thesis on church planting

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy .

• Departments
• University Research
• About the University

Anglo-Catholic Church Planting: An Exploration in Practical Theology.

WALLACE, JOHN,CHARLES (2021) Anglo-Catholic Church Planting: An Exploration in Practical Theology. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.

This thesis describes research undertaken into church planting in the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England as a piece of Practical Theology and engages also with areas of missiology and ecclesiology. It does it in a number of ways. It engages with literature around church planting and the tension between the whole Fresh Expressions agenda, of which church planting is one element, and the traditional role of the historic parish and its church. It also looks at specific historical Anglo-Catholic literature as the thesis aims to make a comparison between Victorian builders of new churches and church planting today, but highlights two less noted leaders in the expansion of Victorian Anglo-Catholicism and concentrates on the work of these two specific Victorians as a way of avoiding over-generalisation, but also because as they had not been referenced in much of the literature as being leaders in the revival of Catholic worship or the establishment of new churches in the Church of England. They have not been the subject of previous academic study, but as will be seen, they both played significant roles. Participant observation was undertaken in three church plants, set up by Anglo-Catholic parishes, monthly over a period of eighteen months, and detailed descriptions of these plants and my engagement with them are provided in subsequent chapters. The research method used was a limited version of Grounded Theory as it supports the methodology of Practical Theology. This then enabled me to use a thematic analysis to draw out six themes, common in differing degrees to each church. I was then able to apply these themes to the Victorian subjects and their work to establish some important similarities of approach. This leads to a conclusion with recommendations for future Anglo-Catholic church planting.

Quick links

• Latest additions
• Browse by year
• Browse by department
• Deposit thesis
• Usage statistics

Prospective students

• International students
• Research degrees
• Durham e-Theses
• Deposit Guide

Last Modified: Summer 2013 | Disclaimer | Trading name | Powered by EPrints 3

Vista Journal

How can we measure the effectiveness of church planting, too often church planters focus on the things that they can count easily, even when it blinds them to the more important transformative measures that correlate more closely with the biblical concepts of repentance and discipleship..

03 SEPTEMBER 2015 · 16:01 CET

During my time as a church planter in southern Spain, specifically in the rural communities in the south of the Cordoba province where I worked for fourteen years, I often found myself asking two questions. First, how could I measure the effectiveness of what I was doing, and second, what was I to make of all the things that God was clearly doing in my community that had nothing to do with my strategies to build his Kingdom?

In some parts of the world, churches can be planted in a matter of weeks, and so church planters can easily evaluate their ministry. Church planting in many parts of Europe is slow and painstaking. How then can European church planters measure the effectiveness of their work? This is the fundamental question that this chapter seeks to explore.

The first part of this text presents the findings of primary research on church planting effectiveness conducted in 2011 among European church planters. The second part considers church planting effectiveness from a theological and missiological perspective and asks what this means for church planting if mission is firstly about the missio Dei. The third and final part makes use of the four marks of the church in the Nicene Creed to suggest how more useful effectiveness measures might be developed.

PART ONE: CHURCH PLANTING EFFECTIVENESS IN EUROPE

The following is a summary of my research that was first published in Vista, Redcliffe College’s quarterly journal of research-based information on mission in Europe [1] .

Methodology and sampling issues

The research was conducted in early 2011 in collaboration with an open network of European church planters. The eurochurch.net database was used to contact respondents by email, and the results were gathered using a self-administered online questionnaire. (Eurochurch.net is an association which seeks to bring church planting practitioners and missional thinkers into an ongoing conversation about mission in Europe. This has involved developing a database of church planting networks which was used for this research [2] ) There were three principal research questions:

1. Do European church planters use specific tools to measure the effectiveness of their church planting approach, and if so, which ones?

2. Do European church planters use specific tools to measure their own personal effectiveness, and if so, which ones?

3. Do European church planters use specific tools to measure the impact or influence of their church plant on the local community?

In total, 125 church planters responded to the survey. Ninety percent of respondents were male, and their age distribution is reflected in Figure 1. They had on average twelve years of experience in church planting. The sample included nationals from eighteen different countries, but there was a distinct Anglo-bias with one in three respondents being of British origin, and one in six from the USA. There was a much greater diversity with respect to their location, with twenty-four different European countries mentioned.

