GROW: Dialogue Reposted
Back by popular demand...just kidding. This post was taken down and reviewed due to some mis-representation/miscommunication. Special thanks to James Diggs for his techno-savvy skills for the recovery of this dialogue. Thanks for all the cooperation and patience from all those involved.
Monday, September 04, 2006 "GROW" Is this the kind of journal Nazarenes are producing?
My wife and I recently recieved a copy of GROW: A journal for the development of missional leaders and missional churches. I had never heard of it before, but thought you would be interested to see the contents of the newest issue. Apparently it has been in circulation for about 10 years, but the title is decieving...at least somewhat. The GROW part is right, it's all about church growth. However, the intention of the journal sounds like some of what we have been talking about in this circle. This is clearly not the case. Here is a quick breakdown.
Page 1: A list of the Top 50 Sunday School Gains in the USA/Canada region. Top 50 means largest % of gained membership. Being at page 1 it obviously has set the tone...nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Pages 13-16: An interview with one of the fastest growing Naz churches Valparaiso Church of the Naz in Indiana on the use of Multi-site church growth strategy. I had not heard of this strategy until this article. Apparently, you can drop your kids off at a daycare, go to the worship center down the road, then there is a "The Java-Spot" for the teenagers, and even an Emergent Church inspired building called "The Stain" for college students. All of these are in different locations, hence multi-site. So instead of everyone worshipping together everyone has their own place. So if you don't like one service, you don't have to start going to the Baptist church, you can stay Nazarene and go to a different "site."
Pages 19-25: Basically a couple different variations to the multi-site approach.
Pages 31-34: Virtually a "Yellow Pages" for evangelist in your area. It is actually labeled "Revivalism Ministries."
Pages 37-40: One redeeming value is a piece on the Women's Clegy Conference. Thanks to Nina Gunter. It's not a bad piece. (I'm married to a female minister...could you tell?)
Pages 42-44: This piece covers Turn-around churches. Essentially another method of church growth specifically seeking to understand how churches that have nearly collapsed have found new life again. This church impliments growth through their daycare and children's ministries. The sad thing is that they fail to recognize that the success may have more to do with a prayful and sensative pastor responding in faith and obedience in a time of loss.
Pages 55-57: A piece on Biker Sunday at Grove City Church of the Nazarene in Ohio...need I say more.
I will close with this quote. They thought it was important enough for half a page and a 24 font setting.
"Seven out of the country's ten fastest growing churches offer worship in multiple locations, as do nine of the ten largest churches...we predict that 30,000 American churches will be multi-site within the next few years, which means one or more multi-site churches will probably be in your area." (The Multi-site Church Revolution: Being One Church in Many
locations-Surratt, Ligon, and Bird)
This sounds like a franchise add for McDonalds, but it really has me worried. Historically, the popular American church hasn't been a good idea. I am afraid people are jumping on this band wagon without thinking through this. What are the implications of a church that seeks growth (in numbers) as it's primary objective (this is an old question, but I'd like to hear your thoughts)? Further, what are the communal and theological implications of a multi-site congregation?
Monday, September 04, 2006 "GROW" Is this the kind of journal Nazarenes are producing?
My wife and I recently recieved a copy of GROW: A journal for the development of missional leaders and missional churches. I had never heard of it before, but thought you would be interested to see the contents of the newest issue. Apparently it has been in circulation for about 10 years, but the title is decieving...at least somewhat. The GROW part is right, it's all about church growth. However, the intention of the journal sounds like some of what we have been talking about in this circle. This is clearly not the case. Here is a quick breakdown.
Page 1: A list of the Top 50 Sunday School Gains in the USA/Canada region. Top 50 means largest % of gained membership. Being at page 1 it obviously has set the tone...nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Pages 13-16: An interview with one of the fastest growing Naz churches Valparaiso Church of the Naz in Indiana on the use of Multi-site church growth strategy. I had not heard of this strategy until this article. Apparently, you can drop your kids off at a daycare, go to the worship center down the road, then there is a "The Java-Spot" for the teenagers, and even an Emergent Church inspired building called "The Stain" for college students. All of these are in different locations, hence multi-site. So instead of everyone worshipping together everyone has their own place. So if you don't like one service, you don't have to start going to the Baptist church, you can stay Nazarene and go to a different "site."
Pages 19-25: Basically a couple different variations to the multi-site approach.
Pages 31-34: Virtually a "Yellow Pages" for evangelist in your area. It is actually labeled "Revivalism Ministries."
Pages 37-40: One redeeming value is a piece on the Women's Clegy Conference. Thanks to Nina Gunter. It's not a bad piece. (I'm married to a female minister...could you tell?)
Pages 42-44: This piece covers Turn-around churches. Essentially another method of church growth specifically seeking to understand how churches that have nearly collapsed have found new life again. This church impliments growth through their daycare and children's ministries. The sad thing is that they fail to recognize that the success may have more to do with a prayful and sensative pastor responding in faith and obedience in a time of loss.
Pages 55-57: A piece on Biker Sunday at Grove City Church of the Nazarene in Ohio...need I say more.
I will close with this quote. They thought it was important enough for half a page and a 24 font setting.
"Seven out of the country's ten fastest growing churches offer worship in multiple locations, as do nine of the ten largest churches...we predict that 30,000 American churches will be multi-site within the next few years, which means one or more multi-site churches will probably be in your area." (The Multi-site Church Revolution: Being One Church in Many
locations-Surratt, Ligon, and Bird)
This sounds like a franchise add for McDonalds, but it really has me worried. Historically, the popular American church hasn't been a good idea. I am afraid people are jumping on this band wagon without thinking through this. What are the implications of a church that seeks growth (in numbers) as it's primary objective (this is an old question, but I'd like to hear your thoughts)? Further, what are the communal and theological implications of a multi-site congregation?
posted by L. Hamilton | 4:16 PM
21 Comments:
27 Comments:
Kevin Timpe said...
I'm never heard of this either, so thanks for bringing it to our attention. As for implications, I would think that it would contribute to the individualistic, preferentistic, smorgasboard-istic, I want my theology the way I want it or I'm going to the other church (site?) down the street mentality. In other words, sounds very American to me.
9/05/2006 10:33 AM
Brannon Hancock said...
Hey, what's wrong w/ having a freakin' Biker Sunday!?
just kidding (kinda).
Yeah, I echo Kevin: I think this is just the next stage of the social atomisation and fragmentation of the American church. I would venture to say that if this is the future of "church" then church has ceased to be in any sense 'ecclesial', insofar as ecclesia designates the "assembly" - you can't really call something an assembly that meets in multiple locations. The individual gatherings that comprise the larger 'church' might be considered assemblies, eccleisal communties, but the larger organization, it seems to me isn't the 'ecclesia' in any proper sense.
By and large, and even though I'm usually an optimist, I tend toward pessimism on this issue: I think either the "church growth" mentality of strategizing and such will have to be proven as bankrupt and slowly die out, or, if it is maintained, what we now know as "Church" will continue to gradually "grow" (ha) to be something undeserving of the name "Church", or at least anything resembling the Christian ecclesia.
9/05/2006 1:24 PM
Brannon Hancock said...
P.S. Have I ever told you guys about the article I read a few years back about a megachurch in Texas that was allowing an entreprenurial soul in their congregation to open a McDonald's franchise, complete with drive-thru, in their church. Their justification (I paraphrase): "everyone's just so busy coming to bible study, dropping their kids off a youth group or children's club, having softball and basketball practice and committee meetings and music rehearsal, that they just don't have time to stop and eat - so what we're doing by opening the restaurant is ministering to folks in the complex, busy-ness of their lives and helping them out by providing them with a place to grab a quick bite on their way in or out of the church compound."
Yeah, and make a few bucks while they're at it - some 'ministry'. Also, of course there's no sense that, you know, maybe the ministry and prophetic voice of the church should be to stand up and scream: "HEY, SLOW THE HECK DOWN - HAVE A MEAL WITH YOUR FAMILY, AT HOME, EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE - YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE DOING SOMETHING EVERY NIGHT OF THE WEEK!!!" Sheez - that is just so immoral and anti-Christian that I don't even know where to begin. (If it's any consolation, I think the church was either baptist or non-denom.) Just thought I'd share.
9/05/2006 1:40 PM
L. Hamilton said...
That's hilarious about the McD's. Although, my church offers something similar. We have Wednesday night meals for family's because our church is a commuter church, but it is run by church members and the money made offsets the cost of the food. College students eat free, of course. My biggest problem is that though we continue to meet the needs of the commuters, we seem to struggle on how to involve the sorrounding community. I'm afraid it allows us to ignore the people that live around our church, which is downtown. The actual community that my church exists in is made up of the homeless and section 8 housing families. (We do have services for this community, but it is seperate from our main services.)
I really like the story about the church that installed a SUNTRUST (local bank) in the foyer to have people sign up for automatic withdrawal of tithe from their bank accounts. Maybe that was a mall I was in...I'm starting to get confused.
9/05/2006 6:20 PM
Brannon Hancock said...
Actually, many, if not most, people in the UK who are tithers or who give to the church on a regular basis set up direct debits with their bank so the money comes out every month (or week or whatever) and is simply transferred to the church. (Our church encourages this: see here.) But people also give in this fashion to charities and use direct debits to pay their bills and such - I'm even a member of a scholarly society that has my member dues set up on an annual direct debit, so once a year £3 (yes, my student-member dues are £3/yr) is withdrawn from my acct. How crazy is that? Anyway, just thought I'd suggest that your SunTrust thing isn't so unheard of. On the other hand, I'm not defending this practice as necessarily being a good thing (this isn't how we do our giving to church) - I think there's something significant about actually writing a check or putting money in the plate; I'd rather not take myself out of the process of my giving, if you know what I mean - I wouldn't want it to be automated, because I want to feel the responsibility of doing it consciously and actively.
9/05/2006 7:45 PM
L. Hamilton said...
I have more of a problem with the bank being inside the church than anything. Our church is funded by only a small percentage of it's members. The numbers say that the church would greatly benefit from regular deposits especially if it meant it kept more people more regular. However, I agree there is something of a disconnect when it is done electronically. There is just something about putting it in the plate.
9/05/2006 10:09 PM
Jared said...
Hey guys, here's another way to look at the multi-site thing. I agree with most of your reservations as the church that I serve at is starting to think in that direction. But after talking it over as a staff we see mulit-site as more of a church planting function. What multi-site will allow us as a church to do is basically plant a church where there is no Naz church and have it be an extension of our church. Church plants are having more and more difficultly in getting off the ground in most situations and this allows for some breathing room because it is connected to something that can help support it. Of course not every i has been dotted and t crossed, but so far it shows great promise when compared to the church planting model.
By the way, I'm enjoying the conversation that you guys are having.
9/06/2006 10:15 AM
Joseph said...
Good contribution Sir Levi.
This morning on the radio (conservative talk radio WNOX out of Knoxville, TN) the DJ had a dialogue with a recently converted Protestant to Catholicism. He basic question was, "Why did you move from the Protestant Church to the Catholic Church?"
His basic response seems to be the one of most all Protestant to Catholic converts: Uniformity. This dude said he hated how his Protestant (unamed denomination) church kept changing the ways of worship, and implementing new programs and ideas to "appeal" to the people in order to make the church grow and bring in new members. He was disgusted with the fact that he didn't know from Sunday to Sunday what the worship would be like. He was constantly confused about how his church was attempting to define itself.
Apart from that, it seems that this "multi-site" church idea is not new at all. Ever wonder how denominational churches started and grew? Hmmm. Did they start with a church in one town and have a group of people go to another town and start another church, which was like the first one, or the "base" one? There is nothing new under the sun.
In addition, when I think of multi-site, I think of not only a loss of uniformity, but even an affinity to division. Why would a mega-church want to defeat the beginning purpose of being a mega-church? As soon as the first multi-site church begins to get big, it will become independent from the base church, no?
Peace be with you all.
Joseph
9/06/2006 12:59 PM
Brandon Sipes said...
