# Where to plant churches?



## Brother John

Lord willing, what are the most strategic cities and states for reformed presbyterians to plant churches?

If you (as an ordained minister) were planting a church would you choose an area that already has a reformed presence (like Atlanta or Charlotte) or would you choose an area that has no/little reformed or evangelical presence (like San Fransisco or DC area)?

How would you go about evaluating and deciding on a location?


----------



## Pergamum

Prioritize unreached people-groups (ethnic groups not only having no reformed church in a single city, but no Christian witness within the whole ethno-lingusitic boundaries of that people).


----------



## Romans922

San Fran has reformed churches just like DC...


----------



## KMK

What is your definition of 'Reformed'?


----------



## Jeff Burns

I would probably only entertain places with very little gospel witness (Montana, the Dakotas, etc.). I also wouldn't prioritize urban over rural as I believe folks in rural areas are just as needful of the gospel as folks in the city centers.


----------



## Pergamum

Jeff, hey do you know my friend Dustin Segers there near Greensboro?


----------



## VictorBravo

Jeff Burns said:


> I would probably only entertain places with very little gospel witness (Montana, the Dakotas, etc.). I also wouldn't prioritize urban over rural as I believe folks in rural areas are just as needful of the gospel as folks in the city centers.



I'd increase it to almost anywhere in the northwest part of the Louisiana Purchase. Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon, especially the eastern parts of the last two states. And the northwest coast is crying for a presence of good teaching, but I know many who have tried hard and have been frustrated.


----------



## JBaldwin

We have friends who have a small, but solid ministry going on in rural Idaho, but they have been there for over 14 years, and it took them a long time to get established.


----------



## Jeff Burns

VictorBravo said:


> I'd increase it to almost anywhere in the northwest part of the Louisiana Purchase.



Agreed. I know of a family who moved to that area to purchase a significant portion of land and are the only believers for many many miles. They drive over an hour to attend a seeker sensitive gospel-lite church because there's literally no other options.


----------



## JML

Jeff Burns said:


> I would probably only entertain places with very little gospel witness (Montana, the Dakotas, etc.)



The truth is though is there are pockets of these places all over the U.S. For example, where my wife is from in Louisiana is 99.9% Roman Catholic. There is even a Mary shrine that takes up almost an entire city block. There are a few seeker sensitive churches but absolutely no even semi-reformed presence.


----------



## Jeff Burns

John Lanier said:


> The truth is though is there are pockets of these places all over the U.S.



I don't doubt there are. I was just using those states as an example of _very large_ "pockets" without gospel witness. Kind of like missiologists use the 10-40 window. Obviously there are unreached groups outside that window, but it is a legitimately striking geographical concentration of unreached groups.


----------



## J. Dean

You go where God leads you, plain and simple.


----------



## Jeff Burns

J. Dean said:


> You go where God leads you, plain and simple.



True, but unless you're a mystic, "leading" is pretty subjective and wisdom requires an awful lot of careful planning.


----------



## Brother John

Romans922 said:


> San Fran has reformed churches just like DC...



Andrew I am sure there are some reformed churches in San Fran and DC but they have much less of a reformed presence than cities like Atlanta and Charlotte. I simply picked those as examples for my question to try and get the OP across.


----------



## Romans922

I would probably say Atlanta has less. The only 'reformed' church I know of is Where Frank Smith is pastoring.


----------



## Brother John

KMK said:


> What is your definition of 'Reformed'?



For the purpose of my OP I would define it as a Bible believing presbyterian reformed church holding to the westminster standards, a Bible believing dutch reformed church holding to the three forms of unity, and a Bible believing calvinistic baptist church holding the 1646 LBCF.

---------- Post added at 12:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 PM ----------




VictorBravo said:


> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would probably only entertain places with very little gospel witness (Montana, the Dakotas, etc.). I also wouldn't prioritize urban over rural as I believe folks in rural areas are just as needful of the gospel as folks in the city centers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd increase it to almost anywhere in the northwest part of the Louisiana Purchase. Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon, especially the eastern parts of the last two states. And the northwest coast is crying for a presence of good teaching, but I know many who have tried hard and have been frustrated.
Click to expand...


Have these states never had a gospel presence or is this more of a modern situation?

---------- Post added at 12:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------




JBaldwin said:


> We have friends who have a small, but solid ministry going on in rural Idaho, but they have been there for over 14 years, and it took them a long time to get established.





Jeff Burns said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd increase it to almost anywhere in the northwest part of the Louisiana Purchase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. I know of a family who moved to that area to purchase a significant portion of land and are the only believers for many many miles. They drive over an hour to attend a seeker sensitive gospel-lite church because there's literally no other options.
Click to expand...


I always thought of the Idaho, Montana, N/S Dakota area as evangelical conservative. Very interesting.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The coalfields of eastern Kentucky and southern West Virginia (and the dead rust belt towns all along the Ohio River from as far west as Cincinnati to and as far north as Weirton, WV).


----------



## Jack K

New York and London. These are places where the world comes to us.

Not that we should not also go to the world. But being strategic, and looking to bring the gospel to the ends of the earth, we should certainly take a long look at those cities where millions of people from barely-reached people groups are already right here among us.


----------



## Brother John

Romans922 said:


> I would probably say Atlanta has less. The only 'reformed' church I know of is Where Frank Smith is pastoring.



I am assuming you are talking about Frank Smith the pastor of the RPCNA church in Alpharetta/Cumming area? My wife and I had the opportunity to met him and actually had he and his wife over to our home in Gainesville, GA. We enjoyed getting to know them that evening. Growing up in Alpharetta, moving around the north side of Atlanta and settling with my family after college in Gainesville (north of Atlanta / north side of lake lanier) I would be hard pressed to agree that pastor Smith pastors the only reformed church in the Atlanta area. That automatically excludes over 45 churches in the Atlanta area of our own denomination.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Jeff Burns said:


> I would probably only entertain places with very little gospel witness (Montana, the Dakotas, etc.). I also wouldn't prioritize urban over rural as I believe folks in rural areas are just as needful of the gospel as folks in the city centers.



There is always a need for more faithful churches, but don't that forget the RCUS has a presence in the Great Plains, particularly in South Dakota.


----------



## Romans922

Brother John said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would probably say Atlanta has less. The only 'reformed' church I know of is Where Frank Smith is pastoring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am assuming you are talking about Frank Smith the pastor of the RPCNA church in Alpharetta/Cumming area? My wife and I had the opportunity to met him and actually had he and his wife over to our home in Gainesville, GA. We enjoyed getting to know them that evening. Growing up in Alpharetta, moving around the north side of Atlanta and settling with my family after college in Gainesville (north of Atlanta / north side of lake lanier) I would be hard pressed to agree that pastor Smith pastors the only reformed church in the Atlanta area. That automatically excludes over 45 churches in the Atlanta area of our own denomination.
Click to expand...


That very well might exclude some from our own denomination. A congregation is not 'reformed' because it is in the PCA, though it,ay claim to be reformed.


----------



## elnwood

"It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation." - Romans 15:20

I've been told many times about Reformed churches being planted "where there are no other Reformed churches within X miles!" If the church planter has a really narrow view of "Reformed," the distance X can be quite large.

It would be nice to hear, at least every once in a while, about Reformed churches being planted where there is no gospel witness at all.


----------



## JML

elnwood said:


> It would be nice to hear, at least every once in a while, about Reformed churches being planted where there is no gospel witness at all.



Depends on what you consider gospel witness and whether Arminianism is another gospel. Some say yes, some say no. That is a topic for another thread and has been discussed on many, many threads. However, if one considers Arminianism another gospel then there are a whole lot of places without gospel witness.


----------



## elnwood

John Lanier said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice to hear, at least every once in a while, about Reformed churches being planted where there is no gospel witness at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you consider gospel witness and whether Arminianism is another gospel. Some say yes, some say no. That is a topic for another thread and has been discussed on many, many threads. However, if one considers Arminianism another gospel then there are a whole lot of places without gospel witness.
Click to expand...


I would say it depends on the Arminian (and on the Calvinist, for that matter), but there are a whole lot of places without a gospel witness regardless. We don't have to define Arminianism as another gospel in order to justify the location of a church plant as being unreached.

