Comments on: Church Planting Movement (CPM) – Our Definition

By: Beginning with the end in mind

Beginning with the end in mind — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:01:21 +0000

[...] Want to know more. . . This entry was written by Steve Addison, posted on at 3:01 PM, filed under Church planting movements and tagged Church planting movements. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Atheists convert agnostic [...]

By: Bruce G.

Bruce G. — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:56:35 +0000

David, I love your blog, and learn a lot from it, as well as from your son Paul. I think that your definition is a good place to start, and that at the same time, others may find definitions that
better suit their situation. In any event, I hope (along with you) that others will offer their
own definitions for comment.

By: CS

CS — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:31:42 +0000

Thanks for your answers. Great! I do have some follow up questions:
1. 1 new church per week! What does it mean? How can you do that?
2. For the definition of a church, do you have a minimum number of members before qualifying the group a church?

Blessings,
CS

By: davidwatson

davidwatson — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:31:57 +0000

Thanks for the questions. The two years part of the definition is based on observation and experience. Rapid reproduction is a key component. What defines rapid? We came down to about 1 new church per week, sustained over two years, with visible reproduction. The third generation part of the definition is a critical mass issue. When we see this we know the likelihood of continuing growth and replication is high.

The primary qualifier for church is fulfilling the nature and functions of church. This is a growth process, but is intentional and moving. Our basic definition is: A group of baptized believers in the Lord Jesus Christ who meet regularly to Worship, nurture each other (teaching ministry), and fellowship (obeying the one-another passages of the Bible); and depart these meetings endeavoring to obey the Word of God in such a way that lives, families, and communities are transformed.

Blessings!

David Watson

By: CS

CS — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:07:27 +0000

Thanks David for your definition of CPM. But I do want to ask some questions.
1. Why 2 years? Will you modify this time limit in different context?
2. How do you qualify a “church?” Do you have any criteria for calling a church a church?

By: davidwatson

davidwatson — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:26:15 +0000

Hi, David. This week I am in team meetings. We hold ourselves to this definition, and it was these meetings that prompted me to write this blog post. Our teams currently are experiencing 6 CPMs and have other works that are near CPM. In the near CPMs, all had 3 or more generations, but did not meet the total church count or leadership requirements. We know they will make it next year.

The challenge for me is to measure apples to apples. We can only do that if we have a definition, and hold ourselves to it. I am not asking anyone else to use this definition, but I am asking anyone reporting a CPM to tell us how they measure CPM.

Blessings!

David Watson
San Jose, California

By: David Broodryk

David Broodryk — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:05:55 +0000

Thanks, David. I find this helpful and challenging. It is not easy to place numerical boundaries on something such as this without raising eyebrows. However, it does help to provide a clear picture of CPM. When we have numbers (at least 100 churches, 3 generations) we have a definition that is accountable. We know what the term means. The vague undefined use of terms has caused much confusion and misdirection in the Body of Christ (especially in the mass evangelism and some church growth circles). I appreciate you holding your own team to precisely defined terminology.

By: davidwatson

davidwatson — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:40:14 +0000

Hi, Aaron. Please note that I was defining the term CPM as my team uses it. I was not insisting that anyone else use the term in the same way. I was also defining when we call something a CPM, based on 100 churches, 3 generations deep, within 2 years, which have identifiable leadership and ministry to community. The jist of the post was to let you know what we mean when we say CPM, and hopefully, others would tell us what they mean they use the term CPM. The term has become fluid. It is only fair that those who use the term CPM give a definitive statement of what he or she means when it is used. I gave such a statement. I am not imposing my definition, but exposing my definition so others can know what we mean when we use the term.

Blessings!

David Watson
San Jose, California

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:27:42 +0000

I just read your post “http://www.davidlwatson.org/2007/11/21/the-secret-ingredient-for-church-planting/” and I think I’m starting to see where you’re coming from. I think I need to hear / read more about what you mean when you say that a cpm is an effect not a cause. That very important nuance needs to be emphasized in “your” definition.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:58:49 +0000

I love your ideas related to a specific methodology for creating a church planting movement, but you’re being unreasonable. There may be some that use the term so broadly as to mean “anything related to church planting.” But, it would be better to coin a new phrase than to say that a church planting movement is not a church planting movement unless I say so. Say a missionary plants a church and then the next year that church plants another church and then the following year each of those churches plants a church, that is an exponential movement of churches planting churches whatever you want to call it. What do you call it if it only produces 128 churches in 7 years, but within 2 more years it has produced 384 additional churches? Was it not a church planting movement in the first 7 years, but then all of a sudden it was in the 8th and 9th years? There has to be a critical mass reached when starting in a totally new area before the numbers start reflecting what you’re suggesting.

That having been said, I love the aspects of your definition that emphasize regular reproduction of leaders and churches, but making it a numbers game rather than principles acted out, leaving outcomes to God . . . ? Well, I just don’t know.