The State of Reformed Baptist Church Planting in North America

A Project Report Presented to the

Faculty of Azusa Pacific University

In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements

For The Degree Of Bachelor Of Science
With A Concentration In Organizational Leadership.

By

Matthew Troupe
Copyright July 2009, all rights reserved

Doctor Tamsen Murray

BSOL Cohort #3

June 6th, 2009

This is to certify that the project report prepared

By Matthew Troupe

Title: The State of Reformed Baptist Church Planting in North American Vision

Has been accepted by the faculty of Azusa Pacific University.

Comments: _____________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Signed:

Primary Instructor: _________________________________________ Date: _______

Secondary Instructor _________________________________________ Date: _______

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT v

CHAPTER 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

Statement of Purpose 1
Setting of the Problem 1
History and Background of the Problem 2
Scope of the Project 6
Importance of the Project 6
Definition of Terms 7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 9

Philosophical Principles 9
Obstacles 10
The Mandate 12
Challenges 16
Needs 17
Drafting and Supporting Church Planters 18
Drafting 18
Assessment 20
Training 21
Support 23
Finances 23
Coaching 24
Church Cooperation 25
Local Church Practices 28
Implications 29

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH STRATEGY AND DATA

COLLECTION PLAN 31
Statement of Objectives 31
Research Model Selection 32
Description of the Intervention 34
Data Collection Plan 37

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 40
Summary of Chapters 1, 2, & 3 40
Summary of Results 40
Conclusions 55
Recommendations 63
Policy Recommendations 63
Recommendations for Further Research 69

iii
REFERENCES 71

APPENDIX A 76

APPENDIX B 77

APPENDIX C 80

iv
 ABSTRACT

This research explores the present state of church planting among North American

Reformed Baptists (RB) adhering to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (BCF). The

author hypothesized that RB’s are not aggressively planting new congregations, and that

organizational structures are not functioning effectively to promote church planting. The

project follows a policy proposal model. Prior to this survey, there has been no known

collection of data on RB church planting available. This research maintains the following

objectives: First, this project will obtain factual information about RB involvement

church planting over the past ten years. Second, it will make several policy proposals that

intend to promote the planting of more new RB congregations in North America. An

online survey of 18 questions was used to obtain data from 73 respondents including

unaffiliated churches, and churches from five different RB associations. The research

demonstrated a high level of interest, prayer, and financial giving among RB churches.

However, the hypotheses were confirmed by the small number of churches planted (20 in

the last ten years from the 73 survey churches for an average annual involvement of

2.74%). Additionally present RB church planting typology focuses on contacting and

gathering existing Reformed Christians into new congregations rather than making and

teaching new disciples. The research concludes by suggesting four changes in RB policy

and practice. First, RB churches need to see the multiplication of new congregations as a

core part of the purpose of their churches and associations. Second, they need to plant

churches that are focused on making new disciples. Third, RB churches need to target

v
large cities in their church planting efforts. Finally, RB churches need to improve their

cooperation in order to multiply worshipping congregations.

vi
 CHAPTER 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

1.1 Statement Of Purpose

This research intends to explore best practices in successful church planting and apply

them to current RB Church efforts.

1.2 Setting Of The Problem

Reformed Baptist (RB) Churches are independent in their church government, and as

such do not have a formal denominational structure. However there are several Baptist

Associations including ARBCA (the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of

America), FIRE (the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals), the Founders

movement and SCARBC (the Southern California Association of Reformed Baptist

Churches) that unite RB churches. Though their relationships are more loosely defined

than traditional denominations, there are enough similarities to view these churches as an

aggregate organization.

RB Church constitutions typically reveal a similar style of local church government:

they have two offices, elder and deacon. The pastor/elder functions in a role as a

pastor/teacher/ruler within the church. The deacon functions in more of an administrative

capacity, but the roles of the deacons are less well defined. RB churches are highly

differentiated, that is “there are many subunits” (Griffin, 2008, p. 325) each with its own

independent systems, style, and government. This means that there is some variety from

church to church in the way that business is administrated. However, there are similarities

as well. In most RB Churches, members do serve within the church as volunteers.

1
 Relationships between churches are completely voluntary and do not involve any

lines of authority. The local church is autonomous, and looks to other congregations for

advice, fellowship, and cooperation. The question may be raised, how integrated are these

churches? Integration is the degree to which the various departments (or churches) work

together in a coordinated way (Griffin, 2008, p.325). Both ARBCA and SCARBC

mention church planting in their mission statements, and ARBCA has a church planting

committee. However, the committee does not exercise any authority over the independent

churches. Years ago in a private conversation Bob Selph, the missions coordinator at

ARBCA said, “ARBCA doesn’t plant churches, ARBCA churches plant churches.” This

is their policy, and it may be a good one. But this research will inquire beyond policy

into practice. What kind of church planting is actually happening? “Normative behavior

usually determines whether otherwise technically excellent systems succeed or fail,

because normative behavior indicated the degree to which the system as designed meets

the needs of the people who have to operate it” (Weisbord, 1976, p. 21). Does current

RB structure facilitate church planting? One important and objective answer will be

found in the number of churches that have been planted.

1.3 History And Background Of The Problem

In diagnosing the state of Church Planting among RB churches there are several

considerations that indicate that there is a problem. The most obvious is that relatively

few new churches have been planted in the United States in the last ten years. Exactly

how many churches have been planted? So far an answer is not available, and this

consideration in itself may be an indication of the seriousness of the problem. It is likely

2
that RB churches expend far more effort into planting churches in foreign countries than

in reaching their own nation through the establishment of new churches.

Moreover, many of the churches that have been planted have not been the result

of intentional efforts by existing churches to give birth to new congregations. Many new

RB churches have come about by like-minded Christians in a specific region gathering

together and seeking help from an existing church to help organize a new congregation.

This phenomenon is found extensively in the American church. To borrow a business

concept, this is more like “restructuring” of the church rather than real growth through

making disciples.

The author of this study performed a “six-box” Weisbord analysis (Troupe, 2008)

and suggested that factors contributing to the shortage of church planting extend through

all areas of RB organizations. It is likely that there are many factors that contribute to the

problem. However, it may be that the greatest factor is found within the RB

understanding of the purpose of their organizations. Most churches and associations

within the RB movement mention evangelism, missions, or church planting as part of

their mission and purpose statements alongside a number of other core purposes. This

raises an important question: Do RB statements of concern about church planting square

up with the operational reality in the churches? Formal diagnosis centers around the

written documents and statements of an organization, whereas normative diagnosis

attempts to evaluate what people actually do (Weisbord, 1976, p.21). According to

Pastor Steve Hartland, “our commitment to church planting is usually not defined…” He

suggests “our real purpose is to establish a certain style of ministry, and attract people

3
who are already Christians to our churches… What is on paper is not our real purpose”

(personal communication, June 16, 2008).

Additionally, the current climate of American Christianity also provides an

important consideration for this discussion. Many American Churches have

compromised the message and methods of Scripture in order to foster growth. John

Macarthur (1993) surveyed twelve of the most popular books on church growth and

found that not one of them made reference to the instructions of the Apostle Paul to

Timothy in the Pastoral Epistles (p. 27). In this context, Christians who are concerned

about Biblical fidelity rightly react to this trend, and may even put themselves in danger

of over-reaction. In an attempt to avoid worldly methods to obtain “relevance” there may

be a danger of becoming irrelevant just to make a point.

Also, RB churches tend to be smaller churches with membership fewer than 100

people and have limited resources. This fact presents a serious challenge for churches that

want to be aggressive in their domestic church planting efforts.

If a poorly shaped sense of purpose is a major factor in the dearth of church

planting among RB churches, then it follows that other elements of organizational

structure and function will not be arranged to optimize efforts and resources for this end.

At present the accountability and leadership structures within RB associations and

churches are not built to mobilize resources for church planting.

RB Churches have a long and distinguished history of usefulness in domestic

missions. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the renowned nineteenth century British pastor from

London was an RB who held the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (BCF).

4
According to Michael Nicholls (quoted in Stetzer, 2006), Spurgeon helped to plant 27

churches between 1853 and 1867 with students from the pastor’s college (p. 67).

Nicholls says that,

Spurgeon joined with two other London ministers, Landels of Regent Park
and Brock of Bloomsbury, to found the London Baptist Association, with
the goal of building one new chapel each year. Both Brock and Landels
had planted their churches and started local missions, but Spurgeon's
vision was London-wide (p. 6).

In America, the RB movement gained traction in the 1960’s with the growth of a

variety of publishers such as the Banner of Truth Trust and Soli Deo Gloria that greatly

increased the availability of reformed and Puritan literature. Since that time many

Christians have come to see the truth of Scripture in a different light, and this has led

them to form new congregations. In the subsequent decades there was a vibrant effort at

helping these small groups form churches. However, since the 1960’s there has not been

a focused or sustained effort to view North America as a mission field to which

missionaries must be sent to make disciples and plant churches. RB Churches display

significant overseas involvement in missions. For instance the ARBCA website (2009)

lists seven foreign missionaries, and two French-speaking Canadian Missionaries on their

Website. Is it possible that RB’s have not done enough to reach their own neighbors with

the gospel?

Furthermore, most RB churches are often located in the small towns of North

America. Even though half of all the people in the U.S. and Canada live in just 43 urban

areas with populations over one million people (Davis, K., 2007, p.2), it is suspected that

most RB churches (and most Bible-believing churches for that matter) are located in

5
suburban and rural areas effectively limiting the scope of their contact. Additionally, the

majority of RB churches are English-speaking and comprised of middle class white

Americans. Little has been done in America in the area of cross-cultural ministry to

reach the growing number of ethnic minorities and immigrants found within American

borders.

1.4 Scope Of The Project

This research project will investigate some facts pertinent to the current state of

church planting in RB churches within the last ten years. Obtaining concrete data will

help to provide compelling information regarding the state of the problem and identify

contributing factors. In order to limit the study, this project will seek out a representative

sample of churches that hold to the 1689 BCF. To further limit the study the project will

investigate practices within the last ten years.

In order to recommend best practices, this study will evaluate current church

planting efforts and propose those practices that have proved successful, while

maintaining fidelity to the message and methods of Scripture. The project will not seek

to evaluate church growth methods per se, but rather to learn from other churches the

most effective ways to bring the gospel to North America with the purpose of creating

new worshipping congregations.

1.5 Importance and Significance of the Project

One of the operating assumptions of this project is that domestic church planting is a

fundamental expression of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) and an important

6
means of spreading the glory of God on earth. The Great Commission was given to the

church, and fulfilling this mandate is the church’s mission. The principal imperative

however, is not to plant churches but to make disciples, which are then gathered into

churches. If it is the will of God for existing churches to become the means whereby new

churches will be made of new disciples, then any information that will help to

demonstrate where churches are out of step with this purpose has obvious significance.

The importance of this project is that it may help to show areas of needed repentance and

correction, and by evaluating current church planting methods it will propose some

specific actions that may help RB’s to get in step with the purpose of the head of the

church.

1.6 Definition Of Terms

Best Practices: techniques and methods that provide more effective means toward

successful church planting. Within this project there will not be a focus on mere

pragmatism, but an attempt to understand the best ways to implement Biblical norms and

principles within the present cultural context without compromising the message or

Biblical methods.

Accommodation/Contextualization: the process of bringing the message of the gospel

into a specific social and cultural context so that the members of that culture understand

it, and are endeared to it by those who are delivering it. Biblical accommodation adapts

the communication of the gospel and the behavior of the messengers without

compromising the message.

7
Gospel: the good news of salvation through Christ that acts as the exclusive remedy to

the problem of sin in the world, and acts as the means whereby God reconciles sinners to

himself.

Church planting: the process of making new disciples and gathering them together to

bring new churches into existence.

Association: voluntary ecclesiastical organizations where churches unite for specific

purposes.

8
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

A revived interest in church planting in America has produced extensive literature

in recent years. There are at least three studies that specifically seek to identify vital

practices for the success of new churches. First, The North American Missions Board

(NAMB) commissions an annual study on the health and survivability of new churches

(Stetzer, E. & Connor, P., 2007). This study surveyed over 1,000 churches from over 12

denominations and networks to evaluate the characteristics consistently present in

successful church plants. The criterion for “survivability” was church attendance and the

number of baptisms (p. 2). Stephen Gray (2007) published a survey of 112 church plants

and evaluates and interprets the data to demonstrate important factors involved in the

success and failure of new churches. Finally, though dated, the “Church Pathology”

report from the Association of Vineyard Churches is instructive. Todd Hunter (1986)

reviewed information from numerous successful and failed church plants to render a kind

of collective autopsy to identify commonalities between failed church plants which are

contrasted with the common characteristics of successful church plants. The data from

these studies is extensive and some of the findings will be included in the review below.

This review will summarize the literature under four headings: Philosophical principles,

drafting and supporting church planters, church cooperation, and local church practices.

Philosophical Principles

A significant majority of the literature deals with the philosophical and

theological foundations for church planting. This is intuitive, as later practices generally

9
grow from these first principles. However, because of the common and overwhelming

obstacles to church planting, these principles act as an important force to overcome the

inertia that hinders the best efforts of church planters. What are these obstacles?

Obstacles

Authors frequently note that the greatest obstacles to church planting are found

within existing churches. Andy Williams (2005) speaks of the need for church leadership

to die to the idea of being the biggest church in the area (p.3). This requires great

sacrifice. Quoting well-known church planting pioneer Wayne Cordeiro, Williams says

that in order to plant new churches, leaders need to feel comfortable watching “1,500

people and 1.2 million dollars walk out the door to become a church plant” (p.4). Greg

Kappas (quoted in Brown, S., 2007a) stresses the importance of being emotionally

“secure” to become a church planting church. According to Kappas, this means that

leaders must not see new churches as competition. They have to be able to release their

“kids.” He says they have to be able to enjoy the success of others and even hope that

they exceed their mentors (p.9). Other leaders in church planting also employ the

analogy of childbirth. Brown (2007a) relates the words of J.D. Pearing, who likens

church planting to family planning. According to Pearing, some churches will never give

birth to a new congregation; they are “on birth control” (p.2). Gary Rohrmayer of the

Midwest Baptist General Conference proposes a philosophy of “birth before you build.”

According to Rohrmayer, new churches in their movement must commit to plant a new

church before they build a building for themselves. “If churches don’t get in the

10
multiplication process quickly, they can easily get established and get comfortable and

not spend the energy to start a new work” (quoted in Brown, S., 2007a, p.12).

Tim Keller (2003) mentions that one common objection to church planting is the

impression that our country has plenty of churches, and so many of them are in trouble.

Wouldn’t it be better to work on fixing existing churches rather than plant new ones?

Keller answers this objection in several ways. First, he points out that existing churches

are very often not successful at reaching their communities. Second, he presents the

statistical reality that new churches are the best way to reach “(1) new generations, (2)

new residents and (3) new people groups…Studies show that newer churches attract new

groups about 6-10 times better and faster than older churches do” (part I, p. 3). Third, he

suggests that the best way to revitalize older churches is through the creation of new

congregations that may inspire the existing churches (part I, p. 3).

In support of the idea that new church plants can invigorate the advancement of the

“kingdom at large,” Robert Forsyth (2004) reports on the goal of the Anglican Diocese of

Sydney that 10% of the city’s population would be in “Bible Based Churches” within ten

years (p.38). In this case, the goal established by Archbishop Peter Jensen stretched

beyond their own denomination. It would require a growth of 500%, and includes an

aggressive church planting strategy that abandons the traditional “parish principle” of one

church per area. This plan is deliberately broad because Jensen believes that it will take a

variety of churches to narrow the “cultural distance” between the gospel of Christ and the

many different kinds of people in their city (p. 39).

11
The Mandate

Throughout the literature, the Biblical mandate for church planting plays a

prominent role. For example Michael Raiter (2005) explains that the Biblical concept of

“missions” is about the sending activity of God. “Historically [missions] was understood

as the propagation of Christianity…. today the emphasis has shifted from the human

activity of propagation or evangelization to an emphasis on the missio dei; the

recognition that mission is primarily God’s mission and all that we do emanates from the

prior sending of the Son by the Father” (p. 12). Again, “Paul is not just someone who

recognizes that God has sent him, but is himself a sender of others” (p.18). Raiter argues

that the Biblical usage of “mission” is tied up with “gospel proclamation,” and has as its

ultimate goal the “bringing of men and women into God’s Kingdom so that they might be

holy and blameless before him on the last day…” (p. 20) This language may not sound

controversial. However many authors note that Americans have subtly accepted the

notion that “missions” happens overseas, and that discussions about the Great

Commission often have little to do with church life on the home front. However, Raiter

aptly concludes that “mission is all about what one does, not where one does it”

(emphasis his, p. 21).

Ed Stetzer (2006) provides an excellent summary of the Biblical basis for church

planting in chapter three (pp. 33-52). He argues for church planting from the commands

of Jesus and the example of the New Testament church, and especially the Apostle Paul.

Stetzer identifies four key texts in which Christ commissioned the church to disciple the

nations (John 20:21, Matt 28:18-20, Luke 24:47, Acts 1:8) (pp. 38-42). Finally, he

12
outlines the book of Acts in terms of the missionary/church planting mandate as an

authoritative example of how early Christians carried out the commands of Jesus (pp.48-

51).

If this mandate is clear from Scripture then it has implications for the life of the

church. Tim Keller (2003), former director of church planting for the Presbyterian

Church in America (PCA) and Westminster Seminary Professor, explains the

implications of this mandate. He suggests that the ministry seen in the book of Acts

shows that church planting is “not a traumatic or unnatural event. It is not a something

odd or once-in-a-lifetime. It is not forced on people by circumstances. Church planting is

woven into the warp and woof of things, it happens constantly, it happens normally” (part

I, p.2). He says that it should be “natural and constant” not “traumatic and episodic”

(part I, p.2). Church planting is not only an ideological and historical implication of the

Great Commission; it is also the most effective way to spread the good news. He

maintains that this is due in part to the fact the goal of a church plant is to reach sinners

with the gospel instead of trying to keep long time members happy. He also observes

that it is easier for young people to get into leadership in new churches.

But how does this work out in “real life?” Tim Keller (2003) contrasts “natural”

and “unnatural” church planting. According to Keller, there are two kinds of unnatural

church planting: First, “defiant,” which is a form of church split. Second, “reluctant,”

when leaders give in to or move with “begrudging permission” because of commuting

members, outgrowing a building, or conflict in the vision of the church (part I, p. 4).

Hunt, J. (2006) confirms this idea and says that church splits, though ugly and not

13
intentional, are “perhaps the single most common source of new churches in America”

(p. 5). Obviously “unnatural” church planting is an unsatisfying answer to the Great

Commission or the needs of the lost. It is not one of the “best practices.”

C. John Miller (1986) describes the “ingrown church” as a church that is more

concerned with its own affairs than with the spread of the gospel. He argues for the

missionary character of the church and says with sharpness that the introverted church is

not “partly out of line with the divine will, but radically disobedient to it” (p.28). He also

makes an extensive argument throughout his book on the role of the Holy Spirit in the

work of making disciples. “An act of faith lay[s] at the heart of any obedience to the

Great Commission” (p.22). According to this reasoning, the failure of churches to

engage in missions may be found in their refusal to trust the promises of God.

Keller (2003) suggests three important elements of “natural church planting” (part

I, p. 5). First, “the ability to give away and lose control of money, members, and

leaders.” He says this is one of the hardest obstacles for most churches. Second, “the

ability to give up some control of the shape of the ministry itself. This is scary especially

to people who care about Biblical truth. But it’s a simple fact that the new church will

not look just like you.” Third, “The ability to care for the kingdom even more than for

your tribe” (part I, p. 5). He concludes that all of this is not about trusting other people or

leaders, but about trusting God.

If this doctrine of “natural church planting” is an accurate reflection of the will of

Christ then it has implications for every church. Neil Cole says “a church multiplication

movement requires that each church have the capacity within itself to multiply

14
spontaneously. Even then it is not church multiplication unless the churches themselves

multiply.” (Quoted in Brown, S., 2007, p. 5) This concept is not new. An older book by

John Nevius (1886), a reformed Presbyterian missionary to China, explores the dangers

of foreign mission churches becoming dependant on western financial support. He

proposes a model (later dubbed the “Nevius Method”) for the “Planting and Development

of Missionary Churches” by suggesting that every church is called to be “self-governing,

self-supporting, and self-propagating” (p. 10). When Nevius’ book was reprinted in the

1950’s, Bruce F. Hunt points out in the introduction to the small volume that the

perspective that each church be self-duplicating led the Presbyterian Church in Korea to

grow from 100 communicants in 1899 to over 800,000 in 1958 (p. 12). Though he

cautiously warns us to look to God as the source of success and not rest on methods

alone, the point is obvious. The best way to spread the gospel of Jesus is for each

congregation to feel the weight of the calling to make disciples, to be a sending agent for

future missionary efforts, and to give birth to new congregations.

If churches are to fulfill this high calling, then their organizations must be

chartered and structured with this in mind. A report on “Who Plants New Churches”

from the Leadership Network (2007b) states that aggressive parent churches have this

conviction included in their DNA, their purpose documents (p. 6). Furthermore, the study

reports that successful parent churches also function differently than their inactive

counterparts. Aggressive churches often hire staff to further the planting of new

congregations. They also ensure that the new congregations are forged with similar DNA

(p. 6).

15
Challenges

In addition to arguing for the missionary mandate, numerous authors document the

significant changes that have occurred in our culture over the last 50-100 years. Ed

Stetzer (2006) characterizes our culture as “emerging” and “postmodern” (p. 124-143).

“Postmodern” because it is a reaction against “modernism” (p.30); “emerging” because

the cultural shifts are incomplete (p.128). He also warns against generalizations, adding

that “postmoderns” cannot be “neatly categorized” (p.125). What this means is that the

church in North America no longer finds itself in the “Christianized” culture of the west.

Consequently new churches will continue to face the kinds of challenges that were

common to foreign missionaries in the past. Our communities no longer share a common

language and worldview that are shaped by the assumptions of the Bible. Brown (2007)

identifies the important characteristics of churches that successfully plant other churches.

These churches learn to speak the target group’s “heart language” (p.3). The heart

language is more than just their native tongue; it is the language, culture, and set of

assumptions in which a person’s worldview is expressed. It supplies their beliefs and

fundamental questions about life (p.3).

Tim Keller (2004), who has helped to plant over 100 churches in New York City,

presents a strong focus on “contextualization” (pp.1-3). He graciously critiques the

majority of church planting material, pointing out that many resources teach church

planters a very limited view of this key principle. Specifically, he says that most authors

“outline how to plant a particular kind of church—either a particular denominational

model or some other kind of model that works in a specific environment” (p.1). Simply

16
put, much of the literature presents information from the perspective of what has worked

in other circumstances. Oddly enough, in trying to break free of the constraints of an

“outdated” traditionalism, many of these authors may be unwittingly promoting the same

problem with a different face. Without understanding the principle of contextualization,

church planters in pursuit of “success” and “growth” may fall prey to a new kind of

traditionalism, which attempts to bind leaders to each new author announcing a “proven”

method to grow the church. Sadly, few of the method-driven approaches call for church

planters to take inventory of their context with the gospel in view.

Other conservative Bible scholars like Dr. Stephen M. Davis (2008a) argue that

contextualization, also called “indigenization,” is a necessity for all missionary efforts

(pp. 1-5). Davis explains the history of the concept and the varied nuances that different

schools of thought have ascribed to it (p.2). In another essay (Davis, S. 2008b) he defines

his terms and aims to show that it is both necessary and possible to do this while avoiding

any kind of “syncretism” or compromise of the essential characteristics of the gospel (pp.

1-4).

Needs

Church planting literature also weighs in heavily on the desperate need for new

churches. Ken Davis (2007) has provided a helpful online summary of much of the

research indicating the great need for new churches. He argues that a shrinking cadre of

inactive churches is not reaching our rapidly growing, multi-ethnic, urbanized population.

Ed Stetzer (2006) also summarizes research pointing to the receding presence of the

church. He quotes census information showing that in 1900 there were 28 churches for

17
every 10,000 people. This number has declined to 11 churches for every 10,000 of our

population in 2004. “The number of churches increased just over 50 percent while the

population of the country has almost quadrupled” (p.9). This is consistent with older

studies as well. A report from 1990 (Hadaway, C. K.) showed that between 1964 and

1975 the United Methodist Church lost 3881 congregations (p.377). Similar declines or

plateaus have been common across denominational lines. According to Phil Newton

(2008) an additional 29,000 Southern Baptist Churches in the “deep south” would need to

be planted in the next 20 years just to maintain the current ratio of churches to people in

terms of the expected population growth (p.3).

