The Making Disciples Church Planting Divide

[Miguel Labrador]

No where in the scriptures does it say to plant churches.  It does, however, say to make disciples.  What is the relationship of biblical and missional church planting to making disciples?  Do we need the church to make disciples or do we need disciples to make the church?

[James Nored]

Miguel, I'm on the board for Genesis Alliance, an organization that plants new Latino churches. We wrestled with these same questions that you raise here. We asked, is it our job to plant churches, or to make disciples, or to make disciples that form into a church? In the end, we decided that we were an organization that was seeking to plant new churches. This is our mission statement:

"Genesis Alliance exists to plant new churches that bring Latinos into a saved relationship with Jesus Christ in Christian community, at a cost that demonstrates effective stewardship of the resources God provides." (The latter part on cost is strictly formal board language.)

Still, the question remains for the larger Christian community.

Church planting has shown itself to be an effective method for making new disciples, according to the statistics. But too many times the emphasis is on starting a new church--regardless of whether or not new disciples are made.

It would seem that the more missional a church planter (disciple maker?) was, the more the emphasis would be upon intially creating disciples, who would then happen to be a church. The more a church planter (disciple maker?) thinks of starting a church, the more that this may lead to a mindset of a building, logo, organization, etc.

Your thoughts?

[Miguel Labrador]

"at a cost that demonstrates effective stewardship," is an interesting addition to the mission statement albeit "formal board language. I think the crux of the issue is close to this. In Making Disciples, there are no solid ways to measure effectiveness other than the broad statement "making disciples who make disciples." There is no number attached, nor should there be. People invest their lives in others and the ROI is nonreturnable. The glory goes to God. Disciples are Made, the Church grows. It sustains itself by always having a 1st generation of disciple makers who gather together in congregations and are sent out from them.

Church Planting on the other hand is quantifiable, if you mean by church, a structure, a pastor, leadership, building, equipment etc. One can always say afterwards, "look there is a church I, or we, or our organization, planted." It is easy to attach a number to it, to establish benchmarks. Support can easily be raised for a new work. Once a church is planted, it has to be sustained, often by an outside source until it has reached maturity.

Bringing disciples to maturity and bringing organization to their gatherings seems the more biblical process. I am still flushing these ideas out and would appreciate anyones feedback.

[Lynn S. Nored]

"Planting a church"--what does this really mean? Of course by "church" it is assumed that you mean a group of disciples that meet together as a group in a particular location --as "to the church of God which is at Corinth". So when you say "plant a church" it would seem that you must first "make disciples" who then meet together as a church at a particular place. This in turn means that a person and/or persons we choose to call "church planter(s)" choose a "place" to "make disciples". When disciples are made and begin to meet together a "church is planted". Different methodologies may be used to accomplish the above. For example:

a) An existing "church" may choose those who are gifted to meet at a different location and begin "making disciples" to "plant another church.
b) Those who are gifted in "disciple-making" may be trained and move to a specific location to "plant a church. This may be done by one individual or by a team of individuals.
c) There also a multitude of methodologies than can be used to "make disciples".

Properly understood, the distinction stated in the premise seems artificial. The major problem is most members of existing "churches" /"congregations" are not "missional", but rather inward focused. To combat this inward focus "church planting" is being done to focus on "making disciples" . In addition, in the past "missionaries" or" missionary teams" seem to go to replicate the "church culture" where they came from, rather than focusing on "disciple making" within the cultural context of where they were sent.

[James Nored]

Dad, it can be a distinction without a difference, if church planting and disciple-making are defined in the same way. Is there not still a difference in thinking, however, that comes about from the difference in language?

[John Dobbs]

Excellent distinction / question. We always have to be careful about drawing too firm a line between church/disciple...and even missional/attractional. Without disciples there is no church. Although I do agree that we have emphasized to exaggerated degrees the weekly gathering, and minimized making disciples. I even see this in church plants (as I'm sure you guys do too).

Seems like "making disciples" mystifies us a bit. On one hand you have the "better caught than taught" perspective where there's not much direct teaching, just catching on by hanging out together. Then you have the intensive and demanding discipling movements that seek too much control.

Being a disciple demands a teacher. Jesus? Yes. But His plan is that people are involved too.

In my world I think people wrestle with this a bit at some point, and then settle back into church attendance = discipleship. A poor model if there ever was one.

[Lynn S. Nored]

James,
I think you have a point in that changing the language to "church planting" changes the thinking of most to an "active" sense where "make disciples" does not. This occurs because of the mental pictures brought to mind---particularly in those of the modern world-view. I do not think this is the way it "ought" to be, but does reflect reality.

[Miguel Labrador]

I don't particularly think that changing "make disciples" to "plant churches" serves anyone well. I don't think that they should be synonymous either. I think if we seek to plant churches, our foundation is wrong. But, how can we go wrong in making disciples? Bottom line in this, for most is dollars.

There is money to be gained in church planting, there is only sacrifice and dying to oneself in the biblical process of Making disciples.

I could be wrong, and I would like to know what others think,

[John Dobbs]

I think most church planters would disagree that there is money to be made. Most of them I know are sacrificing everything to follow their passion for spreading the gospel.

Miguel Labrador said:

I don't particularly think that changing "make disciples" to "plant churches" serves anyone well. I don't think that they should be synonymous either. I think if we seek to plant churches, our foundation is wrong. But, how can we go wrong in making disciples? Bottom line in this, for most is dollars.

There is money to be gained in church planting, there is only sacrifice and dying to oneself in the biblical process of Making disciples.

I could be wrong, and I would like to know what others think,

[Miguel Labrador]

Fair Enough. And I would agree. But why do we have to call them church planters? Is there biblical support for such a title? Isn't church planting simply bringing organization to a group of already existing disciples in a targeted area? You guys are great and thanks for helping me flush this out.

[John Dobbs]

Enjoying the discussion Miguel. I am not a church planter, so I'm just speaking from the place of observing friends of mine who are trying to establish congregations of Christians. The ones I know have assembled a small team of Christians and their goal is to reach those who are not Christians. This is disciple making and i suppose that would be the more biblical term. One does have to overcome, though, the "discipling" terminology that was hijacked by the discipleship movements of the 70s and 80s and turned into a negative. But I am not sure that calling it by any particular name changes the intent of the activity.

That being said, I do believe I see your point that we really do not need to be focused on creating churches - that will happen naturally as we make disciples. In my mind those are so closely related that there is a very fine line there. Especially when one considers that Jesus did empower the Apostles and send them out as witnesses to make disciples (yes) and to create congregations of people by assembling those disciples (churches). Paul said he planted, others watered, and God gave the increase. The end result was the creation of congregations to whom he wrote. In what way was Paul not a church planter?

Thanks for reading brother.
john



Miguel Labrador said:

Fair Enough. And I would agree. But why do we have to call them church planters? Is there biblical support for such a title? Isn't church planting simply bringing organization to a group of already existing disciples in a targeted area? You guys are great and thanks for helping me flush this out.