Left Behind: The Apparent Absence of Fundamentalists in Resurgent Church Planting

I have led in the planting of 2 churches here in the Albany area over the past 17 years and right now I am holding a Sunday evening Bible study in another town with the desire to plant a church there.

In Albany, the Southern Baptists haev targeted the area and are planting many churches. The Calvary Chapel people have also come to plant churches. The emergents are also targeting our area.

Over the years, I know of a few situations where fundamentalists said this was not an area that was good for church planting in instances where someone was here trying to do something. I do think that many fundamentalists take a "fast food" approach to church planting. They give the church planters a chart and show them the number of people to be expected by a certain time. If the church plant does not measure up to the chart, the church planter is led to believe He is a failure, in every case where this has happened, the church planter has left.

The Southern Baptists have come here, and they have done the research and know that this particular area of New York State is one of the least evangelized pockets of the State and of the entire Country. So, they pour money, and lots of man hours into sowing gospel seed. Some of their church planters live lives of tremendous sacrifice. While a few of their works have grown quickly, most have not. Yet they stay and keep going. I do admit that I do admire them for this. Under the leadership of Andrian Rogers, they establsihed a seminary here so they could train preachers in this area and have them plant churches here. I believe they have lost money on that seminary almost every year it has been here. Yet they keep it open because they see the need. Again, I admire that resolve.

I frequently hear things like this, and I find them a little concerning.

Often statements like this can reflect or at least encourage and legitimate either certain forms of sloppiness or sentimentalism, or both. What people are concerned to protect is a form of theological egalitarianism - note the following key phrase - with respect to a person's value coram Deo, before God. This is biblical and essential, in a way at the heart of the Gospel: rich people are not in the preceding sense "better" people than poor people, etc.

All very good. But it can easily become a form of sloppiness, just like secular egalitarianism, when it turns into a refusal to acknowledge differences in relative strategic value with respect to certain objectives. Take a simple, secular example. Is a five-star general more important than an airman? It depends, you say. If you're asking whether, qua human being, he's more important, than answer is no (here the good egalitarianism). But if you're asking whether he's more important with respect to the US Airforce and its goals, the answer is obvious, yes, he's far more important. You can't replace five-star generals, for example, the way you can replace airmen: five-star generals represent impressive natural ability and knowledge honed over thirty-plus year careers of increasingly complex service and responsibility. And here is where the sentimentalism comes in: a lot of people simply don't like to acknowledge, openly, this kind of obvious differentiation in relative value. Partly because, as C.S. Lewis says, the base, rather than noble, ground of the desire for equality lies in a hatred of people who are more excellent, virtuous, accomplished, etc. It's a natural part of sinful human beings to dislike people who are more skilled, accomplished, etc. than we are - that's one reason we tend to hang out in social groups in which we are not low-down on the status-chain and we tend to avoid and dislike social structures in which we are obviously inferior in relevant respects to other people with whom we have constant personal interaction. No one naturally likes that, and it takes a lot of maturity to be able to recognize and be grateful for people who are better trained, more skilled, have more importance vis-a-vis certain valid goals, etc than oneself does.

So the darker side of egalitarian sentimentalism is the basic human vice of envy. Envious sentimentalism can combine to make people sloppy in their statements about what I called theological egalitarianism.

Every mature Christian knows that many Christians who are more skilled at the Christian life than they are happen to be far less accomplished in other respects: they may be of average or even low intelligence, but their virtue, consisting in, among other things, what they do with what they have been given, far outstrips other people, who's natural and acquired accomplishments are far greater, but whose virtue is pathetic in comparison. Now because we recognize this important fact, it tends to flare up in the background of discussions like this one, so we say that the uneducated rural pastor is just as important in God's kingdom as a Tim Keller, or whoever.

