Talk:Church planting

message: The article said the neutrality is disputed, but there is no dispute noted here. Could someone please bring up your concern regarding the neutrality? Nathandiehl (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one is disputing the neutrality, I am going to remove the notice.Nathandiehl (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality 

message: My edit in the "objections" section was deleted because it was considered accusatory, which is of course quite ironic! I think it would be better to substantiate this accusation, and edit appropriately. The debate on church planting has been dominated by methods rather than methodology; this needs saying. By all means edit this for tone! Hyper3 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *At the risk of someone coming in and telling us to knock it off because this isn't a forum.......church planting and franchises aren't really related since true church planting is often independant of any organization. That's where the second part of your issue comes up. If there is a parent org, then they can afford to plant in a lower income area. If there is none, then there has to be enough income to sustain the operations, which will eventually branch into lower income areas in the form of missions or satellite campuses. One thing to add......poor and high crime areas aren't the only ones who need churches. I'm sure you would agree that simply having money or having a low crime rate has no real correlation to their relationship with God. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume 'franchise' church plant carries the brand of the sending organization (Lutheran, Jesuit, Methodist, Baptist, etc.)  A non-franchised plant would be someone who read the Bible for themselves, became a believer and then created a church around a personal Bible study.  The former is the normal way and the latter is extremely rare, and rarely reproducable.  The franchise approach happens both by wealthy organizations spawning a new congregation into a wealthy area, and by poverty pastors within the ghetto.  For example, establishing a congregation to the "up and out" of society hill is just as valid to kingdom work as a circle of day laborers in Bangelore or Shanghai.--DeknMike (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Since we're offering personal opinions, mine is that you are wrong, based on what I've seen in my personal life. There are a significant number of non-denominational churches planted each year. Most people, aside from Wikipedia, that I have talked to or read aren't even referring to expansion or sattelite churches from denominations when they use the term "church planting". Niteshift36 (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: accusatory

message: This article can certainly use some changes in word choice.  For instance, "...requires a person particularly gifted in personal evangelism."  "Gifted" is a poor choice.  This certainly takes away from the neutrality of the article.  Undadecor (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  diction 

message: Much work has been done on Stephen's model - however the editor is adamant that using this model will not result in a separate church. It seems to be about starting a new service in a different language; church planting isn't the best place for this idea therefore. It also seems to be original research. I think it should be deleted, but as the editor is anonymous, it is hard to create a debate around it... Hyper3 (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyper3 My name is Pastor Scott. Two church members and I created this model. First I want to say that the model was not developed as a cure for church separations. God controls the growth and demise of churches both individually and on the CPM level. This model was created with the goals of reaching lost people groups with the Gospel and resolving several contextual problems facing evangelists planting churches in this so called melting pot called the U.S. Several factors did direct us towards this development yet problem solving was not the back bone of this development. The strength and guidance behind this model came from Gods word, prayer and the Holy Spirit. But before the burden of responsibility is placed on rationalizing the existence of our claim could you explain to me why Stephens commission in Acts 6:1-7 does not represent the act of planting. Also please bear with me. There are so many things I want to share with you about our development and I am very interested in getting your opinion. Please respond—Preceding unsigned comment added by MaugansvilleBC (talk • contribs) 18:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pastor Scott - having been involved in similar cross cultural efforts in London, I understand your heart on this matter. We too have created simple English services and other approaches to "welcome the foreigner." The reason I keep editing your input is for two reasons. Firstly, I'm not convinced that it is a church planting strategy, as no new, independent church arises from your work; perhaps it may in the future, but your description states that the new service is totally integrated into the existing church. For a church planting project to exist, it must be with the aim of a separate church arising, with independent leadership, finance, membership and so on. Ask yourself the question "what is the difference between Stephen's model, and opening a second service in a second language?" I believe you are describing an innovative approach to mission, but is it a church plant? If you were to state, for example, that this approach creates a seed group, and that stage two is the launching of a new community out of that group when it gets to 30-40 adults, then I could see the rationale. The second reason, is that a wikipedia administrator would no doubt see your work as WP:OR original research, which is prohibited. I will need to cite published resources for everything I write, and as I get this article up to to scratch by supplying these footnotes over the next period you will see these emerging.Hyper3 (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen's model 

message: Pastor Scott - Why is the Acts 6 passage not about church planting? What is your definition of church? Mine involves appointing leadership, a minimum number of households involved, a shared life of community, worship and mission, and the meetings and resources to equip that community for its work. In Acts 6 I read of the commissioning of the Deacons for the work of caring for the widows, a mercy ministry within the Jerusalem church. What do you see there? Hyper3 (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Acts 6 is not listed because Wikipedia is an encyclopeida of articles, not theological points of view.  Find a published source that agrees with you and it would suffice as a reference.--DeknMike (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acts 6? 

message: I had been using "church-planting", and I have seen that usage before, so I added a redirect.sinneed (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added [[church-planting]] redirect to here. 

message: If this article is going to be encyclopedic at all, it's going to have to have a definition, a historical overview, a lot less advice, and a serious bibliography. For instance, in a review of The Church Mission Society and World Christianity, 799-1999 by Kevin Ward and Brian Stanley I read about "The concurrence of British imperialism and Anglican church-planting" which "generated an endlessly contested and contestable historical record." The WP article has nothing to say about this at all. Apparently there is/was an Anglican movement of something called church planting, which I imagine went hand-in-hand with British colonialism--but from looking at the article you'd never know, since besides an unverified note from Australia all the content seems (seems--it's not made explicit) to refer to US evangelicalism. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A real article

message: The history section moves smoothly from the decline of the Roman empire to the peak of the British empire, as if nothing happened in the thousand-odd years between the two. It's also not at all clear that any of the historical information presented pertains to the modern evangelical concept of church planting, unless conversion-by-force is considered church planting. Pburka (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Church planting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426233743/http://www.centerforusmissions.com/Portals/0/pdfs/articles/ch-plant-history-ruhl.pdf to http://www.centerforusmissions.com/Portals/0/pdfs/articles/ch-plant-history-ruhl.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Church planting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107014100/http://www.imb.org/CPM/Chapter1.htm to http://www.imb.org/cpm/chapter1.htm
*Added  tag to http://www2.mtw.org/home/site/content/documents/ChurchToChurch/Toward%20a%20Definition%20of%20Church-Planting%20Movements.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified