Thanks for the post, Larry. I also would add my strong amen to Keller's observations. I agree that unless the crc becomes seized with the vision and passion to plant missional, community-reaching churches in NA, it's deline will continue unabated. My experience has been that, although the church I planted continues to grow at a rapid rate, my sense is that its growth, as Keller puts it, is not "pound for pound" as concentrated on reaching non-Christians as it was in the early years. (Fast growing, large churches also end up growing by also attracting Christians who are looking to be part of a growing, missional church.)
One of the benefits of CRHM leadership in striving for a church planting movement in the denomination is that there is a vacuum of any dynamic, ongoing church planting ethos in congregations and classes. I agree with Jon that its still necessary to have a central voice from Home Missions to propel and catalyze a church planting movement throughout the continent.
Somewhere in the conversation i think we also have to address one of the major factors in low enthusiasm for church planting- ie, church planting "failures." Classes and churches get "gun shy" about financially supporting new churches when previous "failures" are still present in peoples' memory. I think we need both more honesty up front about the potential for unsuccessful plants as well as more intentionality on mentoring church plants that "survive" to continued stages of growth and size.
Last thought- some of the most enduring and effective churches were planted in the 80's nad 90's by the old HM model. Just sayin. :)
Posted in: Should we Plant More Churches?
Thanks for the post, Larry. I also would add my strong amen to Keller's observations. I agree that unless the crc becomes seized with the vision and passion to plant missional, community-reaching churches in NA, it's deline will continue unabated. My experience has been that, although the church I planted continues to grow at a rapid rate, my sense is that its growth, as Keller puts it, is not "pound for pound" as concentrated on reaching non-Christians as it was in the early years. (Fast growing, large churches also end up growing by also attracting Christians who are looking to be part of a growing, missional church.)
One of the benefits of CRHM leadership in striving for a church planting movement in the denomination is that there is a vacuum of any dynamic, ongoing church planting ethos in congregations and classes. I agree with Jon that its still necessary to have a central voice from Home Missions to propel and catalyze a church planting movement throughout the continent.
Somewhere in the conversation i think we also have to address one of the major factors in low enthusiasm for church planting- ie, church planting "failures." Classes and churches get "gun shy" about financially supporting new churches when previous "failures" are still present in peoples' memory. I think we need both more honesty up front about the potential for unsuccessful plants as well as more intentionality on mentoring church plants that "survive" to continued stages of growth and size.
Last thought- some of the most enduring and effective churches were planted in the 80's nad 90's by the old HM model. Just sayin. :)