A letter I wrote to grow magazine regarding their winter edition last year:
April 17, 2006
To the Editor:
“The emerging church redefines how we measure success (in ministry): by the characteristics of a kingdom minded disciple of Jesus produced by the Spirit, rather than by our methodologies, numbers, strategies, or innovative things we are doing.” - From The Emerging Church by Dan Kimbell
I was disappointed to see this quote at the back of the winter edition of Grow magazine. Not because it is not true, or because I disagree with it, but because almost every other page of the issue showed a contradiction of this statement in the way we are doing things within the Nazarene church.
Grow magazine has dedicated itself to describing the growth of the Nazarene church, focusing especially on Newstart churches and “mega-churches”. Every issue describes the story of new churches, growing churches, and new strategies for raising the numbers of people attending our churches. This winter edition in particular has a statistical page (51-52) that attempts to show the value of larger churches: that they grow at a faster rate and are able to bring more people into their services. The insinuation is that mega-churches are better for the denomination and smaller churches are not. Nothing is mentioned about the health of the church or the faith of its members. Relationships between people in the church and their dedication to a radical discipleship of Christ is overlooked in light of getting them in the doors, hopefully during a service where they can be counted.
The quote by Kimbell on the other hand shows a world where numbers are the absolute least concern. I'm curious as to why it was entered in the magazine at all. Was it an attempt to show the ideal? Was it placed there in the hope that someone might read it and believe that what we really are concerned with is the spiritual health of the members we have and not simply on receiving new members? In either case, I think it fails its task. It's difficult to read an entire magazine that is based on the numbers of the church as an indicator of the health and worth of that organization, and then to be confronted with a quote that says it is all meaningless.
I might be able to overlook this as a nice quote and believe that perhaps the Nazarene church really wants to start focusing on ways to improve our health and faith rather than our size and numbers. Unfortunately, my real life experience has proved this not to be true. While I am very involved in my home church, and have always been within this denomination, I have also spent considerable time in a faith community that might be considered “emergent”. It is a small group of home churches that meet several times a week. Their numbers are small, but their relationships with each other are intense and intentional. The faith exhibited by those involved is more radical and obedient than any I have seen elsewhere. These people have decided to live their lives in such a way that the Kingdom naturally proceeds from it. There is no need for programs, strategies, power point or other gimmicks to gain members. They simply live to be salt and light.
When a member of that community tried to form a new church community of this type in a neighborhood nearby through the Nazarene Newstart program, he was initially given a green light. He and his wife went through the evaluation process and began the church in their home. After a few months of existence, a coach from another state visited them. After evaluating what the church looked like, the coach told them “There is more to church than this”. Their funding was cut and they were no longer considered a church plant in the denomination. The critique was that there was no overt effort to draw large numbers of members, no plans on buying or utilizing a central building, and no typical weekly “worship” service, even though the members already spent most of their time together and did indeed have a weekly meeting which included time in the Word, worship and communion. More to church? Is there more to church than a group of people living out the call of God in their lives? Maybe it doesn't look like Grove City, but it does look something like what Jesus was talking about.
I guess my question is: Which is it? Are we concerned with numbers, buildings, strategies and statistics or are we really concerned with spiritual health, radical discipleship and intense relationships between our brothers and sisters? From my readings of Grow and my experience with the Newstart program, it seems we're focused on the former. When will we realize this is the wrong way to go? It cannot, and will not, produce the men and women God desires. When will we stop giving lip service to the idea of radically living out the Kingdom (even if it means 40 people in a church) and actually support it as a denomination?
I hope soon.
Brandon Sipes
Springfield, Ohio
I've still received no resonse.
9/06/2006 1:06 PM
Joseph said...
Mr. Sipes,
The exciting thing about the Church of the Nazarene is the fact that over 80% of our churches consist of congregations of less than 100 people. We have the perfect criteria for an engaging and intimate local church all across our denomination! I am an advocate of churches less than 150 people. Quite frankly, I do not think churches can be much bigger than this and still experience true Christian communion with God and each other.
Praise God for these smaller congregations who know each other, who are concerned with the needs of each other, who care about the children of each other, who care for the eldery members, and, Levi, who LIVE close to each other!