And in a fundamental sense, as I said, we had better never forget that, because it's a truth that lies at the heart of God's economy. But we then can be tempted to say, "therefore, rural pastor Bob is as important with respect to contemporary church planting asTim Keller." And that's patently false, as Bob would be the first to say if he were listening: Bob, being mature, would be the last person to be bothered about the intrinsic distributions of gifting and calling, because his security doesn't depend on his talents, influence, etc. as it does for many other, less secure and mature, pastors and laymen.

It's important then to avoid sentimentalism and sloppiness out of the desire not to make some people feel less important. At that point, my attitude shifts to how I treat business, music, or any other practical domain, and I want to say: "tough, you need to mature and get on with your work." If one were talking about the importance of the country and rural ministry, then everyone who lived in cities and had no experience with rural life would quite rightly feel pretty unimportant - and if they were envious, marginalized - with respect to that goal. And if they were mature, they just ask would they could do to help, knowing they had other gifts and other priorities in their daily ministry. The case is the same, mutatis mutandis, when one is talking about cites and church-planting. The simple historical and sociological facts are the the world is becoming increasingly urbanized and globalized, thus the emphasis on the part of many church-planters is quite rightly on urban churches, developing a theology of the city, etc. And this is especially the case since conservative Christians have so obviously abandoned urban life and culture and moved into suburbs.

So the reality is a lot of these demographically traditional Christians are losing influence and are seeing the world change from under their noses into one in which they represent a decreasingly influential demograph. So what? If someone is getting their meaning and security from being at the center of things, not having to sit in second-place to cultural trends, and not having to be confronted by priorities that relatively marginalize their degree and kind of abilities, then, yes, they will be bothered. But mature Christians should have no problem with this.

I have never lived in a major city, have rarely lived in any city's downtown, and I have no problem whatsoever with the current emphases in church-planting. I think they are fantastic and I support them from my own suburban, or quasi-rural (or whatever it happens to be), location. I do all this while doing my best to support whatever ministries I'm involved with locally, to seek the flourishing of whatever community - rural, suburban, whatever - that I'm in. One of the most important things Keller critiques is tribalism: it kills the church, and it's rampant, I think, because it's a natural way we express our sinfulness but one that's wonderfully easy to coat with a theological veneer.

So, in sum, it's a mistake to move from "bigger is not better in God's economy" to "rural church planting is just as important as urban church planting." If trends towards urbanization were matched by trends to ruralization, if influence and power and corruption and poverty were evenly spread out across different forms of human organization, then maybe it would be justified to invest equal human, cultural, and financial resources in both rural and urban church planting. But the opposite situation is the case, so it would be sentimental folly not to recognize that, strategically, given our location in history and culture, we should be investing far more corporately, as the church universal, in some places and institutions than others, and, with respect to those relative, but still significant goods and goals, rural church planting is not as important. Maybe it will encourage rural and suburban ministeries to think of what the distinctive goals and goods of their locations are: obviously they have them, and with respect to them lots of urban emphases and skills are unimportant, but the reason you don't hear much about these goods and goals is because they are less relevant to the current trajectory of the world than they have been historically.

Every mature Christian should be able to recognize these changes and their significance, and then use wisdom to decide what they means for their own life and ministry.

For some people, it may mean nothing more than praying about urban areas, encouraging people in their rural congregations to be aware of these changes, and then remaining faithful to their own calling in their rural town.

For others it might mean being convicted about suburbia (more people should be, in my view, and would be, if they knew anything about the cultural history of suburbanization), and thus lead to life-style changes or even geographic changes. Etc. God alone knows what a person should do.

But I know we all need to recognize the broader strategic realities, regardless of how central or marginal we may be to them, that obtain in our time. No one is helped when we move from a proper concern about vindicating our own emphases, value, and ministry to a denial or indefensible downplaying of these broad strategic concerns.

I think that's one of the important implications of Davis's essay: we all need to mature, tuck our pride away, and start adopting a view about urban ministry and church planting similar to the one we have about other forms of missions: these are really important, even though I may not be the one doing it, so I'll support it as I can, Lord please show me how and make me willing.

