The first good reason to think about “church planting” is that in our speaking about evangelism, we more and more hear the call for church planting.

This term, which has come to us (in the Netherlands) from the English American world, stands for yet another concept to ring the missionary bell in the church and to shape it.

Church Growth, Willow Creek, Purposeful Living, Missional Church, Emerging Church, Liquid Church — these are a handful of other concepts, which intend to build current bridges for the Gospel to reach into the world, and for the world to come to Christ.

The power of these diverse movements lies in the strong commitment to make the church active, contextually relevant, effective, and current: attractive for church folks themselves and for the world.

The second good reason to think about “church planting” is that in our current Reformed missionary practice, there is already plenty being studied about, and being worked on toward, church planting.

A recent local Synod reserved, as could be read in the paper, “A million euros for church planting.” This is not for church planting abroad, but in places in Holland (and Belgium).

Church planting as evangelism strategy⤒🔗

In this country (that is, the Netherlands), where there are already many churches, the method of “church planting” is being used as a new evangelism strategy. The thought is that it is too difficult to draw people to the existing, the so-called “traditional,” churches. These churches have, as is being reasoned, developed too much of their own culture, a subculture that is.

The thresholds have therefore inevitably become too high. Also, as is being observed, the Reformed churches consist too much of a certain social layer, a certain segment of society, which means that someone from a deprived area of town is not easily “at home” in our church, nor someone from the modern world of business (a young urban professional), nor someone from a different religious background, or from an ethnic minority group. All these different groups make up the context in which the church now lives and does missionary work: complex, layered, multicultural.

Well then, the goal of “church planting” is to establish congregations which fit well within a certain group or in a certain area of the city. In a specific area of the city, the people living there usually have certain things in common. That area will then also determine the character of the new congregation.

Church planting can in this same adaptive manner (the whole concept breathes relevancy, contextualization, being contemporary) focus on specific groups (yet to be determined) in society. At times, these groups are rather easy to identify (for example, based on ethnicity or religion, being homeless, prostitutes, soccer fans, drug addicts, asylum seekers, those who have left the church), and at other times not so easy to identify.

Though it is clear that one can haggle about some of this, the reason to organize suitable types of congregations and worship services for different groups is completely clear, and actually (for those with missionary blood in their veins) quite attractive.

In past years, we of course also had “special services,” for example in prisons, for the armed forces, in a senior home or in an asylum for people with mental challenges.

But now this becomes a missionary strategy, with the intention that through the strategy we will be better prepared to address specific segments in society with the Gospel message.

Church planting in the seventeenth century←⤒🔗

In this article, I want, with blinders on for all kinds of theories for church planting that circulate in this realm (to which we will pay attention, but at another time), to describe how, for a long time already, in our own missionary tradition we have been occupied with church planting.

The concept of “church planting” has ancient paperwork in the Reformed world.

It was Gisbertus Voetius (who was also a representative to the Synod of Dort of 1618/1619, where the important matter of baptizing children of unbelievers was discussed), who, as a professor in practical theology, wrote a draft for the first Protestant mission science.

In it, three goals for mission work are described:

1. The conversion of nations (conversio gentium)
2. The planting, gathering, and constituting of a church or churches (plantatio, collectio, et constitutio ecclesiae aut ecclesiarum)
3. The glorifying and manifestation of Godly grace (gloria et manifestatio gratiae divinae)

Voetius clearly closed ranks with the apostolic tradition (the image of “planting” starts already with Paul, see 1 Corinthians 3) and with the Old Church. Voetius defines the technical term (used already by the Old Church) “planting” as “the first gathering (collectio) of unbelievers, now converted to the faith, in a church body (corpus ecclesiasticum), or the first instituting (constitutio) of a church or of churches, in the church form.”

For those who know the Bible, this description is, on its own merits, rather obvious.

Church planting as mission goal of our churches←⤒🔗

Up till our time, the mission goals from Voetius can be found as basic elements in the vision on mission and mission aid work.

A 1999 Dutch Synod (Leusden) formulated it this way: “It belongs to the nature of Christ’s church with the Gospel, which is entrusted to her, also outside the world of her own language and culture, to look for those who are strangers to, or estranged from God and His service.

The church, through the ministry of the Gospel, ought to plant churches of Christ, which, bound to Scripture, the Reformed confession, and the Church Order, come to the development of their own church life…”

It is remarkable that the synod actually goes very far in the filling in of “church planting”: churches are to be planted, bound to…!

And then follows the important threesome, which to a large extent has stamped the identity of our churches, but which, according to the synod, ought to also be the identity of the churches planted by us. Is this formulation not somewhat outdated? For in the practice of mission work, we find it far from obvious that the churches planted abroad will get our confessions translated, let alone the Church Order. For how else could you put into practice what it says here?