Researchers confront these statistics with the evidence that new churches are the

best way to bridge this growing gap. Hadaway (1990) also reported data demonstrating

that, “new churches not only add members when they come into a denomination, but they

tend to grow faster than older churches” (p. 376); “new churches are more likely to grow

among all size churches” (p. 373); and new churches “have a great potential for rapid

growth, but that this “window of opportunity” only lasts for ten to 15 years (p. 372).

Drafting and Supporting Church Planters

Drafting.

According to the NAMB study “The most critical factor for the success of a

church plant is the church planter or planters” (Stetzer, 2007, p. 4). If a qualified planter

is the linchpin for success, the next question is where to find them. Gary Rohrmayer

(quoted in Brown, S., 2007) is constantly scouting for potential church planters. He looks

18
for people with four characteristics: A burden for the community, passion for evangelism,

entrepreneurial spirit, and the ability to gather people (p. 11). Andy Williams (2005) says

that creating a “farm system and readiness assessment” is one of the best practices of

effective sending churches (p.6). Billy Hornsby advocates the approach taken by the

Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain, which interviews applicants 15-17 times before selecting

franchise owners (Quoted in Williams, 2005, p. 6). In the same interview, Hornsby

speaks plainly: “Unless you get a capable leader, you can invest a million dollars in a

group and they’ll never start a thing” (p.6). Williams also suggests that training events

may attract potential planters, and that this should be followed with formal assessment

(p.7). He also details the interview strategy, proposing that applicants should not be

questioned about what they “would do” in a given situation as much as what they have

done in the past (p.7).

In a research report on “Finding Church Planters,” Josh Hunt (2006) admits that

most of his advice comes from people who have made “lots of mistakes: (p.2). He offers

five main principles to follow when trying to find the right church planter:

(1) “Familiarity”—Work with those you already know (p. 2).

(2) “Benchmarking”— Church planters should be measured against “objective

standards” (p. 6) such as the Ridley Scale (see below). It should be noted that even

though many of the elements of the standards he suggests reflect Biblical wisdom, there

is sadly no reference to the fact that Scripture actually provides divine standards for

leadership (I Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). Quite humorously, the author (Hunt, p.6)

19
makes reference to Neil Cole. Cole is a leader in American church planting who failed

the Ridley test the first time he took it. These tests are obviously not fool proof!

(3) “Asking the Hard Questions” (p. 8)—He suggests that the process of

examination needs to include penetrating questions. He says that past experience is the

best measure of future potential. Rohrmayer and Kappa (quoted in Hunt, 2006) have

produced a list of “25 Questions” that is an aid to help church planters through all phases

of recruitment and training. However, the initial questions face the candidate before the

selection process. Hunt also reports that many church planting networks perform

extended assessments that last three to four days, and include psychological profiles,

interviews with spouses, group problem solving, and opportunities for candidates to

preach (p. 12).

(4) “Hanging Out”—There is no substitute for spending time with people (p. 13).

Hunt reports that many in the church planting game weigh heavily on this element to see

how prospective planters speak and act outside of the formal assessment process.

(5) “Is God in it”—According to Hunt this step is presented as an

acknowledgment that God answers our prayers and sends “divine accidents” to show us

the way (p. 14). It also involves evaluating the role of the church planter’s faith in God

as the source of blessing on the building of the new church.

Assessment.

Williams (2005) also recommends the Charles Ridley assessment tool (p. 8), and

he indicates that other church planting networks use psychological scales to evaluate the

planter and spouse. None of the authors presented information on the consistency of

20
these instruments at predicting leadership ability or success. The consistent message is

that the characteristics of a church planter involve more, not less, than simply being a

qualified pastor. Others suggest a minimum age of thirty, following the example of Jesus

(p. 8).

The Ridley Scale (2007) evaluates church planting candidates on the basis of “13

Essential Characteristics.”

1. Visioning capacity
2. Intrinsically motivated
3. Creates ownership of ministry
4. Relates to the unchurched
5. Spousal cooperation
6. Effectively builds relationships
7. Committed to church growth
8. Responsive to community
9. Utilizes giftedness of others
10. Flexible and adaptable
11. Builds group cohesiveness
12. Resilience
13. Exercises faith

The consistent message in the literature is that spending time to find a qualified

candidate is one of the most important steps in successful church planting. One study

reported that church planting networks spend more time in assessment than in training

(LeadNet, 2007, p. 4).

Training.

The issue of training is also prominent throughout church planting literature, but

this is not to be confused with formal education such as seminary. Though formal

education is not disparaged, some offer caveats. Ed Stetzer (2006) identifies formal

education as a potential obstacle to church planting due to what he calls the “professional

21
church syndrome” (p.9). He relates that seminary trained ministers are often reluctant to

engage in bi-vocational ministry or volunteer service to see a church planted because of

the expectation of a full time salary and debt from student loans. Stetzer (2006) also

quotes Roland Allen who suggests that “evangelistic growth in new churches is often

inversely proportional to educational attainment…. the more education a pastor had, the

less effective he likely would be in the evangelistic task” (p.9).

Typically, church planter training takes on other forms. Andy Williams (2005)

describes church planting training sessions and boot camps as common means of training

for planters (p. 11). Darrin Patrick, senior pastor of The Journey in St. Louis, and one of

Acts 29’s regional leaders says:

These young leaders are really hungry to focus on the substance of their
ministry is built on, and theology is becoming more important to them
than methods. Young pastors are tired of a ‘25 steps to grow your church’
approach. They crave right ecclesiology which will lead them to proper
contextualization. (Quoted in Williams, A. 2005, p. 11).

Glenn Smith (2007) gives a broad survey of the kinds of training methods used to

prepare church planters. First, “intensive approaches”—a boot camp or two to four day

seminar (p. 2). Second, “training classes”— extended training over a longer period of

time, such as one Saturday per month over nine months (p.3). Third, “internship or

apprenticeship” over a long period of time, but not paid (p.5). Fourth, a “residency”— in

which the planter usually receives a salary. Part of this time may involve the seminal

work of preparing the new church for launch (p.6). Fifth, “Informal training”—where a

church planter just comes and hangs out for six to nine months getting familiar with the

ministries and learning on the job (p.9). There isn’t any evidence to suggest which of

22
these is the best, and several networks provide training that is a combination of these

methods.

Support

Finances.

Authors and leaders who have written on church planting consistently point out that

the greatest obstacle to church planting in America is not lack of funds. Andy Williams

(2005) comments on what he says has been recognized by church planters all over the

world. “Overfunding is not productive and almost always produces meager results.

Underfunding is irresponsible and puts church planters and their families in precarious

situations” (p. 9).

According to a survey on how new churches are funded (Stetzer, E., 2007a), the

average church plant receives around $172,000 over several years (p.3). Furthermore, it

is rare for a church planter to be fully funded; only 7% have this luxury. The majority of

church planters (82%) either have to raise all or part of their support through their own

networking. Church planters affiliated with networks are expected to raise one-half to

one third of their own support. (p. 3). Additionally, church planters affiliated with

aggressive church planting churches may have to raise 50% to 80% of their own funds.

This additional support can come from a bivocational pastor, family and friends, or

cooperating churches (p.3).

Not only is it common for church planters to be involved in fundraising for a new

work, according to several authors it is actually desirable. Matt Hannan, founder of the

Northwest Church Planting Center, says: “Put $200,000 in a plant if you want to kill it…

23
Money is never the determining factor. If a church planter can’t gain his own funds, he’s

not going to be able to start a church. When you start a church, you are asking people to

give up their life. You can’t do that if you can’t ask for their money” (Quoted in

Williams, A. 2005, p.9).

Another approach to funding a new church plant is to “transplant” a group of

committed people from an existing church. Stetzer (2007a) says that some networks

place a heavy emphasis on having large groups of seed families relocate in order to give

the church a kick-start (p.3). For example, Sovereign Grace Ministries had 100 people

relocate to Denver for a church plant, with the idea that these families would provide

$60,000 to support the church in addition to the $70,000 provided by the denomination

(p.3).

Stetzer concludes his report on “Funding New Churches” (2007a) with a summary of

the best practices for paying the bills. He proposes that, “It is best for an agency or

denomination to fund a qualified and well-trained church planter with a modest funding

package over a relatively short period of time (3 years or less)” (p.5). This approach will

help the church planter to aggressively build the church and avoid creating an unhealthy

dependency on outsiders. What is the best way for planters to raise their own funds?

Stetzer proposes that in fundraising, the main issue is vision and relationships. Planters

that can share a well-developed plan and develop meaningful relationships will have the

best success at raising money for a new church (p.6).

Coaching.

24
 In addition to financial support, church planters need an ongoing relationship of

training described as “coaching.” In a study on the factors increasing the health and

survivability of new churches, the coaching practice of the Foursquare Church is offered

as an example (Stetzer, E., 2007a, p. 7). A coaching relationship lasts for at least 18

months, and involves a fee for the service (p.8). Presumably, this helps to hold both

planter and coach accountable. Glenn Smith (2007) proposes that the best coaching

models “build on the principles of adult learning” (p.10), which incorporates the life

experiences of the student in process. He also reports that some experts recommend that

the coaching should be distinct from the planter’s source of funding in order to promote

honesty and transparency in the accountability process (p.11).

According to Williams, (2005) church planters often experience loneliness and

isolation (p.12). To combat this and improve outcomes, most high volume church

multiplication centers create coaching systems that lead to monthly contact (p. 12). Mark

Driscoll (quoted in Williams, 2005) says that coaching should also include the spouse,

“the barometer of the health of the man is not his church, but his wife. You don’t just

want to coach the man, but coach his wife” (p. 12).

Church Cooperation

Some research has shown (LeadNet, 2007b) that the more tied into a

denomination a church is, the less likely it is to engage in church planting (p.4). For this

reason, and perhaps others, numerous collaborative groups and networks have been

established to cooperate in church planting. These groups include: Stadia, GlocalNet,

Global Outreach, Growing Healthy Churches Network, and Acts 29 Network to name a

25
few. “Leadership Network (2007b) research reveals that reproduction is accomplished

well among church planting networks because of an overwhelming emphasis on team

planting” (p.5). This research also demonstrated a number of factors in successful church

planting partnerships:

• Increased success rates in church planting are tied to a well-defined process for
developing church planting strategy. Successful churches, denominations, and

networks have deliberate strategies that include assessment, training, and coaching (p

2).

• Networks spend more time on assessment than on efforts to train candidates (p.4).

• Most networks do not prescribe a formula or style for the church, but encourage their
churches to be a local expression of their communities (p. 5).

• Successful networks also demonstrate that they are not simply concerned with
planting a church, but with planting churches that will carry the vision of promoting a

church planting mindset (p.6).

• Churches that plant other churches often have paid staff assigned to further church
planting efforts (p.6).

• Size matters, but in surprising ways: “Churches of 200 or less are four times more
likely to plant a church than churches of 1,000 or more” (p.6).

The sheer weight of the task before the church drives the formation of networks and

alliances. Brown (2007b) details the story of the Houston Baptist Association, “a group

of more than 630 Southern Baptist Churches in the metropolitan Houston area…” (p.9)

26
However the group included more than just Southern Baptists. Over 50 church planters

and denominational leaders came together. The group gathered in response to estimates

that the population of Houston would grow from 5.5 million in 2006 to 8.2 million in

thirty years; this group got together in January 2007 to write and sign a church planting

manifesto (Union Baptist Association, 2007). This kind of a declaration helps to give

purpose to the unity between churches. On the importance of having a unifying purpose,

Neil Cole remarked: “Groups that come together just for prayer and unity will never find

unity. Without a mission, without bullets flying over your heads, there will be no unity.

When you watch each other’s backs you will find unity” (Quoted in Brown, S., 2007b,

p.9).

