3 Challenges for the Church Planter

When I’ve answered the same questions numerous times, I feel there may be a need for a post. Recently, I’ve spoken with a dozen or so church planters, or those wrestling the call, several each week, and the same issues come up every time. I want to share some thoughts based on my personal experiences planting two churches. These are usually transferable to all church pastorates, but especially planters.

Here are 3 challenges for the church planter:

Finances – I get asked if my established church will be a “strategic partner” in a church plant about once every couple of weeks. I get it. I really do. We don’t have any extra money right now, but church planting takes money. It is great if your mother church can support your budget or you get numerous churches to contribute. Don’t turn down cash. You’ll need it. Lots of it.

But, I always offer a reality check here. The money will always be tight. There will never be enough. It’s in very rare circumstances this is not true.

My strong word of encouragement is to strive to rely less on outside help and more on those God has called you to minister with in the church plant.

When we planted, both times, we challenged the people building the ministry to fund the ministry. And, it is a challenge. It means you’ll often be discipling people to give who aren’t accustomed to giving. But, you’ll need disciplined and fully invested people. If they have their money on the line they’ll do almost anything to make the plant work. As much as possible, build your ministry around the people in the room. Their generosity will often determine your ability to grow a healthy church. Plus, it’s good discipleship to build into the church’s DNA.

I know. That’s a hard word, isn’t it? But, look at it this way, the time you spend jumping through hoops for a few dollars from a denomination that often come with multiple strings attached, you can spend building maturity in your people who will support you financially.

Marriage – Men and women are different and will react differently to the move and to the stress of planting. I’ve found it can be an excellent balance if the two are in sync with each other and communicating well. You should both be equally called, but your initial enthusiasm may not be the same.

One thing I’ve noticed, and cautioned many planters, is that the wife’s emotions may (probably will) respond differently. I’ve always found Cheryl to be slower to acclimate emotionally to the new place of service. She can know it is where we are supposed to be. Her faith is often even stronger than mine. But, her heart is more likely to be tender longer towards the place we left. I have to be careful not to assume she’s as excited everyday as I am.

I’ve observed many planters, especially those with young children, while they are experiencing the thrill of a new calling, their spouse is changing diapers during the day. If the planter isn’t careful, totally unintentionally, he will appear to over-emphasize his role and diminish the wife’s role. (That could be vice-versa depending on the roles in the plant.) This can happen just in language or the things you celebrate each day. Don’t get so distracted by the plant that you aren’t equally excited when your 18 month old learns a new trick.

It is important to remember each spouse’s role is equal in importance and value in the process of planting.

Location – I talk with so many who feel they are called to church planting, but can’t discern where they are supposed to plant. Many are looking for a location. A specific address. The exact right building, in a certain city, on the right side of town. I get that too. You want to know where God wants you to be.

Unless you have clear direction or clear indication not to go somewhere, my advise is simply to plant where you land. Seek opportunities that appear to be open doors, pray for clarity, but if God doesn’t intervene or interrupt, plant. Plant where you land, where you see a great need, where your heart seems to take you. You can follow your gut if you’re following Jesus.

I learned this principle in a very practical way. At one point, I felt my “calling” was to plant a church in New York City. Cheryl and I love the city. We had heard the great need. (The need is great.) We visited the city to pray. I walked the streets of the upper West Side of Manhattan and talked with God. I said, “God, if you want me to plant a church here, give me an overwhelming love for these people.” In a rare time of hearing clearly from God, I sensed God say, “Ron, (I love that He knows my name) as long as you have a heart for me you will have a heart for people; wherever you are.” I believe God released me to plant…plant where there are people who need to be reached.

I think God may call you to an exact location. He may even give you a clear address. He may have one exact building in mind. But, many times, He may give you some latitude in your selection. Certainly in the precise location within your city. People seem to need Jesus everywhere I go.

We actually switched sides of town this way. In both plants. An opportunity for meeting space came available that we didn’t expect. With this previous “New York” encouragement from God, as a planter, I felt freed to follow opportunities as they came rather than wait for God to write something in the sky. We moved quickly. It changed our focus area, some of the church demographics, but both have proved to be definite wise moves in the years that followed.

Are these helpful?

What challenges would you offer in church planting?

