Churches Planting Churches Together
Doctrinal and ecclesiological alignment encourages collaboration in church planting and mission sending. Without a baseline of shared commonality, it’s virtually impossible to work together on shared objectives. How can churches and pastors partner to plant other churches if they do not share a common definition of the church—the very thing they are seeking to start? Conversely, if churches and their pastors agree on God’s missionary heart seen in His church and the nature and purpose of those churches, then shared work is possible.
Such collaboration is vital in our day. While it is possible for larger churches to undertake the work of church planting alone, the vast majority of normative-sized churches simply can’t do that. They want to be involved in the work of planting beyond merely writing a check to a mission’s organization, but they understand that they are going to need help to actually train, send, and support a church planter. This is, in fact, the impetus behind baptist associationalism at its inception. Churches were asking the question, “How can we work together for the sake of education and mission among our churches?” We are seeking to answer that question today, at least in part, by churches working together with other churches to plant and revitalize churches.
Alignment with the Pillar Network aids in both regards. Pillar provides a built-in mechanism for ecclesiological alignment since the churches within the network are formed around agreement on such commonalities. Also, since the Network is composed of a majority of normative-sized churches, church plants, or church revitalization projects, there is a felt need for collaboration in order to truly live out the stated vision of becoming a network of church-planting churches. In other words, we are seeking to not merely be a Network of church plants but a Network of churches who are planting other churches. And each church is going to need the help of other churches to fulfill that vision.
What follows is an outline of the ways that Pillar churches have, or can, work together to plant and revitalize churches. While there is no standard playbook and every situation presents different complexities, we can focus our attention on some of the main practices that foster such partnership. The steps below are not presented in a linear, sequential order, as if you do one before moving on to the next. Rather they should be seen as ongoing practices that foster healthy collaboration for the sake of planting and revitalization.
PRAY TOGETHER FOR GOD’S GUIDANCE
Pastors seek God together for how He wants to use them and their churches to invest in mission. Ideally, these prayers happen together. While the various pastors are surely praying about the needs of their city, nation, and world individually, there is something uniting about shared prayer among brothers. Pastors should ask God for wisdom to heed the direction of His Spirit regarding the locations in which they might plant, the opportunities they might have to revitalize, and the leader and team who might be best fit for this work. As leaders commit to praying together month after month, it’s likely that they will begin to see God’s hand at work as conversations open up, future planters are discovered, or areas of need are recognized.
HAVE INTENTIONAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT NEEDS
This step happens best when pastors work together in a defined city or region. In these locations, they are poised to know where their churches are already doing good work and where there might be other faithful churches working as well. On the other hand, these leaders would be aware of the pockets where little work is being done. They’d understand the natural borders in a city (such as highways or neighborhoods) that serve as natural barriers for people to cross. They might say, for example, that starting a new work on the other side of the proverbial railroad trestles is a better option than thinking that most people from “over there” are going to come to an already existing congregation. As these conversations form, especially among pastors in a given region, they can develop a map of the city that indicates the locations most in need of a healthy church. Such intentionality aids in their prayers and in conversations they might have with other potential planters as they come to the city.
FORM STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH KEY LEADERS
Most cities have people who are in the know. Sometimes these are people who have a vocation that positions them at the intersection of key conversations. For example, Associational Missions Strategist (formally known as Directors of Mission in Southern Baptist life) may be connected to places of need, churches willing to invest in planting work, or the more likely reality—they may be aware of dead or dying churches who are in need of revitalization or who might be poised for mergers with church plants.
Additionally, many cities have existing pastors who are respected and embedded in the city. If these pastors have been around for any length of time, they likely know where pockets of need are in the city and they probably know of pastor friends in the area who are looking for a way out. Many states have state denominational leaders who are tasked with church planting and revitalization. These leaders often have numerous connections that can be advantageous for churches seeking to multiply and many times these leaders have strong relationships with influential pastors who can help. For Southern Baptist churches working with the North American mission board, partnership with church planting catalysts and other SEND strategists can foster missional collaboration as well as communicate the joyful zeal for planting healthy churches as a network.
