Why Church Planters Don’t Reproduce Churches

I have long held the belief that churches over fifteen years of age, give or take, will only in the rarest of instances reproduce. There are reasons for this worthy of discussion, but that’s a topic for another day. What has surprised me, as I said yesterday, is that most planters in my ten years of experience don’t reproduce other new churches out of their own plant, either. This is indeed shocking to me, since they all SAY they subscribe to this value and its importance. But the fact of the matter is, they far and away, don’t.

Why not? What keeps them from following through on a basic philosophical tenet that has undergirded their ministry strategy from its conception? Several of you made comments, both here and on Facebook in regards to this topic, and I am very grateful for your wisdom. It has been insightful and enlightening for me. I share some of your thoughts here.

• “I wonder how many of these churches actually had the concept of multiplication present during vision casting and core development.”
• “Lack of growth in their own church (to their own expectations), making them feel like they could never send people away to plant a new church.”
• “Most of those planters are actually pastors and they end up shepherding their flock instead of looking for new ways to extend the Kingdom beyond their own communities or churches.”
• “Small churches in a church culture that rewards large churches struggle to reach the point of health where they can start another church.”
• “Some of them are reluctant to experience what they see as a loss of power, recognition or money…”
• “Lack of budgeting for reproducing”
• “Multiplication [not] presented with the same enthusiasm as any core value”

You added other thoughts, as well.

In thinking through these comments and others, I would like to build upon them with the following suggestions.

Church planters don’t often reproduce new churches out of their church plant because of:

1. Faulty assumptions. This starts with those in charge of the system. Perhaps we show our naivete in thinking all planters should, or can, reproduce their plant. Or in taking their word on this, at face value, without more investment in digging out what is understood. But planters do it, too. They assume they don’t have enough people. Or they don’t have enough money. They suggest they have to add staff or find a better facility first. They believe the timing’s not right, and on and on the list goes. And through it all, we have a tendency to think of church planting as a preferred option but not a mandate, since it’s “our endeavor” (not God’s) and that it depends on our resources rather than our obedience.

2. Wrong metrics. We still reward the churches who are bigger and suggest that, as such, they are better. Planters see it too; the planters who start bigger churches are asked to be speakers at conferences, write books about their experiences for others, etc. You rarely see reproducing planters highlighted as valued for that very reason (never a “standalone” reason, though it might be an “add on”), just as we still persist in rewarding all churches for conversions not disciples. It’s been said that we measure what’s truly important to us. If that’s the case, what does this say about those of us who create the measurements?

3. Inadequate Systems. We have created systems that strongly support the planter financially and in training during the initial stages of his work, but these diminish over time. Then at this crucial stage, we expect planters to “do more”–give more to our denomination, add staff, find a permanent facility AND reproduce. We haven’t prepared them well for these changes and the decreasing financial resources force them to readjust their priorities in a very pragmatic way.

4. Incomplete Assessment. Plain and simple, most systems don’t assess planters for reproduction. I have to believe this is what Charles Ridley was actually after when he suggested that we evaluate a potential planter’s commitment to church growth. Today, however, most organizations have minimized this characteristic or replaced it with “church health” (thank you, Rick Warren), missing its strategic importance for the future. Since planters are typically “big picture visionaries,” if we don’t determine their ability to reproduce self, i.e., disciples and/or leaders, how can we ever expect them to be able to reproduce a congregation? In assessment, you only get what you’re looking for.

5. Big Egos. Almost all planters have big egos. They are confident, assertive, Type-A, driven people. The growth and development of their church plant feeds that; conversely, any diminishing of their own plant starves their ego. Most fear failure more than just about anything else, so this works against their own desires and interests in reproducing a church out of their own. A Kingdom theology is all well and good, but a Kingdom praxis is really where the water hits the wheel.

6. Local Myopia. As with all churches, internal needs and matters accumulate and over time, they dominate our attention. The tyranny of the urgency is real, and these “squeaky wheels” truly do sap our time and money away from the more important things of lasting, expanding value. Perspective makes a lot of difference…before, when we are on the outside of the plant itself, we see the broader view, but once we are on the inside, we like others often can’t see beyond our own local church.

Bob Logan, North American church planting writer and “guru” to many of us in my generation, has reminded us that unless a new church plant reproduces by the time of its second birthday, it will likely not do it at all. Whether you agree with Logan or not, I certainly agree that the chances diminish exponentially over time and happen THEN only at major crossroad-type experiences in the life of a church.

Yes, I still believe in church planters and I believe most of them want to plant churches out of their own church plant. All of us have made that desire difficult to realize since there are so many hurdles to jump. But mark it down: no movement of any continuing impact can take place until church planters–and those who serve with them–take, not just to heart but to practice, the correctives necessary to enable church planters both to desire AND to implement the steps necessary to make reproduction and multiplication “a given” in the development of their own new work. I live for that day; how about you?