Thanks for putting this together. Favorite quote:

Fundamentalism would be so much better off if more people could discern the difference. Although probably no one would say that everything about the way he does church is a fundamental, many people will still consider most of those things hills worth dying on. And this does directly affect church planting in a negative way, because fundamental churches will typically not financially support any mission work that is not in line with them on just about every cultural issue.

"So, your radio station mission wants to transmit the Gospel into the Arab world? Hmm, show me your song library first." Because this will trump where they stand doctrinally. Their presentation of the Gospel could be spot on, but they will get no support if their song library includes anything that would not be performed in our church. Often we're not planting churches, we're planting clones, because we can't discern the difference between what is cultural and what is biblical as you described.

Nice job. I know this issue is close to your heart. This article will ruffle some feathers, and that's a good thing. (Off topic: BTW, I live in the western suburbs of Philly, and you might just see me pop in sometime. We recently had dinner in your area, on 40th between Chestnut & Ludlow. Distrito - I highly recommend it!)

Joseph, I'm trying to distill the argument from your post. Nobody who knows me thinks I'm egalitarian or particularly sentimental. So I'm with you on that as far it goes.
But I don't see the relevance.
Scripture is pretty clear that God is not in the numbers game. That is, we can't reduce His program to "what will get the most people saved in the least amount of time" or even "what strategy will produce the largest number of mature disciples?" I'm not sentimental about small, I simply am not dazzled by big.
When God chose a people for His name out of the many nations of the earth, He led them to a land, drove out the former inhabitants and set up a nation... where they fought for millennia to a) hold on to their faith against the surrounding polytheism and b) fought to maintain their sovereignty.

I'm reviewing this only to make the point that there are lots of "better strategies for reaching the world" we could come up with. God was apparently not mainly driven by "getting it done as expansively and quickly as possible."

Admittedly, the shift involved in the Great Commission is much more focused on "reach and teach," but again, Acts does not always describe what is strategically prudent. Philip is led away from a thriving revival in Samaria to talk to one guy out in the wilderness. Seeds were probably planted in that act that gave rise to Coptic Christianity, but Philip could not have seen that nor would the aposltes have sent him to the desert road if they'd had a church planting strategy meeting.

So what I'm really batting for here is balance. The article assumes that fundamentalist absence from "resurgent" (I'm not clear on what that even means) and urban church planting is, in itself, a terrible indictment despite the fact that we are planting churches all over quietly and on a smaller scale. Now it may well be that the lack of "resurgent urban" work really is a gross failure, but there's no argument for that here. It's assumed.

I suggest that we look at reaching folks out in the small towns without "big conference drama" as not being less important than the other... though also not more important.

Actually, Aaron, I think that Joseph is on to something.

I'd argue that the reasons why most IFB churches aren't planting churches are:

1. because they're just as numbers obsessed as the seeker-sensitives (as in, we're up to 100 people - God is really blessing us!) although they'd never admit it. It's hard to push others to plant a church when you're focused on funding your ever-growing business / church. I think we run our churches more like businesses and less like churches than we might care to admit.
2. because they are afraid to move outside of the typical IFB culture and do something that they wouldn't do because it doesn't line up with typical IFB norms...you mean, we might have to allow people to wear something other than shirts and ties to church? Use something other than the King James? Listen to something other than WILDS music?
3. they are focused primarily on winning people 'just like us'...Rather than moving into cities (where the demographics and culture are FAR different from ours), they reach out to areas where the culture is very similar to typical IFB culture - white, educated suburbia. Greenville is a perfect example...there are all kinds of church plants in Greenville - but I'd be curious to see how many church plants are heading into the center city as opposed to reaching away from the city, into suburbia.

I've seen this in the church I just resigned from, and I've seen it in other IFB churches as well.