The question about affiliation revealed a significant diversity in the dataset with more than twenty different church denominations, twelve mission organizations, and over twenty local or international church planting networks. Nevertheless, it should be noted that twenty-four of the respondents said they were associated with the Baptist Church, and nineteen were missionaries with European Christian Mission (ECM) [3] .

Almost half (58) of respondents said they used some sort of tool to evaluate the effectiveness of their church planting approach. The most popular tool was to count heads. One in six (20) used some simple quantitative measure; the number of church plants or groups established, leaders trained, attendance, conversions, disciples, financial data, and so on.

The second most popular tool (13) was peer evaluation. This might be a formal evaluation with colleagues or leaders, monthly ministry reports, participation in a learning community, or reflective practice. Other respondents (9) used qualitative measures to assess the spiritual health of the new Christian community; the quality of discipleship church planters the development of leaders, or the spiritual health of participants. One asked: “Are authentic relationships being built? Is love encouraged and practiced?”

Two other tools were commonly used. Seven people said they used surveys or questionnaires to evaluate their work, [4] and seven others measured their church planting against objectives, purposes, or a vision statement, such as the strategic plan of the mission agency, or Rick Warren’s five purposes. [5] Only one considered the community around the church as a valid way of measuring the effectiveness of their church planting approach.

The Effectiveness of Church Planting Strategy

Personal Effectiveness of the Church Planter

Only 37 percent (46) of the church planters in the survey said that they consciously evaluated their personal effectiveness. Their primary method was measuring themselves against the objectives, purposes, or vision statement of their mission or ministry (15). Several mentioned that this occurred during their appraisal by their leadership. Two even measured themselves against a timesheet!

Once again, quantitative measures were commonly mentioned. Eight church planters considered the number of attendees, converts, baptisms, cell groups, financial sustainability, and so on, to be a valid measure of their personal effectiveness. Only three saw the spiritual health of their congregation as an indicator of how well they were doing their work. Those who did, however, seemed to ask some valuable questions: “Am I praying for the community, for the church plant, and for all the relationships being established? Am I being bold and meeting new people regularly? What is my motivation when I meet people?”

Measuring impact or influence of the church on the community

When it comes to evaluating the impact or influence that the church plant has on its community, only a third of respondents said they had some way of measuring this. Once again, most of the church planters (10) who suggested a specific measure focused on the numbers attending activities, the size of the congregation, the number of leaders, or the number of missional communities.

Seven respondents used a survey to evaluate the impact or influence they have on the local community, although three of these were internal church health surveys, like the aforementioned Natural Church Development (NCD) studies. Only six engaged more directly with the community to ask their evaluation of the church plant. The specific methods included listening and observation, dialogue with visitors, feedback forms, interviews with people outside the church, developing partnerships, and “finding out what people in town are saying about the church.”

Surprisingly, five respondents looked to their peers as the best people to evaluate their impact on their community, and one further respondent saw the discipleship vision of their organization as the only legitimate measure of their impact.

Given the small sample size, gender, and nationality bias of the respondents, and the preponderance of Baptists and ECM missionaries, we cannot say that this is a representative sample of church planters in how can we measure the effectiveness of church planting? 199 Europe. Nevertheless, it does indicate some issues which might be addressed in future studies, or taken into account by mission agencies as they reflect on their own evaluation strategies.

Many church planters do not take time to evaluate what they do

Less than half of the church planters in this study made any attempt to evaluate their work, whether their church planting strategy, their own personal effectiveness, or their impact on the local community. That church planters are more interested in action than reflection is not surprising. That so few engage in any sort of evaluation of their ministry is striking. Further research would be necessary to ascertain the reasons for this reluctance.

Many church planters are focused on numbers

This research found that when church planters do stop to evaluate what they are doing, they appear to depend predominately on quantitative measures. For some this involves a simple head count of attendees, conversions, or leaders in training. For others it involves financial data, or the number of groups established in a certain timeframe. Given that the very mission of a church planter is to see new Christian communities formed, some degree of evaluation by numbers is useful. More worrying, however, was the significant number of church planters who judge their own personal effectiveness in this same way: “If the church grows by a couple or more people becoming Christians every week, my work as a missionary has been effective.” Given the challenging context of mission in Europe, this way of thinking puts huge pressure on the missionary to produce results, and this may lead to frustration, or worse, if the expected results are not achieved.

Peer review is an important tool for the evaluation of church planting strategy

After raw numbers, this study found that the second most important tool for evaluating the church planting approach or strategy was some form of peer review. Church planters look to their colleagues to validate their 200 part iii: church planters work, to give them meaningful feedback, and thus evaluate the effectiveness of their approach. In some cases, this happens formally through regular team meetings, participation in a learning community, or by periodic coaching, supervision, and review. But however it happens, it is clear that a number of church planters do engage in reflective practice and look to their peers for honest appraisal of their work.

Quality is important to church planters

The spiritual health of the planted congregation was the third most popular measure for evaluating the effectiveness of their ministry—at least for the church planters in this study. Often this was done through self-questioning: “Is the church growing spiritually? How are the people doing in their personal growth in Jesus? How are they using their spiritual gifts?” Most church planters used either quantitative or qualitative measures. Only a small minority used both.

The personal effectiveness of church planters is principally measured against objectives

It is common for church planters, or their leadership/organization, to establish a vision, purposes, or objectives to orient and evaluate the development of a church planting initiative. What this research has shown, however, is that these objectives were not being used so much to evaluate the strategy or impact on the community, but rather as the principal means to evaluate the church planter’s personal effectiveness. This might satisfy the requirements of the mission organization or sponsoring agency, but does a timesheet, the setting of goals, or an annual review by checklist satisfy the church planter’s need for meaningful feedback on their effectiveness?

Church planters do use surveys to evaluate their work, but not always appropriately

Surveys are used by church planters to evaluate their work, especially the Natural Church Development (NCD) materials of Schwarz. [6] However, how can we measure the effectiveness of church planting? 201 the NCD church profile focuses on the internal quality characteristics of the congregation, not the effectiveness of the planter, nor the impact on the local community. Yet several of the respondents said they used NCD to evaluate these things. Other surveys were used to evaluate the impact of the church on the community by some church planters, though no specifics were forthcoming. Very few church planters ask the community to evaluate their work

Finally, church planters appear very reluctant to ask their community to evaluate their work. Even when the question specifically asks for the tools they use to measure the impact or influence of the congregation on their community, only six said they looked to the community to evaluate them.

Surely some degree of contextual research would give church planters valuable information and feedback on their impact in the locality where they work. The questions of one church planter in this regard might be asked by all those engaged in church planting in Europe today: “Is the church plant identifying with the community by fully being a part of the community? Is the church plant working towards a better future for the community and enabling transformation to happen?”

The working title for this chapter was “Effectively Ignorant,” because that is the sorry situation of most European church planters. Too few give any time to evaluating the effectiveness of what they are doing. Too many use crude quantitative tools and draw inaccurate conclusions from them because they are measuring inappropriately.

Is there a way for church planters to escape the “quantitative obsession”? Too often we focus on the things that we can count easily (for example, the numbers attending a meeting), even when it blinds us to the more important transformative measures that correlate more closely with the biblical concepts of repentance and discipleship. Perhaps a way forward is to consider the effectiveness of church planting, and mission more generally, from the perspective of the missio Dei.

Next article: "Part Two: Church Planting and the Missio Dei"

Jim Memory  is church planter and lecturer.

Used with permission from  Wipf and Stock Publishers .

[1] Memory, Vista , 2011/1, 1–3. 2.

[2] www.eurochurch.net

[3] The bias in the sample reflects something of the dominant churchmanship of the eurochurch.net database, and also the fact that, as the lead researcher was a member of ECM, those belonging to that organization were more likely to return the questionnaire.

[4] For example, the Natural Church Development (NCD) tool developed by Christian Schwartz.

[5] Warren, Purpose Driven Church .

[6] 6. Schwarz, Natural Church Development .

Published in: Evangelical Focus - Vista Journal - How can we measure the effectiveness of church planting?