Some churches and networks have created Church Multiplication Centers (CMC’s)

that combine many of the best practices in order to create a pipeline leading to “high

yield” church planting. Andy Williams (2005) identifies a number of best practices for

networks interested in doing “high volume” church planting. He provides an example of

a group ten churches that have pooled their resources to help plant 1,093 churches in the

United States (p.2). Furthermore, he notes that ten of these CMC’s planted 466 churches

in the U.S. and 266 overseas in 2004 (p. 3). What are the keys to the success of these

CMC’s? First, according to Williams, is making a shift in priorities to “sizeable

recommitments of resources that could have been used in-house” (p.3). This means that

churches that established CMC’s agreed that their priority could not be to simply build up

their own ministry but focus on the multiplication of churches. Second, creation of a

“farm system” and “readiness assessment” (p.6) for future planters. Third, creating strong

27
systems for training so that candidates are adequately prepared (p. 10). Fourth, finishing

the effort by providing ongoing support for planters through coaching (p.12).

Local Church Practices

There is a considerable amount of discussion about the different “models” and

approaches currently used in church planting (LeadNet, 2007c., pp.1-2 see also Stetzer,

2006, pp. 53-76). However, this discussion usually takes a backseat to the idea of the

overall mandate for Biblical church planting. Most seem to agree that there are a variety

of different of ways to successfully and Biblically plant new churches. Ecclesiology is

more prominent than church planting typology. That is to say, there is greater emphasis

on what a church should look like than how it is formed.

In a survey of 1,000 church plants from various denominations Stetzer (2007b)

reports on the top factors correlative to the health and survivability of new churches. Out

of the 100 factors measured, thirteen were found to be statistically relevant (p.3). The

Vineyard Pathology Study (Hunter, T., 1986) is a report on 22 failed and 20 of the most

successful church plants in this denomination. The study identified 21 common

characteristics among failed churches. The top three factors on this list are:

1. The pastor/planter could not identify, recruit, train, deploy, monitor

and nurture workers and leaders.
2. The pastor/planter had no clear plan from which he was working.
3. The pastor/planter used ineffective gathering and/or evangelistic
methods (p.3).

The top three positive characteristics in the Vineyard study were:

1. They [the pastors] were hard workers.

2. The church did not suffer from ‘ethnicitis.’
3. They had a proven track record under supervision (p.12).

28
 The Vineyard Study concludes with a “top ten weighted characteristics” for a

successful church planter (p. 13). Stetzer (2007b) summarizes an important conclusion

from this study:

Low success church planters are simply predisposed to a more passive

approach to ministry that focuses on nurturing those who naturally come
to them rather than aggressively seeking to penetrate the community and
gather those who could be leaders for the kingdom. They prefer to nurture
existing relationships rather than recruit, evangelize, plan, or research their
community (p.5).

The findings can be summarized under several broad headings. First, new

churches and planters must intentionally orient their ministry toward reaching out to their

communities in evangelism and service with the goal if becoming independent. Second,

church planters must focus on developing people through discipleship, leadership

training, and delegation. Third, to be successful, church planters must engage in

aggressive planning and leadership activities for the group. Fourth, several authors

include suggestions for how to “launch” the new services for the church plant. For

example, Searcy & Kerrick (2006) provide a detailed sample procedure for how to

launch a new church, including “preview services” and procedures for pulling together a

launch team (pp. 141-160).

Implications

This research presents a number of clear questions that will be used to guide

subsequent research. Do RB’s have adequate theological and philosophical foundations

to support aggressive church planting? Do RB churches and associations have adequate

systems for recruiting, training, coaching, and funding prospective church planters? Are

29
RB associations structured to carry out the Great Commission in North America? And do

RB church plants effectively practice the kinds of Biblical methodology that will allow

them to reach their communities with the gospel?

30
 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH STRATEGY AND DATA COLLECTION PLAN

3.1 Statement Of Objectives

This research intends to explore best practices in successful church planting and

apply them to current RB Church efforts. The first objective is to increase the number of

RB Churches being planted in North America. This will take place through repentance,

renewed faith and obedience to the Great Commission, and adoption of strategies

described as the “best practices” in church planting. For this research best practices are

defined as philosophical and methodological practices that are: First, Biblical, and

second, proven to be successful. This research will propose policies that will lead to the

planting of more churches in the U.S. and Canada.

Effective strategies for change must begin with a reliable assessment of the

current state of church planting efforts among RB’s. This assessment should be based on

fact rather than anecdote or personal experience. An accurate evaluation is necessary to

diagnose the extent of change that is needed, and to make dependable recommendations.

Accordingly, this research will attempt to provide a fact-based picture of the present state

of RB church planting efforts and explore any connections between the best practices

identified in church planting literature. Once this information has been obtained, the

research will provide information for any needed changes.

The second research objective is to make recommendations that will improve

church planting efforts among RB’s. Additionally this research will attempt to promote a

change in RB associations within three years so that churches will pool resources and

31
personnel to plant ten new churches in the U.S. and Canada in the next ten years. The

effectiveness of these proposals could be evaluated by (1) measuring (counting) how

many churches are actually planted; and (2) by measuring the effectiveness of RB’s to

recruit, train, and support church planters. Specifically, this will mean counting the

actual number of men sent out to plant new congregations.

3.2 Research Model

This research has followed the policy proposal model in order to design a possible

intervention for RB church planting. In line with this approach, this project has

attempted three things: first, to gather information that will support the extent of the need

for change; second, to provide a factual basis for the proposal; and third, to render

several recommendations of best practices to promote aggressive church planting.

The policy proposal model provides an approach that is exploratory and

descriptive. This approach follows the “descriptive” research methodology proposed by

Leedy & Ormrod (2005, pp. 179-216). Data was obtained primarily via a survey of

existing RB churches (most often pastors) and church plants, and supplemented through

analysis of existing RB documents and reports. Accordingly the research also references

the constitutions, by-laws, policy documents, and publications of RB churches and

associations for relevant information. These surveys have attempted to gather factual

information about the nature and extent of RB church planting rather than gather the

opinions or beliefs of these church leaders.

The survey approach has several strengths. First, using an online survey

(Surveymonkey.com) has provided wider access to a large number of respondents, thus

32
increasing the sample size. Second, this electronic survey method has lowered the

financial and time commitment needed to gather the information, thus making this

research project possible. Third, since the survey was gathered online there will be no

direct contact between the researcher and respondents allowing a greater level of

anonymity. Hopefully, this has helped to increase the number of survey responses and

improve the truthfulness of the answers by attempting to limit any shame associated with

the answers.

This approach also has several potential weaknesses. First, as with any survey, if

the questions are not carefully written, the survey may not provide the desired

information. Leedy & Ormrod, (2005) make several observations about the limits of the

survey method. For instance, “…the survey design makes critical demands on the

research that, if not carefully respected, may place the entire research effort in jeopardy”

(p.184). Second, since the survey depends on “self report,” it will face the natural frailty

of those responding to the questions. Survey data may be compromised by the failing

memories of respondents, their opinions, or the falsification of information (p. 184).

Third, surveys can be affected by a low response rate, which could jeopardize the size or

construction of the sample (p.185). Also, there is the possibility that those who choose to

respond may do so because of their own bias in favor of the survey subject matter.

Fourth, according to Leedy & Ormrod, survey questionnaires can gather only limited

information. Written surveys have a limited number of questions and this may cause the

researcher to miss out on some information that would have been gathered if follow

questions were available (p. 185). Because of this, the present survey has included several

33
open-ended questions to gather additional information. Finally, using the survey method

presents a unique challenge in determining what a representative sample is. This is

complicated by the fact that there is little objective data on RB churches available for

comparison.

The policy proposal model provides a reasonable expectation for success for

several reasons. First, this approach allows for the project to be completed by June of

2009. Second, the online survey method only requires a limited amount of financial

commitment. This is important because the author of this research is providing all of the

funding. Third, pilot surveys have been given to some RB pastors and there has already

been a reasonable response. Fourth, the idea of proposing significant changes to our

Baptist associations is feasible in theory, because church planting is included in the stated

purposes of these associations. Also, other evangelical associations and networks are

cooperating in similar ventures with successful outcomes.

3.3 Description of Intervention

The intervention proposed in this research project involves organizational changes

and commitments to increase the number of RB churches that will be planted within the

next ten years. Theses changes are aimed at improving the general function of RB

organizations. Specific changes will also be recommended in order to improve the

creation, sharing, and utilization of resources in order to increase the number of churches

that are planted.

RB associations are built on the premise that cooperation between churches can

help individual congregations reach goals that would be too difficult to accomplish on

34
their own. And that this can be done in a way that supports rather than diminishes the

importance and authority of the local church. Accordingly, the policy proposal

recommended by this project will focus on fostering and organizing RB churches and

associations to work together to give birth to new congregations. One hypothesis of this

study is that RB organizations are not presently functioning effectively as evidenced by

the small number of new churches that have been planted in recent history. At the time

of the study, the author is not aware of any comprehensive attempt to measure or monitor

these efforts.

In all likelihood, the goal of seeing ten churches planted in ten years cannot be

accomplished by individual churches acting in isolation. However, several churches have

already been planted by the informal cooperation of small congregations. Review of the

literature suggests that there are a number of discrete activities that need to take place to

create a successful church-planting network. These activities range from recruiting and

training church planters to sharing resources and funding. According to these findings

from the literature, the proposed changes will be focused on four major areas: How

church planting relates to the purpose of RB churches and associations, church planting

typology, location of planting efforts, and cooperation among RB’s.

Many of the resources necessary to plant these ten churches are already available

but remain unused or poorly coordinated. For instance, there are several ministerial

training programs functioning in RB churches or in cooperative ventures. However,

these training programs do not seem to have a clear focus on recruiting or training pastors

with the unique role of church planter (entrepreneur/missionary) for those with such a

35
call. Additionally the author is aware of anecdotal reports of independent churches

choosing not to join RB associations because of perceived inactivity and ineffectiveness

among these associations. It is likely that a clarified purpose in associational activity

may attract more churches and resources toward cooperative efforts.

In order to implement these changes, a core group of church leaders would need

to subscribe to the recommendations and support their adoption as policy. This important

first step is necessary for both the adoption of these structural changes and their

implementation. Most associations of independent Baptists function through the

voluntary involvement of member churches. In light of this, it is conceivable that formal

changes could be adopted by the association but remain unfulfilled due to lack of support.

Church leaders would need to donate time, church resources, and funding to fulfill this

vision.

Early steps in the execution of the proposed changes involve the author presenting

the research to church and association leaders in order to gain support. Once local pastors

and association leaders agree, the next step would involve serious planning. In the

planning phase, a road map would be created to help guide the organization through

implementation. Additionally, after planning has begun, the next step would be to

designate a leader with some kind of authority and accountability to help accomplish

specific goals.

It is possible that these changes may appear insignificant during the planning

stages. However, the proposed changes will amount to a redefinition of the purpose of

our RB associations. For example, military training takes on unique importance if the

36
new recruits are going to be immediately sent into battle. Similarly, a new focus will be

brought to ministerial training if pastoral students are going to be sent into the domestic

mission field to bring the message of Jesus to unreached Americans through church

planting.

Presently there are a number of church planting networks that are successfully

sharing resources to see large numbers of new congregations planted in the U.S. and

Canada. In light of the success of these organizations, these changes are feasible.

However, since many of these networks were created “from scratch,” their success may

be due in part to this clear sense of mission from their inception. The recommended

changes will involve philosophical and theological commitments, structural changes in

the documents and functioning of RB associations, and accountability to reach specific

goals. Because of the personal and organizational investment required to carry out such

changes, it is not known whether the proposed recommendations will be accepted within

existing associations or if new organizations will be called for.

3.4 Data Collection Plan

This project has followed a policy proposal design. Information was gathered for

the purpose of understanding the current state of RB church planting and recommending

policy and practical changes in order to increase the number and health of new RB

church plants. The information will help to display the level of need and the feasibility of

the proposed interventions.

The population that has been surveyed consists of RB churches that meet several

criteria. First, they have the 1689 BCF as their statement of faith. Second, they must be

37
churches that currently exist or have been worshipping within the last ten years. This will

allow the inclusion of churches that may have closed. Third, these RB churches are

located in the United States or Canada. Surveys will be limited to one response per

church, and only one response will be collected from each church.

The project was distributed by email on February 23rd, 2009 (see Appendix A for

the text of the email). The survey was anonymous and no personal information was

requested. Reminder emails were sent out in the weeks following the initial request. The

last survey response was collected on April 22, 2009 and the survey was closed. Data

from the survey was subsequently imported into a statistical software application (SPSS)

for analysis.

The survey included several demographic questions that were used to help delimit

the study and investigate some variables described in the literature in connection with

church plant. The survey also included questions about involvement in domestic church

planting over the life of the church and within the last then years and an evaluation of

how existing churches came into being. A copy of the survey is attached in the Appendix

B.

