;)
Church Planting IMPACT! Pillar Church – LaGrange, Georgia
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Uncategorized
I don’t know if any academic studies have been done, or if anyone has really searched to find a connection, but it seems clear to me that many (if not most) of our church planters are coming from the world of student ministry. I know that’s what happened in my own life and ministry, as well as many of my friends.
I’m pretty sure that the more student pastors involve their students in Church Planting, the more students pastors we will find being called out to plant churches. And that’s OK. In fact, it’s better than OK!
One young man who has taken this step in his journey of faith is a friend of mine named Josh Culver. Josh brought his rather large youth group (somewhere around 40 students) to a PowerPlant project that I led in Colorado Springs in 2005. He partnered with a “restart” there called Springs Ranch Church. He listened and studied carefully in our Church Planting training seminars. And God used that experience to fan the flames of his newly discovered passion to plant a church.
Josh rapidly answered God’s call in his life, took a huge step of faith, and planted Pillar Church (check out the awesome web site!) in LaGrange, Georgia. He gathered a core group and launched this church without a dime of denominational money. He worked extra jobs to meet his family’s needs. He is stretched as thin as can be … and loving every passionate, heart-pounding minute of it. He also has a heart to help other church planters, and is involved in a company that provides web site help for new church starts. Church Planting has taken root in his heart and ministry. And God used the pathway of student ministry to get him there. Help feed his fire. Send him a quick note of encouragement to josh@pillarchurch.org .
Youth / Student Pastor … are you walking a similar life path? Are you struggling with a call to church planting? I would love to talk to you about it. Send me an e-mail. sbc IMPACT! contributor Roger Ferrell would love to speak with you, as well.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Geoff,
I know that we are supposed to rest, and that we need to rest, and that God has given us days of rest, but I also know that if I followed the recommendatons of today’s church culture I’d be a lazy derrier. God gave us six days to work, and only one to rest. Anyone who is effectively making disciples is not sitting around waiting for it to happen. Thanks for the testimony of Josh and how hard he’s working. I’m definitely going to write Josh and encourage him to keep up the good work.
Question: Why aren’t older men rising to the church planting challenge? Most of the apostles weren’t spring chickens.
Cyle,
I just got back from a retreat with two good friends, Terry Little and Mike Taylor, both Church Planting Strategists here in Georgia. These guys are both in their 50s and such an encouragement to me. They bring experience and wisdom to church planting and all three of us are not just directing church planters but are directly involved with planting new churches. Here’s a verse for the old guys:
So even to old age and gray hairs,
O God, do not forsake me,
until I proclaim your might to another generation, your power to all those to come.
Psalm 71:18
Geoff,
You bet I’d love to talk with folks about church planting. I led a seminar earlier this year at a church planting conference on “Moving From Youth Ministry To Church Planting” and shared a survey that showed that up to half of all youth pastors are considering church planting. That is encouraging. So if you’re out there and want to talk, just email me or Geoff.
I will email Josh and stop in to see him the next time I am in LaGrange.
I do sincerely believe there is an age where we should put aside these romantic notions of church planting…that would be death. No hair, gray hair, long hair, disheveled hair—whatever; plant, nourish, pray, preach, teach and give the results to Him. It is much better to wear out than to rust out. Seize the day for Christ young Josh! And guard your life and doctrine.
I’m curious if anyone is planting “house” churches in the USA? If not, why not?
Regards,
Les
What about “house” churches? Is anyone planting house churches in the USA? If not, why not?
Les
Les,
That’s a good question. I would like to know the answer, also.
I’m planning to post on the subject of house churches in North America next week. Actually, I’ll be “dusting off” an old post from a much earlier blog of mine.
Maybe we’ll have some “house churchers” join in the conversation.
Along the lines of Cyle’s post from a few days ago … house churches will, most definitely, put a “dent” in the whole “professionalization of ministry” thing. True house churches are “organically” grown and lay-led, in most cases. No professional pastors, salaries, etc…
That would change the face of church in North America, wouldn’t it?
Les,
http://www.simplechurch.com (About to relaunch.)
http://www.house2house.tv
http://www.daveblackonline.com/unleashing.htm
I think the answer to your question “why not” is multi-faceted. I think the simplest reason is that it doesn’t “look” anything like the typical North American evangelical concept of “church”. It’s just too different to our our homogeneous ways of thinking.
I think another reason has to do with the way we do theological education and pastoral training. Most house churches are led either by bi-vocatinal or volunteer pastors. Most theological education and pastoral training in the US is designed for the “professional clergy”.
Another reason may be that, by and large, we’ve become so thoroughly “modern” in our worldview, that we assume bigger is better. Conversely, house churches are small by definition.