•   Boyce Digital Repository Home
• Dissertations, Theses, and Projects
• Open Access Dissertations and Theses

Church Planting in New York City: A Case for a Global Cities Church Planting Strategy

Collections

CHURCH PLANTING IN THE BAPTIST UNION OF GREAT BRITAIN, 1980-2010:A CRITICAL STUDY

• Graham Doel
• School of Arts, Languages and Cultures

Student thesis : Phd

File : application/pdf, -1 bytes

Type : Thesis

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Genesis and Evolution of Church-Planting Movements Missiology

2022, Missiology: An International Review

While the dramatic growth of church-planting movements (CPMs) in non-Christian contexts around the world provides ample opportunity to explain their emergence and significance, a missiology of these movements is struggling to keep pace. This article argues that CPM is a unique feature in the field of mission studies that emerged in the later 20th century. Although it shares some of the same characteristics as the early Church Growth Movement discourse, CPMs today are a specific type of movement occurring mostly in least-reached Muslim and Hindu contexts. CPM missiology contains a number of features and unknowns which demonstrate that the discourse is both evolving and invaluable for how the global church understands mission. Keywords: church-planting movements, disciple-making movements, people movements, church growth movement, contemporary history of missions

Related Papers

International Review of Mission

Kirsteen Kim

Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif

Tim Sheridan

Decolonial Subversions , Romina Istratii

This special issue aims to bring together theologians, academics of religions and development and missionaries to explore how missions affiliated with the Eastern Orthodox and other pre-Chalcedonian or Miaphysite Churches (so-called ‘Oriental Orthodox’) engage with and affect communities in Africa and Asia. The special issue is particularly interested in bridging mission studies with international development, which has been increasingly focusing on faith-based actors and the role of religious beliefs in development. Both these literatures have been informed primarily by Roman Catholic and Protestant missionary experience in the African and Asian regions, and have drawn very little attention to their non-western Christian counterparts. As a result, the distinct theological and dogmatic underpinnings that govern these non-western missions have not been captured in the literature, nor have the implications for missionary activity abroad been explored systematically. Due to their theologies, such missions have engaged with local belief and knowledge systems, cultures and languages in notably different ways, with important implications for human and societal development. The special issue aims to increase knowledge around these missions and their historical and contemporary engagements to suggest a more nuanced template for thinking about faith actors and development in Africa and Asia.

Sundeep Malickal

Historically we have seen many missionary models that have emerged and practiced, each of them having a clear underlying focus. When the focus was on evangelism, this led to Church Planting Movements (CPMs) and Disciple Making Movements (DMM). Movements that focused on demography produced models such as Unreached People Groups (UPGs) and strategic concepts such as the 10-40 window; some other movements focused on Indigenization and contextualization. While there is no doubt that all of these movements produced a huge number of followers, there are also some other invisible movements because, comparatively, their number is lesser than that claimed by movements such as DMM and CPM. One such movement is the Local Church Movement, whose focus has been the doctrine of the church or ‘Ecclesiology’, which greatly impacted planting churches across India, especially in the southern state of Kerala. Since then, this movement has spread to many parts of India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal in the last 40 years and planted hundreds of churches. This paper will discuss the history of the local church movement and the various strategies for the growth and expansion of its network while maintaining its focus on Ecclesiology.

Evangelical Christian Missions: An African Perspective

Andre van Oudtshoorn

Missio Dei Journal: A Journal of Missional Theology and Praxis

Jeremy P Hegi

James Chancellor

Trevor J Burke

James Jackson

Drawing from the strengths of two divergent missiologies (The Gospel and Our Culture and Church Growth), this paper proposes an approach to gospel, church, and mission appropriate for the 21st century Church in Western context.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Warrick Farah

A Brief History of Christianity in Asia

Michael D Crane

earl franklin

Ansari Yamamah

L. Zangtinlen Khongsai

Dave Johnson-The Mission of the Church in Asia and Beyond

Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies and APTS Press

Ry O Siggelkow

Raymond L Wheeler

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

Sven Östring

Imsu Jinger

Pantelis Kalaitzidis

Mission Studies

Charles Van Engen

Church History

Jonas Adelin Jørgensen

Paul Davies

Richard Hibbert

The Ecumenical Review

strategicnetwork.org

Robert D Woodberry

Acta Missiologica

František Štěch, Th.D.

International Bulletin of Mission Research

Levi Santos

Stanley John

Great Commission Research Journal

International Journal of Research and Innovation of Social Science

Dr. Amruta Bag

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Church Planting is Changing: Here’s How to Change With It

• Church Growth

Church planting is one of the most challenging things you can do as a pastor… but it can also be one of the most rewarding.

And like almost anything in leadership, church planting is changing as culture changes. Some of the methods that worked to plant and grow a church a decade or two ago are not nearly as effective as they once were.