As long as we distinguish between evangelistic efforts and what constitutes 'the church', then I'm on the bus. Some churches neglect equipping the saints and edifying the body in favor of increasing the number of converts, while others are, as Bro. Davis describes, rather in-bred. You don't have a church body if you just have a building full of lost people, and you certainly don't want a work that is stagnating and well on its way to putrid.

Is there enough church planting going on in urban America? Are Christians in general reluctant to climb into the trenches, and in a sense get their hands dirty? That's probably fair to say- it's human nature.

I also believe that there is much liberty when it comes to methodology, but I don't believe in catering to the lowest common denominator. When our standards of excellence are high, people rise to the challenge. Of course, our standards of excellence should be about embracing Biblical virtues, not what is popular according to the Cultural Fad of the Month Club, or blindly clinging to extra-Biblical Fundy quirks.

As for 'outdated' or 'formal' traditions, we don't consider Shakespeare or Bach outdated- they are classic and enduring for a reason. Some church traditions are such, IMO, because of that same element of purity and endurance. I don't ever want to live in a world where folks stop aspiring to something wholesome, more beautiful, more majestic than what is considered 'must have' in Seventeen magazine.

It seems that the author is doing all he can to distance himself from anything that smells of being boldly fundamental or Baptist. From the opening line in which he uses "their" instead of "our" to the simple language of "outdated gospel songs" and "church name that creates unnecessary barriers," it seems that if the author is still a Baptist and a fundamentalist, he's not having very much fun!

I am a fundamentalist church-planter presently; further, I've been around church-planting my entire life. I'll share briefly what I've observed in response to several of the bullet points:

1. Scheduling of times for worship, genuine fellowship, Bible study, and prayer -- in ways that meet the needs of that particular group of Christians, not necessarily the expectations of the larger culture, and certainly not the expectations of any 3rd party Christian group or pressure.
2. At the church-wide-participation level, I've seen vibrant community outreach such as park Bible clubs, youth gospel events, even (gasp!) door-to-door evangelism depending on the context. At the individual level, I've seen the following encouraged, practiced, and modeled: getting involved in community events, community athletics, regularly frequenting community gathering places -- all for the purpose of gospel witness.
3. All of these churches have been Baptist. It is possible to take a potential "barrier" and turn it into an opportunity for gospel conversation. Very frequently in my Lutheran-Catholic dominated community, people will ask me: "What is a Baptist?" I usually answer, "At the most foundational level, a Baptist believes the gospel. Now let me explain what I mean..." If we are truly about church-planting, we are seeking to make disciples of people who are not already disciples. When we have opportunity to love on a family or individual and if the gospel penetrates their hearts and begins to transform their lives, they usually don't care what name is on our church sign. However, when mature Christian families are looking for a place for their families to worship, grow, etc., the name Baptist says something about our identity as a body (far from a barrier) -- something that I'm not willing to hide.

By God's grace, the Lord used my wife and I to plant a church in Delafield, WI (just 30 minutes. west of Milwaukee and 30 minutes east of Watertown). We were sent by Calvary Baptist Church in Watertown, WI. The pastors and deacons of Calvary gave us freedom to be creative as missionaries in our new community. Even before we were autonomous, they recognized (since they are unashamed Baptists) that the new body would be self-governing and independent. As a result, they never laid out expectations for dress, music, church programs, or service times.

A year later if you were to visit one of our services, you would see people in blazers and ties as well as people in shorts and t-shirts. You would see traditional great hymns of the faith mixed with certain newer melodies like "Power of the Cross" or perhaps a Chris Anderson hymn. You would hear announcements for small groups throughout the week. If you were a new believer, you'd have space and time to grow coupled with the challenge to actually do so.

Fundamentalists are planting churches! We do have the ability to think like foreign missionaries, while making disciples in the United States. Further, there are many older men in leadership who understand these things and are promoting these things. This mother-church "oppression" that this article speaks of is little known to me. I challenge you to take a trip to Apple Valley CA, Bakersfield CA, Delafield WI or Macomb Township MI. There you will find four Maranatha graduates planting churches with great freedom to lead their congregations according to the authority of the Word in their given contexts.

