage other paths. It’s more about flexibility of approach.

I guess it comes down to this question - do you believe we are doing enough in regards to church planting. If the answer is “yes” then we keep everything the same. If the answer is “no”, then change is needed.

‘Can we do more?’ is always a good question to ask - but I’m not sure that cutting back on training is the answer. I think my situation was actually a pretty good example.

We planted a new congregation (attached to a ‘mother congregation’ - which had great advantages and we couldn’t have done it without them). Our first Sunday meeting was the Sunday at the end of my first Greek Week at Moore college (in first year). I then studied and planted (as a student minister) in parallel - which was great.

It was the willingness and support of the mother church that made it all possible. Perhaps the answer to the ‘can we do more?’ question is to encourage some of the guys who are student ministers to think about what they can do?

Perhaps the answer to the ‘can we do more?’ question is to encourage some of the guys who are student ministers to think about what they can do?

From what I’m told, the current workload does not make this terribly feasible. But perhaps if Moore offered some of it’s studies part-time..?

Again - I think going part time is taking a step back in terms of the quality of training. The third greatest element to my church planting training was the class I studied with at Moore College. Its only as you study full time with the same group that you build a level of relationships that will aid you as you work through all sorts of difficult issues.

Studying with a group like that also means that your theological education is much more likely to shape your personal godliness and ministry, rather than be an academic exercise - as you have people who you are in relationship with and trust to bounce ideas around with, rebuke you etc.

Now - 7 years out of college those relationships are stronger than ever and critical for our health in ministry. In part time study it is much harder for that cohort to be formed.

Perhaps what is worthwhile is for potential church planters addressing is their attitude to study and assignments while at college. Perhaps doing that extra 20 hours on a essay to get 2% extra marks isn’t worthwhile. Perhaps handing in something which isn’t perfect on time rather than taking an extra week to get it perfect before handing it in on time is good training for ministry - afterall, your congregation isn’t going to be very impressed if you say ‘sorry - no sermon this week because its not quite how I want it to be - it should be right by next Sunday’ Maybe after a good solid effort its time to press print and get onto the next thing - which could be working at a church plant?