In any case, I was thinking of church plants I've heard about in locations where there were already thriving PCA and Reformed Baptist churches, but were still considered "unreached" because they weren't as Reformed as they were.


----------



## JML

elnwood said:


> In any case, I was thinking of church plants I've heard about in locations where there were already thriving PCA and Reformed Baptist churches, but were still considered "unreached" because they weren't as Reformed as they were.



Very true. That does take place.


----------



## Pergamum

Jakarta has 14 million people. Bandung, West Java has 3 million people.

And I have heard there are 150 cities in China that have more than a million people.


----------



## J. Dean

Jeff Burns said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go where God leads you, plain and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but unless you're a mystic, "leading" is pretty subjective and wisdom requires an awful lot of careful planning.
Click to expand...


Right, but at the same time an over-analysis can become paralyzing. There will always be "pros" and "cons" in any situation, no matter where God leads us. Believe me, I'm the last person to fall into anything close to the Gideon's fleece/mystical decision making category. But I've also seen people at the opposite end of the spectrum spending so much time worrying about how either decision could bring problems or shortchange opportunities. It's like watching a donkey between two haystacks, starving because a decision isn't made.

I like Augustine's axiom: love God, and do what thou wilt. Obviously there needs to be Scriptural parameters understood concerning this, but at the same time there are times when a decision needs to be made without overthinking about it.


----------



## Raj

Church planting is needed in the cities, villages, hills and plains, preference should be given to those languages and people groups who know not Christ as Lord and Saviour.


----------



## mhseal

Anchorage, Alaska.


----------



## Pergamum

Church-planting among the Jaun-Sari in Northern India seems to be a pretty big priority! And there's already solid workers there. Thanks Raj for your labors.


----------



## jogri17

Jeff Burns said:


> I also wouldn't prioritize urban over rural as I believe folks in rural areas are just as needful of the gospel as folks in the city centers.


 of course, but it is a question of priority and you can reach 10x as more persons in the cities with the same amount of money as you would in a rual area. The question is priority and you can't treat every place equally.


----------



## Jeff Burns

jogri17 said:


> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also wouldn't prioritize urban over rural as I believe folks in rural areas are just as needful of the gospel as folks in the city centers.
> 
> 
> 
> of course, but it is a question of priority and you can reach 10x as more persons in the cities with the same amount of money as you would in a rual area. The question is priority and you can't treat every place equally.
Click to expand...


Priority or pragmatism? Sure you may be able to potentially reach more people in a city, but there's no garuntee. Also, I would also strongly disagree that you could reach _more _people for the _same _amount of money. I used to attend a church in the heart of downtown in a major capital city and our rent for the meeting space cost a little over $1500 a week (and we only had access to it on Sunday mornings). You could easily rent a meeting space in a rural area for less than $1500 a month and probably half of that if you looked hard enough (and be able to have 24/7 access to the facility). Inner-city ministry is _very_ expensive. That's just a fact plain and simple.


----------



## Raj

Thanks Pergamum. There 365 villages in Jaun-sar, (leave the Gharwal region) while we are only about ten. The area is big and difficult due to rivers, forests and mountains,* and workers are few.*.....................so sorry our friend Dennis (also PB member) had to leave us.


----------



## Pergamum

Jeff Burns said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also wouldn't prioritize urban over rural as I believe folks in rural areas are just as needful of the gospel as folks in the city centers.
> 
> 
> 
> of course, but it is a question of priority and you can reach 10x as more persons in the cities with the same amount of money as you would in a rual area. The question is priority and you can't treat every place equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Priority or pragmatism? Sure you may be able to potentially reach more people in a city, but there's no garuntee. Also, I would also strongly disagree that you could reach _more _people for the _same _amount of money. I used to attend a church in the heart of downtown in a major capital city and our rent for the meeting space cost a little over $1500 a week (and we only had access to it on Sunday mornings). You could easily rent a meeting space in a rural area for less than $1500 a month and probably half of that if you looked hard enough (and be able to have 24/7 access to the facility). Inner-city ministry is _very_ expensive. That's just a fact plain and simple.
Click to expand...