My point in bringing all this up is this: all that I've mentioned has happened with the full endorsement and encouragement of many fundamentalist leaders -- Dr. Doran had a hand in each of the two CA plants. My father, Dr. Marriott, sent the planters to Apple Valley and Macomb, MI. Dr. Loggans was involved in sending us to Delafield, WI. Baptist World Mission was involved in one of them as well.

Which part of fundamentalism is failing in church-planting? I'm not seeing it. In many ways, fundamentalists have always been planting churches, even before it was a cool thing called a resurgence.

Mmmmm, have you checked out Hamilton Square Baptist Church? We are a "downtown" (one block from Van Ness Avenue at Geary and Franklin). We identify ourselves as a Fundamental Baptist Church. Our answers to the questions in the OP are probably contrary to the way the author (I presume ) thinks the should be answered. Because of demographic shifts, we have had to "re-plant" ourselves two or three times over the last 129 years.

As for the "numbers" game, a church plan and work for growth as the Lord allows them to grow. It should not be content with its current attendance. That being said, for a good period of time HSBC saw minimal growth for many years. For a few years, we barely had enough new members to replace those that went home to be with their Lord. Over the last five years we have seen the congregation grow. Some of the new membership is from Christians dissatisfied with their current home church. Most of the new people are new Christians who were saved through the witnessing of our people.

N.B. Metro Baptist Church of San Diego is being planted by Tim and Eileen Sneeden. Tim is a former assistant pastor at HSBC. We are their sending church.

And splits are not always bad. It is better to depart in peace, if this can be achieved, than to dwell together in strife (e.g. Abraham and Lot). There are times when we cannot agree and God is honored more by our amiably agreeing to separate than to remain entangled and bicker. Somehow, we seemed to have overlooked the fact that unity is based on commonalities, not differences. Even so, God in His sovereignty brings good out of our evil intentions and wicked doings (e.g. Joseph and his brothers). Although it may have been a church split, two separate churches can reach more people sometimes than one larger church. What do you think?

Dr. Davis, is cooperation necessary to bring souls to Christ and plant churches? Are large scale organized efforts more productive than many small unaffiliated small efforts at the grass-roots level? This point, I think, must be justified before going further. Also, I'm wondering what resources that even small churches lack in planting churches. The way Fundamentalist churches were planted in the South was that a man and his wife moved into town, got a job, and began visiting, holding Bible studies, and door-to-door witnessing until a nucleus of believers had been won. They rented a small store-front building within their means and began holding services. Sure, it was a struggle but God was faithful and the church grew.

Comments at ***

***You are describing the last 30 years of San Francisco history and what we have at HSBC.

***Kinda sorta [a] but then we've had to develop our leadership in house. (Nobody comes to San Francisco to join a Fundamental Baptist Church) So, we are only about a generation thick (Historically, nobody stayed in SF to be a member of a Fundamental Baptist church)

***A again kinda sorta. But our single adult, married couples and senior groups are active. We also have a Monday evening Informal Bible Study. There are three (3) Sunday Morning Adult Bible Classes. I teach the International (I thought ESL was bad marketing) Bible Class.

***Yes. When the International Class was made up primarily of Russian speakers, we translated various English language documents into Russian. If anyone wants a Russian pdf of Pastor Innes' "How Do I Know What's Right For Me?", let me know and I'll send it on.

***Yes, for the hymnals in the pew rack. But, we also have attracted people who want the traditional hymns. We're not big on Gospel choruses outside Junior Church.

***HSBC was started as Zion Baptist Church in 1881. About five years later, the name was changed to Hamilton Square Baptist Church. The church at the time and for the next ~70 years was located across from Hamilton Square a public park.

***Please see www.hamiltonsquare.net From the number of people who say they found us on the web, I think the site is doing its job.

