Mergers and Church Plants

The following is a conversation about church planting worth reading.

Initial email:

I have an opportunity to assist our regional judicatory with visioning and planning future church plants in our area. I know...working church planting through a judicatory can seem like an oxymoron sometimes, but we have some leaders who are highly dissatisfied with business-as-usual and are ready to plunge into a new era of transformational church planting. I need to be able to communicate clearly and compellingly with some people about the following issue:

1. They've had a growing area of a Chicago suburb that is being spiritually under-served. I tend to agree with them that it's a place where an on-fire, transformational church could be planted and thrive.
2. Challenge #1: The driving force for them seems to be that they've had a 4.5-acre piece of land that they can buy from the Roman Catholic archdiocese cheap. It's located right on a major intersection on the corner of an exploding subdivision (thousands of homes).
3. Challenge #2: There are two declining churches from our tribe in the same suburb, one "stable" downtown church, and one fringe church that's experiencing moderate growth. The judicatory leaders have been meeting with these churches and have come up with the notion that, (a) the declining church closest to this property would close, move, and "redevelop" on this new site; (b) the other declining church would merge into the moderately growing church. I have an opportunity to influence this. Here's what I want to tell them:
   
   1. Forget the land. Land possibilities don't drive church plants. Vision and passion and faith do.
   2. Let the declining churches die. Give them hospice care. Don't saddle a church planter with the task of ministering to the dysfunctional system of a declining, traditional congregation that closed and relocated. (This church was a thriving new plant 12 years ago until the planter had an affair and the whole thing blew up).
   3. Let's find two or three potential church planters from our tribe. Let's spend some time with them...explore this suburb with them...pray with them...and then ask God to show us which of the three seem to have the fire in their eyes and in their bellies to plant a church in this context.
   4. Give that person strong mentoring, 18 months of operating funds (they pay everything out of this, including themselves), send them to church planting bootcamp, get out of their way, and urge them on.
   5. Don't merge the other declining church into the growing one. So...if you can, help me develop my argument...or give me a new one...or argue against me.

This is an interesting post because it talks about bedrock issues in redevelopment. Ii would agree with all that you have written thus far. However er, it might be an asset to include some passionate lay folks, church and non churched in the initial discussion. Having been through (and still) a redevelopment, it is a very rough row to hoe. The pastor is pulled between being a planter and and a custodian. I don't think you can do both.

The land thing with the judicatory and it sounds like it is from my tribe, ELCA, seems to be a fascination for officials. 4.5 acres or any amount doesn't determine the mission field. If it is such a good deal, good deals will be there in the future too. The vision and passion of the developer and team make the critical difference as mentioned in the previous post. Regarding the land, it seems to give some folks a security or something to point to and defers the real leverage point of the mission and vision and values.

How is it Saddleback and many others pioneered without owning their own property and building for so long? Or New Hope in Hawaii? I see the plant as the main issue, not how to revive two dying or declining
congregations.

Responses worth reading

All I can do is share our experience in the Missouri West area.

1. The churches we have started with land have underperformed those who found and bought their own land. I think that location is related to vision for ministry and should be part of the process.
2. Where we have tried to link dying churches in it has not worked. Nuff said. The only exception is a multi-campus church where the dying church helped fund a new start in a new location and offered only financial and prayer support.
3. The largest single factor in success of a new church start is the quality of the leader. Period. Spending you time and resources in recruiting and training passionate leadership is the best use of denominational resources.
4. Working with a judicatory body the hardest challenge I have faced is the desire to make everything into a "package" or a "program" instead of being willing to listen and follow the guidance of the Spirit. This is reflected in wanting to take this land because of price, but will surface again and again. You can help them focus on the important things.

I affirm all your directions. The site of the new church cannot be determined until the focus of ministry is clear (and that comes as the community is being formed). Using a "dying" congregation to seed a new church has so many problems. The only way anything good can come out of it is with everything being absolutely ideal, i.e. the perfect planting team, the "dying" church giving up all their old habits/attitudes/vision/desires, etc. The old church is probably out of touch with the people you would attempt to reach in the new one--which is why they are dying. Again, you have a good handle. Go with it.

I would add this. I would resist any temptation to buy the land unless, through lots of prayer and confirmations, you know that God is leading you to it.

First, it's not at all big enough for a growing church. 4.5 acres is a good start for the size parking lot you would need, not both a parking lot and building. Growing churches must have lots of space.

Second, a church is better off waiting a long time (several years) before it builds. A church doesn't need to weaking itself through the distraction of mortgage payments.

Third, the location should be determined by God, the planter and the leadership of the new church. Not the denom or the "congregation."

Here are some things I see. You are correct that the availability of land should not be the driving force. To discuss challenge requires some vision casting. Imaging thousands of new homes. That equates to what? 2,3, 4 thousand people. Maybe 10 thousand in several years? How many can you reach? Where would they park if they built on 4.5 acres? The size of the lot alone limits what you want to do - impact a community for Christ.

Using the old churches to create the new one will be tough. If someone plants in the area and really does their homework and the Lord really begins to work, the other churches will either die naturally and the new one will get transfer growth - not an ideal situation probably - or they will catch some of the blessing and vision and begin to grow as well when revival breaks out. I think the bible principle here is you dont sew a new patch into old garments.

I too wouldn't encourage the mergers--unless three or more churches would buy the idea of starting a new church with a new name, location, and leader. As you've proven, restarting a dying church can work if the congregation is willing to close and reopen (new location, new name, new leader) as a new church. Otherwise, you're right, pouring energy into resurrecting them (when they aren't really interested in paying the cost) or saddling a new-church pastor with them, is a recipe for trouble.

4.5 acres is not enough land in today�s environment

It looks to me like you have several tasks if you wish to take them on:

1. Help the judicatory leaders clarify their own thinking.
2. Point the judicatory leaders towards learning from other people's mistakes.
3. Witness to the amazing power of God that worked through you because you forced yourself to be spiritually obedient, and be honest about the kind of person it takes to do that.
4. Gather a group of people to brain storm how this spiritual need of a growing suburb could be addressed, and get the group to pray over which option God wants them to persue.

Consider "the driving force is that they have identified a growing suburb that is not being reached spiritually". Get the judicatory to see that this is their priority: the people not yet reached for Christ. If their priority is "declinging churches" let them find the worst declining churches or the declining churches with the greatest potential for change. But they cannot both be the priority. Learn from other people's mistakes because life is too short to make all the mistakes yourself. It can't take long for judicatory people to read a few books and learn all the mistakes people have made. Maybe they want to make the same mistakes, but in that case you can't help them.

Don't be modest about what you have gone through. OK, you've done it but how many won't make it and what will be the human and financial cost. Point out that in the 1900's missionaries went to Africa and many served about two years before they died of malaria. A few did keep going. But how wonderful when anti-malarial drugs were given to missionaries. They should be looking for the best possible blue print that can channel as much energy as possible directly to reach the unchurched (who are their priority).

Get other people together, maybe give them some reading , walk around the neighborhood, visit these other congregations, maybe talk to some people who don't go to church, look at the demographics. Then brainstorm the best way to reach the unchurched given the dollars the judicatory will put up. For all we know maybe the land does have some part to play in God's plan, or maybe it doesn't. It sounds to me like you are being set up as "the wonder boy" who can provide all the answers. Of course if the answers you give don't work out you will get all the blame. I think you are smart enough not to accept a persona unless you have thought about it and want to take it.

Remind them that transformation is a "God thing".