Church planting in the education of missiology←⤒🔗

The IRTT, our (Dutch) Intercultural Reformed Theological Training center for the training of those to be sent out (missionaries), also has church planting as a high priority on their agenda.

It was always about planting churches, where there were no churches before: so in countries far away (for example, Papua, Kalimantan, Sumba, Curaçao, Brazil…), or in the southern regions of The Netherlands, or just across the border there (as in Ghent, Belgium).

In the programmatic pondering about church planting, the IRTT mainly wondered “what church really is/means” Of which elements does it consist?

Which building blocks are needed? Which steps does a missionary need to take? What should the final end-result “church” look like?

Copying machine←⤒🔗

The answer to this question has in the past quite regularly not been clearly enough formulated.

Or, as becomes clear from the formulation given above, it was rather easily positioned beside the confessional standards. Was there even a reason to think more thoroughly about how to answer this question?

After all, it is clear what a church is, at least for someone who is a member of the Reformed church, and on top of that, a theologian! This—allow me to use the word—naïve self-reference, has not only in our own mission past, but across the world of Protestantism left a trace of misery. The church (here) that was ripped apart, fragmented, and divided—this western church exported her internal discord to the Third World.

Division was planted and harvested. The churches of the West and the North were copied in the South and in the East. This copying drive is easy to see in the style of many church buildings in the world, and then we have not even seen the inside of those churches.

The church divisions in the Third World, and the ease of dividing the church even further is contrary to Jesus’ prayer in John 17:11 “that they may be one, even as we are one.” This unity should, according to Jesus, be an important condition for the missionary power/efforts of the church: so that the world believes that God has sent his Son!

Biblical elements←⤒🔗

Church planting, therefore, was too easily explained: that just as the church at home is, that is more or less how the church should be in, for example, Zambia or on the Fiji Islands. This wrong attitude can and may not continue. This observation leads us to further elaborate on this: What actually is a church?

Of which elements must it consist? Which building blocks do you take along, and which blocks are to be left (at home)?

You can also ask the question this way: Which biblical elements form together a true church, a church of Christ? What forms a church, whose members may confess, “We are the gathering of believers in this place!”

To answer this core question, we did not go directly to Articles 27, 28, and 29 of the Belgic Confession. We went to the Bible, and especially used the results of practical theology.

With an eye to church planting abroad (but why would something else apply for churches at home?), we start from the beginning: through the proclamation of the gospel, people repent and turn to Christ. These believers are gathered by Christ into one body, locally. When this group of believers increases in number under the blessing of the Lord, then the church planter will share more and more responsibility with the recent converts. He will teach them further about what it means to be a “church,” and what this all involves.

When the time is there, he (they) will appoint candidate-elders to bring this process into motion by them and for them.

Continuously it ought to be considered: what is expected of us, what are they to do, how are we (functioning as) church, and obedient to Christ? The Bible is to be in this process our guiding light. The tradition of the missionary also plays a role in this, he does not have to abandon his knowledge. But he will try his utmost to reason / explain things from the Word of God.

So again, and again the question is to be raised: how are we obedient, what must we do, as a group of young Christians?

Not a blueprint←⤒🔗

Then it becomes clear that the Bible does not contain a blueprint for an institute which is called “church.” There is not a blueprint for church government either. Neither is there a model that will generate replicas everywhere in the world of something that then would be the biblical church. And yet, the Bible provides a lot (of information), especially when she speaks of the church in images. Those are significant.

And when it is about the organization of the church, then it is clear that however you think about the offices (One office? Two offices? Three? Four? Many?), the elders appointed by the first church planter Paul were to take a ruling and very important, central position. Therefore, we take the appointment of office bearers as being biblical, and not as being Western or as being typically Dutch.

So, we are to work towards appointing office-bearers in every location. They must learn to lead the young church. In view of what? To truly be a church — here we are again. How then?

The many images of the church help (us) when filling in the total picture of the “church”:

for example,, body, or bride, or salt, or light, or house, or fortress, or city, or… Someone counted once, and came to 96 images of the church, just in the New Testament alone. So, that is a lot!

Action fields←⤒🔗

When you allow these images to sink in, and you also thoroughly read the New Testament, then it is possible to describe some fields of attention that are characteristic of being church in this world. In regard to responsible church planting, there is much to say to portray the church in such a way, looking at the actions which must characterize the church, and from there looking further and going deeper.

In practical theology, people speak about “action fields.” Within the IRTT (the Intercultural Reformed Theological Training center) we have formulated six action fields of the local church, and, because of our focus on churches abroad, we came up with the following concepts:

Proclaiming, worshipping, educating, pastoring, assisting, associating.

