THE CHURCH PLANTING INITIATIVE
A Report on Diocesan Strategy and Action
C. Kirk Hadaway
Adair T. Lummis
June, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
2
STRATEGY FOR NEW CHURCH DEVELOPMENT
3
IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PLANTING
NEW CONGREGATIONS
5
DIOCESES’ INTEREST IN PLANTING NEW CONGREGATIONS
6
1. Consolidation and Restarts Versus New Starts
7
2. Poor Results with Prior Plants
7
3. Rent Rather than Buy
8
CONGREGATIONS STARTED BY DIOCESES IN THE LAST
FIVE YEARS
9
1. Spatial Location of Congregations Started
9
2. Correlates and Consequences of Spatial Location
10
PUTTING THE PIECES IN PLACE
11
APPENDIX
1
INTRODUCTION
The 75th General Convention passed Resolution A042 which called for:
…every diocese of this church to identify and document with projected costs and
demographics including racial, ethnic generational and socioeconomic makeup of
the targeted areas, prime opportunities for the development of new congregations,
including new college campus missions.
In the spring 2007 the DFMS research office, in consultation with Charles Fulton, of the
then Office for Congregational Development, developed and sent a survey form to each
diocese asking for information called for in the above resolution. Slightly over half of the
domestic dioceses completed at least part of that form with several other dioceses
responding in brief text form. A general summary of responses was developed in late
2007 and given to Executive Council. This report is a more complete analysis of the data
collected. And whereas it does not contain a complete reporting from the dioceses, the
results from 51 dioceses essentially represent a 50% “sample” of what dioceses are doing
and planning in the area of church planting.
All domestic provinces in this sample are represented by at least four dioceses, with the
largest representation from Provinces IV and VIII, with eleven and nine dioceses
respectively. Approximately two-fifths of the responding dioceses had not established
any new congregation or mission community within the last five years and about the
same proportion furthermore had no plans to do so before the end of the triennium.
However, this left a majority of responding dioceses which have been or plan to be
involved in church planting.
STRATEGY FOR NEW CHURCH DEVELOPMENT
About a third of responding dioceses indicated they already had “an intentional new
church development strategy or plan,” another third were in the process of forming one,
and the final third did not have any such strategy. Dioceses with at least some plan for
starting congregations were significantly1 more likely than dioceses without to:
1
Associations with having a church planting strategy summarized are significant at the .001 level.
2







Plan or hope to start a greater number of new congregations
Have budgeted more money over the next three years for new congregations
Anticipate needing additional money for new starts
Project a greater number of congregations diocese which could start if matching
DFMS funds were received
Have purchased land for potential sites of new congregations
Have spent 1 ½ million dollars or more for sites purchased
Have one site already sufficiently developed to serve as a pilot project for joint
diocesan/DFMS funding.
Obviously, it behooves dioceses which have budgeted substantial funds for new
congregations or have already purchased land to have a strategic plan in place to justify
these commitments. Still, since efforts to plant new congregations rarely emerge on their
own, it is no surprise that the following table shows strong relationships between
intentionality and action.
STRATEGY FOR NEW CHURCH DEVELOPMENT
COMMITMENTS:
Dioceses:
YES
NO, FORMING
ONE
NO
100% (17)
100% (18)
100% (16)
6%
39%
75%
1-2 starts
41%
44%
25%
3 or more
53%
17%
0%
6%
67%
94%
> $300,000
59%
28%
0%
$300,000 +
35%
5%
6%
71%
28%
12%
# New Starts Planned/Hoped
None
Budgeted Funds for New Starts
None, no ans.
Diocese Bought Land: YES
The following examples from diocesan planting strategies indicate a variety of
approaches. Dioceses may focus on restructuring their diocesan commissions and
committees to give more direct attention to church planting; or employ outside
consultants for advice on where and how to start new congregations; or train diocesan
staff and clergy to be such “church planters;” or work with leaders and consultants from
3
other denominations in establishing worship centers in strategic locations. An
accompanying focus necessarily must include strategies on how to fund these efforts and
any new church starts resulting.