‘Nervous’ administration retreats in Bible publisher lawsuit

From OneNewsNow

The federal government is surrendering in one of the 59 lawsuits filed against the ObamaCare mandate to provide free insurance coverage for contraception, abortion-causing drugs, and sterilization.

At the government’s own request, a federal appeals court on Friday dismissed the Obama administration’s appeal of an order that halted enforcement of the Health and Human Services mandate against Tyndale House Publishers, which publishes Bibles and other Christian literature.

Alliance Defending Freedom suggests the administration was “nervous” about defending its position. ADF attorney Matt Bowman tells American Family News the government had contended the publisher was not Christian enough for a religious exemption.

“The government dismissed its appeal because it knows how ridiculous it sounds to argue that a Bible publisher isn’t religious enough to qualify as a religious employer,” says Bowman. “For the government to say that a Bible publisher isn’t religious is outrageous – and now the Obama administration had to retreat in court.”

The attorney adds that ADF will continue to argue that the administration “cannot disregard the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom for all family business owners and must offer a comprehensive exemption to the mandate.”

Read here

Page 3 Profile: Dr Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans

From The Independent

Why is he back in the news?

The prominent gay cleric Dr Jeffrey John has stepped back to the forefront of the Church of England debate on homosexual bishops after being nominated as a candidate to succeed Archbishop Justin Welby as Bishop of Durham.

If appointed, Dr John, the dean of St Albans, who has consistently made headlines during the decades-long battle to secure sexual equality in the Anglican faith, would become the first openly gay bishop in the Church of England.

What has been the public reaction?

The Dean and his civil partner, the Rev Grant Holmes, have come under attack for their stance on gay rights regularly since 2003, when Dr John was long-listed to become the Bishop of Reading. The nomination led to several church leaders around the world threatening to split from the faith if he was successful.

Concerns over the schism were so great that Rowan Williams, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, reportedly pressured Dr John to withdraw his name from consideration. Three years later, in stark defiance, he and the Rev Holmes entered into a civil partnership.

Read here

Christian-run NHS surgery criticised for refusing to prescribe morning-after pill

By Sanchez Manning, Independent

A Christian-run NHS GP surgery has attracted criticism for posting a notice warning that some of its doctors refuse to prescribe the morning-after pill to patients on grounds of conscience.

The message on the door of The Links Medical Practice in Mottingham, south London advises patients that if “a consenting doctor is not available” to prescribe contraception they should contact a local clinic or chemist.

One of the practice’s patients was so outraged by what she perceived as the influence of religion on healthcare that she has decided to leave. The patient, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Independent: “I know the law allows doctors to do this but I don’t think it should”.

Audrey Simpson, chief executive of the Family Planning Association, said other women should also think about leaving the surgery in response to the notice.

She said: “Leaving will send out a message to them that women have the right to access emergency contraception.”

Read here

John Milbank: Gay Marriage a “Strategic Move” That Has Nothing to Do with Gay Rights

By Matthew Schmitz, First Things

The push for gay marriage is part of the state’s “drive to assume direct control over the reproduction of the population”writes radical orthodox theologian John Milbank:

Heterosexual exchange and reproduction has always been the very “grammar” of social relating as such. The abandonment of this grammar would thus imply a society no longer primarily constituted by extended kinship, but rather by state control and merely monetary exchange and reproduction.

Milbank begins his argument by pointing out the impossibility of defining gay marriage in traditional terms of “consummation” and “adultery.” The impossibility of doing so means that marriage will “inevitably be redefined even for heterosexual people in homosexual terms.”

Consummation and adultery would cease to be valid categories even for straight unions. Thus would end “the public legal recognition of a social reality defined in terms of the natural link between sex and procreation.” This, says Milbank, “reveals what is really at issue here.”

There was no demand for “gay marriage” and this has nothing to do with gay rights. Instead, it is a strategic move in the modern state’s drive to assume direct control over the reproduction of the population, bypassing our interpersonal encounters. This is not about natural justice, but the desire on the part of biopolitical tyranny to destroy marriage and the family as the most fundamental mediating social institution.

“The recipe for psychological confusion, family division and social conflict,” Milbank writes, “is all too evident and cannot be averted.”

Read here