Church Planting: An Interview with Ed Stetzer

What are your current reflections on the church planting scene in North America?

These days, I would say we are showing a high level of interest in – and even engagement with – church planting in North America. Warren Bird and I recently released some research in Viral Churches which pointed out that 4,000 churches were planted in the United States in the year of that study (2009) – and 3,500 churches closed. This is not to imply that there is a net increase in the number of self-identified Christians in North America, but that there were more churches opening than closing in the United States. Based on some anecdotal reports, I think we would find the Canadian situation to be similar.

I think it is fascinating to see a practice once limited to a few denominations, or a few entrepreneurial leaders, now becoming much more widespread. When John Wimber was talking about church planting, he would have sounded like a soloist before a disengaged audience. Now many denominations and networks have joined the choir.

For example, Christianity Today has written an article calling church planting the “new crusade evangelism,” in many ways replacing a effective historic means – large-group evangelistic gatherings – with evangelistic church planting. The Christian Century published an article a few years ago that said even the mainline denominations are engaged in church planting. For example, United Methodist bishops have decided there are eight paths to the future, and this shrinking denomination has named church planting as “Path 1.”

Yet even beyond evangelical and mainline denominations there is a strong emphasis on networks. Even just ten years ago, we didn’t hear much about these networks. But now there has been an explosion of networks such as ARC, Acts 29, Infinity Alliance and more.

I think church planting is exploding. But I think it’s also important to note that the focus of many of these movements, and even the methods that they have used, have been influenced by the gifts that the Vineyard gave us all: a heart for church planting, new network approaches and strategies, and a passion for reaching the lost.

Could you unpack a little more the legacy of the Vineyard and John Wimber toward North American church planting?

I think the point is that what John Wimber and the Vineyard pioneered, now almost everyone has embraced. I see this in two particular ways.

One way is simply the emphasis on church planting. I have talked to so many Vineyard pastors who said they went to plant churches simply because that was what you did. It was a preferred ministry option. At that time, this was an odd method at best. When I planted my first church in 1988, church planting seemed to be populated by people who couldn’t find other jobs. But in the Vineyard in the 1980s, it was something that people were passionate about and desired to do, even though most of the rest of the churches in North America didn’t share that passion.

Critics sometimes assert that institutionalization itself is the enemy of God’s work. But, in the book of Ephesians, Paul seemed to disagree – and Paul was no stranger to the potential of human corruption in the church. Yet he continued to believe that the church, led by God but administrated by humans, was the locus of God’s redeeming work on earth.

Today, I think the church planting culture of the Vineyard in the ’80s can be found in many denominations.

Second, I think the desire to engage culture in relevant ways, through church planting, has been huge. I have a presentation where I seek to explain the modern evangelical movement, particularly to believers in other countries or missionaries who have been out of the country for a long time. I call the presentation “The Contours of the Modern Evangelical Movement.” I trace a flow of church planting movements from the era the scholar Donald E. Miller wrote about in his book Reinventing American Protestantism. In that book, he tells the story of your Vineyard movement and others like it, which really did reinvent the way Protestants were going about church. So, just as the Vineyard helped put church planting on the map, I would say that the Vineyard and sister groups helped put a new expression of culturally engaged ministry and mission on the map of what predominantly was embraced by evangelicals.

I don’t do this presentation publicly, since I talk about the growth and decline of some of these movements. But I think it’s intriguing to see just how large an influence people outside the Vineyard ascribe to it the new expressions of church ministry and mission. Much of the energy later found in culturally savvy moments – Purpose Driven in the 1990s, Willow Creek, or even the missional expressions predominant in the new millennium – can be attributed in part to the Vineyard.

What opportunities would you say the Vineyard has now?

You can probably tell that I am a fan of what the Vineyard has done. I do think the Vineyard – as I said at the leadership meeting in San Diego a few years ago – has lost some, though by no means all, of its church-planting “mojo.” There could be several reasons for that.

First, everyone else sort of picked up on the church planting theme. If you were passionate about church planting in the 1980s, there were very few places you could go, and the Vineyard was one of the few. Today, you can find that passion in a lot of places.

Second, there have been theological shifts in the Vineyard. I think it’s not an unfair observation to say that when you have changed theological positions or have had to deal with major theological controversies, it can knock you off stride. So I think the Vineyard does not have the same level of church planting and multiplication focus than it did at its beginning.

