My Favorite Motion at the SBC So Far

Everyone knows the most entertaining part of the SBC is the motions. You get everything from profound ideas to ridiculous rants (did everyone see the lady who demanded a report on a motion from 2 years ago, only to be told it was in last years book...oops, my bad).
That said, my favorite motion so far was from the guy who basically said, "Hey, why don't we have the convention someplace other than San Antonio, New Orleans, Atlanta, and Indianapolis?" Now there is an idea whose time has come! Just imagine...Crossover NYC!

CMRs Church Plant Survivability Report (Part 2)

I received a call from yet another planter just today saying that he will be leaving his church plant, in part, due to the disparity between his expectations and the reality of church planting.

I wish just once over the many years and many sermons and testimonies I have heard, both growing up in a pioneer church planting church (we were church planting before church planting was cool) and in the chapels, and church planting/church growth courses at two seminaries, that I had heard one church planter say, "You know what, it has been really hard much of the time. It has been really frustrating much of the time. It has been really hard on my family in the sacrifices they have made. It is really discouraging to make contact with hundreds and even thousands of individuals before one will visit the church or be open to the gospel. It is really distressing to fill out reports every month, knowing that support will end soon and I'm still running 35 on Sundays. It is hard to leave your house every Sunday morning at 6 am to spend hours moving equipment and supplies and setting up for worship services, just to tear it all back down and get home for lunch at 3 or 4 pm. And sometimes it is glorious. Sometimes, you get to see God's grace poured out on someone who had never heard the gospel before you showed up on their door. And you will always be pushed to deeper and deeper reliance on God."

Instead, it seems the only testimonies or sermons you ever heard from church planters was the guy who had plenty of financial support and had a first service launch service with 350 in attendance. The reality, as the CMR study reveals is that average attendance is approximately 80 after 4 years. I would argue that even this number is on the high end of what I have observed. The key finding regarding improving church plant survivability was identified as having "realistic expectations." In fact, it was found to improve the chances of survival by 400%! If church planters do not have a realistic view of what they are getting into, they will not be prepared when they encounter reality. If they are not prepared, they are more likely not to survive. I have seen many drop out of planting; some to go to established churches in the South; some to drop out of ministry all together. Typically, if the church planter does not survive, the church plant does not survive either.

The solution is clear. Seminaries should invite church planters whose experiences are more the rule than the exception. If all you ever see paraded before you is the exceptional, then the average seems, well, less than average, if not downright abysmal. Church planting courses and assessments need to present a realistic expectation of the call to church planting. The truth may discourage some from attempting church planting, but then is that really a bad thing?

CMRs Church Plant Survivability Report

NAMB's Center for Missional Research released the results of a study concerning the survivability and health of church plants. The report was released long enough ago that Ed Stetzer, the director of CMR, is now heading up Lifeway Research. So why am I commenting on it now? First, because, after reading and commenting on blogs for over a year, I am just now starting my own. Second, because the report essentially went unnoticed in the blogging community since few are passionate enough about church planting to fight over it, and as we all know, every Southern Baptist loves a good fight. Third, the CMR report has far more important ramifications for Southern Baptist missions than does the more recent (and more controversial) private prayer language report released by Stetzer's new division. Finally, as a NAMB church planter and the son of an SBC pastor on the church planting frontier in New York, I am uniquely qualified to comment, which is not something I get to claim very often.

So what did the study reveal that is worthy of note?

1. The oft cited statistic that 80% of church plants fail in the first year is false. Only after year three does the mortality rate rise above 20%, which means that through year three more than 80% of church plants survive.
   
2. The mortality rate takes a sharp nose dive after year three to nearly 40%. The cause of this sharp decline between years 3 and 4 is not easy to determine since the study involves church plants from 11 different denominations, and it is unclear what percentage of the 2000 church plants studied are SBC church plants.
   
