AEC2001
The 2000 Anabaptist Church
Planting Survey
Survey Results
Part 5 - Approaches, Assistance, and Support
Angela Zizak
Return to
Previous Part Return to
AEC 2001 Index Return
to Research Index
No particular planting approach or method was predominant
among the church plants that responded. Figure 6 titled "Church Planting
Approaches" lists the approaches used. The most popular method is having
the pastor gather people to form a cell group (37%). Other methods include the
pastor being sent by the denomination (22%), result of a split from another
church (18%), a "hiving off" approach of a core from an existing
church (27%), and an intentional multi-ethnic congregation (10%).
For churches which utilized the core or cell group method,
these groups were likely formed by people attending home Bible studies (43%) or
with members of an existing congregation (39%). Prayer groups, door-to-door
invitations, direct mailings, and phone calls were other ways of building a core
planting group.
Forty-seven percent of the church plants took several
months to build the core/cell group. Twenty-four percent spent over a year at
this planning stage. Formal training specifically on church planting was
conducted for a slight majority of churches, either for the pastor (59%) and/or
for the core/cell group (39%); a third did not have any formal training
for church planting whatsoever. Some examples of how church planting training
took place were through video or correspondence courses or through institutional
outlets such as Education for a Shared Ministry (EFSM), Dynamic Church Planting
International, a Bible institute, the Alban Institute, and Ashland Theological
Seminary.
When asked to describe the relationship that the new
church plant had with the denomination or conference, most feel supported in
their efforts. To illustrate, 57% received financial help from their conference
or denomination for their initial church planting efforts; 41% state they still
receive some sort of financial help. Figure 7 titled "Assistance from
Conference/Denomination" lists the support church plants received from
their conference or denomination.
An overwhelming majority (85%) participate in the programs
and initiatives held by their affiliated conference/denomination at the national
and/or regional levels. Several respondents provided comments concerning their
relationship with the denomination. Several stated that most attendees have no
previous tie to the denomination, so they don’t understand what it is. Some
church planters perceive little or no support from their local
district/conference leader or surrounding area churches. Most of the respondents
have had good relations with the conference or denomination and support it.
As shown in Figure 8 titled "Pastoral Support from
Conference/Denomination," 61% of churches state their pastors feel support
and encouragement, while 31% state that they would be open to more support and
encouragement from their respective conference/denomination. Six percent did not
feel support or encouragement.
The respondents provided their ideas of how
they would like to be supported in their efforts. Having a "hands-on mentor
and steering committee in place" or a "local sponsor church"
would assist church plants greatly. On-site training, money for outreach, visits
from denominational leaders, and personal support to pastors and core groups are
appreciated. Above all, church planters appreciate the regular relational and
mentoring support, not just financial support, they receive from the
conference/denomination, rather than being perceived as a "possible
business adventure of a conference leader."
Only 14% of the church plants report experiencing an
outside evaluation on their own planting and growth processes. Church plants
from The Brethren Church, General Conference Mennonite Church, and Mennonite
Church, as well as an independent Anabaptist church, had evaluations. These
evaluations have been recently performed in 1999 and 2000, and several churches
are just now getting their results back.
Go to: 1
2 3
4
5 6