***HSBC has the American and Christian flags in the front corners of the main auditorium. However, the flags have been there since Harry Truman's second term. As for the second clause, how can we be a lighthouse of God's Truth if we do not call the pagan agenda an agenda of "death". Sorry for dancing around the issue, but I don't want Google to trip over certain key words.

***Both, if an invitation is given, the closing hymn only one or two verses might be played or sung through. We do not as (IIRC) Dr. Bauder put it rely on "crisis" decisions for Christian growth. However, if God has used a particular message to touch folk, then opportunity is given for them to respond. However, we also for the last ~15 years have had a comprehensive one on one discipleship program.

Maybe this helps explain my POV and provide some food for thought.

When it comes to how a church does things, it's ways and customs, there are fewer things that are "neutral" than many seem to suppose. The reason is that once you have brought Scripture to bear on what you're doing, and applied it as best you can, you are bound by conscience as a church.
If a congregation believes it's ways and traditions are right, it ought to aim to reproduce itself with most of those traditions intact. If it believes they are not right, it ought to replace them with ones it believes are right--either way, if it engages in church planting, it should aim to reproduce itself. It should be expected to want to reproduce itself.

Now I'm not talking about the cluster of purely functional choices and routines (though these also relate back to principle eventually, the relationship is distant and often the only principle involved is "act wisely" / "be good stewards"). Examples: things like whether you have pews or chairs, light with incandescent or florescent or candles, pass a plate or use a box in the lobby, etc. But it's actually hard to come up with items that even belong in this category. Churches that use hymnals often do so because they believe it matters. Churches that use an offering box rather than passing a plate often have some biblical principles they believe guide them to this conclusion. Churches that baptize in rivers rather than interior tanks often have what they consider principled reasons for that.
And music... as controversial as it is, one thing ought to be obvious to all: just about everybody believes their position is a principled one.

So we should not expect churches that participate in church-planting to feel that these things simply do not matter. Again, the attitude I often see assumes that churches that are particular about alot of what they do are just being arbitrary and persnickety. Certainly there are many cases where that's true, but there only has to be one exception to defeat the generalization that churches ought to joyfully plant other churches that flout their own ways of doing things.

I agree that there is sometimes (perhaps quite often--I wouldn't know) a problem here because churches do not understand how the application of principles in their setting needs to be adjusted when the same principles are being applied to a different setting. Some principles will apply the same way and some not. So there are two errors to avoid here: the one that says "a church plant in a truly different cultural setting should be a carbon copy of our church" vs. the one that says "all these traditions are just clutter in the way of effectiveness, and 'mother churches' need to quit being so fussy."
Neither of these is a good option. Maybe nobody is really saying the latter, but I get that impression.

but i think these issues are more a matter of conscience, not spelled out stuff in scripture, right? and conscience varies among people, and even changes in the same person, you know?

i was thinking of this thread as I was reading a missionary prayer letter in a foreign country where people dress quite differently. and there was a team from a conservative american college and they looked just like they would look in their school year books. Jumpers, keds, button-downs with ties.

i've struggled with this myself b/c of Hudson Taylor's policy of dressing like the national people. when i came to ukraine with a BJ trip, we were instructed to not wear hose, wear comfy tennis shoes and clothes, etc. We were absolutely bizarre-looking. all ladies here dress up, they wear hose, dress shoes, fitted clothing. We went and sang in the chernobyl region, and the ladies asked the pasor if we were wearing "disposable" clothing because we were afraid of the radiation -- and there we were in the eveyday BJ clothes we always wore.

anyway, i think fundamentalists, because we are so consumed wtih the Word of God, which is a good thing, can apply it definitively to cultural areas that really are just cultural and could be done one way or another. and it's hard for us to see where that begins and ends.

The key phrase would be "without time and reflection." This goes both ways. The traditions should be neither perpetuated nor abandoned without time and reflection.

This is, for me, a perfect illustration of what I was trying to convey in post 10. It's also a sweeping indictment of typical IFB priorities.