When will we realize that we are sitting on a gold mine of communal Christian intimacy? I know from experience that these congregations "grow" as Christians. Whether it be more or less than the big churches depends upon one's definition of the word, "grow".
Joseph
P.S.
Good luck on receiving a response from the magazine!
9/06/2006 1:54 PM
Matthew Francis said...
Thanks for this. Though I don't subscribe to the basic philosophies underpinning both, I appreciate GROW in the same way I find Jack Van Impe & Rexella strangely inspiring - as kitch.
9/06/2006 2:47 PM
Anonymous said...
While I agree with pretty much everything that has been said here. I do recognize that GROW is about the only publication from Headquarters that is will to even give mention to things that are out of the ordinary in terms of Nazarene "tradition" and practice.
It just seems like we're too quick to write-off the denomination, when in reality we should be engaged in the long process of transformation through participation.
I can't give much insight as to where to go with that, but I do know that leaving is probably not the answer.
We need more letters (I doubt anyone of consequence ever checks the GROW email inbox) or even phone calls to people listed on the inside cover may at least get a dialogue going. I think that some of the clueless people know they are clueless and are just looking for some education.
9/06/2006 4:39 PM
Brandon Sipes said...
anonymous,
I agree completely with the need to engage the denomination. It's the only reason I am still a part of the COTN. I have many friends who have left the church, and for good reasons...reasons I hold myself. But I believe the church is in the condition it is because good people have decided to leave instead of dialog with the denomination.
The letter I wrote is a beginning to that process. I am intensely interested in engaging the denomination in the interest of spiritual reformation and growth (what the magazine should really be about).
You are right to say that nobody of interest reads the email at GROW. The only email available for them online is an info email address. I sent the letter to that email, only to have it bounce back to me for two months. Finally, I got the editor's COTN email and sent it directly to him. No response still.
If the editor of the magazine is unwilling to address such a fundamental question about the magazine's intent, where do we go from there?
9/06/2006 6:42 PM
L. Hamilton said...
Thanks for the many responses everyone. Thanks to those who are still hopeful for the COTN's future. I have my times of despair and this is one of those weeks when I am fearful she has completely sold out. Just so it is clear, from what I read in GROW it appears the multi-site isn't a church plant process and the sites are not distant from each other as from town to town. The sites are located locally in one township, often within a few miles of each other. I am all for church plants. That's an early church method. The entire Christian faith was born out of home churches.
What has always bothered me that the church plants are treated like a franchise that must get off the ground immediately with big results. 1st Church of Nashville is responsible for a large percentage of the churches in the south which it sponsered through church plants. Recently a pastor my wife and I worked with felt the call to start a church in his town about 40 minutes out of Nashville. The COTN District basically gave him a year. He got the building and about 20 members. He is using a Youth Minister by paying for his gas. At the one year mark the COTN District cut him off. His time was up. They didn't care whether the church was stable or not. He has a family, and kids in college. He is constantly living week to week fighting for the survival of that church. I commend the work he has done, and I believe from the last conversation we had that the church will survive. Why couldn't the COTN District help for 3, 6, or 9 more months even. I just don't like their whole "business model" approach that doesn't involve understanding the people involved and their specific needs in order to see a church succeed. This is certainly a place to have the dialogue. And I believe Joseph is right that small churches are able to engage each other faithfully more easily than the larger churches. It is interesting to watch the staff at my church try to find opportunities for our community to engage each other faithfully. This congregation of 1500 is very different than many large churches, it sometimes feels like we are trying balance our selves on the fence to keep from falling into the mega church mud.
I am curious. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic faith as well as Episcopal, and some others have a liturgical and formal worship. This offers the uniformity that the guy Joseph described was looking for. Within the Roman Catholic faith for example there are different varieties of believers who try to experience God in different ways outside of those services (i.e. Jesuits, Benedictines, etc). Could the multi-start be succesful because beyond the regular service we seek to engage our faith with a little flavor, without abandoning the Nazarene identity? So there is the main church and then other buildings in which to experience the community and God in new ways, just as there is the Cathedral where they have church, but also these small communities which are recognized and sponsored by the Catholic church that they can also go to experience God. I hope this had made sense, I am processing this idea as I am writing. So I guess my question is that perhaps the Liturgical Churches have found a way to have a centralized church community and allow opportunities for others who would like to, a chance to explore the Christian faith in various ways?