In this post, I’ll outline five trends that are shaping the future of church planting, but before that, let’s do a brief overview of church planting and look at a few key statistics.

Church Planting in the Bible Vs. Church Planting Today

Church planting has been an integral part of Christian mission since the early days of Christianity.

The apostle Paul’s missionary journeys, as recorded in the New Testament, serve as the earliest examples of intentional church planting. Throughout history, the spread of Christianity has been closely tied to the establishment of new congregations.

In the modern era, church planting has roots in the Reformation, colonial America, and Protestantism in the West.

It gained renewed focus in the late 20th century when missiologists and church leaders recognized the effectiveness of starting new churches to evangelize and reach unchurched populations. 

The late 20th and early 21st centuries saw a surge in church planting initiatives, particularly in urban areas and among younger leaders. This period was characterized by innovative approaches, including seeker-sensitive models, multi-site churches, and culturally contextualized congregations. 

4 Surprising Statistics About Church Planting

You hear about new church plants all the time, but how are we really doing when it comes to church planting? Are we planting enough? Too many? What about church revitalization?

To understand how church planting is evolving, here are five surprising statistics you should consider if you’re thinking about planting a church. 

• Church Plants Vs. Church Closures: In the United States, approximately 5,000-10,000 churches close each year (yes, that’s a wide range, but it’s difficult to get accurate numbers), and 6,000 new churches are planted (according to new, yet-to-be-published research by Warren Bird). That leaves us with a potential gap of up to 4000 churches each year — a stat that’s a bit scary to look at.  
• More Church Plants Are Needed :  It’s estimated that 8,000-12,000 new churches need to be planted annually to keep up with population growth and to outpace church closures. 
• 66% of Church Plants are Non-Viable after Four Years:   According to Ed Stetzer and Warren Bird in their book Viral Churches , after four years, church plants split three ways. One-third have closed,  one-third still exist but are not self-supporting, and the final third of churches have become self-supporting and independent. The tricky part is the one-third that still exists but are not self-supporting—when you dig a little deeper, you see that they’re often struggling. So that means as many as two-thirds of church plants are non-viable or struggling after four years. 
• The Higher the Launch Funding, the Higher the Attendance : The average church plant launches with $135,000 of funding and has between 100 and 200 attendees. Churches that launch with an average of $322,000 of seed money have an average attendance of 500+ at launch. The higher the funding, the higher the attendance seems to be . If you launch with $70,000, your attendance is likely to be 50 or less. (That being said, there are a number of free church growth strategies that, in my opinion, every church should be leveraging.)

5 Trends Shaping the Future of Church Planting

1. church planting is no longer “just add water approach”.

From the early 2000s through to the mid-2010s, evangelical churches had a pretty successful ‘formula’ for doing church. Have a decent, modern band that sings the same worship songs every other growing church is singing, have a relevant, dynamic communicator preaching, and have a vibrant kids (and perhaps student) ministry. Add upbeat serving teams and small groups, and you’re good to go.

Almost every growing church followed that formula. Except by the late 2010s, it was no longer producing the kind of growth that it once did. For a while, attractional church was cool , and that attracted its own kind of crowd.

But as every church copied the formula, the uniqueness withered. 

In a constantly changing culture, it’s harder than ever for churches to be cutting-edge because cutting-edge keeps changing.

“ Cool ” church just doesn’t cut it anymore , which you’ll see in the following trends.

2. Authenticity is Resonating More than Ever

When planting a church, It’s not like the answer is to have a bad band, poor sound, a boring communicator, and disorganized ministry. Not at all.

Launching with strength in all areas is still the right approach.

The difference is that sometimes all the hype can come off as slick or disingenuous. And that’s not reaching the most marketed-to generation in history, Gen Z.

Gen Z is looking for hope over hype, for real over-rehearsed, and for authenticity over performance. 

Think of it as a critical tonal shift more than anything. As we’ve seen in the revivals across college campuses and in the next generation , they’re hungering for a new kind of church. 

If you’re launching and hoping to reach the next generation, just know that at least when it comes to church, authenticity, hope, mission, and community are the new cool — it’s one of the unique advantages you can leverage when you’re a small church plant .

3. Slow is Your Friend

The irony is that it’s easier and faster than ever to launch a church. Technology has made many of the hurdles church planters used to encounter—gathering people, funding, and building a team—the easiest it’s ever been. 

