Where to plant churches?

[jogri17]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

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.