I know that's not why Dr. Davis wrote this, but I couldn't let it go without noting that.

Hi Steve

Well, I've spent my entire adult life as a church planting pastor. I've done all those things. I may not be gifted for it, because it has been a long, arduous, discouraging process ...with some eternal victories along the way that make it worth it. However, if self-sufficiency is the mark of success, we haven't succeeded. We are about 3/4 of the way, and always hopeful.

However, I would have to say that I agree with Dave's perspective on this. That was behind my earlier comment about pragmatism. I think the music question is probably the most important question as our culture is increasingly steeped in ungodly music - addicted to it, I'd say. For lost folks to come to Christ and begin the process of sanctification involves a massive change of thinking and values. In my opinion, you stunt growth in holiness by lowering the musical bar. I also see no need to remove denominational labels - be what you are. There are too many generic non-descript who knows what churches around who don't define themselves. If people are turned off by the name, they'll be turned off by the doctrine once they find out what you believe.

Just my opinion! Certainly not looking for a music debate!

This is one of my favorite methods of working things out in my mind, but it's hard to do without including the answers in the questions if you've already formed some opinions. I get handed my head quite often when I do this, and I can see why. For instance-

The words 'outdated' and 'balance' make this sound more like a statement than a question. I would say, however, that insisting on one genre of music over another for no other reason than "It was good 'nuff for Grandma so it's good 'nuff for me!" is very shallow reasoning, and no better than adopting contemporary forms (as opposed to contemporary in a purely chronological sense) simply because they have modern appeal. As for outdated choruses, if I never sing "Do Lord" again for the rest of my life, it will be too soon.

I don't envy pastors, missionaries, and church planters the duty to discern the appropriate and proportionate use of native and modern culture in their ministries while keeping God's agenda and glory paramount.

Whenever I read material posted by Steve Davis one thing is for certain, it will not be patronage for which he is guilty. In my opinion he is a thinker (as his material leads me to believe and clearly his pursuit and gain of educational credentials gives further indication), I always appreciate that. But of course I find myself on another side of his views more than less of the time with regard to ecclesiastical issues. And this is not an exception.

I don't doubt that these questions were asked in some form or another in 1820, 1850, 1890, 1910, 1940, 1975, 1995, and now 2010. I do caution many who might seem excited with such explorations, because they appear to come with certain assumptions, as if the course of their direction has already been validated. I believe within many of the questions that Steve Davis asked are issues that warrant much more debate before accepting their premise and demand a rather aggressive interrogation of their proponents before skedaddling off with a happy tune that we have found some new enlightenment.

This is not to take away the value of a legitimate audit of the approach fundamentalists or CEs use in planting churches in new areas but I do believe that the view that urban and inner-city culture is so rampantly disjointed and in need of constant monitoring and attending and subsequently contorting our local assemblies in a way that proves we are involved, caring and incarnating ourselves is highly an exceptional case.

Most people do have schedules or adapt to schedules. And most humans, because of our integrated nature have very similar schedules. While it is valuable to understand or see that in some places not all people are going to be able to meet on the Lord's day and therefore it might require an alternate day for corporate worship, it would be rare. But at times I sense a bit of insistence that we attempt to find an excuse to go counter to this, even when it is not necessary just to prove how insightful or broad we are.

Think of the churches in Asia Minor during Paul's tenure. They certainly did not have a "christianized" culture yet they all learned to meet on the Lord's Day. While it is not prescribed as a command it certainly demonstrates that their former culture wasn't what was foremost in their minds, rather their new identity in Christ and the values it brought to them. This is something I believe that is being too minimized or misclassified in the article's sentiment.

One of my favorite references on culture is from the LCMS LCMS on Culture:

This certainly might give room to some of the things suggested by Davis but I believe it also confronts some of the absorption of the culture around us that is being too greatly esteemed.

Could some of the problem of not planting churches in the city center simply be a problem primarily financial? It costs more to find a building to rent in the city center than "when you live"--since most IFB missionaries can't afford to live in the city center.