Another reason is that we’re not counter-cultural. House churches are very counter-cultural and we evangelicals are largely uncomfortable with that.
Another reason may be that house churches aren’t as easily “policed” by doctrinal watchdogs.
Another reason may be that house churches don’t fit with Reformed conceptions of church any better than they do with “modern” conceptions. Can a hosue church exhibit all of the marks of a true church as defined in the 17th century? I’m not sure, but am thinking not.
Which is related to another reason, that house churches aren’t “western”. We’ve somewhere come to equate western mores and values with biblical ones. To do something that isn’t typically western seems to be unbiblical to many people’s thinking.
Another reason, it seems, is that people simply don’t trust that the Holy Spirit will lead and that people will follow. We have to build in certain protections, so that they won’t be pulled away by the spirits of the age. (How the church ever survived the 1st and 2nd centures is beyond me?)
I think all of these reasons and more tell us “why not”. And believe me, I’m guilty of using at least a couple of these reasons myself for never engaging a house church strategy in my “Jerusalem”.
SEBTS’ Dr. David Black is probably the closest person to you geographically who would be a superb resource on this subject.
House churches tend to be the method of Christians in countries who cannot meet together in a larger assembly. The problem North American pastors would have with them is they would rely on the method to increase converts and/or a return to the “New Testament church,” whatever that is. If you can’t win people to Christ meeting in a 4000 sq ft building, what makes you think you can win them in a 250 sq ft living room? Ifor one do not believe any of the reasons offered above have merit.
I would also suggest for anyone interested to go back and read the 17th- 18th century British Baptist “learned ministry” controversies. This will give some real-world perspective on the issue of lay-led ministry propogation.
Colin,
“If you can’t win people to Christ meeting in a 4000 sq ft building, what makes you think you can win them in a 250 sq ft living room?”
There are many people who will come to a 250 sq ft living room who would never step foot in a 4000 sq ft church building. We’re simply trying to reach the lost and unchurched in today’s post-Christian culture. Perhaps you can see some value in that.
Les
Les,
I am not saying there is no value in it. I am saying that a “house church movement” is not something that will revolutionalize, or even benefit, American Christianity. So why aren’t there more house churches? I would guess because men aren’t being called to do it. I think home bible studies answer the problem of people not setting foot in a church- that and evangelism. I just don’t understand the idea of taking people out of an environment with many spiritual gifts, and putting them in one with fewer gifts available, and expecting that to be beneficial for a church as a whole. It is worth talking about, for sure. But I would love to see a stat on how many house churches in other countries would relish the idea of meeting in a larger corporate assembly. What a blessing, they would think.
Colin,
I believe Geoff is going to post something on house churches soon here on Impact. Maybe we can address this at that time.
Geoff,
Sorry for hijacking the thread.
Les
“What a blessing, they would think.”
Yes, because once they culturally evolve or mature spiritually, the would obviously learn to value what we value and want to be just like “us”.
So I guess at least one of the possibilities I mentioned must have some merit.
Les,
Sounds like a great post.
Stuart,
Actually, I was thinking the blessing was more along the lines of being an encouragement to a greater number of God’s people, and having the ability to spread their spiritual gifts far and wide through the body of Christ. I am not so sure they care about being like us. Apparently, one of the problems Eastern Asian missionaries are having is they are making the same mistake early missionaries made. They’re mode of church (house church) worked so well, their own missionaries try to export that same method to other countries, but to no avail. They do not see their success as Western missiologists see it– as the gospel taking root and manifesting itself in a diff. culture with a diff. look. They see it as “the method that works,” which is exactly the issue I was addressing: beware of “The Method.”
Colin,
I got your point. I just happen to believe that we err when we assume that people in other cultures will be encouraged by the same things that encourage us. (Look, I’ll admit my biases. I’m very put off by suggestions–even implicit–that “western” culture and values are inherently better or more biblical. That informs how I read and interpret almost everything related to missions and missiology. And I’m not even saying that you were implying that. I’m just admitting the baggage I bring to the discussion.)
That said, I agree wholeheartedly that no “method” should ever be elevated too highly. I don’t know enough about what Eastern Asian missionaries are exporting to engage that discussion. I’m surrounded by North American evangelicals, though. I are one. And any honest observer would acknowledge that we’ve become proficient at elevating “the method that works” to special status. And equally good at marginalizing that which is “different” from our way of thinking about what “works”.
Hence, my original response to Les which I won’t belabor any further here out of fatigue and respect for Les’ suggestion to wait for Geoff’s future post on the subject.
My name is Joshua Culver and I approve this message.