Is a Mother Church Model Viable in the City?

[Don Davis]

For some time now, I have been intrigued with the idea of the "Antioch" fellowship in Acts. It served as a kind of headquarters for the early church's apostolic mission, and with Jerusalem, served as a center for resourcing, leadership deployment, spiritual refreshment, and "furlough" for the apostles after their witness journeys. I want to explore the possibility of pursuing models of "mother" church in urban church planting.

The essence of this idea is that a "mother church," which I define as "A healthy, growing congregation that serves as a beachhead for multiplying other sister churches in an area." A mother church is a congregation dedicated to becoming strong enough to provide church planters with the needed resources they must have in order plant as many new churches in an area as possible, to train churchplanters who are connected to and resourced by the mother church. All this is done in order to multiply and establish as many new congregations among the lost in its region, as God supplies.

This model is being used effectively by many denominations and within suburban contexts under the guise (or the plain intention!) of satellite campuses, area churches, or services at various sites. The sending church serves as both mother and beachhead, mother in the sense that it is the nurturing center for all new congregations in an area, and beachhead in the sense of providing ongoing support and answerability to the new congregations that emerge from their efforts.

From the missiology I am looking at, especially in church planting movements abroad, this could have real promise for planting churches here among America's unreached underclass in the cities. Are the theology and praxis of such a model viable for urban church planting, especially across cultures and among economically deprived neighborhoods?

[Jason Phelps]

Are the theology and praxis of such a model (the mother church model) viable for urban church planting, especially across cultures and among economically deprived neighborhoods?

Don said: "The essence of this idea is that a 'mother church,' which I define as 'A healthy, growing congregation that serves as a beachhead for multiplying other sister churches in an area.'"

George Miley authored Loving the Churches, Blessing the Nations, and founded the Antioch Network, "a growing international network of local churches which aspire to start reproducing church movements among unreached peoples." He advocates the local church supporting "apostolic structures" ("organizational form that supports and facilitates apostolic outreach. Examples: parachurch organization, missions agency, sodality, etc...")that support "apostolic leaders" which he contrasts between church leaders. In other words, the local church becomes a "mother church" focusing on a particular unreached people group to dedicate themselves and their resources to planting churches among those people, but they use an "apostolic structure" as the agent to which they accomplish this.

What I like about this is the strategic focus, that works for any size Kingdom outpost, you don't have to be a megachurch to try and reach specific target areas. And you don't have to focus overseas anymore either, we can use this strategy among our own, unreached urban underclass. Two benefits come immediately to mind.

One, this approach brings missions in the context of the church as one more unifying function of the church. We do worship together, we can share spiritual disciplines together, we can share time together (like the calendar), and we can even share missions together. This allows those who do not have an "apostolic" calling, to be very involved in the mission of the church. Thus any church that is planted is a "sister church".

Two, it allows the members of the body to function in their specific roles for more potency in the Kingdom advancement initiatives. A church can support the church functioning in its giftings and strengths. This would allow those gifted in cross-cultural ministry to lead the charge, and hopefully a sharper discernment in sorting through doctrine and culture, contextualizing our story, without patronizing the people.

The questions that this raises for me are...what oversight or authority role does the "mother church" assume? How autonomous are the "sister (or daughter) churches"? Does the "mother church" oversee the health of every church? Or is it simply equipping, sending, & supporting "apostolic" leaders?

[Jason Phelps]

Thinking in terms of the mother church or beachhead model of church planting...what about the possibilities of satellite campuses or multi-site churches being a viable model for a church planting movement.

The theological basis quickly summarized, as I understand it, is based on the Jerusalem church. They had so many people, were confined to houses (the church building as we know it had not emerged yet), and were devoted to the Apostle's teaching. If there were more people than a single house could hold (thus multiple sites), and more houses than Apostles, it seems that the Apostle's would simply travel and teach at the different sites.