There’s a saying in boating that slow is your friend. As a boater myself, I can vouch for the fact that any time I’m facing a tricky docking or maneuver in the water, the faster I go, the more dangerous and worse it gets .

Similarly, in church planting, slow is your friend.  

Sure, you can launch a church in months, but to take the time to get buy-in from key leaders, to build a large and solid core, to align people around a carefully thought-through and prayed-over mission, vision and strategy , to raise more than adequate funds, and to think through the complexity of what you’re doing is simply wise.

The firmer the foundation, the more likely it is your church will stand. 

4. The Core Is More Important Than Ever

In the same way that churches that raise more initial money launch bigger and last longer, it’s also true that churches that build the largest core have the largest and most stable launches. 

A surprisingly accurate rule of thumb is that you will have three attendees on your opening Sunday for every core team member. 

In other words, if you have a committed core of 25 volunteers, donors, and people who are bought in, you’ll likely see around 75 people on your opening Sunday.

If you have a solid core of 75 committed volunteers, donors, and bought-in people, you’ll likely see around 225 people on opening Sunday.

And a core of 200 will produce a crowd of about 600.

A large launch matters in part because your opening Sunday will be the biggest Sunday you have for a while. Your opening attracts well-wishers, family members, and people from other churches who are simply there to see what’s going on. As quickly as the second Sunday, your opening numbers might shrink by 30-50% and, in the first few months, might dip even a little more than 50%.

So if you have 75 on opening Sunday, your church might soon be down to 35-40. And that makes it hard to muster momentum and hope. Conversely, if your opening Sunday brought 250 people, you might still have 125+, which is a solid base to build on.

The bottom line? The more solid your core, the more solid your church. So take the time to build as large and stable a core as much as you can. 

5. Church Planting Is No Longer a Solo Sport (Unless You Want It To Be)

Loneliness is a problem for leaders as it is. For church planters, it can lead to an even deeper sense of isolation. 

The good news is there are a host of church planting networks and organizations that exist to support church planters. Better yet, they can vet your suitability for planting, help you build a strong core and fundraise, and provide other training and support. 

Whether it’s your denomination that helps you, the wide range of networks like ARC , Acts 29 or New Thing , or even movements like Exponential , you’re only alone in church planting these days if you choose to be. And wise leaders choose not to be. 

And in addition to the above, you can engage a private, supportive group of leaders in the Art of Leadership Academy , many of whom are church planters and have been through the exact issues you’re facing right now.

The church planting landscape is changing once again. The old formulas that once guaranteed success are no longer enough. Authenticity, careful preparation, and a strong core team have become more critical than ever. 

If you’re considering planting a church, now is the time to rethink your strategy, ensuring that it resonates deeply with the communities you hope to reach.

You’ve prepared your sermon. You’re ready for Sunday... Or are you?

The #1 factor people look for in a church is the quality of the preaching. In fact, 86% of people choose a church based on that.

So if you step back and take a look in the mirror for a moment...

• Does your sermon prep get the time it deserves?
• And when was the last time you took a big step forward in becoming a better preacher?

Most Pastors aren't happy with the answers they give to those questions.

How to preach more engaging, memorable, and relevant sermons—starting as early as this week.

Now, take a minute to imagine feeling confident that your message would connect on Sunday morning, knowing you’d deliver it clearly and truthfully .

It’s time to ditch the random, stressful, and last-minute approach to becoming a better preacher and communicator.

Get a proven method to preach sermons that reach more people and grow your church in The Art of Preaching. It's the only program trusted by 3,000+ pastors over 5+ years—no matter the denomination or church size—that will transform your preaching from preparation to delivery.

• You’ll save hours each week with a better sermon prep process.
• You’ll write messages people remember for months… or even years.
• You’ll deepen your own connection with the text , seeing things you never noticed before.
• You’ll be able to (finally) deliver your message without using notes .
• You’ll preach sermons that reach more people and transform the lives of churched and unchurched people alike .

Carey Nieuwhof

Carey Nieuwhof is a best-selling leadership author, speaker, podcaster, former attorney, and church planter. He hosts one of today’s most influential leadership podcasts, and his online content is accessed by leaders over 1.5 million times a month. He speaks to leaders around the world about leadership, change, and personal growth.

• Bibliography
• More Referencing guides Blog Automated transliteration Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Automated transliteration
• Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Referencing guides