3. The clearest indicator of the future health and survivability of a church plant is not a certain method of outreach, a certain style of worship, or even a strong leadership team (and certainly not a good mission statement and set of core values J) but realistic expectations on the part of the church plant team. Having realistic expectations of the church plant increased the survivability of a church plant by more than 400%! Seventy-nine percent of failed church planter cited the disparity between their expectations and reality.
   
4. The next greatest indicator of church plant survivability was the intentional development of leaders within the church plant. Long-range leadership development gave a church plant a 250% chance of survivability.
   
5. Average attendance in a church plant after four years hovered around 80.
   

The entire report contains many other helpful insights and can be read here.

Before I give my thoughts on the findings, let me first say that this report is so important for the SBC because we, both through CP giving and through local churches, give large percentages of our mission funds to church planting and church planters, the North American Mission Board, and local churches have a responsibility to steward well the resources God has provided us.

Now to my thoughts on the findings:

The rise in mortality rate after year three (a jump from an average mortality increase of 7%/yr to 13% in year four) would almost certainly continue to increase until year 7-10 when the number would hover around the 70-80% mortality rate often cited erroneously after the first year. After observing more than 20 church plants over the last 20 years in Upstate New York, I would estimate that only 4-5 have survived or show signs of being able to survive over the long haul. The study revealed many of the reasons I have observed for the demise of these and other church plants.

As a year 3 church planter, I believe I can understand much of the reason that the mortality rate increases sharply after year three.

• Funding of church plants lasts for three years. Year 1 = $1,500/mo; year 2 = $1,300/mo; year 3 = $900/mo; years 4+ = $0. The system is designed correctly to wean the church plant off of outside support. However, from day 1 the church planter is very aware that a three year clock is ticking. If most church planters were entirely honest, they would tell you that this is a major stress. Further, church planting is an exhausting task that takes a great toll on your family life and requires years before other leaders are trained to take on part of the load of ministry. Therefore, at the same point that the planter is physically, emotionally, and spiritually exhausted, he is also cut off from financial report. This leaves him in a position of either (1) having his church be self-supporting; (2) drumming up outside support, which is a full-time task (and I might add a task we correctly keep any IMB missionaries from dealing with so they can focus on their mission field); or (3) becoming a bi-vocational minister which greatly decreases his ability to maintain momentum and growth at a crucial period. In some settings, it may be entirely reasonable to expect a church plant to be self-supporting within three years. In frontier areas like the Northeast and Northwest it most often is not. I'm aware of church plants who have hard-working, evangelistically motivated, solid pastors who, ten years into the church plant, still rely on outside support. I'm also aware of many who were not able to secure sufficient financial support, which in no small way contributed to the demise of the church plant and in some cases the burning out of the planter, leaving them out of ministry all together.
  
• Part of the blame also lies with the church planters themselves. Too many young seminary grads look to church planting as a method of gaining experience and not as a life calling. I have grown tired of seeing so many church planters arrive on the scene, build a church plant of 40-70 people, and then, after the 3-5 years of experience that every better paying church looks for is gained, abandons his church for greener pastures (and paychecks) in Alabama, North Carolina or wherever else, leading typically to the demise of the church plant and to the harm of abandoned young believers. This is self-centered opportunism and of great detriment to the cause of Christ. What we need are church planters willing to plant themselves for as long as necessary. I would not presume to judge the hearts of others. However, I refuse to believe that God so often calls men to partially do a job. It is only those willing to plant themselves for the long haul who are able to reach, disciple, and ultimately equip for leadership those in our church plants, as the study reveals is so important to survivability.
  
• The solution is to remove the numbers game involved in church planting. We Southern Baptists are far too enamored with numbers (Can anyone say 16 million members? Or is it 6 million?) If we planted fewer churches with greater financial, prayer, and volunteer support and with church planters truly called to their mission field (fewer church plants equates to greater filtering of church planters) then we would have a much greater impact over the next 25-50 years. The survivability rate would increase greatly and would be sustained longer.
  

In the coming days, I will comment on the problem of realistic expectations and church planting in part 2.