Should we be impractical in making strategic decisions about where to serve? Practical implications must, too, be considered, right?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

KMK said:


> What is your definition of 'Reformed'?


Heh. Something like this perhaps?



AMR


----------



## jwithnell

A particularly difficult area is southeast (and I would assume) southwest Alaska. You have whole communities with no churches whatsoever spread out over islands and on the mainland that has no access to the North America road system. These communities are immediately written off by almost any church planting algorithm. We need to find a way to bring church to these folks even if it isn't the building for 200 holding twice-weekly services. In larger places, like Juneau, I was glad to find people who held to the gospel and at least saw the Bible as authoritative; I set my fellowship with them even though we doctrinally disagreed on just about everything.



> the northwest coast is crying for a presence of good teaching, but I know many who have tried hard and have been frustrated.



And this would include southeast Alaska mentioned above. God really seems to have isolated this whole coastal area. In one sense, it is easier because you virtually never run into someone who is Christian in name only. Folks will follow a kind of pagan spirituality and can be engaged in conversation. But there's also out-right hostility, especially when there's a strong homosexual community.


----------



## seajayrice

Romans922 said:


> I would probably say Atlanta has less. The only 'reformed' church I know of is Where Frank Smith is pastoring.



Is this because of your exhaustive familiarity with Atlanta assemblies?


----------



## Edward

Brother John said:


> That automatically excludes over 45 churches in the Atlanta area of our own denomination.



There's a reason that Smyrna is split between two Presbyteries. One would think that the river/county line would be the boundary.


----------



## Kevin

My advice is to plant a church where you live. If you can't share the gospel with people where you are now, why do you think it will become easier when you move>


----------



## BertMulder

Wherever the Lord grants an open door. As it is the King of the church who sends the preachers where He wills...


----------



## Jeff Burns

Pergamum said:


> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also wouldn't prioritize urban over rural as I believe folks in rural areas are just as needful of the gospel as folks in the city centers.
> 
> 
> 
> of course, but it is a question of priority and you can reach 10x as more persons in the cities with the same amount of money as you would in a rual area. The question is priority and you can't treat every place equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Priority or pragmatism? Sure you may be able to potentially reach more people in a city, but there's no garuntee. Also, I would also strongly disagree that you could reach _more _people for the _same _amount of money. I used to attend a church in the heart of downtown in a major capital city and our rent for the meeting space cost a little over $1500 a week (and we only had access to it on Sunday mornings). You could easily rent a meeting space in a rural area for less than $1500 a month and probably half of that if you looked hard enough (and be able to have 24/7 access to the facility). Inner-city ministry is _very_ expensive. That's just a fact plain and simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should we be impractical in making strategic decisions about where to serve? Practical implications must, too, be considered, right?
Click to expand...


Of course not. But being practical doesn't necessitate being pragmatic. 


I'm simply tired of all the talk about "reaching the city" and "redeeming the city" that seems to be so much a badge of the current missiological trends I've been exposed to. Sometimes going to a city may mean more exposure to reach more people for the gospel, sometimes it doesn't. 

Quick example: I've heard folks who preach/believe that by going to cities you influence the movers and shakers (doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc.) who will then help you redeem the culture of the city from the top down. The problem with that is that in many cities, and the major capital city in which I used to live, none of the movers and shakers lived in the city. They all lived in the wealthy suburbs around the city. So, if your goal is to reach the upper crust and start a trickle down effect, you really ought to be planting out in the suburbs (in this particular city). If your goal is to reach anyone and everyone, than sure, a city may afford more opportunity due to population density. But it may not. The chruch I attended in the downtown city center was about 200 strong and was mostly white middle class twenty-somethings with a smattering of outliers. Could this church grow to be a mega church with people from all of the various socio-ethnic groups from the area attending? Sure. But either way it's in the Lord's hands. People get a passion for where to plant and it's very difficult to influence them once they've "cast a vision." All I want to do is shine a little light on the popular notion that cities are the end all missiological strategy or that we're somehow biblically mandated to go to cities first and foremost.


----------



## Pergamum

Jeff,

Yes, agreed. Sometimes (like in the NT) an evangelist can be called out of an urban center bustling with revival to chase a chariot through the desert.


----------