Finally, there may be civic leaders who are connected to local churches in burgeoning places or future development that could tip pastors off to wise church planting strategy to get ahead of coming growth. Whoever the source, the group of partnering pastors should make it their aim to build strategic relationships with these leaders so they are connected to these meaningful conversations. The beauty of doing this with a group of pastors is that it takes the pressure off. Now, a single pastor doesn’t have to know everyone, but the team can pool their collective connections.
CREATE INTENTIONAL DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEMS
The best way for churches to plant churches is for those churches to raise, train, send, and care for planters from their existing congregations. This is especially true if churches are trying to plant in their own cities. Who better to start those churches than qualified leaders who are already there in the city? For this to happen, churches need an intentional process to develop future pastors—both those who can lead in the existing churches and those who will be sent to start new works. These leaders are really the key to the entire venture. Throughout North America there is a shortage of those willing to serve as lead pastors for church plants or who will take on the task of church revitalization. If, however, a church planting group has a leader or two who is poised to go at the right opportunity, then the prayers and conversations around the need in the city intensify considerably.
Churches who are planting churches together should consider if they can partner together in a city to create shared residency or internship programs where they collaborate on the training and allow their future leaders to rub shoulders with one another. This shared work in training will clearly lead to opportunities for partnership in the sending. Once you identify needs, pastors can leverage the national platform to cast vision for a new work and invite other National Pillar Churches to prayerfully consider collaborating and pulling from the hoppers of their internships and equipping centers.
START “WHAT ABOUT?” CONVERSATIONS EARLY AND OFTEN
On the basis of shared trust, leaders should be able to have exploratory conversations with one another long before it’s time to embark on the work of sending. These pastors should be chirping to one another as soon as one of the following happens: 1) a location in the city is discovered that is in need of a healthy church, 2) a conversation begins with an existing church thinking about shutting down or one that is without a pastor and poised for revitalization, or 3) a leader is discovered who is open to leading a plant or revitalization work. These conversations do not have to be accompanied by highly developed plans at this point. Pastors can simply tip one another off to the opportunities that might be on the horizon, which informs their prayers and engages their network of shared relationships.
Pastors can also intentionally engage church leader advocates in the city to seek to have “what if” conversations with area churches that seem stuck. These conversations can offer additional pathways than those common in church revitalization conversations or giving over assets to a megachurch in the city for them to launch a new campus. Whereas we rejoice anytime the proclamation of the gospel advances, whether in pretense or truth (Phil 1), other options that would both advance the word—which would include a healthy ecclesiological DNA—and work alongside the existing church—honoring the rich heritage and history and working alongside relationally/pastorally— would be a more on desirable outcome.
An alternative model would be for a regional network of churches to discuss the potential for a planter/Revitilizer to partner with the church in a way that would be mutually beneficial. The revitalizer could learn from the churches unique history and heritage and work with lay leaders to examine current documents in order to offer suggested amendments that would be more biblically robust and healthy. The network can, then, strategize to send healthy leadership that would humbly lead the church by providing godly example and pastoral function. Through network collaboration, both human and financial resources could be strategically leveraged through committed partnership. If the existing church was suspicious of change and forgoes the option of bringing in a revitalizing pastor, “what if” convo’s of partnering with a church plant might lead to a future replant or merge.
INVITE OUTSIDERS IN CAREFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY
A network of pastors working together to plant churches will soon get the attention of outsiders, especially if these pastors exist in a large city that is a priority for state conventions or national mission agencies. Pastors have to be careful here.
Transplanting an outsider leader into an existing system can prove deadly if there’s not a high degree of doctrinal and ecclesiological alignment. Pastors should empower one another to vet outsiders interested in planting to discern their motive, training, sending church, and fittedness for the work. They should be particularly hesitant about those who come without a known sending church. The best means of securing outside laborers is via existing relationships with pastors and ministry leaders in other parts of the country. As these leaders become aware of those in their church or their network of relationships who are seeking to plant in a city with a group of pastors who are working together to plant, then a connection can be made on the basis of shared trust.
RALLY AROUND A LEADER
What comes first, a church planting location, a revitalization need, or a leader? The answer, of course, is a leader. You can’t plant a church, undertake a revitalization, or even build a team without someone willing to lead. This leader, then, becomes the magnetic force in the process. The churches who want to work together rally around a leader, regardless of what church this person is in.