Briefly in other words, a church must give good attention to these tasks: missional, liturgical, pastoral, catechetical, diaconal, and church-federation tasks. These aspects can, one by one, be found in God’s Word, and together (as a full composition) they give a good picture of what a church must look like.

The office bearers, mentioned earlier, can get to work with this picture, which guides the development of being or becoming adept in our action skills

That is the benefit of this approach: that it makes for an operational vision of being church.

Of course, we have not nearly said everything, and not yet filled in all the blanks, but this is extremely useful when we want to plant a church somewhere and want to develop programs to that end. This approach gives a good workable church council’s agenda; checklists, programs, points of action. And it also provides for a church that is intent on the pure preaching of God’s Word, the sacraments and church discipline.

Associating←⤒🔗

We also have specifically pointed to the field of associating, as an action field of a local church.

For after all, the Bible shows that a church never stands on its own but knows itself to be united with other churches.

Together with those (other) churches they form one body (Ephesians 4). Churches assist one another (2 Corinthians 8 and 9). Also together, churches think about the teaching / doctrine of the church (Acts 15). They pray for each other.

Aside from this biblical information, it seems to me very logical that churches in this world keep in touch with one another and show a willingness to assist each other. I highlight this action field briefly, as naming specifically this responsibility as a “must-have” of a local church is characteristic of Reformed church planting — and has far-reaching consequences.

In the matter of church planting abroad, we have placed the mission goal further as compared to the planting of one local church. It is about hooking up this church with other churches.

That local church, as young as she may be, must also be(come) conscious of this action field.

That is why, for example, in Papua, Indonesia, we brought the elders of the young congregations in our area together to speak together about problems, possibilities, extended preaching, mutual agreements, ethical problems, and so on: a “regional/classical gathering,” if you will.

And some people will say then, “Was that not typically Dutch? Do you have to do that there?”

However, it is the logical consequence of what the Bible says about being church in this world.

Organizing these kinds of gatherings is in the first place an act of obedience to the Lord of the church. It is not a mimicking of the Church Order, even though it shows that in practice these two do not, in principle, conflict with each other. That is also logical, but let me just leave it at this here. For I still want to bring up two final and urgent questions in this article which are also of great importance, in my view, for the tracks we want to follow with church planting in The Netherlands:

1. In the situation abroad, when are you now ready as missionary with the mission of church planting, enabling you to go home?
2. Why would the principal lines of this mission approach not have much to say for church planting at home?

Completion of church planting←⤒🔗

1. You are ready to conclude your task as a mission church when you have trained a number of brothers (through the power of the Spirit) in such a manner that they are able to carry the responsibility themselves and continue to do so for all the action fields described above. If they are willing and able to do this, then they can in due time (no rushing) be installed as office bearers.
   This moment is in the local church and mission history a historical highlight. For it is a tipping point in which the responsibility is transferred from the missionary’s shoulders to the congregation and her council members, who from that moment on are completely independent. From that moment on, Article 74 of the Church Order applies to the missionaries and to the sending church(es): “No church shall in any way lord it over other churches, no office-bearer over other office-bearers.” (Book of Praise, Church Order, Article 74, page 659).
   This is a moment of great seriousness, but also of great joy. For the mission goal has been reached and the mission(aries) may return home rejoicing, even though there will remain a bond till the day of Jesus’ return, and perhaps also the assistance will remain.
2. The operational approach of church planting, as used abroad, also has much value for church planting at home, though the situation here differs from abroad since there is already a church federation here, there are already churches here, and so on.
   But if it is decided somewhere in the home country, or in a district, or for a layer of the population, or for a specific target group of people, to plant a church, then the same principles apply. The end goal must be a new, young church in which the elders know themselves to be responsible for the aforementioned action fields. They are being readied for action and give shape to this. These elders are installed in their office the moment that they have shown that they realize that they are responsible and can act on their responsibilities.
   This also includes the one action field that we highlighted above: that they know that their young church is not alone but connected to other churches and will continue to be connected; that, within that federation of churches, they take on their obligations and make use of their rights.
   It could be that this young church, due to the uniqueness of this group, this district, the specific culture, even when it is in your own country, fills in the action fields quite differently from a traditional local Reformed church. However, there is nothing wrong with that, on the contrary!
   Let the church, in her catholic multiple colour scheme and breadth, learn her apostle-mindedness and experience church unity and safeguard that unity.
   For catholicity is not first of all something geographic, but it is sociographic: the full Gospel of Christ must be attainable for all people without distinction.
   That is something that traditional churches ought to value and care about.