I know this is a growing trend among larger churches with gifted preacher/teachers. Instead of simply becoming one ginormous mega-church, they'll video cast their sermons to multiple sites under one church umbrella. So, they can continue to grow in multiple areas, quickly. Is this a viable model for the urban inner-city?

Some things to consider. It would allow multiple churches or fellowships to start under strong established leaders. Thus, you would not have to halt expansion and growth because you do not have leaders ready to start the next.

A strict focus on gifting. Gifted teachers would primarily be responsible for teaching, pastor/overseers would primarily be responsible for overseeing the flock. This also would place a premium on deacons assisting in the practical needs of the church sites. Because of the multiple sites, the utilization of the gifts of each site much be a focus.

What's yours is mine. This could be done underneath on 501c-3 (I think). Different sites could reuse music, worship, resources, etc... This seems more than simply an association, but this would be one church yet with room for local expression.

It maximizes those called to lead. It might be my own lack of patience, but this is very enticing to me. We can set out with a strong core of leadership and never stop advancing. This doesn't stop leadership development, in fact because of the rapid advancement there would hopefully be more opportunities.

What's your thoughts? The strengths and weaknesses?

[Don Davis]

It seems to me that the model that you describe could possibly be effective, although it may have some problems because all the multiple site churches in this framing of the model may make the "sites" somewhat dependent on the mother for its spiritual vitality. In my mind, your composition of the model could be effective if we are careful discern and distinguish several things.

We must distinguish, first of all, the difference between a single church with multiple hubs, and a movement with multiple, representative churches. A mother church model, like Antioch in Acts, seems far more viable than the more homogenous expansion rather than multiplication that can often be seen in mega-church satellite campuses.

Second, we should distinguish between apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. The differentiation suggests that a leader with obvious apostolic gifts, able to nurture an entire movement of churches, as the Apostles did the early Church, with other leaders serving in either locale or local assembly kinds of roles. There needs to be a clearer distinction in your assessment of teachers responsible for teaching, and pastors for overseeing. While a movement may have gifted teachers who serve the entire network of churches, all pastors teach, and all good teaching is pastoral. I prefer "assemblies" kinds of language rather than "sites" for it places more emphasis on the integrity of each individual gathering of Christians to worship in Word and sacrament, to incorporate new believers into the body of Christ, to serve in hospitality and generosity, and to express the reality of the Kingdom in their own contextual environment. It is not just a place to get teaching from really gifted folk, but the place where the body of Jesus fleshes out the Kingdom's reality in truth.

Another distinction must be between the movement itself and the movement's outposts. You mentioned a single tax-free exemption for an entire movement. That may be viable, but, more than likely a movement will establish certain guidelines that all its members must follow, while leaving room for the Spirit's guidance on the individual congregations.

A movement is usually formed on the basis of its shared spirituality--vital, potent, authentic, true--rooted in the truth of the apostolic tradition, that is culturally contextualized and standardized for dynamic reproduction. The tip of the spear in the birthing of movements I have studied is neither technical nor methodological, but deeply spiritual, meaning, from the Holy Spirit, anchored in cultural resonance in a place. In order to ensure depth, we must have a spirituality that is worthy of replication, and this is precisely why (I think) movements are so difficult in the N. American context. The movement is represented by its DNA, and a church in such a movement shares that DNA. This sharing, by the way, need not be conditioned on a single teacher or leader leading all of the churches. The apostolic role can never substitute for the pastoral care of the congregation, or vice versa.

I believe a mother church model can be viable in the city, but not merely as the source of life, teaching, and inspiration for other sister churches, but actually leading to other congregations which, themselves, may also become mother churches. Movements allow for dynamism in terms of methodology, but insist on unity in terms of spirituality, doctrine, and vision. While most of your ideas relate directly to a multi-site/campus movement of a single fellowship, I think, with some augmentation, your ideas could be amended to support multiple churches rather than sites alone of a single church.

Don

[Andrew Lee]

Don, Jason great points! Thanks for your thoughts on this topic.

I too am intrigued by this mother church idea and wanted to express my 2 cents along with a question.