At first, this leader may not even be self-identifying as the one who is ready to be sent. Pastors can, however, find leaders who give indication of pastoral gifting and aspire to the work. Then they work together to help this person pray, discern God’s leading, and prepare for the work ahead. These pastors should also work to understand the gifts and strengths of the leaders God sends their way. Some may have greater aptitude to the work of planting while others might aspire to revitalize an existing congregation. These pastors should see this as indication of the providence of God and should lean into conversations that fit the leaders they have.
For example, if God sends someone who is an ideal church planter, then the existing pastors should turn up the temperature around a needed location in the city and the formation of a church planting team. Or God may send a minority pastor who is particularly passionate about a certain part of town due to its ethinc and racial make-up. Pastors and their churches should rally around these factors and consider them evidence of God’s leading.
Pastors should also rally around leaders who might not be lead church planters or revitalizers, but who could still be incredibly useful as a pastor on such a team. The network ought to encourage those men to prayerfully seek to join a church planting team and even serve as part of the “pastoral team” to begin praying and planning together and assisting the lead church planter in both the vision and mission. Providentially, these pastoral teams might be affirmed as the first elders once the church has constituted together.
BEGIN TO MAKE CONNECTIONS
Now that trust is established—both with existing leaders in the city and with a future leader—existing pastors can begin to bring this leader into the ongoing conversations that have been taking place. They can meet with the leader and the associational mission strategist to make a connection and talk about perceived needs. They could introduce the future leader to an existing church in need of revitalization by connecting them, for example, to a chairman of a search committee or key deacon. Or, they could begin to introduce this person to civic leaders who have a vested interest in creating a thriving community. Much like the early apostles did with Paul, existing church leaders can invite future leaders into a circle of relationships and say, “This is a good guy. You can trust him. Let’s talk together about what God might do.” These types of connections can only come if pastors have done the hard work of forming relationships built on trust over the years.
EXPOSE THE LEADER TO MULTIPLE CHURCHES
It will be hard for churches to work together if only one of the churches really knows the upcoming leader. Effort needs to be made to expose the leader to multiple churches. This is done in different ways. Some churches invite this upcoming leader into a residency program with multiple churches. For example, the future leader might spend three months at one church, then three months at another, and so on in order to develop relationships with many of the churches who will aid in the sending work.
Others prefer to anchor the future leader at one church, while still taking advantage of ongoing meetings to allow the other pastors to get to know this leader. Once trust is established, these other pastors can also invite the upcoming leader to preach in their churches or lead out in some ministry objectives so that it is not merely the pastors who know the leader, but also members of the church. A final way to promote shared ownership is through corporate prayer. As soon as a leader and a plan are identified, these churches should regularly pray for the leader and the work in Sunday services and member meetings.
COMMIT TO A LOCATION
Now that you have a leader, and that leader has been exposed to multiple congregations, you are now ready to commit to a location and a plan. Pick a church planting location that best fits the leader God has provided or a revitalization need that’s become apparent and would likely suit the leader you have. It’s important that the churches not vacillate too long on the location, since it will determine the specifics of the plan that will be put in place. For example, the location and type of the work might determine which church is best to be the main sending church or how to go about forming a team around the leader. It’s important that all of the churches prayerfully consider the place in question and align around this as the epicenter for the ongoing work.
DETERMINE A LEAD CHURCH
We’ve all heard the adage that something with two heads quickly becomes a monster. This is probably true, even in the area of churches working together to plant another church. While these pastors should be peers, without a hierarchical arrangement for their partnership, it’s wise for one church and its pastors to agree to take the lead on the upcoming work. There are probably four main factors that determine who this is. First, and most likely, the lead church should be the church that has the leader. If this leader is homegrown, then wherever that leader is a member is most likely going to be the church that drives the work. Next, it might be the church with the most expertise. This is likely true when bringing in an outsider to plant. You’d probably want to anchor them at the church with the most experience in planting other churches. Another model to consider would be utilizing a need that’s most closely connected to the work. For example, a lead church might be the one closest in geography to the planting venture or with the deepest connections to the church in need of revitalization. Finally, and least important, you might consider the lead church to be the most established church with the most muscle to get behind a new work. Whatever the basis of the choice—and likely due to a combination of these factors—it’s wise for the churches to agree on who is going to lead this collaborative venture.
The power of the network is that ongoing conversations can be had regarding the position churches are in to be a next sending church. This allows for churches with greater/lesser diversity, size, and resources to participate as a sending church as other churches within the network help share the weight of responsibility. The sending church still bears the main responsibility for assessing/communicating needs of the church plant.
COMMIT TO A SCALABLE FINANCIAL INVESTMENT
Our hearts follow our money, so one of the best ways to engage the heart of multiple churches in shared work is by agreeing to contribute to the financial needs of this work. Obviously, such a commitment is contingent on numerous factors regarding the work. Not only will the financial needs depend on the city and the location within the city in which the church is located, but the needs also depend on whether or not the work is a new church or the revitalization of an existing church. Additionally, the funds should not be a one-size-fits-all commitment—as if you are always going to give the same amount to each church plant or that you are going to give the same amount each year over the length of the commitment. These financial investments should be scalable based on the numerous contextual factors that shape the work.
For example, an inner city church plant undertaken by a team of ten people will require a larger investment over 5-7 years, whereas a revitalization in the suburbs might only require a two year commitment of less money, even if those two projects were happening in the same city. What’s important is that the churches, and the leader of the new work, have an agreement ahead of time of how funds will be allocated. One other note—simply because one church is the lead partner in the work does not mean that this church has to be the lead financial partner. It is common for a young plant to have a quality leader but lack the resources to drive the new work. They can, and should, invite other churches to use their financial resources to take the lead on that aspect of the work.
You might see an arrangement that looks something like this:
Church #1 - Lead Church with a Resident who is next up to plant a church in a rapidly gentrifying section of town, who commits to training and sending the planter, giving them a team of 10-12 others from their church, and allocating 500 dollars per month to the work for five years.
Church #2 - The lead financial partner of the project, giving a lump sum gift of 30,000 dollars to the new work and committing to a five year commitment of 1,000 dollars per month.
Church #3-#6 - Four other churches in the region who are invited into the work and are each contributing 250 dollars per month for three years.
Financially, this then provides the planter
2,500 dollars per month for three years and a lump sum of 30,000 dollars to start
1,500 dollars for two additional years
This arrangement is useful for a number of reasons, some of which will be mentioned shortly. But note:
It brings six churches into partnership through giving
It provides a baseline of support the planter can count on
It allows for outside funding to dry up in stages rather than all at once
It forces the planter to continue to raise money, since 2,500 dollars per month is insufficient for planting virtually anywhere in North America
CREATE A WRITTEN PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
Not only do these financial aspects of the work need to be written down, but so do other aspects of the partnership. When critical factors of the work are not formally recorded, we provide ample opportunity for unstated assumptions to creep into the process or, more likely, for the pressure of the process to cause us to slant conversations to be more favorable to our needs in the moment. Nothing will get a new work off to a worse start than unmet expectations from sending churches. Here are some facets of the new work that you should put in a formal document and share among the churches:
Who is leading the new work?
Who is the primary sending church?
What other churches are willing to be involved in the work?
What is the proposed timeline for the process and what factors would cause that timeline to change?
If the planter is currently being paid by a church, when will that funding change to the support from the plant or revitalization?
Who has authority to pull the plug if the plant or the planter gets off the rails?
How often will the planter and the sending church meet?
What should the planter do when he has concerns or questions?
Will the planter be able to recruit members from the sending churches to join in the work? If so, how should he go about this and what should he do if members express interest in going?
Are there expectations for how the planter will continue to partner with a denomination or network? Will he have the freedom to forge new partnerships or is the expectation that he continues to align with this group going forward?
How and how often will the planter be expected to share stories of the new work and/or present to the various sending churches?
How would any changes to this partnership agreement be considered?
What happens to the resources should the church cease to exist or the leader move on before the plant is established?
DETERMINE A CLEAR AUTHORITY STRUCTURE
There are numerous matters to consider here. To do so well, we need to think about an important distinction. Formal authority is the God-given mantle of leadership given to autonomous local churches. Informal authority are those support structures built around the local church on the basis of shared relationship and ecclesiological alignment. Baptist churches who are committed to the autonomy of the local church still have a number of decisions to make as to how they will supervise a new work that they are funding. Because the contextual matters inform this conversation a great deal, the only way to present options is to consider some key categories that will shape the decisions pastors make here.