9/07/2006 9:24 AM
Joseph said...
Levi! You have struck a nerve that needs to be agitated! You have described Methodism in its early glory!
That's exactly what John Wesley was doing in the Church of England. The services on Sunday in the Church of England had become completely liturgical and there was no feeling of the Spirit moving. Also, the Brits at that time were basically apathetic to the Church, so Wesley began to come up with methods of engaging these apathetic Church of England members into the life of Christ in practical ways. He would still go to church on Sunday and encourage all of his friends to do so as well, but during the week he got together with his fellow Christians to have fellowship and to grow, dialogue, discuss, preach, sing, worship and the like.
After a time, Wesley and his crew began to become more evangelical to the point where people would find Christ during the week at these meetings and then go to Church on Sunday together with the other believers. Wesley and the people called methodists would continually meet during the week engaging with one another, learning about the Way, discussing life, and caring one for another. Even discussing with the new believers their Catechism into the Church of England.
This is the Wesley that I read about. This is not a person who started "cell groups" or "family groups" or "house groups" as a part of some big, autonomous, non-denominational church. He had a method to the meetings and he kept close watch over what was being done in the meetings, but his watch was concern for the maturity of the believers, not the number of attendees.
I could be wrong, but I think the COTN has misread and misinterpreted, wait. I think the COTN has not even read much Wesley, certainly not enough to understand his purpose and methods to achieve this purpose. Seems that he has been taken out of context, cut and pasted, and molded into what people want him to be. As with Scripture, it is easy to take things out of context and connect them with other parts of scripture to come up with an idea.
I encourage anyone concerned with the Spiritual well-being of all people who call themselves Nazarene to read John Wesley. And I stress, go to the primary text. Leave the secondary stuff as a postcript to the primary.
Anyone know of a Wesley blog that is engaging? Maybe we need to see what others are saying about the man we claim to follow.
Let me know.
Blessings to all.
Joseph
9/07/2006 11:25 AM
Greg Arthur said...
Sorry I joined the conversation so late. I started receiving GROW shortly after I was ordained. I am not sure the connection, but evidently someone got me on their SPAM list. I open the magazine and want to weep everytime I receive it. Especially as a I look at churches listed there that I know and realize how little of their story is being told. Many of them are faithful churches, but for none of the reasons the magazine lists or assumes. I think they should have a a double issue that is GROW/DECLINE which talks about the churches they assume are declining, suffering, or just dieing and giving their numbers. After all, isn't that implied with their fancy lists and numbers. If you don't meet up with these churches, you are part of the GROWTH. Anyways, it sucks. we need to start something better. Praise God for blogs so we can find each other and share our faith.
Bye the way, Brandon great letter to the magazine. They will never respond!
As far as the multisite thing, it can work and be faithful, it just depends on what the sites are like. The whole separation of generations is ridiculous. But, multiple sites a church plant that is still connected to the church body can be viable and faithful.
Peace-
Greg
9/07/2006 2:01 PM
James Diggs said...
What a great conversation, I definitely concur with the overall opinion and disappoint with GROW magazine, and the predominant attitude in the COTN to treat the church like a McDonalds franchise. The other thing that bugs me is that I feel that our Nazarene publications contain a lot of propaganda, always putting the “best spin” on our denomination like we have everything so perfectly together. I don’t think that they have to me negative; it would just be cool to see some honest wrestling with complicated issues that we encounter while we work to advance the Kingdom rather than providing over simplified prescriptions for local churches and denominational “growth”.
I don’t want to pick on the multi site idea, or whatever else seems to be working in a “growing” community that the magazine wants to highlight. What they are doing may be appropriate for their context, it’s just when we turn these things into formulas that we should blindly copy that bothers me. Creating systems sometimes are practical ways of organizing local communities; I don’t think we will ever completely escape it. But, typically conversations about church growth seem to get lost in conversations about systems, and Grow Magazine is no different.