We are restructuring the Diocese to create a commission for congregational
development and revitalization to include support for new church planting….Our
greatest challenge is finding qualified church planting leadership.

We have employed a demographics firm, and we respond to “mother” churches
that have a clear sense of their local area. When we have 25 people who wish to
form a church, we consult with neighboring churches. We send our planners to
some type of “boot camp” and try to build a critical mass before launching.

We have several sites purchased and several more on the drawing board. We
have hired a church planter on the staff. Interested clergy are put through
professional discernment instruments to see if they have “church planting DNA.”

The Diocese has had a policy of funding and establishing a new metropolitan area
parish every three years…and worshipping communities (missions) in smaller
rural areas within a less defined pattern. All parishes and worshipping
communities are constantly monitored pertaining to their growth patterns.

Several intentional steps have been taken: the first was the formation of a
Strategic Planning Committee, followed by a restructuring of the Diocese, and
instituting Mission Groups, Program Groups, a Diocesan Mission Council and a
fund separate from the operating budget supporting the planting of new churches
and new growth initiatives in existing congregations.

We started a new mission with training and oversight from ELCA. With that
under our belt we will continue to use lessons from ELCA and information from
Percept. Basically, our present strategy is finding an area of growth (at least
21,000 in population) and then a missioner that meets the standards of ELCA.

The Diocese has purchased land in a very rapidly growing area… We are in
dialogue with two other faith groups (Jewish and Islamic) for the possible
purchase of land that would provide a campus setting with room for separate
structures for an Episcopal church, a temple and a mosque, as well as some
community areas and buildings.
4
IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW CONGREGATIONS
Resolution A042 called for each diocese to identity and document prime opportunities for
new congregations. For this reason, the survey asked diocesan representatives to list each
opportunity area by zip code, campus or community name and complete a list of key
characteristics of the area(s) in which they planned to establish new congregations,
explain how the diocese located the site, the cost per acre of land and number of acres
needed as well as the total costs projected and start-up costs for the site, describe the
likely population growth in “the target community,” as well as the prospective racialethnic, socio-economic, and age profile of future worshippers.
Slightly under three-fourths (71%) of the responding domestic dioceses did name at least
one site for a new congregation and answered most questions about the particular site. A
fourth of these dioceses (25%) named and usually described as many as three different
sites chosen for new church plants. In looking over the characteristics of these sites2, it
can be noted that total financial outlays for most of these new plants were reported as at
least half a million dollars, with the median being approximately a million and half
dollars. Projected start-up costs alone are typically over $200,000 and apparently can
well be double or triple that amount. Given these initial projected start-up and total
costs, dioceses understandably are hopeful that the new congregations will be selfsustaining in several years. They therefore seek locations where their they can plant a
church which will have a good chance of attracting ever increasing numbers of active
members, who will support the new congregation with their time and financial resources.
Dioceses report using a number of methods of finding good locations for planting a new
church: using Percept and other demographic studies, newspaper reports of new housing
or anticipated population changes, Episcopal contacts in the area (some who have had to
drive a distance on Sundays to attend church), discussion with clergy of mainline
Protestant congregations already there, and diocesan committee efforts to work with
consultants and make their own visual inspections of the area.
2
The questions on each site and percentage distributions of how dioceses answered each question can be
found in the Appendix, pp 4-7.
5
The characteristics of the site opportunities so identified indicate that the great majority
are located in areas with at least a fairly fast anticipated population growth particularly of
middle and upper-middle class young families and mid-aged professionals. Along with
these demographics, the likely racial-ethnic profile expected in the new plant would be
mainly white/Anglo members. However, several sites appear to be chosen in part
because projections indicated that a substantial number of Black, Hispanic, and
sometimes Asian families are moving in the area which would help diversify the new
congregation, or even provide the numbers needed to begin a predominantly Black or
Hispanic new church.3
A total of 36 out of 51 dioceses were able to name a specific opportunity for developing a
new congregation. Out of these 36, 18 dioceses indicated that the opportunity was
significantly developed to serve as a pilot project for joint diocesan/DFMS funding.
Unfortunately, the matching funds called for in the Church Planting Initiative have not
been budgeted or raised. As a result, no pilot projects were initiated during the current
triennium.
DIOCESES’ INTEREST IN PLANTING NEW CONGREGATIONS
The great majority responding reported that there was at least “some interest” in their
dioceses “in planting new congregations” and no diocese said there was “none.” At the
same time, there were mixed responses in the extent of interest:4 43% indicated there
was at least “a fair amount of interest” in their diocese, while 32% described their
dioceses has having “little” interest at best in planting new congregations. As might be
expected, the more interest within dioceses for planting new congregations, the more
likely dioceses were to have a church planting strategy, have allocated money in the
diocesan budget to new church development, and have bought land as potential sites.
5
3
The choice of sites for new church starts reflects some of the recent statistics provided by Episcopal
Congregations Overview: Finding from the 2008 Faith Communities Today Survey. This study reports
that the great majority of Episcopal congregations composed predominantly of “non-Hispanic white”
members.
4
See Appendix, question #10, page 3.
5
Associations with interest reported all statistically significant at the .001 level.
6
This leaves an interesting question: why do some dioceses have rather minimal
interest in locating promising sites on which to start new congregations? Written
comments on the survey indicate a variety of reasons for their little interest in locating a
promising site and building a church:
1) Consolidation and Restarts versus New Starts
Several explained why for their dioceses new starts are considerably less important than
consolidating several small congregations and restarting stagnant or dying congregations:





We are merging several churches at present, solidifying our resources as we plan
future steps.
We are not really into planting so much as redevelopment.
At this time, we have more of a need to consolidate some parishes than we do to
develop new congregations.
It is important to note that a key priority for us is the redevelopment of older
urban congregations.
Our actual growth and development is coming from restarts – not start ups. Since
the GC resolution is not aimed at measuring this, I have not detailed the
accomplishments we have made here. However, some of the decisions we made
may have strategic implications for the project you are undertaking…We have
relocated three churches in the last three years, and restarted two parishes in their
current locations.
2) Poor Results with Prior Plants
One diocese had a particularly bad experience with a church planter they entrusted with
funds allocated for the new site, building and salaries, and so is not eager to try again
soon.

The combination of money we invested in the development of the ministry
($200,000+ over the year or so the congregation was being established), the
wrong church planter, and problems with the fallout of people who were at
best nominally Episcopalians, made the short-lived plant effort a costly
educational experience. Its “failure to thrive” has made it much harder to get
enthusiasm (and trust) for the next startup and adequate funds to do so.
It more usually the case that some congregations, built on new sites with much work,
fanfare, and anticipation--do work hard to thrive but ultimately fail to become
independent as soon as hoped. Part of the strategy for new church starts can include the
specification as to when the congregation must be self-supporting, as in the case of the
following diocesan report:
7

The model proposed for our starts is a combination of diocesan initiative to
provide land, training for the church planter and help with the building. We
expect the congregation to become self-supporting…our diocesan support will
be gradually reduced in the second year and be progressive until diocesan
funding stops in the sixth year.
3) Rent Rather Than Buy
A number of diocesan representatives, particularly in the majority of dioceses that have
not bought any land, variously commented that their model of church starts departs from
the traditional one of finding growing communities, buying land, and building church
facilities.
Rather, their strategy of starting new congregations is closer to the emerging
church model. They typically provide consulting and some financial assistance to those
interested in starting a worshipping community, but not the land and the building. In
some sparsely populated dioceses, buying land and putting up a building before starting
the congregation would not only be fiscally unwise, but culturally inappropriate.

In looking at costs of new church starts, we are keeping it to a minimum, with
just the cost of salary for the clergy and possible staff, office supplies, and
facility rental. The fundamental idea is to go back to an apostolic model,
whereby the community of faith builds up enough enthusiasm to provide land
and building themselves. If converts are not getting that kind of excitement
about their faith, no amount of outside financial support will likely create a
sustainable community.

Here church growth is quite apart from land and buildings. Most, if not all, of
the amazing growth here has been in small extended family units…Though a
number of house churches have closed due to lack of attention and resources,
the house church model (assuming at least 30 in an extended family based
church) has been phenomenally successful….

All of our developing congregations … need to be both replicable and
sustainable. They need therefore to follow the subsistence pattern of those
communities…In order to grow we have had to be less reliant on buildingfocused growth – with our situation that would almost insure no growth.
Some dioceses that have started congregations in rapidly growing communities by buying
land and building churches also have used new church development funds to start
churches using versions of the less cost-intensive models depicted above.6 Further, from
6
Although dioceses that purchased land sites are considerably more likely than dioceses which did not to
anticipate starting more congregations than dioceses which did not, still nearly half the dioceses with no
land buys (the majority of responding dioceses) indicate they intend to start at least one congregation.
8
descriptions given of new starts in the past five years, it seems that perhaps the dominant
model for future new church development is starting congregations in rented or donated
space.
CONGREGATIONS STARTED BY DIOCESES IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS
A substantial number of the responding dioceses7 described congregations already started
within the last five years in terms of location, predominant ethnicity of members, as well
as “when the new congregation is expected to be self-supporting.”
Although dioceses
did not typically give much detail about these congregations, written descriptions provide
some intriguing details about the characteristics of these new congregations.
1) Spatial Location of Congregations Started
Descriptions of where new church plants house their worship service indicate that these
locations are typically in spaces they do not own. House churches and college
chaplaincies almost invariably meet in donated space. However, a substantial number of
congregations established within the last five years also rent space for their worship
services, typically within schools or another local church. The following descriptions
depict a range of such options:

“Spirit in the Desert” is a regional ministry project/concept of three established
congregations…located in one of the fastest growing areas of the United States. It
is congregation called “an Episcopal Community” that continues to meet in the
home of the priest in charge on a weekly basis and celebrates Eucharist. Land
has been purchased with the hope of being able to build a church structure some
time in the future.

“Happy Valley” is a new start planned over the last three years. With four core
families and about 4-5 families in orbit, the church planter will be working with
them to build a missional-evangelical frame that will invite families to their
school-cafeteria setting, while investigating collaboration with the new Methodist
plant and the new ELCA mission. Self-support? If by that we mean a building, a
mortgage, and $75,000 salary and benefits package, I don’t predict self-support
for many years.
7
See Appendix for numbers and descriptions of congregations started within the preceding five years, pp.
7-8.
9

“Prince of Peace” is currently meeting at West Wing Elementary School, which is
in an area of the city expected to multiply considerably in the coming years. The
Mission Group has been essential in offering tangible support to Prince of Peace,
especially since it remains far from any established parish and was started in large
part from the ground up. Worship, multi-generational training, and
communication are the key priorities of the church community at this time. Its
current ASA is 40 and growing weekly, mostly with unchurched newcomers.
The plant is applying for formal mission status this year, but does not anticipate
being self-supporting for another three years.

“The Church of All Souls” serves a demographic of people who were severely
impoverished. The vicar is supported by funds from the Bishop’s Annual Mission
Appeal, and funds are being sought to purchase a permanent building. Currently,
the congregation rents space from a Baptist church. Given the slow economic
recovery, it could be years before this church is self-sustaining.

Our first Hispanic worshipping community is served by a full-time Diocesan
Hispanic Missioner who is funded by our diocesan budget. “De La Gracia” is
located in facilities owned and operated by St. Michaels Episcopal Church with
separate office space and phone lines. It is not expected that this worshipping
community will be self-sufficient during the next five years.

The Sudanese congregation at St. David’s is a new parallel congregation, with
12-15 families and lots of children renting space within St. David’s. St David’s is
a declining metro church with about 20 pledging units; most of its income is from
rents on its very large physical plant.
2) Correlates and Consequences of Spatial Location of New Starts
a) Projected Years Before Independence of Congregations Started
Few dioceses, only 12% of the full sample, report that any congregation they started
within the last five years is now self-supporting, although another 16% expect that they
will have at least one new start independent within three years. On the other extreme,
nearly a fourth (23%) of the dioceses responding report that they have at least one new
start they do not anticipate will be self-supporting within even ten years. Three dioceses
describe a congregation established within the last five years that has already been closed.
Given this diversity in projections of financial independence, it is further understandable
why dioceses are going the renting route in addition to or instead of buying much
property.
10
b) Planting Racial-Ethnic Congregations
Given the new church opportunities described, the majority of new congregations started
by Episcopal dioceses in recent years are likely to be predominantly white, Anglo
congregations. However, those dioceses that described the racial-ethnic majority makeup
of their recently started congregations were as likely to portray these as predominantly of
a non-Anglo racial/ethnic group. By far, Hispanic/Latino congregations were the most
frequently named ethnic group majority, comprising fifteen of these new congregations
across twelve dioceses. However, within the last five years dioceses have also
established worshiping communities for Sudanese (particularly) as well as
Caribbean/Black, Asians and Native Americans persons.
c) Enumerating Number of Congregations, Particularly Racial/Ethnic
Although there are official designations of what constitutes a recognized parish and
mission, some dioceses also keep lists of names of new church starts/worshipping
communities which are considered separate congregations, even if located within another
Episcopal parish. There are certainly parishes which take justifiable pride in being
multi-racial/ethnic congregations, with special language services for those speaking
Spanish, French, or Arabic. However, there are also worshiping communities which do
not have English as a first language located within an Episcopal parish, but which have
their own clergy and services and are thus considered by them and by the diocese to be
separate congregations. There are approximately at least ten such congregations spread
across eight dioceses, and likely more. These congregations are a particular source of
confusion for those trying to enumerate the numbers of racial/ethnic congregations, since
these are not “officially” congregations for computation of Parochial Report statistics.
Yet they may be someday.
PUTTING THE PIECES IN PLACE
The Church Planting Initiative resolution (A042) called for dioceses to identify and
document church planting opportunities. The survey on which this report is based
provided dioceses the opportunity to begin that identification process, if they had not
done so already. The resolution also called for certain actions at the national level and
11
joint action between dioceses and the DFMS. Some of these actions have been put in
place, while others are in process.
Resolution A042 called for the office of congregational development in cooperation with
ethnic ministries to lead and support the Church Planting Initiative by certain actions,
including raising awareness about church planting, assisting individual dioceses in
planning and developing a vision for church planting, and developing tools for assessing
candidates for new church development. Since 2006, the DFMS has added a staff officer
for church planting to work with dioceses, oriented much of the work of ethnic ministries
toward developing new congregations, and developed a valid tool for assessing potential
candidates for church planting.
Most dioceses which responded to the Church Planting Initiative survey indicated that
they could plant more congregations if they had additional funds to do so. Recognizing
this reality, the resolution called for the DFMS to be a financial partner with dioceses and
to raise funds for the Church Planting Initiative. Part of this process was through
implementing a major gifts campaign. That campaign was recently begun, but funds for
church planting are not yet available.
Most dioceses know where they could start new congregations if they had the resources
and leadership to do so. Many dioceses have a strategy for church planting. All need
additional funds. So although all of the pieces of a true Church Planting Initiative are not
yet in place, progress has been made in developing what was envisioned by the
resolution. As with most major changes in church strategy, it will take more than one
triennium to make the policy a reality.
12