Yesterday, I wrote a post about the term ‘church planter’. You can read that here. It seems to have got under the skin of some. Mainly, it has to be said, those who consider themselves church planters. So, it seems sensible to explain what I was and wasn’t trying to say.
First, just to be clear, I am not anti-church planting. In fact, I am particularly well disposed to church planting. I have, indeed, been making calls for more churches to be planted. Whilst I do believe we need a bit more honesty about what is going on sometimes, the essential principle is right. We should be seeking to multiply churches in areas where there is currently none. Nobody who has followed this blog for any length of time could doubt my desire to see such happening.
Second, given that I believe more churches need to be planted, I obviously expect somebody to do that work. I do not believe churches simply pop into existence. Someone, or rather several someones, have to go and establish new congregations. It is what we saw Paul doing throughout Acts. It is manifestly biblical. The church is God’s mission plan for the world and is the vehicle he has licensed for local evangelism.
I am, however, dubious of the term ‘church planter’. I am not bothered that it is ‘trendy’ or the term du jour. I am dubious because of how I see it being applied. The following discussion with my friend, Dai Hankey, might help to clarify:
‘Once you have… established regular meetings at which the Word is being faithfully taught and you are taking communion, why do we continue to call that a plant and the guy leading it a planter? It’s not a plant; it’s a church. He’s not a planter; he’s a pastor.’ https://t.co/2w6e2fTm51
— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) June 14, 2018
Only what if he isn’t a pastor? What if he considers his role to be ‘little a’ apostolic (obvs apostle and pastor are different roles) but he prefers to use the term ‘church planter’ because ‘apostle’ is a tricky word that makes some people say nasty things? #askingforafriend
— Dai Hankey ن (@daihankey) June 14, 2018
So, I’d ask your friend, what does he see as the distinction?
— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) June 14, 2018
Distinction between what?
— Dai Hankey ن (@daihankey) June 14, 2018
Well, if he doesn’t seem himself as a pastor but as a ‘little “a” apostle’, what is the distinction being drawn between those two things?
— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) June 14, 2018
I think (controversially) that ‘apostle’ is the NT word for church planter and that the primary role of the planter is to establish from scratch the foundations and structures of the local church planted + to spear-head the mission of reaching out to unbelievers with the gospel.
— Dai Hankey ن (@daihankey) June 14, 2018
The primary role of the pastor is to care, feed, protect, serve + lead the flock as the church grows into maturity. As I read the Bible I see the guys who plant churches are rarely in situation for a long time they plant + move on, whereas pastors have a longer term role.
— Dai Hankey ن (@daihankey) June 14, 2018
So, would you see the role as planting a church that – when established – you would leave to go on and plant another church?
— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) June 14, 2018
Biblically speaking that would be my understanding of how it ordinarily works, yes.
— Dai Hankey ن (@daihankey) June 14, 2018
I think what we have in the West, however, is an abundance of church plants that seek to establish an ‘Antioch’ model – strong, stable teaching base from which missionaries are sent (nothing wrong with that) but very few who pursue a more Pauline model of plant and go.
— Dai Hankey ن (@daihankey) June 14, 2018
So, without getting into respective models (another discussion for another day), given that most planters are, indeed, establishing churches and stick around (at least for a bit), are they not pastors as they’re leading the church they established?
— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) June 14, 2018
In that instance, once they have established elders then if they stick around to serve that local flock as part of that team, then yes they are.
— Dai Hankey ن (@daihankey) June 14, 2018
I’d want to draw the boundary at right teaching and communion, but essentially, we agree here then. So, they only remain a planter/apostle if they get off and establish another church having established a first one?
— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) June 14, 2018
Yes, as far as I with my ‘never went to Bible college so I know I’m not the wisest guy around but I do study + think about this stuff a lot’ hat on am concerned!
— Dai Hankey ن (@daihankey) June 14, 2018
Meh, Bible colleges churn out people with such widely differing views, that can’t be the basis of who is or isn’t right. As I said in the post, I can see why a guy establishing a church might be called a planter. When the church is planted and he’s leading it, he’s a pastor
— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) June 14, 2018
Agreed. I guess it depends on what constitutes it being planted. Totally agree on right teaching and the sacraments, but would contend that establishing elders is also essential.
— Dai Hankey ن (@daihankey) June 14, 2018
Absolutely. Elders are essential and biblical. But not the defining characteristic of church. A church is a church when right teaching and ordinances are at play. As soon as that’s happening, if you’re leading it, you’re a pastor not a planter and it’s a church not a plant.
— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) June 14, 2018
Haha! Another subject for another day. I’ve already broken my rule about not getting into online debates today. Thanks for the courteous convo bro. Blessinz!
— Dai Hankey ن (@daihankey) June 14, 2018
Thanks for chatting. Always appreciate the discussion. Have a top day.
— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) June 14, 2018
The main point of consternation in my previous post appeared to be my comment, ‘I am, in fact, inclined to go so far as to say there is no such thing as a church planter.’ That single sentence has been variously understood to mean that I don’t believe in church planting, that I don’t believe anybody is ever sent to establish churches or that I have a problem with those doing these things. But, were you to scroll down the post a little further, you will read, ‘I understand why the term is applied to those who have been sent off as leaders of core teams to establish new churches.’ My point, which comes immediately after that sentence is clear enough: ‘once you have sent a group of people, established regular meetings at which the Word is being faithfully taught and you are taking communion, why do we continue to call that a plant and the guy leading it a planter? It’s not a plant; it’s a church. He’s not a planter; he’s a pastor.’
So what was the main issue here? I was querying the continued use of the term ‘church planter’ by those who are evidently working as pastors. I was querying the continued use of the term ‘church plant’ for congregations that have evidently been established and are now churches. The strength of feeling from some quarters about what they perceived I was saying rather serves my point. Some of us may have unhelpfully built our identity around being ‘church planters’.
I previously made the point that some hold onto the term ‘church plant’ even years after our church has been established because it is sexier and lends a bit of kudos. I strongly suspect many of us who are clearly acting as pastors leading established churches hold onto the term ‘church planter’ because it sounds more exciting than being an ordinary run-of-the-mill pastor. Nobody was arguing (at least, I wasn’t) that people shouldn’t establish new churches and there was a recognition that we might hire somebody we call a planter to establish that new church. But, if there is an intention for that person to setup a church and then lead it, they are only planters at the point they are establishing that church. Another way of saying this is that they are people who are about to be pastors.
My point, then, was a simple one. It was just to press into why we insist on clinging on to the term ‘church planter’ when we are now, manifestly, pastoring a church. Whilst some who would call themselves ‘planters’ were irenic in their discussion and – whether agreeing or not – understood my point, the agitation and upset coming from other quarters merely served to make the point. Maybe we hold onto the term once we have established our churches (secretly or otherwise) for reasons that are not wholly excellent.