The Missional Network

Is there a good assessment tool that will evaluate both the church planter and his wife?

---

John Walters
Calling Pastor
Grace Point Church
San Antonio, Texas

John,

A tool is only a tool and I think you will get a better idea and feel for the planter from time spent with them and feedback from others that know them. My experience has been that there are successful planters that score very differently on assessments and there are people that look like the perfect fit that don't do well. I believe we have failed at this part of the process. The tools give us a reference point and a common language. Anyone that tells you they have the planting thing figured out is lying. I'm reading Nelson Searcy's book, "Launch" and I think he gets this as well. Use anything you want for Strengths, personality or whatever... just spend time with them and try to see their hearts. Not if they are good or not but do they have a moral imperative that they must do this. Then try and determine if they can handle unbelievable adversity as well as a willingness to learn and transform. Most planters I know are more independent than they should be and actually less confident about their call and commitment.

Hope that helps. Feel free to connect with me. barry@whatismosaic.com

Peace & Courage,

Barry 

---

barry odom, mosaic seattle
www.whatismosaic.com
my blog: barryodom.voxtropolois.com

You could try this resource:

www.placeministries.org

By far the one of the best assessments out there is from New Church Initiatives in Houston.  The director is Glen Smith and their assessment is great for couples and dead on.

http://nciglobal.org/
 

---

For the City,
Sean

We use the Profile Assessment System developed by Dr. Chuck Ridley.

 

Dr. Charles Ridley, an occupational psychologist, upon interviewing 100 church planters, determined that thirteen key qualities were needed for an individual to be an effective church planter. These were qualities that needed to be clearly identified by past performance in the candidate.  The principle is, “Past performance is an effective indictor of immediate future action.” The church planting candidate who demonstrates a high level of effective past experience in the areas represented by these thirteen qualities can anticipate a high level of effectiveness as a church planter. If the church planting candidate has not demonstrated the effective application of these qualities in past experiences, effectiveness in the immediate church planting project cannot be anticipated.  PAST PERFORMANCE of the candidate is the KEY, NOT the verbalized “DESIRE” of the candidate.

It is important to note that these qualities are specifically focused on the role of the lead church planter.  A person in ministry can rate lower in these areas and still be effective in another area of ministry.  The desire is to match the qualities needed to accomplish a ministry task with the demonstrated abilities of an individual desiring to serve the Lord in ministry.

My wife and I have been doing assessments of church planters for the past four years. We believe that the behavioral interview is the best method for assessment. We travel around the country doing assessments for organizations and churches. In fact, we did one today and one this past Monday. We fly to Colorado next week to do two assessments north of Denver. Each assessment interview is with the potential planter and spouse and lasts from 4 to 6 hours. After the interview is completed, we provide a written report evaluating the candidate compared to the thirteen qualities. 

For more information: http://onechallenge.org/USMin/images/stories/documents/churchplantingassessmentflier.pdf

 

---

DaveDV
www.missionalchallenge.blogspot.com
www.linkedin.com/in/davedevries

We also use the Ridley approach to Behavioral Assessments of potential church planters in Michigan. As good as the assessment is ... we have discovered the assessment tool is really no better than the assessor that conducts the interview. An assessor needs to know his stuff ... have a great sense of discernment, being able to read between the lines and then pursue questions that dig deeper into the candidate's past behavior.

If you find a good quality assessor, keep them busy. They may not make a lot of friends, but they will be honest and fair in their assessment.

I would also concur with Barry Odom's observation that time with the planter is also a wonderful assessment. I would highly recommend a combination of both approaches. If not an indigenous planter, invite the planter to the ministry field for a few days, spend both formal and informal time with he and his spouse, in addition to conducting the formal assessment.

In my two associations, I now recommend two assessments. We first ask for a 30 to 45-minute telephone interview with an experienced planter/pastor from our region. We ask for a one-page report after the telephone assessment before investing the time and money to conduct a complete assessment. For us, we acknowledge that men who have planted in Michigan will know what it takes to plant in Michigan, therefore they will have a good sense of a prospect's calling, passion and ability to plant in our context.

---

bobby gilstrap

What about the "eye-ball" test?  I don't mean that literally but I've done a number of assessments and honestly within the first 15 minutes of hanging out with the person you already know whether they'll cut it or not.  Isn't this also part of our problem as to why we don't plant churches fast enough?  We set out these characteristics of a "good" church planter (which none of us measure up to) which is based on more of a charismatic up-front Type A attractional driver personality.  So ... there's really only a small fraction of people who even then "cut it."  We then tell people that they can't plant churches and then go on their merry way.  But in reality here's what often times we're saying, "Dude, you don't have the strong leadership giftings to pull off the Big Show on Sunday so you better not."

I think anyone can be a planter and any assessment should help them determine the KIND of church to be planted.  Since most don't cut the high-energy attractional style then we could say stuff like, "Well, based upon God's hard-wiring and gifting in your life you'd be better off planting a simple organic church.  So keep your job at Intel, live life fully in your workplace while following Jesus, and oh ya ... start gathering these people into a church."  If we look at the leadership grid in Ephesians 4 then we ought to recognize that planters with apostolic gifts vs. prophetic vs. pastoral vs. teaching vs. evangelistic will be more inclined to plant different kinds of churches.  Our conventional assessments are great for one type of leader planting one type of church.  Not all planters are the same.

Am I eating the yellow snow and way off on this? 