Do the SBC have a separate fund they can draw on to help with them rents, etc. that others don't have access to?

Maybe that is one of the reasons that so many churches have been started in the suburbs. People found places to live, started inviting people over to their houses (as one person mentioned). Most could not afford to the inner city condos, and chose a cheaper place outside the center. Thus, the people who were drawn were from their area.

I'm curious if there is a lot of prejudice in an inner city work. Will black people willingly come to a church pastored by a white person? Do THEY receive negative feedback from their friends and family for doing such a thing? Or is it that noone cares.

Note to Anne...my daughters told me a long time ago...Mom, DON'T wear a denim jumper and tennis shoes/keds in public. No one dresses like that here!

How many churches are we talking here? The Calvary Chapel movement can't be THAT big, but the SBC and generally "evangelical" movement seems much bigger than the IFB movement. It would then be logical that these churches have the funds and manpower to start more churches--everywhere...not just in the inner city.

Does anyone have the numbers?

It all depends on where you are trying to plant your church. If you are trying to lease a storefront in my inner-city neighborhood in Grand Rapids, you will pay around 700 per month for about 2000 sq ft. However, if you decide to launch a church in a uppity, upscale yuppie neighborhood in Grand Rapids, you will pay at least 3000 per month for about the same amount of space. Even cities are different. For instance, in the south Bronx, leasing space for a church in an impoverished area is more expensive that leasing space in the upscale yuppie neighborhood of Grand Rapids.

In the Midwest, its not affordability that keeps Baptist Fundys out of inner-city neighborhoods, it is the crime and poverty itself. Rarely have I seen fundamentalists that live in the crime-ridden, poverty-stricken neighborhoods where they are church planting or even pastoring. I have seen Jack Hyles influenced churches that send buses into those neighborhoods, but they mainly reach urban children (once the kids get to be about 12 years of age they stop going).

There are always exceptions, however. For example, I am excited about a Baptist Mid-Missions church plant in the South Bronx called Commonwealth Community Baptist Church. One of the church planting couples, Sam and Jen Lake (http://www.samandjenlake.com/ ) are at about 78% of their support have committed to living in an apartment within in the church once their support is raised. This will give them some great advantages in building bridges with many of the people in the community so that they can proclaim the gospel and disciple the urban poor in their neighborhood.

By the way, the ministry that I run (Urban Transformation Ministries or UTM) is currently partnering with a church plant that is being started by Calvary Church of Grand Rapids (a mega-church which happens to be IFCA). We are combining about 30-40 redeemed thugs (former gang members and drug dealers) in their early twenties (almost all African-American) that have been discipled through UTM with about 50 or so middle-class evangelistic white people (some of which who live near or in the target area) to form a multi-ethnic church called New City Church. There are some aspects of the mother church which will be passed on. There are some that will not for the reasons that Steve has pointed out. From observing many different threads and even this post, we Fundamentalists seem to be more sensitive towards not bringing our cultural baggage in our overseas cross-cultural church planting than cross-cultural church planting endeavors in North America....

There may be a few more barriers to overcome, but I have seen it happen on several occasions. An evangelical church in Chicago named Lawndale Community Church is one example. It was started by a substitute teacher/football coach who discipled a group of teenagers/young adults in one of the poorest communities in America. Today the church runs about 500 people (mostly African-American) and the church planter (Wayne Gordon) is still the lead pastor. http://lawndalechurch.org/ However, Wayne Gordon spent a lot of time developing leadership from those he discipled, most of which are African-American.

And our lead pastor for New City Church is white. For the last 5 years he has preached and taught Bible studies with our students in different programs and our students (all of which are African-American and influenced by the hip-hop culture) have embraced him as their pastor.

I went to Dave Doran's blog and read his full response to the post, excellent by all means and thoroughly enough in the limited space he deals effectively with many faults in the premises of the questions without failing to demonstrate some appreciation for the article.