CATEGORY #1 - THE TYPE OF NEW WORK
Here the primary difference will be between church plants and church revitalization. Since church revitalization already has a leadership structure in place, such as an existing diaconate, it’s unlikely that an outside church, or a collection of churches will be able to have any formal authority. All support here will come informally on the basis of relationship. However, even in revitalization works, it’s increasingly common for existing leadership teams in struggling churches to hand over authority to a church they trust to help them plant or revitalize from within. A church plant, however, has no existing leadership structure to work within, therefore the options for how to demonstrate leadership in the early years of a church plant are vast.
CATEGORY #2 - THE NATURE OF ELDERSHIP AND MEMBERSHIP
We believe that the primary leadership structure in the local church is the shared voice of the congregation, with guidance and direction from the elders appointed to lead. During this in-between period, some sending churches are comfortable establishing a formal authority structure from the sending church to oversee the work until either or both of the following are in place: 1) the church has two or more elders and/or 2) the church has officially formed membership and discipline practices. The Sending church serves as the supervising/acting authority over the church planting team until they have constituted together, and officially begun to gather weekly, including administration of the ordinances. Once the church has constituted together, they would affirm an elder or multiple elders. As an autonomous church, they would thus be self-governed and no longer come under a shared authority under the sending church.
CATEGORY #3 - THE TYPE OF AUTHORITY
Another decision revolves around the type of authority that’s entrusted to the sending church(es). If the churches agree that some level of formal authority is allowable prior to the church having multiple elders and formal membership, then the next question is what type of authority is meant here. It’s likely best ot think of this on a continuum:
Minimal Formal Authority ---- Maximal Formal Authority
Minimialismticly, the churches might agree that the sending church(es) have authority to remove the sole pastor in the event of heresy or moral failure alone. In other words, they are merely there to pull the lever if things get really off the rails. Then, ranging from there, other churches might entrust the sending church with decisions like:
Assessing and approving the second and/or third pastor added to the team;
Setting the budget and pay package for the planting pastor;
Determining the meeting location for the church and approving any lease or long-term facility decision;
Reviewing and approving the church Constitution and Bylaws and any other governing documents.
These may seem like a minor four points, but consider that they involve the church's leadership, finances, meeting location, and governing documents. These are big decisions and some sending church(es) are going to deem it wise that the planter and his internal core team not make these decisions alone. Others will be uncomfortable with formal authority here and will suggest that the most a sending church can, and should do here, is to play an advisory role and make recommendations but that the ultimate authority rests with the sole pastor and his church team, regardless of how few or inexperienced this team might be.
CATEGORY #4 - ONE OR MANY
A final category of decision making involves whether the authority, whatever form it will take, will be invested in one sending church or several. If the answer is one, then it’s most likely to be the lead sending church to which this authority is given. The planter/pastor then comes under the care of that church and submits himself to their guidance in the aforementioned areas. In a sense, then, the planter becomes a pastor on this team that serves in another location. For many this is a preferable model because it roots the sending in a local church and encourages the sending church to avoid sending someone to start a new work that they do not think is qualified to pastor alongside them. A downside of this model is that it can be difficult to bring the other churches who are working together into this collaborative work. If the true leadership is vested in a sole church, then it’s more difficult (though not impossible) for the other churches to share in the work. Additionally, it may be that the collective leaders of the various churches in the area are actually better positioned to make strategic decisions about matters like a church planting facility than are lay elders from an existing church who do not have that level of expertise.
The other option is to root authority in the collection of churches, or a subset of the pastors who lead those churches. These pastors then, in practice, are support for the new work until that work is able to form its own eldership. This model addresses the challenge of bringing multiple churches into the process and allows for the planter to have the pastors who are most knowledgeable and skilled in the work of starting a new congregation to provide guidance and direction. There are challenges here though.
Some may feel that such a model undermines the primacy of the local church in planting churches, since the authority is vested in an extra-local church group of pastors. Also, since this group of pastors do not make decisions as a group regularly, it may be unclear how they work to unanimity or determine a course of action should they disagree. If this model is chosen, it would be wise for the team of pastors to put their decision-making process in writing ahead of time.