---

For the City,
Sean

I guess the "eye-ball test" is what I would be referring to when I say to spend that informal time with a guy. Again, I still find value in the formal assessment ... based on the assessor. There are some common things that need to be present in an effective planter. First and foremost would be his ability to build relationships with the normal person (lost, or not yet transformed) in society. How a person does that will depend on personality, etc. You can have all kinds of talent and gifts, but if you can't communicate Christ in a manner that is effective to reaching the ministry focus group for a church plant, the planter will have a difficult time growing a church. For instance, Sean has a guy in Tucson that is planting a unique church called 2nd Mile. When I met the planter, he was personalable, but didn't strike me to be that strong type "A" person ... yet, I would venture to say he can be effective if he understands how to share the message of transformation to those within the unique focus that that church is reaching. I worked with a planter in OK that planted a Cowboy Church. He was so laid back I could nap between his sentances ... yet he knew how to share Christ between the horse stalls. The formal assessment can help us understand the behaviorial patterns that will lead to effective ministry for a particular planter in a particular context.

I guess in the midst of my rambling I am trying to say ... I thing that the conventional assessment tools have value for most every type of planter ... it's just that different planters will look different on paper ... now, how do we help a particular planter be effective? Among what focus group? etc. Regardless of an assessment score, if a guy can't connect people to Jesus, he doesn't need to be planting.

---

bobby gilstrap

You better sit down, I'm going to make a drastic statement. We should stop planting churches.  I don't think church planting, per se, is working. If 1 in 5 are failing, then it's not working.

I think sometimes we believe it is a merit badge if we "go down with the ship." What we need is a church reproduction movement. I think the planting movement will come to a close. Unfortunately, a church must really be unselfish to reproduce.  Reproduction is different... it requires a continuous relationship. Our planting model is, leave the baby on the door step and hope it makes it. Actually we just leave the egg and the... ummm, you know, on the door step and hope something gets born. Am I wrong?

---

barry odom, mosaic seattle
www.whatismosaic.com
my blog: barryodom.voxtropolois.com

True Barry,

We really have a myopic view of planting.  Even when you study global Christianity "real" church planting movements seems to always be in pre-Christian / Christendom nations (i.e China).  We need to recognize that we're still in the Christendom-hangover affect and that even though the culture has moved past us we still think we're the center of culture.  Our church planting tactics makes sense then ... in the context of a 1,700 years of Christendom.  But the small detail we seem to always leave out is that we're not in Kansas (Christendom) anymore.  You're right Barry, the way we do church planting is like leaving a newborn or an egg on the doorstep and hoping for the best.

Movements aren't strategized ... they just happen.  When we were in China a few weeks ago meeting with a prominent house church leader (uncle) we asked him what he does to train his people to plant churches.  He looked a little befuddled and said, "We just train them theologically and that's it."  No strategy, no fund-raising, no assessments, no core group, no hip trendy websites, no kickin' band ... they just go out and do it.  Again the context is a pre vs. post-Christian setting but I'm afraid that in and of itself is an excuse to keep on doing what we're doing.  I want to see more than a mere 4 churches a year planted in Tucson.  Heck, I need ONE A DAY just to keep up with population growth.  Our current methods and strategies do not allow for exponential explosive reproduction.

---

For the City,
Sean

Reproducing churches has to start with reproducing disciples. I don't think you should start with planting a church - you have to start with planting the gospel in a neighborhood or community. As you multiply disciples, churches will be birthed.

Why does it need to be an either/or option? Let's plant churches that reproduce - and let's reproduce churches.

In our district, we provide not only assessments, but training, coaching, funding, and prayer support. That's a far cry form "leave the baby on the door step and hope it makes it." IF that's your approach - I think you should stop planting churches.
 

---

DaveDV
www.missionalchallenge.blogspot.com
www.linkedin.com/in/davedevries

Then Barry & Sean ... how shall we find ourselves in the midst of such of an environment ... where churches start exponentially? With the SBC now acknowledged to be in decline ... a survival mentality of many congregations ... how can guys like us ... that are passionate to see new churches started because we see the transformation of lives ... what must we do?

---

bobby gilstrap

Hitting the nail on the head you are Dave. Part of the environment needed to see reproducing churches are reproducing disciples. Then, as churches are started we must provide "not only assessments, but training, coaching, funding, and prayer support." Establish partnership groups that will give the kind of support needed. Part of the environment that makes the soil of an area fertile is the fact that God is moving among His people to gather into congregations throughout an area or region. In our country, as industrialization moved people from the south to the north and west, lay persons led in the starting of churches. In fact, for many in that era, starting a church just seemed to be the natural thing to do.

Why does it not seem to be the natural thing for believers to do in our age?

---

bobby gilstrap

In the movement of global Christianity while it may be dusk in North America and dawn in east Asia we're still "in the game."  I think that as culture continues to move away from the hangover affect of Christianity it'll drive the church to dependency on God, force us to streamline and simply things, and cause us to be more fluid in our structures and systems which can allow for multiplication.  I hate to say it, but I think our numeric decline is going to be used to our advantage as it'll force us to uncover a more apostolic ancient brand of faith.  When that happens and the church is freed from it's current forms we'll be back in the game.  I'm a HUGE believer in God's bride and honestly see our best days ahead of us.  However, we need adversity to rekindle the church.

---

For the City,
Sean

Sean,

There are a lot of differences between planting traditional congregations and planting organic churches. When I read Wolfgang Simson's Houses that Changed the World - it totally changed my perspective on church. I agree that "our current methods and strategies do not allow for exponential reproduction." To facilitate movements requires an abandonment of attractionalism, consumerism, clericalism, extractionalism and megaism. We have to envision a new kind of church - that is not limited by building and budgets. 

I think Alan Hirsch is right when he identifies that the kind of churches that we've been planting based on the Christendom model will only reach a limited number of people. (and that number is shrinking) Too many people in America are turned off to church. So planting more churches like they are already turned off to doesn't make much sense.

So - let's go for it! Let's plant organic churches all over the place!
 

---

DaveDV
www.missionalchallenge.blogspot.com
www.linkedin.com/in/davedevries