It seems to me a basic and fairly obvious principle of church planting. This seems to be the essential principle the Apostle Paul worked on. Here is what he says in Romans 15:20: ‘My aim is to preach the gospel where Christ has not been named, so that I will not build on someone else’s foundation’.
I don’t think that meant Paul was against local churches multiplying local churches in their region. He specifically seemed to plant a church in a region with the expectation that is what they would do. Paul seemed to expect local churches he planted to do local evangelism and discipleship that would lead to the planting of other local churches. But Paul did have a priority to go where there wasn’t currently anything. He prioritised evangelism and planting where there were currently no local churches to do any evangelism and planting.
Sometimes I wonder if we have lost sight of what the point of church planting is for. We are often driven to do it because we have outgrown our building or we happen to have a load of people bussing in from a place down the road so we may as well stick them in a building nearer where they live and make that a new church. It is often more reactive to what is going on in our own church, and seeking to meet the needs (as we perceive them) of our own church, than it is about going to where Christ has not been named and planting where people currently have no access to a church at all. It is why we often have bunches of churches in particular areas and regions and an absolute dearth of them in others.
What is more, when we look at where most of our churches are, they tend to be in the relatively nice parts of the country. The South East is the region with more churches than any other area. The further North you go, the worse the outlook. Those churches that you do find further North tend to be in relatively affluent and aspirant areas. The place you are least likely to find a church is in the North in areas of significant deprivation. If and when you do find a church in those places, they are almost always smaller than those in more affluent neighbourhoods nearer by.
If we are to take the basic principle of church planting at all seriously – the principle on which Paul operated – that principle of prioritising those places that currently have nothing in them, in our church planting efforts we need to think quite seriously about a major shift of Christian people from the South to the North and from affluent and aspirant areas to those more deprived ones. The abandonment of Paul’s operative principle has led to large swathes of our country having no access to theologically sound, gospel preaching churches. I would love to see us taking this seriously again and genuinely committing ourselves to prioritising planting churches and preaching the gospel in those places where Christ has not been named and where locals really do not have credible access to a bible-teaching church.
Much I agree with. A couple of quick reflections. 1. I’ve no problem with multiplication if you have outgrown etc but at some point you need to ask about going further. 2. Going further doesn’t tend to suit that kind of large group planting. Who wants 50 Christians moving into Aston? It’s a 2-4 game. 3. Actually I am not sure church planting is happening much more in the South apart from London and a couple of other places as there is less strategic pressure. However in the Midlands and the north whilst improving it has historically still been in the ubi and grad areas
I agree with you. You mention ‘theologically sound.’ What do you think about churches wanting to spread their particular brand of Christianity? Eg. Reformed churches wanting to plant in a location already served by sn Arminian churches wanting? Presbyterians wanting to plant where there’s a good reformed baptist church etc?
I don’t think this is Paul’s intention or in keeping with his motivation.
I guess it depends how theologically unsound the other options are. We will all have our lines somewhere. I, for instance, wouldn’t feel the need to plant a Baptist church just because there is a Presbyterian or charismatic one in and of itself. I *might* feel the need to do so if those other churches (though I recognise them as believers) would make it virtually impossible for me to send a new believer to them because of significant discipleship issues they will encounter. Of course, you don’t know that unless you know the area and the people and (again) we will all have our particular lines of stuff I can live with and stuff I can’t.
And then there is just the factor that an area may still benefit from more churches and that might give more variety too. However if it means clustering of churches in areas where there are many already then it adds to the problem you start with. However, personally I would not have a problem with a church planting near where I was working providing they weren’t aiming to grow by hiving off church members from us. Rather I would be looking for them to reach people we probably won’t
Your final point/sentence is particularly helpful.
That’s a helpful deciding factor I hadn’t thought of: could I encourage a new believer to go there? Thanks