I understand what you’re saying, but … if you look at most every website or book out there on “church planting,” you’re going to find a different motivation it. (IMO, anyway.)

I believe that one big reason that the state of the Church in America is starting to look a lot more like the rest of the world is because much of the Bride has lost or misplaced her evangelistic heart. We no longer see ourselves as foreigners in a foreign land who are to herald the good news of Christ to those who are dead, lost and heading to eternal damnation apart from it. We’re simply happy if the sermon doesn’t go too long so we were sure to get the buffet special.

As a former member of TFC, all I can say is church planting there is really aimed at creating another group of believers, in which people can become supported, grow, and share their faith in outreach. Very big megachurches are often hard to get involved in. And when you can’t get a seat or a parking space at church, something needs to happen, right?

This seems like a big case of over-analysis of a rather simple good thing.

“The atmosphere of a large catholic church is heavily oriented towards the church dispensing the sacraments in the name of Christ and the members then living the Christian life. The evangelical version, for all its criticized individualism, is heavily weighted toward developing disciples through education, discipleship, ministry – all in some way related to the growth and health of the church.”

is reasonably fair on the public side, there is a good bit going on in Catholic parishes wrt sanctification & discipleship that is just not as publicized as it would be in evangelical circles. One does have to search it out tho as it’s not pushed at one; the resultant growth is slower and not so visible but as to longterm fruit..God knows. Also, the very sacraments that are distinctively Catholic play a crucial role in its sustainence. One consequence of this different model, however, is that the sanctification/discipleship efforts tend to automatically get pushed outside the Church into the world. But again, what i’m describing is slow and lowkey and hard to describe and document (except in literature, e.g. Brideshead Revisited, for example).

A parish is really just the building and clergy that provide for the regular, orderly celebration of the Mass and sacraments over a geographic region. Church-planting as “founding more and more parishes” is, of course, alien to Catholics. Ceteris paribus, a Catholic ought to receive the sacraments at the closest parish. Traveling outside of one’s parochial boundaries to attend a favourite parish is frowned upon. It would be like spending Thanksgiving with a different family just because your mom burns the turkey and your siblings bicker. Planting more parishes to encourage renewal seems to cast doubt on the principle of ex opere operato and seems to suggest that one receives better sacraments at a better parish. Perish the thought!

However, the spirit of “break with the past”, “out with the old, in with the new” can be found elsewhere in the church, in the orders and lay movements, as it has done for centuries. In these groups, a fresh start is often desirable, sometimes for it’s own sake. The existence of orders and movements with appellations like “reformed”, “of the primitive observance”, “discalced”, etc… attests to this phenomenon. In the orders and movements, one very often sees health in newer groups, which offer a striking parallel to what iMonk describes. One sees a sense a purpose, clear priorities, amiable relationships, flexibility, speed and effectiveness.

I believe Michael has said on this website before that he thinks Christianity is essentially a series of church-planting movements. It echoes something Joseph Ratzinger said, that the immediate future of Catholicism belongs to movements. Interesting. And it occurs to me that, even though a Catholic parish and Protestant church seem very similar with walls, a roof, pews, a pulpit and so on, their essential nature is very different and the parish, as a local instance of a transcendent and universal Church, simply does not exist in the Protestant ecclesiastical landscape. A Protestant Church has more in common with, say, a monastery, whose worth and value as an institution arises chiefly from human merit and effectiveness.

Anglicans must have a devil of a time with the whole church-planting thing because they often are stuck with a Protestant soul trapped in a Catholic body. Hehe.

Apologies for the prolixity.

Yate’s awfully close connections to the Repubs and supposed ties with “The Family” just have me skittish that’s all. (See for example the New Yorker article, “The Insiders: How John McCain Came to Pick Sarah Palin,” that ran last October.) Again, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt.

As for charismatic being bad biblically; no certainly not. Although Paul seemed a little skeptical about them as well.

Nope – Lutheran background, spent much time with Catholic charismatics, also as a member in indie Protestant churches that have both high/charismatic leanings, currently not a member of any church.

I guess I’d have to say that I have roots in Lutheran theology and eccesiology but am more inclined toward Anglicanism (in some respects).

Some of us out here are kind of eclectic.

Thought you were catholic. I assume all my critics are

We’ll have a Lutheran view of church planting up here in the near future.

ms

I didn’t mean rethink the Christian or catholic faith. I didn’t mean THAT basic.

And I agree church planters must be sent. Absolutely.

ms