My views on church planting – provocative, timely, intriguing or ????

Over the last few months I have written a number of articles on church planting, part chronicle, part theory, and part musings. The most recent one on SharperIron was picked up by a few blogs and described with the words in the title. One blogger thought the series should have been called “Provocations.” Another called the article “intriguing.” Still another “timely.” Which was it? I can’t answer that but I would prefer “provocative” to “provocations.”

One comment from someone who disagreed with me I take as a compliment: “Whenever I read material posted by Steve Davis one thing is for certain, it will not be patronage for which he is guilty.” I am glad to have others read me regardless of their perspective of the value of what I write. However I am interested in intentional church planting and challenging churches to invest in planting churches and to move from a maintenance to a missional mindset (more on missional later). I am interested in challenging men to plant churches whether urban, suburban, or rural but with an emphasis on neglected urban areas.

4 Responses to “My views on church planting – provocative, timely, intriguing or ????”

  1. “However I am interested in intentional church planting and challenging churches to invest in planting churches and to move from a maintenance to a missional mindset…”

    To me, this is it. While not bragging (ok, maybe a little) I am so proud that our just over a year old church gets this. We have been able to provide support for two church plants. It hasn’t been as much as I hope it will be some day, but our people are excited out of their minds to partner with new churches around the country. We must continue to support the advancement of the Kingdom through church planting.

  2. That’s awesome! I hope more churches get it. We have two supporting churches. One of them is a two-year old church plant, Sonship Ministries in Brooklyn, that tithes to our new church plant, Grace Church, on their giving.

  3. Just for the record, my comment was not intended to be about a series on church planting, but as a title for the wide range of issues you had written on of late (e.g., creationism, etc.). You had mentioned in an earlier set of comments about one of your articles that you were asking questions, not trying to give your answers. I took that to mean that you were aiming to provoke discussion.

    I would be interested in your response to what I did write about your points in that article. Your comment at SI basically boiled down to asking questions is good and necessary–unless you inherited an established church. 🙂 What about the points of question and disagreement that I expressed?

  4. Your correction noted. I misunderstood the “series” things when you wrote “Steve Davis, a church planter in Philly, has posted an article on church planting over at SI that is another in a series he should have titled ‘Provocations.’” I was thinking series like Part 1, Part 2 which I did on church planting. I wasn’t thinking at the time about the article on creation. It did generate some good and I think helpful discussion.

    I did post comments on SI how I would answer the questions. About your disagreements, they are noted as well. I’d have to look at them again to see if I disagree with your disagreements 🙂 or if it’s just a different perspective. But we can agree to disagree.

Leave a Reply