The survey was anonymous and respondents were encouraged to give honest and

unbiased answers. The online instructions clearly stated that the survey is anonymous.

The requesting email, and the online survey stated that the results will be posted at the

completion of the project at the author’s website (matttroupe.blogspot.com) and by

personal email. Since there is no clear database for this information, it will be helpful to

have several avenues for follow up.

38
 This survey was initially developed during the literature review phase of this project.

It was discussed with Dr. Tamsen Murray, and a paper version was submitted to six RB

pastors from Southern California for field-testing. These pastors were later invited to

take the revised online survey. As results became available and the author learned more

about research methods, the survey was modified to make data collection more simple

and measurable. Also several questions were rewritten to avoid bias or to provide

clarification.

The survey information was analyzed to arrive at factual picture of the details of RB

church planting, and to provide statistical averages that will help to support the need for

the policy proposal. Finally, the data was also evaluated for statistical significance using

SPSS software. The samples may have been affected by some degree of volunteer bias.

For instance, pastors who are wary of statistical research, or who have not been proactive

in church planting may have been less likely to respond than those who are actively

promoting the growth of new congregations. In order to limit this bias, the purpose of the

research has been clearly stated, and the invitations have stated that the results would be

made publicly available.

39
 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Chapters 1, 2, & 3

RB churches and their associations in America have experienced growth within

the last fifty years, and yet there is little data available on the efforts of these churches to

plant new congregations. This research intends to provide a fact-based picture of the state

of church planting among RB’s in the U.S. and Canada within the last ten years and make

several recommendations that can promote a commitment to church planting that is both

Biblical and effective. Within the recent years various branches of the American church

have produced a body of literature identifying practices that can improve the

effectiveness of church planting efforts. This literature has been reviewed in Chapter 2 to

set the stage for the present investigation.

An online survey was used to poll RB churches from independent and

associational circles in order to provide a clear picture of the efforts of RB churches and

their cooperation in the area of church planting. This data was gathered in early 2009 and

analyzed to provide a description of the situation in terms of Biblical truth and present

literature in the field.

4.1 Summary Of Results

Demographics Of The Study.

Email invitations to complete the survey were sent out directly through the weekly

ARBCA Update to their 63 churches, and through Farese.com, which maintains a

distribution list of 400 emails that connect to RB churches throughout North America and

40
around the world. Doubtless, these emails were also forwarded to others as well. The

author also attempted to make direct contact with FIRE leadership, and the director of the

Founder’s Ministries without (known) response.

There were a total of 73 responses, and several cases had to be removed because they

did not fit the parameters of the research. There were several churches that were removed

because they do not hold to the 1689 BCF, and this puts them outside the study

population. Additionally one response from a church in New Zealand was also removed.

A number of respondents left questions blank, and most often the blank responses were

removed when analyzing specific questions to increase accuracy of the sample size.

FIGURE 1 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP SIZE

41
 FIGURE 2 AVERAGE ATTENDANCE AT MAIN WORSHIP SERVICE

Figure 1 shows that 52.1% of Churches that responded are less than 60 in number,

with a scattering of churches throughout the spectrum. Figure 2 shows average

attendance at the main worship service is only less than 60 for 42.5 % of churches,

indicating that attendance is usually greater than the church’s membership.

Respondents.

42
 FIGURE 3 ASSOCIATIONAL TIES OF RESPONDENTS

Eighty-one percent of the responses (59 of them) came from Pastors in RB

churches. The remaining responses came from deacons (1%) and 13 responses from

“other” positions within the church. Since pastors are usually more aware of the details of

church policy and practice this increases the likelihood that the responses given are

accurate. Additionally, the survey represents RB’s from at least five RB associations (See

Figure 3). Furthermore, 56% of the responses come from unaffiliated churches.

Seventeen of the responses come from churches that belong to ARBCA (includes

churches with multiple affiliations) representing almost ¼ of the 63 churches that belong

to this association (ARBCA, 2009). The remaining churches that responded make up a

small fraction of the study, and a small portion of their associations. For instance three

43
churches from FIRE responded, yet FIRE has a membership of 75 churches (FIRE,

2009). Consequently, the study data seems most representative of unaffiliated and

ARBCA churches.

FIGURE 4 AGE OF RESPONDING CHURCHES

Figure 4 displays the average ages of churches from the survey, and Table 1

shows that the median year established is 1982. Figure 5 shows that close to 2/3 of

responding churches were formed more than ten years ago. In ten of the surveys the

question of church age was left blank. Figure 6 shows the population size of the city

where RB churches are found, and 60% of surveyed churches are found in towns less

than 100,000.

44
 TABLE 1 AVERAGE AGE OF CHURCHES

Year Founded
Number of Responses 66
Missing Responses 10
Mean 1982.9
Median 1989.0
Std. Deviation 25.9

FIGURE 5 CHURCH AGE IN TERMS OF THE LAST 10 YEARS

Several tests were performed to measure statistical significance, and these tests revealed

that the data has a high probability of statistical reliability. This information is available

from the author on request.

45
 FIGURE 6 SIZES OF THE CITIES WHERE RB CHURCHES ARE LOCATED

RB’s Are Interested And Involved In Seeing New Churches Planted.

The survey asked participants to rate their involvement in church planting as

demonstrated by Figure 7. Of the 52 responses to the question, approximately 38.4%

consider themselves to be participating in church planting by efforts that are involved,

very involved, or highly involved. Alternately, this means that 34.6% consider

themselves to be involved a little, and 26.9% not at all.

46
 FIGURE 7 DEGREE OF INVOLVEMENT IN CHURCH PLANTING

The survey also collected open responses, which allowed respondents to describe

their congregation’s participation in their own words. For example, one church allowed

another church plant to use their facility at no cost. A few churches described how they

have been involved in repeated efforts. Others provided details about giving, prayer, or

current involvement. Numerous churches are involved in church planting overseas. Four

churches indicated that they had been involved in efforts that were not successful. Other

responses indicated that they were open to involvement or actively looking for

opportunities to plant. One church reported attempting Spanish translation/outreach

ministry from their church. Finally, a number of churches reported that they have not yet

been involved.

Cooperation in Church Planting.

47
 Average Percentage of Budget Toward Missions
Median 10-12%
Mode 10-12%
Standard Deviation 8.7%

FIGURE 8 PERCENTAGE OF BUDGET DEVOTED TO MISSIONS

Just how are RB congregations participating in church planting? In addition to

the act of planting a church (see following discussion) RB cooperation is shown in the

table. Seventeen percent of churches say that they have not cooperated with other

churches in any of the ways listed. The most common acts of participation are through

prayer (81%), giving money either directly to church plants (50.8%) or through

associations general fund (40.7%) or specific funds (23.7%), and giving advice/oversight

to church plants (52.5%). This last figure shows that most of the churches giving

48
advice/coaching on church planting have no direct experience in church planting from

which to draw. The percentages are smaller in areas that involve human resources leaving

their congregation. Only 10% of churches have sent a candidate to be a church planter, or

members of their church to relocate in order to help a church plant. Only four churches

(6.8%) have had their church officers serve in leadership positions in church planting

organizations.

According to Ronsdale, S. & J. (2005) the average giving of churches in the U.S.

towards missions was 2% of their budget (p.4). In contrast to this, the present survey data

shows RB churches exceed those numbers with average missions giving at 10-12% (see

Figure 8). This is remarkable, because many of the churches reported giving even more

than this. It is noteworthy that the question does not distinguish between domestic or

foreign giving. However, RB churches seem to provide a strong example of sacrificial

giving to missions efforts.

Clarity on Reformed Baptist Associations.

RB’s documents and constitutions include church planting in their statements of

purpose. The ARBCA constitution (2001) lists eight purposes including “home

missions” (p.1). FIRE (n.d.) also states its purpose as including “cooperation in

ministries and missions” (p. 1). SCARBC (n.d.) has ten purposes in its constitution,

including: “To cooperate in the spreading of the gospel both at home and on foreign soil”

(p. 2). Founders Ministries (n.d.), however, does not include church planting or missions

in their purpose statement.

49
 TABLE 2 ASSOCIATIONAL OFFERINGS TO ASSIST CHURCH PLANTING

If your church is a member of an association, what has the association done to promote
domestic church planting? Indicate all that apply.
Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count
I don't know 25.6% 10
Offered training for church planters 53.8% 21
Offered/Provided funding for new churches 35.9% 14
Established a system for recruiting church
planters 17.9% 7
Offered formal help in assessing church
planter qualifications 30.8% 12
Provided coaching/accountability for church
planters 28.2% 11
Set goals for church planting 20.5% 8
Other (please specify) 33.3% 13

As depicted in Table 2, survey responses also reveal that RB Associations have

numerous mechanisms in place to promote church planting that reflect “best practices”

from the literature. However, 25% of associated churches are not aware of the resources

available through their associations, which may be an incentive to improve the flow of

information. Most respondents (53.8%) reported that their association offered training for

church planters. Only 17.9% were aware of a recruitment system, and 20.5% were aware

of any associational goals for planting. The data also reveals that even though only a few

churches have actually planted, many more have supported the efforts of those churches

both independently and through their associations. Two open responses indicated that

they believed any of these associational activities would violate local church autonomy.

Also, open responses indicate that churches support overseas missions through their

associations.

50
RB Church Plants In The Last Ten Years.

FIGURE 9 PERCENTAGE OF CHURCHES THAT HAVE EVER PLANTED

ANOTHER CONGREGATION

How many churches have become a “mother church” in bringing a new

congregation into existence at any point in their congregation’s history? According to

Figure 9, 27% (16 of the 59) of responding churches have planted a church in North

America; And 14 of those 16 have been in the last ten years (Figure 10). This means that

23.7% of churches that answered this question have planted in the last ten years, with

several churches planting more than one church. These 14 churches planted a total of 20

new congregations. However, if taken as a percentage of all surveys (14/73) the

percentage is smaller showing that 19.2% of churches have planted. This information

indicates limited involvement, but a positive trend since almost all of the church planting

activity that has happened has been happening in the last decade. The survey collected a

fragmented list of 45 known churches that have been planted in the last ten years in RB

51
circles. See Appendix C for this table. This question asked respondents to provide

information about any RB church plants that they were aware of, including efforts outside

their own congregation. Because of this, the responses include information that is

incomplete.

FIGURE 10 THE NUMBER OF CHURCHES PLANTING WITHIN THE LAST 10

YEARS AND THE DEGREE OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT

Clarity On The RB Church Planting Efforts

The survey reveals some important information on how RB churches have been

planted in the past. Question four asks, “Describe how your congregation began (indicate

all that apply).” Ten of churches (13.7%) used the assistance of an existing church to

help in their beginning regardless of the other conditions present. Also three of the

churches gave dual answers to question 4, considering themselves to be “a small group

interested in a reformed expression of worship” even if their church began from some of

52
the other listed circumstances. Figure 11 gives priority to the four categories listed for the

sake of clarity.

FIGURE 11 HOW EXISTING CHURCHES WERE FORMED

Many of the existing churches, and church planting efforts have focused on

gathering people who are already share RB convictions into new congregations as the

principal strategy (See figure 11). In answering how their own church began, only eight

of 73 (13.3%) of the churches came into existence as a result of the deliberate efforts of a

mother church in sending out a church planter. The vast majority of RB churches

surveyed came from groups of Christians that were dissatisfied with existing churches.

Twenty percent said it was a reform of an existing church (which is not strictly the

planting of a new congregation), and 26.7% reported that their congregation began from a

53
church split. Though church splits are sometimes necessary and even beneficial, this too

is not kingdom growth in the strictest sense. The largest response group shows that 40%

of the churches were a small group of believers that were interested in a reformed

expression of worship.

Open responses add weight to the data: “It was a small group interested in solid

preaching.” “…Tired of fighting doctrinal battles in existing churches. Started a

Reformed Baptist church with myself and wife and then had others join upon mutual

agreement.” The church’s growth was “…one of reforming rather than reformed.”

Additionally, the responses to question eight “How has your congregation been involved

in domestic church planting?” reveal a similar vein of thought: “Helped two other local

churches to form who were splits off of a larger church that fired the pastors for being

Calvinists.” In describing how one failed plant proceeded: “We also gathered addresses

from Trinity Book Service and Cumberland Valley book service [reformed book

vendors] of people in that area who ordered books from them. We sent letters to these

people informing them of the effort.”

