Church planting is a team effort, not a competition

My kids always beat me at Risk. You know, the classic board game of world domination where you expand your territory, crush your opponents, and inevitably spark family arguments?!

Church planting can sometimes be portrayed as a game of Risk. Different networks and denominations rush to plant their flag in 'strategic' towns and cities — sometimes without considering whether healthy churches from other networks are already thriving there. While this may be a slight ‘straw-man’, there is sadly some truth to it (according to my study, just over 1/5 spoke of vision 'issues' between their network and the ground-level reality of what was needed).

The problem lies in the difference between making plans based on a ‘high-level-Google-Maps-view’ and actually zooming in to ‘Google-Street-View’ to see what’s really happening at ground level.

Too often, church plants struggle because of a mismatch between what denominational HQ perceives as a need, and the actual needs of the local community. Decisions made at a distance, based on data rather than relationships, can lead to churches being planted in areas where they aren’t truly necessary or, worse, where they inadvertently disrupt existing ministry efforts.

Shuffling the pack

One contributing factor to this challenge is the movement of ‘early adopters.’ Church plants often attract a committed core team of pioneers eager to be part of something new. But what happens when, ten months later, another ‘church flag’ is planted nearby? Those same early adopters can be easily tempted to jump ship for the next exciting thing…

At its worst, this results in a constant shuffling of the pack—people moving from one plant to another as different denominations set up new churches. The most extreme example I encountered was in Australia, where one church planter told me that during the eight-year lifespan of his church, a staggering 38 (!) other church plants had launched and then folded. Churches from every denomination and tribe parachuted in, only to last a short time before disappearing.

This lack of long-term commitment and continuity can be damaging, not just to individual church plants but to the broader Christian witness in a city. It creates instability, erodes trust, and can make local communities skeptical of new church initiatives.

The need for collaboration

One of the most encouraging things I’ve seen, however, is a growing posture of collaboration among church planters. Rather than viewing each other as competitors, many are choosing to work together — both at the ‘Google Maps’ strategy level and the ‘Street View’ relational level.

Different networks are uniting around a shared doctrinal foundation and a common love for their cities. Instead of critiquing or competing, they are supporting and praying for each other. In some cases, this has even meant one group altering its plans and planting elsewhere. And that’s okay—because church planting should never be about building our little kingdoms but about advancing the Kingdom of Jesus.

Collaboration, humility, and a deep commitment to the long-term flourishing of a community will always be more effective than the transient excitement of a new flag in the ground. Church planting should not be a game of Risk.