First of all, a clarifying question: I was taught to believe that what separates missions from local evangelism is that missions is focused on ministering cross-culturally. It's not to say that one is more important than the other, both are necessary, but that missions shares the gospel with an emphasis on learning to discern the cultural nuances of the culture they are reaching as opposed to ministering to where the culture that is most familiar with the "missionary" whereas evangelism is ministering within your culture. Is this something that everyone agrees or are the 2 terms somewhat interchangable? "Church planting" is a very popular word these days in the christian community and I continue to hear the word "missions" when speaking of evangelizing to your neighbors and those in your same cultural realm. But this is not what I've been taught. I am not trying to nit-pick here, but am concerned that if the cross cultural aspect of ministering in a culture different than theirs, even within the same ethnic group, is not addressed, it can create issues that were not forseen. The reason why I ask this here is that it can apply in this mother church model. Would this "mother church" and it's sister churches that are planted, be within one basic culture (of course being open to whomever the Spirit leads to them) or would it plant sister churches that are different culturally than the mother church? If so, what does that dynamic look like in the relationship between the two? Some have said that my thinking is just to "protect the word missions", but I sense that an important paradigm of ministry is lost if the 2 words are interchanged. I have had experiences where this has created conflicts with what a local congregation looks like, which I briefly mention below.

My thoughts regarding the mother church model is that it's important to allow the sister church to become more independent. It may work to use the mother church as a training center and a place of resources, but I believe that it is key for a congregation to establish an identity on it's own for the believers in that church to understand and accept. Otherwise, it will constantly feel inferior to the mother church and sense that it cannot grow on it's own without this church.

To continue the metaphor of mothers and sisters, every child in a family, although they may have the DNA of their parents, must establish their own identity during their maturation years. Understanding their own purpose and establishing their own goals, not their parents. The parents may help, care and nurture their children early on, but the goal is for them to become independent while continuing a good relationship with them during their adult years.

Similarly, I believe that even in the mother church model, the goal should not only be to birth new churches, but the mother church's goal in relation to these churches is to help and develop them to become independent and grow on their own while maintaining a good relationship with them. I personally have been involved with a church in my past where a congregation was being taken care of by a "mother church". The difference between my experiences and what we are talking about here is that I my experiences were difficulties brought on by differences in culture. But there are similarities within my example and this proposed model

I was part of an english speaking congregation within a large korean speaking church. The english speaking congregation (EM) was birthed out of the Korean speaking congregation (KM) to minister to those who feels more comfortable attending an english speaking church or for those who were not korean to attend. The KM wanted the EM to thrive and had great intentions for them. The KM provided much of the resources for the EM to sustain itself (building, use of vans, etc...), while the EM was able to fund itself financially. But in my opinion, the EM really had a very difficult time establishing an identity of it's own within the overall church. Every time an EM member walked in to the building, they got the impression that they were a minority and not as important as the KM (EM was only 10% of the entire congregation) because everything was written and spoken in Korean. There was also a lot of pressure and expectations from the KM on the part of the EM to "pull it's weight". I equate that to a middle aged son or daughter who couldn't leave their parent's house because their parents would not let them and therefore feel confined or trapped. It was very difficult for this congregation to grow and it is still struggling today.

I recognize that there are vast differences between my experiences and what we are talking about here, and I am in no way trying to point the direction of this thread to my experiences, but the lessons are important to address. One major difference is that in my experience both churches were in the same building, whereas this probably won't be an issue in this discussion.

Regardless of how it comes about (language, culture, age, etc..) the issue remains that each local congregation needs to develop it's own identity as a church, even with the DNA of the mother church. For example, those attending the smaller congregation needs to know why it would be better to remain there rather than attending the larger, more resourceful, mother church (assuming accessibility is not an issue). I believe that the member must have a sense of belonging to a local established congregation, not just to a satellite that is an extenion of a larger church that seems far off physically and relationally. This identity could be based on the personality and leadership styles of the pastors and leaders or even the uniqueness of the fellowship of believers in that church.