Cooperation.

54
 TABLE 3 COOPERATION AMONG RB’S IN CHURCH PLANTING

How has your church been able to cooperate with other churches in domestic church
planting within the last 10 years? Select as many as apply.
Response Response
Answer Options Frequency Count
Our church has not worked with other churches. 16.9% 10
Prayer for church plants. 81.4% 48
Cooperating for training in church planting (such as a
conference). 22.0% 13
Contributing to the general funds of an association or
network that plants churches. 40.7% 24
Making specific contributions to an association or
network to further church planting. 23.7% 14
Making contributions directly to support the planting of a
new church. 50.8% 30
Having church officers serve in leadership positions for
church planting organizations. 6.8% 4
Sending candidates to help plant new churches. 10.2% 6
Sending existing members to relocate in helping a church
plant. 10.2% 6
Sending pastors/preachers to help conduct worship
services during the start up phase. 25.4% 15
Sending members/teams to help with work projects (such
as evangelism). 16.9% 10
Giving advice/counsel to church planters. 52.5% 31
Providing oversight/coaching to church planters. 27.1% 16

Table 3 shows how RB’s are cooperating in church planting. Many churches are

partnering together through prayer, giving money, and advice. The numbers are smaller

for churches that have sent leaders or members out with less than six churches (10.2%)

sending pastors or members to relocate, and even fewer (Four churches at 6.8%) sending

out church planting candidates.

4.2 CONCLUSIONS

55
 Church Planting Involvement.

The survey requested respondents to supply information about any known RB

church plants within the last 10 years. Survey responses listed about 45 new

congregations including churches planted outside the efforts of the respondent churches

(Appendix C). It is likely that there are a number of church plants by RB’s that have not

been listed here, including a number of attempts that did not result in an abiding

congregation. But if the numbers from this study are representative of RB church planting

efforts at large then several conclusions may be suggested. First, RB’s as a group are

interested in church planting and involved in a variety of ways and have brought new

congregations into existence.

Second, this means that an average of 4.5 churches have been planted each year

over the last 10 years. However, there is a larger pool of RB churches that may have a

limited involvement in church planting. To put this figure in perspective, it would be

helpful to compare the number of churches planted to the total number of existing

churches in this larger group. For instance, Founders Ministries has 1,045 churches.

Their numbers were not widely represented in this survey, yet many of the church plants

mentioned are from these congregations. However, to arrive at a modest estimate, the

total number of Founders Ministries churches will not be included in the number of total

churches in the analysis (the denominator in Figure 12). If the unaffiliated churches in

this survey (42), the number of ARBCA Churches (63) and the number of FIRE churches

(75) are added this gives a total of 183 churches. This is an average of 2.45%

involvement rate per year (See Figure 12). If this conclusion is accurate then it supports

56
both of the hypotheses of the present study. Specifically, RB’s have not been

aggressively planting new congregations, and that RB structures and practices are not

functioning effectively to promote the planting of new churches.

FIGURE 12 YEARLY INVOLVEMENT OF RB CHURCHES IN CHURCH

PLANTING

This conclusion is further supported by the small number of churches that have

planted by churches from within the study. If the same equation is used to evaluate only

North American congregations planted by the pool of 73 survey respondents, then 20

Churches have been planted in the last ten years (see Figure 9). This is an average of 2.0

churches planting per year. The conclusion can be seen in Figure 13:

FIGURE 13 YEARLY INVOLVEMENT OF SURVEY CHURCHES IN CHURCH

PLANTING

The survey also reveals that a significant number of churches are “not really

involved at all” (26.9%), or only “involved a little” (34.6%) (See Figure 7). It should

also be considered that 72.9% of churches have never planted in their history (see Figure

8). This seems to indicate that a small number of churches are doing most of the church

57
planting. This means that a large number of RB churches should consider whether they

have taken seriously the implications of the Great Commission for their church. These

figures also suggest that many RB churches do not see deliberate multiplication through

church planting as the goal of every assembly of believers. Instead, the planting of a new

congregation is often unintentional, and brought about circumstances outside the

purposes of the church and its leadership (e.g. church splits).

Another important conclusion involves the nature of RB church planting. Only

13.7% of church plants (Figure 7) were the deliberate result of an existing church sending

out a church planter. The way in which most RB congregations have come into existence

is by reshuffling existing believers into new congregations. This means that 89% of

existing churches were created to provide people who were already followers of Christ

better church conditions. This conclusion seems to comport with some of the statements

listed above about the reasons for planting and how growth has been fostered. It appears

that RB church-planting efforts may have selected a “target demographic” which is

comprised of reformed Christians rather than making disciples. Could this be a

contributing factor for why so many RB churches remain small (see Figures 1 and 2),

because they stop growing once they have attracted all of the Calvinists in their town?

Certainly there are many reasons why churches fail to grow, but this is an important

question for RB churches and leaders to ask themselves. The author does not want to

suggest that the reformation of existing churches or Christians is an unworthy aim, only

that it is incomplete if it does not lead to a robust commitment to follow the example of

58
Jesus, who “did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (NJKV, Matt

9:13).

In making an individual appropriation of these principles each church should

examine their own history and practices with these and other questions. Could it be that

focus of some churches has not been on fulfilling the Great Commission, but rather

providing a distinct religious venue to Christians frustrated with American Christianity?

Al Mohler (2009) offers a warning to the growing church planting movement: “This

movement must complement—not castigate—existing churches” (para. 17). Is it possible

for a church to achieve a “critical mass” of members through efforts to gather

theologically mature Christians, and then shift its focus to a missionary community that is

welcoming to lost people? Is it possible that several decades of this approach has

produced a network of churches for which evangelism has become an optional or

secondary church function?

The literature by RB’s on church planting is neither prominent nor prolific.

However, some examples of the literature that is available add weight to the idea that this

approach (gathering Reformed Christians) is a common strategy. A series of seven

articles on the Reformed Baptist Fellowship Blog (2007) titled “A Layman’s Guide to

Church Planting” gives advice to laymen who find themselves in a town without an RB

church (Reeves, S.). In encouraging others the author writes:

…We longed for a church that was more in keeping with our convictions
about the nature of the church and at the same time focused on Christ-
centered preaching and teaching from a Reformed perspective. We
dreamed of the possibility that someone would start a Reformed Baptist
church in our area, although we knew of no one else in our area who
shared our convictions and saw no promise of such an effort. Untold

59
 numbers of others find themselves in similar or more discouraging
circumstances. They long for a biblically sound church but cannot find one
in their area or even the prospect for one in the near future. (part I, para. 1)

The series of articles goes on to offer suggestions about how to find other interested

reformed Christians in the area who might help to form a core group. To be fair, Reeves

provides a humble perspective, links to other church planting networks, and mentions

evangelism at several points. These articles provide valuable wisdom that is sure to help

people in the circumstances that he describes. However, the emphasis is clearly on

providing an RB church for Christians who are dissatisfied with their current

circumstances. This research suggests that this approach constitutes the lion’s share of

church planting efforts among RB’s and is Biblically deficient on that account.

Pastor Steve Hartland (2009) confirms this by describing his church’s

involvement in a failed planting effort. He says that he counseled with two “flag ship RB

churches” that advised him to work on gathering a group of committed Christians who

understood reformed theology and to provide them with pulpit supply once a large

enough core group had demonstrated commitment to RB distinctives (S. Hartland,

personal communication May 20, 2009). What is lacking in this approach is the priority

of making new disciples. Sadly, this approach was also the method previously employed

in two previous planting efforts by the church where the author pastored from 2003-2006.

Additionally the author has had discussions with several pastors who described their

exploration of church planting opportunities by asking, “if there was a need” for a

“reformed witness” in the city. Church leaders with this perspective may have

unwittingly accepted the idea that only a small percentage of Christians in a given locale

60
would attend a reformed church. Also, this approach places a high value on the “needs”

of believers, and neglects the “needs” of the lost.

Dr. James Renihan (1999) describes the evangelistic emphasis of early RB’s in

England and Wales. He says that in the 75 years following 1641 the number of RB

churches grew from zero to 220, and that this happened by the deliberate action of

churches sending out evangelists to “dark corners of the land” (p.2). He also says that

Benjamin Keach “argued that ministers should be active in preaching in the towns and

villages near where they were located, so that new churches might be planted” (p.3). In

arguing against methods of evangelism that do not lead disciples into churches Renihan

says, “The Baptists could not conceive of evangelism apart from church planting” (p.3).

RB’s involved in church planting should ask if they have fallen into the opposite error of

conceiving of church planting apart from evangelism. This data may come at an

opportune time as there is an increasing interest in church planting, and a number of

congregations that want to participate.

Locations.

This strategy (of gathering reformed Christians) likely contributes to the

geographic distribution of RB churches and their recent planting endeavors. If church

planting efforts were primarily focused on reaching lost people and making and training

new disciples it is hard to imagine that the cost and sacrifice of such efforts would be

focused on such small towns. Only nine of the 45 church plants in the last ten years have

been located in any of the 55 largest towns (with populations above 370,000) in the U.S.

and Canada (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, see also Appendix C). Furthermore, 34.2 % of

61
RB churches are found in towns with less than 40,000 (Figure 6). Churches in larger

urban areas tend to have access to more lost people, and as a result have more access to

evangelistic opportunities.

It is noteworthy that there was little mention of efforts by English-speaking

congregations to plant churches that reach lost people of other languages or cultures in

North America. Though not a primary focus of the survey, when respondents provided

answers in their own words they mentioned only limited involvement in this arena. One

church mentioned several plants in French-speaking Quebec, another mentioned a

Spanish ministry that they hope will become a church plant, and another mentioned

supporting two African-American congregations. Is there a connection between the

model of gathering existing Christians, being located in small towns, and limited efforts

to reach “the nations” in America? Could it be that ethnic populations are not receiving

attention in church planting because they are less likely to already have reformed

Christians in them?

Cooperation.

Finally, the study reveals that though RB’s are cooperating, that they are not

cooperating as effectively as they could. This conclusion follows from several

considerations. First, from the small number of churches planted. Second, 16.9% of

churches have not cooperated with other churches at all in church planting (Table 3).

Third, 25% of churches that identified themselves as members of an association are not

aware of what the association offers to promote planting (see Table 2). Fourth, many RB

churches are comparatively small and do not have the resources to plant on their own. If

62
aggressive church planting is to be done, it will only happen through cooperative efforts.

Finally, though the various associations have a number of mechanisms to promote

planting, these mechanisms have not resulted in the effective and sustained addition of

new congregations (Table 2). For example, as of the 2007 ARBCA Church Planting

School the Association had not adopted a church plant in America, in spite of the fact that

several ARBCA churches are involved in planting new congregations. With all of the

resources that are available to RB’s and their associations, there should be some

investigation as to why more churches are not taking advantage of these resources.

4.3 Recommendations

4.3.1 Policy Recommendations.

The Multiplication Of Disciples.

RB’s need to see the present practice of church planting as a means of gathering

dissatisfied believers into churches rather than as a means of making disciples as

inadequate. This means that there should be repentance where necessary. Existing

churches and church plants should change their focus from simply helping their

communities have a “reformed witness” to winning the lost and gathering them into

Biblical churches. This will require hard work and self-denial, as it is often easier to find

Christians than do the hard work of reaching lost people. RB churches should see any

practice that places most of its efforts into finding Christians who are already reformed as

unbiblical. Instead, they should seek after real kingdom growth. This is not to say that

existing Christians have no role to play in church planting, just that their role should be to

63
support the establishing of a church that will be the “salt of the earth” and the “light of

the world” (Matt 5:13-16).

Any worthwhile change in this area must come from an application of the Great

Commission and its corollary commands. This means that the church must see the

multiplication and training of disciples to the glory of God as the mission of the church

on earth. Strictly speaking, Jesus Christ gave His church a command to make disciples

(Matt 28:18-20), and disobedience to this command must be displeasing to the head of

the church. The 61.5 % of Churches that have not been involved at all or only a little

(Figure 7) should examine the reasons why they have been unable or unwilling to

participate and make a plan to address those reasons. RB’s should also begin by loving

the lost people that are closest to them. The real work of Acts 1:8 (i.e. being a witness to

Christ in Jerusalem, all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth) in our churches,

as in the rest of that book, should begin in our own city and then work out in concentric

circles to the ends of the earth. As American culture emerges into a more post-modern

and post-Christian society, American churches should pay more attention to the methods

and priorities of foreign missionaries. Eric Ramsey has said, “North America is the only

continent in the world where the church is not growing” (quoted in Mohler, A., 2007).

RB churches should examine the activities of their churches and missionaries serving

overseas and be willing to change their methods as they work to see America as a mission

field. RB’s should also make sure that their view of the sovereignty of God is not

hindering obedient faith in the promised power of Christ (Matt 28:18-20) to fulfill the

missionary mandate.

64
 The changes that are called for are consistent with RB heritage. C. H. Spurgeon

(1889) disparaged those who criticize other churches while remaining disconnected from

evangelism:

...they maintain their churches by converts from other systems. I have

even heard them say, 'Oh, yes, the Methodists and Revivalists are beating
the hedges, but we shall catch many of the birds.' If I harboured such a
mean thought I would be ashamed to express it. A system which cannot
touch the outside world, but must leave arousing and converting work to
others, whom it judges to be unsound, writes its own condemnation (p.
275).

The Need To Be Deliberate In Church Planting Efforts.

Another recommendation of this research is that each RB church should be

making deliberate efforts to plant new churches. Each church should be self-supporting,

self-governing, and self-duplicating (English, D., 2001, see also Nevius, J., 2003, p. 12).

This means that it should be the prayerful and diligent goal of every congregation to give

birth to not just one, but many churches. At present there are a few RB churches that are

heavily involved in planting churches. Many other churches have not been involved at all

(See Figure 7). Each local church should see itself as a sending agent to further the

kingdom. RB’s should add this consideration into what it means to be a healthy, Biblical

church. Each new church should be planted with this DNA and goal.

Practically this means that the leaders of each congregation should avoid having a

mindset that wants to “gather and keep” its people and resources to become a bigger and

stronger body in any way that prevents sacrificial multiplication. Churches should be

regularly praying and looking for opportunities to send away money, members, and

ministers to further the gospel and see new churches planted. This also means that

65
existing congregations will need to live by faith that the Lord will provide for their needs

when they make sacrifices. For instance, the desire to have a plurality of elders should

not automatically preclude sending out qualified church planters.

Churches should also consider setting benchmarks for financial involvement in

church planting. Most RB churches are already giving generously to missions, and this is

commendable. Those that are not should set goals so that a fixed amount of their

offerings leave their church to advance the gospel. Finally, many RB churches are

“regional” churches in which many of the members drive more than 30-60 minutes to

worship. Church leaders should see groups of traveling families as core group members

for their next church plant. They should make plans to begin outreach efforts and Bible

studies in those neighborhoods. The church should publicly pray for the day when those

families will be a part of a new mission work in their own local communities. This should

be a priority for any church that has multiple families commuting from the same town,

even if it means eventual sacrifice for the mother church.

Need To Focus On Large Cities.

RB’s should focus their church planting efforts on larger cities. At present there is

a disproportion in this regard. Most RB churches are in small towns, and most RB church

plants are in small towns. Strategically planting in larger cities is consistent with the

example of the Apostle Paul who usually targeted cities like Ephesus, Phillipi, Athens,

Corinth, and Thessalonica. These cities were usually large population centers that

possessed access to commerce, government, and trade. Urban areas provide more access

to multitudes of people, and more cultural diversity than small towns. According to the

66
United Nations Urban Population Fund (2008), by “2008, for the first time in history,

more than half of the world’s population will be living in towns and cities,” and this

number is expected to reach five billion by 2030 (para. 1). The population of the world is

increasingly found in urban centers. Additionally, efforts should be made toward

planting multiple churches in big cities, rather than resting content (for example) with a

single RB church for a city of a million or more people. Additionally RB churches

should focus their church planting efforts on the unreached people groups represented in

America. Many of the ethnic groups of the world have large communities in major

American cities.

The Need To Cooperate In These Efforts.

Finally, RB’s need to maintain and improve their cooperation between churches

in order to carry out the mandate to multiply disciples and plant churches. The Biblical

warrant for such cooperation is well known and already reflected in the documents of RB

associations and churches. This recommendation is even more acute for many churches

that are small and may not have the resources to plant on their own. Groups of churches

in the same region should gather regularly for the purpose of praying, planning, and

seeking God’s guidance for shared ventures. Churches should look for ways to diffuse

the burden by adding together a number of small investments to get the job done. RB

associations should consider setting aside personnel to coordinate domestic missions

work.

RB’s should look for ways to increase the cooperation in existing associations,

and look for reasons why these existing organizations are not functioning at full capacity.

67
Hopefully, these issues can be resolved in a way that allows fellowship and cooperation

among the churches. However, if disagreements over secondary issues cannot be

resolved, there may also be the need for committed churches to forge new alliances for

the express purpose of church planting. Churches and associations should also make a

determined effort to make church planting the focus of their conferences and invite

experienced church planters from overseas and outside organizations to speak at these

venues.

RB’s should recognize their limitations in the area of church planting as well.

This research has demonstrated that there are only a few examples of committed churches

in North America that are planting churches with a missionary focus. It may be that RB’s

are simply following the examples that they have. Churches without experience should

partner and support those who have already planted. The limited number of aggressive

churches should also encourage RB’s to look outside of their own circles for help and

partnership. In a lecture on “Whitefield and Catholicity,” Iain Murray suggests (2005)

that the schism and division characteristic of 17th century British Christianity gave way to

the 19th century missionary movement and its character of cooperation in large part

because of George Whitefield’s willingness to work with Christians of many stripes to

advance the gospel. Churches with this sense of humility will realize the wealth of

teaching and experience in other ecclesiastical circles, both reformed and evangelical.

Cooperation should focus on joint ventures in training and conferences.

Seminaries and schools should give consideration to including modules on missiology

and church planting, and give resources to recruiting planters. Additionally, churches

68
should be willing to adopt models that may be considered more “apostolic,” where a

single gifted church planter or evangelist works with a number of smaller groups until

they have their own leadership and an established congregation. RB missionaries use this

approach commonly overseas (e.g. the Dominican Republic, Personal Correspondence

Guzman, F. 2005). Finally, RB’s should not allow the fear of failure or attainment of

success to slow these efforts. Churches should come together to discuss what they have

learned from both of these outcomes, and begin making plans for the next church plant as

soon as possible until the return of Christ. Maranatha!

4.3.2 Recommendations For Further Research.

Undoubtedly this research is limited and has its flaws. In particular, this survey

intended to evaluate efforts in the U.S. and Canada, but survey responses include limited

information about Canadian RB churches or their efforts. Additionally, the research does

not include information about the efforts of non-English speaking RB congregations.

Additionally, more research is needed to provide complete information regarding all RB

church planting efforts, including failed attempts. The table in Appendix C is fragmented

and only provides partial information as provided by the respondents.

Several other issues should be pursued by further research. What are the

perceived reasons why RB churches have not been more involved? What is the

difference between foreign and domestic missions efforts? Beside the evangelistic focus

in church plants, what is the nature of evangelism and outreach in existing churches? Is

growth in existing churches from conversions or simply transfer of membership from

69
other churches? How many church plants have been started and failed? What lessons can

be learned from the successes and failures in RB Church planting? What are RB views on

contextualization in gospel ministry? How does the practice of contextualization differ

among RB’s outside of the U.S. and Canada? Which non-English speaking RB

groups/churches are there in the US/Canada, and what is the nature and quantity of their

involvement in church planting?

In the area of cooperation further research is also needed. When associated RB

churches have planted outside their Baptist associations, what have been their reasons for

working outside of those organizations? What is the current level of commitment among

training institutions for church planting? Finally, RB’s need to begin to publish their own

literature in this area.

70
 REFERENCES
Acts 29 Network (2009). Proceedings of the Acts 29 Network San Diego Boot Camp.
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America-ARBCA (2001). ARBCA Constitution.
Retrieved May 20th, 2009 from http://www.arbca.com/index.php/arbca-documents
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America-ARBCA (2001). Foreign Missions. Retrieved
June 1st, 2009 from http://www.arbca.com/index.php/foreign-missions
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America-ARBCA (2007). Proceedings of the ARBCA
Church Planting School. Bartlesville, OK.
Appleton, J. (2008). Preparing to Plant: Calling, equipping and enabling church planters in Europe.
Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp
Barnes, F (2009). When the Pastor Says It's 'A Time to Sow.' The Wall Street Journal (3.19.2009)
Retreieved May 19, 2009 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123751393100191463.html
Bevans, S., & Scherer, J. (1992, July). Mission statements: How they are developed and
what they tell us. International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 16(3), 98. Retrieved June 14,
2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Brown, S. (2007a). Becoming a Church Planting Church: Issues pastors address when leading a
church to birth a network of new churches. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from
http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp
Brown, S. (2007b). Creating Strategic Alliances And Partnerships For Planting New
Churches. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp
Butler, R. (2009). Largest Cities in North America. Retrieved May 16th, 2009 from
http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/North_American_cities.htm
Crouch, A. (2007, April 1). African Planter: Nairobi chapel castor Oscar Muriu on starting churches,
mission trips, and working well across cultures. Leadership, Spring 2007, Retrieved November
1, 2008, from Christian Periodical Index database
Davis, K. (2007). Ten Reasons for Church Planting. Sharper Iron. Retrieved on December 1, 2007
from http://www.sharperiron.org/2007/01/22/ten-reasons-for-church-planting
Davis, S. (2008a). Contextualization: Theological and missiological necessity. Sharper Iron.
Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://sharperiron.org/2008/08/11/contextualization-
theological-and-missiological-necessity
Davis, S. (2008b). Contextualization and Syncretism: Navigating a course. Sharper Iron. Retrieved
September 3, 2008, from http://sharperiron.org/2008/08/25/contextualization-and-syncretism-
navigating-a-course/
Davis, S. (ND). The Challenge of Missions in the Twenty-first Century. Retrieved
September 4, 2008, from http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/perspectives.php/924?pg=all
Driscoll, M. (2006). Confessions of a Reformission Rev: Hard Lessons from and Emerging Missional

71
 Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
English, D. (2001). Paul's Secret - A First-Century Strategy for a 21st Century World. Retrieved on
June 2, 2009 from http://www.globalopps.org/articles/index.htm
Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals- FIRE (n.d.). FIRE Brochure. Retrieved May 20th,
2009 from http://www.firefellowship.org/resources.shtml
Founders Ministries (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved May 20th, 2009 from
http://www.founders.org/ info/about.html
Foulke, B. (2003, November 2). New Churches, New strategies, New Harvests. Christian Standard,
Nov 2, 2003, Retrieved November 1, 2008, from Christian Periodical Index database.
Forsyth, R. (2004, January). Evangelism and Ministry: The '10 per cent mission' in the
city of Sydney. Transformation (02653788), 21(1), 36-40. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from
Academic Search Premier database.
Gray, S. (2007). Planting Fast Growing Churches. St. Charles: Church Smart Resources
Griffin, R. W. (2008). Management (9th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hadaway, C. (1990). The Impact Of New Church Development On Southern Baptist Growth. Review
of Religious Research, 31(4), 370. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from Academic Search Premier
database.
Hartford Institute for Religion Research (2006). What’s the Size of U.S. Churches? Retrieved on May
16, 2009 from http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html#sizecong
Hesselgrave, D. J. (2000). Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: North America and beyond (2nd ed.)
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic
Hunt, J. (2006). Finding Church Planters: Discovering and discerning those God has
called to start the next generation of churches. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from
http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp
Hunter, T. (1986). “Association of Vineyard Churches Church Pathology Report.” Retrieved on
November 7, 2008 from: http://www.sebts.edu/NACP/Resources/demographics/
Jackson, T. (2003). Urban Church Planting with Power. Christian Standard, Aug 24, 2003, Retrieved
November 1, 2008, from Christian Periodical Index database.
Johnson, T. (2008). Core Values for Church Planting. Retrieved on May 19, 2009 from
http://www.ipcsav.org/article/core-values-for-church-planting/
Keller, T. (2001). The Missional Church. Retrieved from http://www.redeemer2.com. July 22nd, 2008.
Keller, T. (2002a). Why Plant Churches. Retrieved from http://www.redeemer2.com. July 22nd, 2008.
Keller, T. (2002b). Evangelistic Worship. Retrieved from http://www.redeemer2.com. July 22nd, 2008.
Keller, T. (2002c). Christ and the City. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from http://theresurgence.com
Keller, T., & Allen, J. A. (2002). Church Planter Manual. New York: Redeemer Church Planting

72
 Center
Keller, T. (2003). Advancing the Gospel into the 21st Century Parts
I-IV: Retrieved July 22, 2008 from http://theresurgence.com
Keller, T. (2004). Planting a Church in the City. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from
http://theresurgence.com
Keller, T. (2006). A New Kind Of Urban Christian: As the city goes, so goes the culture.
(Christian Vision Project). Christianity Today, May 2006, Retrieved November 1, 2008, from
Christian Periodical Index database.
Leadership Network. (2007a). Church Planting Overview: State of church planting
USA. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp
Leadership Network. (2007b). Who Starts New Churches? State of Church Planting USA.
Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp
Leadership Network. (2007c). Church Planting Typology Report Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from
http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp
MacArthur, J. (1993). Ashamed of the Gospel: When the church becomes like the world.
Wheaton: Crossway Books.
Mahaney, C.J. (1999). Proceedings of the PDI Worship Conference ‘99: Cross Centered
Worship. Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Martin, R. (2005, July). Urban Mission. Expository Times, 116(10), 358-359.
Retrieved June 14, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Miller, C. J. (1986). Outgrowing the Ingrown Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Moore, R. (2002). Starting a New Church: The church planter’s guide to success. Ventura: Regal
Books.