James
9/07/2006 4:01 PM
Brannon Hancock said...
Joseph, re: your last comment on Wesley - be careful: as you will soon discover, some Nazarenes have DEFINITELY read A LOT of Wesley - it's just that most of them are in the UK, not the USA. :-)
I always like to keep in mind that the earliest derrogatory name given to the Oxford Methodists (Wesley and his crew) was "Sacramentarians"...I'd love to be a part of a movement within the Nazarene church that merits such slander! In fact, perhaps we are already the beginning of such a movement, even if some of us are only united by blogs and our common practices.
Great having Greg and James ring in here - laudable bloggers both - I encourage everyone to check out their sites.
Maybe I'm just uneasy with the connotations of "patronage" that go along with BOTH a multi-site church and church planting. Let me be clear: I'm all for starting new churches, but Levi, I have to say, I have personally encountered some quite alarming attitudes from Nashville 1st folks who act as though they are the planet around which all the other "satellite" (this is the particular word I've heard used more than once) churches in the SE/Trevecca region revolve. We've got to come up with ways to let church plants establish themselves at their own pace, based on their on context and the needs of the communities in which they are trying to take root and minister, without having to worry (at least immediately) about money, numbers, or feeling eternally beholden to some "big, healthy" church that helped them get started. I don't mean to sound overly "congregationalist" - as if each individual church should have total autonomy (e.g. the southern baptist ideal) - but I prefer a view of "The Church" that prioritizes the local church and regards the denomination as simply an extension of this, as a way of establishing the unity of various local congregations across geographies and cultures.
One of the problems, though, as has been implied by lots of the comments in this discussion, is that we tend to view our denominational unity according to where we pay our general budgets, or (at best) according to rather "power-laden" institutions like our missional and educational efforts, or perhaps according to our agreed statement of belief or our articles of faith or some such understanding of what it means to be Nazarene based on a set of doctrines to which we all subscribe - RATHER THAN viewing our denominational unity as deriving from a common heritage (Wesleyan-Arminian, holiness) and from common practices.
My heart grieves for these start-up churches that are 'cut off' before they even have a chance to demonstrate that they are a fruitful, viable ecclesial community, however small. This is part of the reason I think it has to be more of a bottom-up rather than top-down kind of paradigm (like the kind of thing James is doing w/ The Corridor in the DC area) - because I am not optimistic that the denomination is going to just up and decide to ditch their long-held 'church-growth' logic and start doing whatever it takes to foster genuine communities of authentic disciples, no matter how small, penniless, etc. I think we will only start to experience a sea change if we start creating such intentional communities, even within our established churches (without be divisive, of course - if this is even possible, I'm not sure) or going about starting churches - in homes, whatever - without denominational approval, which means also, I guess, without denominational support. That, or (my real desire) doing the freaking hard work of working lovingly and patiently within established churches, especially and perhaps deliberately within our smaller, marginalized churches. And I don't just mean as pastors.
What if - and I know this is really "radical", but hear me out ;-) - a whole bunch of Nazarenes decided "I really need to worship at a small church, a church in my community, a church that needs me (etc)" and left the big church that they drive 40 min. across town to attend so they could become part of such a church (there are plenty, as Joseph points out). What effect would that have? GROW magazine would certainly have to put out a GROW/DECLINE issue because the larger churches would all begin to chart a loss!
We must start being more honest about the situation of our churches, and recognize that the guy in rural Tennessee who pastors a 3-church circuit with a total of 50 members between the 3 and drives a school bus during the week to make ends meet because he is only paid the eqivalent of a part-time salary from the churches he serves (which is to say, a paycheck about the equivalent of what some large church pastors give in tithe to their own church - do the math) is AT LEAST, IF NOT MORE important and valuable to the denomination and to the Kingdom as the guy who pastors the church of 1500 and drives a Lexus. We might SAY that we do in fact believe that the little guy is just as important as the big guy, but, as this whole thread as described, our publications and statistics would indicate otherwise. We certainly seem to be talking out of both sides of our mouth, as Brandon's letter so eloquently expresses.