Having a mother church as being an authority figure "hovering" over the smaller church can be harmful to the growth of the planted church. The relationship has to be both ways independent. The planted church needs to understand that it has work toward becoming less dependent upon the mother church (while keeping a good working relationship for encouragement and help if needed) and the mother church needs to "let go" of this church when it is ready. Many times, churches have a fortress mentality and will not want to invest into something that may not directly benefit their (mother church) congregation, although it would benefit the Kingdom. This needs to be made clear from the beginning. The mother church may use resources that may not directly benefit this larger, more established congregation, and in fact, may lose some members to help start and support the newly planted church. This understanding, in my opinion, is crucial to the success of the new church and it's relationship with the mother church.

To provide another example more closer to home for us, is the relationship between TUMI National and TUMI Satellites. TUMI is not a church, but purely to see an example of a model of what it would look like. Although all of us are connected to TUMI National which provides training (Summit) and resources, it's goal and purpose is to support the satellites to be successful on their own. Never have I felt here in TUMI Chester that TUMI National was micromanaging or "hovering" over what is happening here and I sense that other satellites feel the same way. The standards and characteristics of what TUMI satellites should be and should not be were clear up front and allows for creativity and uniqueness in each site. I believe that a mother church and it's daughter churches should have similar characteristics and set criteria. The only difference is that perhaps the goal would be for the daughter church to one day become independent of the mother church and perhaps one day become a mother church itself whereas TUMI satellites would remain connected to TUMI National. But even doing so, it's important for each satellite to create it's own identity that would be unique to the needs of the local community.

And finally, perhaps this may be a subject for another post, but assuming we define missions specifically as ministering to a different culture other than our own, how do we know whether the missional approach to a specific culture and people group is no longer the most effective way, but rather it would be more effective to focus on training indigenous leaders. I understand that there has to be a combination of both. For example, when Hudson Taylor went to China to minister there, he was ministering cross culturally and in doing so raised indigenous leaders. Would it not be more effective for non-chinese missionaries now, who go to China, to focus their efforts and energies to support and train the existing churches and leaders rather than to attempt to plant a church themselves with the cross-cultural difficulties that come along with it? Unless there is an unreached people group. In relation to urban ministry, as we minister to a people group with a rich history of Christian teaching such as the african american community, is it still the best approach for our missionary staff who is not culturally urban to plant churches cross-culturally or would it be better to focus our resources and efforts on supporting and training established indigenous churches and leaders to plant more churches? For immigrant cultures that may be a different issue, but for cultures with established christian history, should there be a different approach? In other words, once a strong or healthy mother church is established, is it better for cross cultural missionaries to assist this church in planting more churches, or starting from scratch to plant churches cross culturally?

Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts.

[bmcclain]

I feel a little daunted by the length of the other replies but this post really interests me.

One of my main concerns about reproducing churches rapidly in the city is the issue of launching new converts into positions of leadership too quickly and setting them up for failure.

Any potential pastor or leader "must not be a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil" (1tim 3:6)

I feel like a mother church model protects the up and coming leaders and provides a stronger base for ongoing discipleship and protection of young leaders. This will in turn provide a better foundation for a church plant movement.

So I like the mother church idea for many reasons but there's one to chew on.

[bmcclain]

In an earlier post Dr. Davis wrote:

"The tip of the spear in the birthing of movements I have studied is neither technical nor methodological, but deeply spiritual, meaning, from the Holy Spirit, anchored in cultural resonance in a place. In order to ensure depth, we must have a spirituality that is worthy of replication"

So rather than emphasis on the model or method we should go after the spirituality and see what the Spirit plants?

The last 10 minutes of this message from John Piper is helpful
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/MediaPlayer/2310/Audio/

[Ray Coston]

I feel that the mother church model would really help the church planter in growing a local churh as well serve as a source of guidence and training.
The challenge I see is that in many inner city churchs there's the mentally of me myself and I, and they are afraid of competition.