Mohler, A. (2007). Church Planting Movements and the Great Commission. Retrieved May 19, 2099
from http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_print.php?id=1016

Murray, I (2005, May). George Whitfield and Catholicity. 9 Marks Ministries. Retrieved on October
10, 2007 from http://media.9marks.org/?s=whitefield

Nevius, J. (2003). The Planting and Development of Missionary Churches. Reprint of 1886 edition.
Hancock: Monadack Press
Newman, R. (2004). Questioning Evangelism: Engaging people’s hearts the way Jesus did.
Grand Rapids: Kregal Publications
Newton, P. (2005, October 1). Musings On Church Planting. Founders Journal, Fall
2005, Retrieved November 1, 2008, from Christian Periodical Index database.

73
Newton, P. (2008). From Planting to Reforming. Provocations and Paintings, retrieved May 19,2009
from http://timmybrister.com/2008/06/27/nfc-x-phil-newton-on-from-planting-to-reforming/
Plummer, R. (2006) Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission: Did the Apostle Paul expect the
early Christian communities to evangelize? Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers
Raiter, M. (2005). Sent for This Purpose: 'Mission' and 'missiology' and their search
for meaning. International Congregational Journal, 5(1), 11-25. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from
Academic Search Premier database.
Reeves, S. (2007). A Layman’s Guide To Church Planting (Parts I-VII). Reformed Baptist Fellowship
Retrieved May 19, 2009 from http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com
Renihan, J. (1999) Church Planting and the London Baptist Confessions of Faith, Founder’s Journal
Issue 37, 1999. Retrieved May 19, 2009 from http://www.founders.org/
journal/fj37/article1.html
Ridley, C. (2007). “13 Essential Characteristics.” Retrieved November 5, 2008 from:
http://www.churchplanting4me.org/ridleyfactors.htm
Rohrmayer, G., & Kappas, G. (2002) “Twenty Five Questions for Planting Healthy
Churches: A comprehensive workbook for church planters and their teams.” Retrieved on
November 7, 2008 from: www.midwestbap.org/docs/TwentyFiveQuestions.pdf
Ronsdale, S. & J. (2005). The State Of Church Giving Through 2005. Retrieved
May 15, 2009 from: http://www.churchexecutive.com/article.asp?IndexID=1052
Searcy, N., & Kerrick, T. (2006). Launch: Starting a new church From scratch. Ventura:
Regal Books.
Self, B. (2007). Proceedings of the ARBCA School of Church Planting. Bartlesville,
OK.
Smith, G. (2007). Models for Raising up Church Planters: How churches become more effective
through intentional leadership development. Retrieved November 6, 2008 on:
http://ubahouston.org/100836.ihtml
Southern California Association of Reformed Baptist Churches- SCARBC (n.d.) Constitution.
Spurgeon, C. H. (1889) Lectures to My Students. New York: Robert Carter and Brothers
Stafford, T. (2007a). Go and Plant Churches of All Peoples. Christianity Today, 51(9), 68-72.
Retrieved June 14, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Statistics Canada, (2001). 2001 Census: Population and Dwelling Counts. Retrieved June 2, 2009 from
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/popdwell/Table-CMA-
N.cfm?T=1&SR=1&S=3&O=D
Stetzer, E. (2006). Planting Missional Churches: Planting a church that’s Biblically
sound and reaching people in culture. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group
Stetzer, E. (2007a). Funding New Churches. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from
http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp

74
Stetzer, E. (2007b). Improving the Health and Survivability of New Churches.
Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/resources_downloads.asp
Stetzer, E. & Connor, P. (2007). “Church Plant Survivability and Health Study.” Retrieved on
November 7, 2008 from: http://www.namb.net/
Tame, K. (2005). And Finally … Focusing on a Mission. Expository Times,
117(2), 88-88. Retrieved June 14, 2008, doi:10.1177/0014524605059919
Thomas, S., (2007). The Planters Ultimatum. Retrieved November 5, 2008 from:
http://www.acts29network.org/acts-29-blog/the-planters-ultimatum/
Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. (2007, December). Missions. Retrieved June 14, 2008,
from Academic Search Premier database.
Troupe, M. (2008). Why Don’t Reformed Baptists Plant More Churches? Unpublished paper, Azusa
Pacific University.
Union Baptist Association. (2007). Church Planting Manifesto. Retrieved on November 6, 2008 from:
http://ubahouston.org/100836.ihtml
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (2008). Linking Population, Poverty and Development.
Retreieved May 22, 2009 from http://www.unfpa.org/pds/urbanization.htm
U.S. Census Bureau (2007). Cities and Towns: Places over 100,000: 2000 to 2007. Retrieved May 20,
2009 from http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2007.html
Vokurka, R., & McDaniel, S. (2004). A Taxonomy Of Church Marketing Strategy Types. Review of
Religious Research, 46(2), 132-149. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from Academic Search
Premier database.
Walker, K. (2007). Ghost Growth: Baptist Report--Some 'Failed' Church Plants Never Existed.
Christianity Today, Jan 2007, Retrieved November 1, 2008, from Christian Periodical Index
database.
Weisbord, M. (1976). Diagnosing Your Organization: A “Six-box” Learning Exercise. Manalapan:
Flying Starship Enterprises.
Williams, A. (2005). Church Multiplication Centers: Best practices from churches that
do high-yield church planting. Retrieved June 10th, 2008 from http://www.leadnet.org/
resources_downloads.asp
White, D., & Simas, C. (2008). An Empirical Investigation Of The Link Between Market Orientation
And Church Performance. International Journal Of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing.
13(2), 153-165. Retrieved September 8, 2008, doi:10.1002/nvsm.314

75
 APPENDIX A

EMAIL INVITATION TO THE SURVEY

February 23, 2009

Dear Friends,
Thank you so much for all your support and prayers. Many of you have been praying for
our efforts to plant a church in Fresno CA. Thank you so much for being fellow workers
with us and with God for the glory of Christ. In addition to being a church planter I am
also trying to learn as much as I can about this subject so that I can help promote the
establishment of new congregations. I am currently completing a research project on
church planting and I am doing a survey of churches in the U.S. and Canada to gain
information on this subject. I have asked a number of pastors questions like "how many
churches have been planted in the last 10 years?" and the first answer is usually
something like, "I am not really sure," followed by a short list of a few church plants that
they are familiar with. I would like to gather factual information that is inclusive of the
efforts of RB's in the U.S. and Canada and information about the churches that are
planting/being planted. Please take a few moments to complete this online survey. For
most people it will take about 10 minutes and includes questions about your congregation
and its involvement in church planting. This survey is intended to be taken one time per
congregation, and a pastor/elder is probably the best candidate to take it. But if you are
not sure, feel free to complete the survey. Please follow the link below to find the survey.
I will be publishing the results in several months for anyone who wishes to have the
information.
I hope that this information will help us to serve Christ more effectively in the
cause of domestic missions. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions,
Thanks!
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9nMAL2G42uwcFCa5nDB6dQ_3d_3d
Matthew Troupe
metroupe@gmail.com

76
 APPENDIX B

TEXT OF THE ONLINE SURVEY

INTRODUCTION TO THE SURVEY

Thank you for taking the time to complete this brief survey. I am collecting this
information as part of a research project in the completion of an undergraduate degree
from Azusa Pacific University. Hopefully this information will help to provide factual
information about the state of Reformed Baptist church planting, and provide suggestions
that will help improve the successful planting of churches in the U.S. and Canada.

I decided to do this research because I could not find answers to important questions like,
"how many churches have Reformed Baptists planted in the last 10 years?"

Please provide answers to all the questions, and in the case that you do not have exact
figures at hand, please provide your best estimate.

Several of you (pastors and seminary students) completed the pilot survey and assisted
me with clearing up any problems with the questions. Thank you for your help. Feel free
to complete this survey even if you already helped with the pilot survey.

The goal is to have no more than one survey completed for each congregation. So please
do not take the survey more than once. If you have any questions feel free to email me at
the address below.

The information is confidential and no personal information will be collected unless you
choose to include it in your response.

If you would like an email copy of the results of the research when it is complete please
send me an email at: metroupe@gmail.com. Additionally the research will be made
available on the internet when it is completed (some time in May-June 2009). You can
find more information on my blog as it becomes available: matttroupe.blogspot.com,

Thanks,
Pastor Matt Troupe
Free Grace Church of Fresno

SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. Does your church hold to or confess in any capacity the 1689 London Baptist
Confession of Faith? Yes or No
2. What is your position at the church?
3. What year was your church founded?

77
4. Please describe how your congregation began (indicate all that apply):
a. It was a reform of an existing church.
b. It formed from a church split.
c. It was a small group interested in a reformed expression of worship that
gathered together to form a church.
d. It was formed by the intentional efforts of a "mother" church in sending
out a church planter.
e. It was formed with the assistance of an existing RB church.
f. Other
5. Approximately how many members does your church have?
6. What is the average attendance at your main worship service?
7. What is the size of the city where your congregation is located?
8. How has your congregation been involved in domestic (the U.S. and Canada)
church planting in the last 10 years? Please briefly list things that you have done.
Open responses
9. Has your church ever planted another church in North America (the U.S. or
Canada)?
10. If your church has planted another church, how many of those have been in the
last 10 years (since 1999)?
11. How has your church been able to cooperate with other churches in domestic
church planting during the last 10 years? Select as many as apply.
a. Our church has not worked with other churches.
b. Prayer for church plants.
c. Cooperating for training in church planting (such as a conference).
d. Contributing to the general funds of an association or network that plants
churches.
e. Making specific contributions to an association or network to further
church planting.
f. Making contributions directly to support the planting of a new church.
g. Having church officers serve in leadership positions for church planting
organizations.
h. Sending candidates to help plant new churches.
i. Sending existing members to relocate in helping a church plant.
j. Sending pastors/preachers to help conduct worship services during the
start up phase.
k. Sending members/teams to help with work projects (such as evangelism).
l. Giving advice/counsel to church planters.
m. Providing oversight/coaching to church planters.
n. Other
o.
12. Is your church the member of a Church/Baptist Association? Indicate all that
apply.
13. If your church is a member of an association, what has the association done to
promote domestic church planting? Indicate all that apply.

78
 a. I don't know
b. Offered training for church planters
c. Offered/Provided funding for new churches
d. Established a system for recruiting church planters
e. Offered formal help in assessing church planter qualifications
f. Provided coaching/accountability for church planters
g. Set goals for church planting
h. Other (please specify)
14. How involved has your congregation been in church planting? Please indicate
your opinion.
a. 1- Not really involved at all.
b. 2- Involved a little.
c. 3- Involved.
d. 4- Very involved.
e. 5- Highly involved.
15. What is your annual budget (approximately)?
16. To the best of your knowledge, what percentage of your annual budget is
designated for missions (foreign or domestic)? Choose one.
17. How Many church officers do you have?
18. Please list all of the Reformed Baptist Churches that have been planted in the last
10 years that you are aware of. Please include any information that you have,
including the location (city/state), date, and any contact info you may have to
obtain further information.

79