Third, any movement that starts with a focus on church planting eventually has to begin to recognize that there are other things to be considered. How do they train future pastors? How do they focus on these other things? A network-like ministry, predominantly focused on church planting, soon has to take on some of the functions that are more denomination-like. To be honest, that tends to slow things down by diluting the focus on church planting. So I think it’s not a secret that the Vineyard has expanded its mission engagement.

For example, I would say that the Vineyard is known for church planting and things like social justice and societal concern. I’m not saying those are unimportant things. I’m very passionate about those things. But when you move from a singular focus to a multifaceted focus, you naturally tend to slow down what was initially the singular focus.

[bctt tweet=”The opportunity here is, will the Vineyard rediscover its roots without feeling it necessary to relive its past?” quote=”I think the opportunity here is, will the Vineyard rediscover its roots without feeling it necessary to relive its past?”] I think the roots of the Vineyard are birthed in a passion for the kingdom of God, church planting and evangelistic engagement, and yes, societal concern. And I think many would say that focus has been diminished and might have a desire to go back to the glory days.

Here’s the difficulty: For many of the Vineyard churches, if the ’80s came back, they’d be ready to go. But we don’t live there anymore. So the underlying principles that made the Vineyard an explosive movement could be rediscovered, but perhaps some of the methodological practices would not be as helpful in the future.

I also see an opportunity to seize the principles, but there is the need to be aware of the danger of not updating your practices along the way. I am enthusiastic about the election of Phil Strout, and I’ll be up in Lewiston to preach at Pathway Vineyard and spend some time with Phil in November. I believe Phil’s election from a field of several fine candidates does point to a desire to rediscover some of the principles – especially church planting principles – that made the Vineyard initially great.

I think another challenge for the Vineyard is the obligation to settle its theological angst. The Vineyard was birthed in a new expression of “signs and wonders” ministry with the focus on the inbreaking of the kingdom of God. Most evangelicals have now embraced the kingdom of God view, though perhaps not all of the accompanying signs and wonders. But I think for the Vineyard there has been some restlessness about what it means next.

Many Vineyard pastors have asked, and perhaps rightly so, “What is the gospel? Have we reduced it too much into a transactional prayer leading to a checklist conversion?” Thus they are exploring more experientially robust approaches. I think that’s good. However, I think it’s necessary to settle the question of the gospel and theology so the Vineyard can move on in mission and ministry.

A constant angst-filled struggle simply does not work past the remnants of what was once a thriving emerging church movement. Instead, the Vineyard needs to regain a certainty that what it believes- not experience major shifts again (considering there have been several, from charismatic practices to views on men and women in ministry) and to instead say “this we believe, it’s settled, if you’re
with us let’s plant churches together, serve the poor, and reach the world for Jesus.”

What are the next big challenges for church planting movements like the Vineyard?

First, I would be cautious about using the term “church planting movements.” I think that’s a technical term that I would not use to describe the Vineyard because it does not have the level of exponential multiplication necessary to be a movement. I would say it’s certainly a church planting network, and I would say there are several challenges I would point out for church planting networks.

One challenge is, can a movement that was birthed young in the Boomer era transition as its leadership has aged? I think many of the movements birthed and exploded in the ’80s are asking hard questions about what they have inherited and how they will engage. I think it’s necessary to begin now to involve 20-something and 30-something leaders that share similar DNA and theological beliefs in considering what the next stage and the next phase of the Vineyard actually will be, and how they will participate in it.

The second challenge is, what does it look like as methodological diversity increases? There will be Vineyard church plants that are planted similarly to how Johnny Crist planted the Atlanta Vineyard. However, my guess is that there will be communities of faith, house-church-like congregations, that are spread out over areas, not unlike the Nashville Vineyard. So, how can a network that was birthed by planting large, Spirit-filled, multiplying churches expand and embrace new expressions?

Therefore, I think it will be necessary for the Vineyard’s future to have a common theological belief with a diverse methodological expression. That expression will include house churches, missional incarnational communities, multi-site megachurches, and different expressions in between. Because the expression is going to partly determine the ministry approach. I think that if the Vineyard can clearly settle what its theological DNA is, then its missiological expressions can meet in a coffee shop or a cathedral.