BUILD A TEAM AROUND THE LEADER
Team building provides the single greatest way for multiple churches to contribute to a shared project. Once a leader is established, it becomes clear the types of people who are needed around that leader. In my estimation, the single most important team member is a second pastor or someone who could soon become a pastor. It would be wise to consider the type of pastor that would best aid the existing leader—for example if that person excels in vision and leadership perhaps he needs someone with gifts in mercy and care or evangelism and mission. Ideally, it’s one of the other churches in the partnership who provides this leader. The collaboration in leadership anchors multiple churches with a vested interest in the work.
Another area of need are meaningful members who will live and act as missionaries. This works well when the churches are planting or revitalizing in their city or region. If there are members of one of these churches who live in or around the area that’s been targeted for the new work then they can be empowered to go. Or, perhaps there are members who are passionate about the area or the nature of the work (such as those who are passionate about inner city mission) who might be willing to move in order to support the new work. Ideally these are mature disciple-makers who are capable of carrying the weight of mission and ministry in the plant. If multiple churches are sending members in this way, not only does the plant have critical mass for the work, but the shared partnership protects any singular church from a critical void of leaders after sending.
Churches can also aid in team formation by sending key leaders to fill recognized roles within the church. For example, at some point the church is going to need someone to lead music or care for children when the church gathers. If one of the partner churches has these leaders, then they can release them to the new work as a way to support and partner. While financial investment is important, these key leaders are often a more valuable way of demonstrating generosity.
One final note is worth mentioning—there are churches who have seen value in sending loaner church members who agree to support the work of the plant or revitalization for a defined time period, such as six months or a year. The upside is that these members likely feel greater freedom to help if they know they can return back to their home church after they help add rocket fuel to the plant in the early years. The downside is that one wonders if the cost after six months or a year when these leaders leave is worth the benefit theory provided at the outset.
HELP SECURE SUPPLEMENTAL PARTNERS
A huge supplemental benefit of a group of churches planting together is that each church and its pastors has preexisting relationships with other churches—both in the region and throughout the country—who would be drawn to partner with a friend who has a clear plan in place to send a church planter. The aligned churches can then “call the cavalry” and bring their friends into the work. This is a great blessing of the potential leader, who is now able to capitalize on these friendships. In my estimation, there is a ceiling to these partnerships, particularly in the area of finances. Any more funding, and the churches take the motivation and leadership out of the leader’s court. Much of the process of fundraising is good for the leader—it forces them to build a team and cast vision for the new work. An overfunded planter is often a lazy planter. But it’s likely that there will be a gap in the funding between what the collaboration of local churches can supply and what the planter needs to get to that 50% mark, so these supplemental partners are a blessing. In addition, assuming that many of these partners are from a different city or state, there is benefit in having some churches invested in the work who might supply short-term mission needs for projects in the future.
COMMISSION AND SEND
Most likely, the lead church will take responsibility for commissioning and sending the church planter. However, there can be synergy built by working together among the churches who are planting. For example, the planting team members could all worship at the respective churches for a series of weeks and a special time of commissioning and prayer could take place in each church. Or the planter and his family could rotate among the churches for a similar commissioning. At minimum, when it comes time to release the planter/pastor to the new work, the various churches who are partnering in the work can take time to show a picture of the pastor and the team and pray for God’s blessing in the new work.
Provide Ongoing Care and Coaching
A final way in which churches can, and should, work together is to bring the planter into the pastoral fraternity as a full member of the family. There should not be a sense in which the planter is a little brother who has to earn his way to the table. Rather, the existing pastors can love and serve their new pastoral brother as an ongoing means of the care they’ve given the years leading up to the plant. The primary way in which this will happen will be through care and coaching. Care, in that the new pastor will face many obstacles and challenges, will see his sin exposed in new ways, and will battle fear of man and insecurity, and he will need friends who love him and speak the gospel to him. Counsel, because the planter will need help to discern how best to make wise decisions about the complex issues that he faces in the first few years of the work. The identified authority structure, mentioned above, will prove valuable through these years.
Rise and Repeat
Now that a new work is out, it’s time to start up the process again. Ideally, in fact, the work of the next plant is already underway. However the new plant or revitalizer can add strength to this new partnership. As a new plant, the collaborative work of the churches planting together allows them to be a part of a new work in the early years of their planting venture rather than feeling the pressure to have to plant alone.