On that note, and in closing: Brandon - great letter! Unfortunately, as long as we produce such a magazine, voices such as yours probably won't be taken very seriously. But PLEASE tell us if you do get a response.
9/07/2006 7:41 PM
Brannon Hancock said...
Levi - recall that I have been out of the country for 3 years and it's been even longer than that since I've had any personal experience w/ NFC. Also, to be clear, I do not hold my misgivings about NFC against you or anyone in particular, and I realize that some of the most faithful and thoughtful Nazarenes I know call NFC their home despite their own very strong misgivings, which says something.
9/08/2006 10:13 AM
Greg Arthur said...
I was on staff at another very large Nazarene Church for a while, before my current gig with some Methodists, and I also fought against this mother ship idea. Everything was about building back up the big church, and allowing them to have control. As if small churches couldn't survive without some oversite from the big church. And well, I am gone, so I don't have to deal with that anymore.
Multisite can work, I have seen it done really well, but only with a vision for a total release down the road. The founding church helps start the other site, they bring people not only into worship, but also in the life of the church for discipleship, and then, according to the vision of the church, they are released as a full church of their own. It can be an effective church planting tool. But, it requires a very secure and outside of the box pastor to pull it off.
Peace-
Greg
BTW - Some Nazarenes in the US have read lots of Wesley too!
9/08/2006 2:29 PM
Brannon Hancock said...
Greg: I know, I know... I was afraid someone would take offense at that... as you say, SOME Nazarenes in the USA have read Wesley...but, as I said, MOST of them are in the UK. That is not, however, to disparage those Nazarenes in the USA who do love their Wesley (you and pastor Steve Johnson sound like kindred spirits).
9/08/2006 5:49 PM
Joseph said...
In regards to my Wesley comment: I mean no harm and I appreciate the feedback. But in my defense, let me place myself in context to you, my friends.
I was born and raised in the Southeastern United States. I have lived in Texas, Alabama, and Tennessee. I have lived in the city and in the country. I have been a member of the Church of the Nazarene since birth. From these experiences comes my observation. I have been in congregations who knew nothing of the name, John Wesley. I have been in congregations who believed Wesley was a Methodist and has nothing to do with the Church of the Nazarene. Also, I, personally, did not know that I was Wesleyan until college.
Just thought I would be vulnerable and place myself in context for you all!
Now, may we continue.
Can someone give a "church plant" or a "multi-site" experience on here? I have no adult experience with either of these practices. A story of the "why's, how's, in's and out's" of a church plant would be beneficial to this conversation.
Joseph
9/08/2006 6:11 PM
Brian Niece said...
Okay ... I know some of you guys, have worked with one of you, and am finally getting in on this blogging gig. I was recently on staff at said megachurch-of-the-south. I'm now pastoring a small church in Brunswick, GA. In fact, IF TCON did publish a DECLINE magazine, my church would have been on the cover for the last 17 months (prior to my coming that is ... and who knows, probably still). Many of my peers thought me crazy to leave the "Mother Church of the South" simply to pastor a declining church near the Atlantic Ocean (which has mostly brownish water by the way). I guess I'm understanding trust in our Lord these days.
At any rate, I feel like I'm in a church plant situation. The congregation sold the property they had been at for about 50 years just a few years ago. They migrated from space to space as their new building was being built on the 54 acres the church owns. That's right 54 acres. Did I mention they've averaged 60 people on Sunday Mornings for the last few years? Now in comes a young, intelligent, theologically trained pastor .... surely the plans for the land will be grand, right? But I happen to notice the lay of the land in the county. There are two islands, a downtown (urban expansion) area near a large port, another downtown (urban depression ... much like the neighborhood of the formerly mentioned large church), a peninsula in the west of the county, and growing (there's that word again) suburbs in the north of the county. One can travel from the eastern point of an island to the western part of the county in about 40 minutes (less time than some of the congregants at the urban large church commute .... you catch my drift). Can you guess where the church property is located? In the north of the county. Talk about neighborhood feel! Hey, I'm rockin' the suburbs just like Quiet Riot did ......
The major question has become: what are the needs of believers and unbelievers other than a regular assembly time? Food, fellowship, shelter, love ... to name a few. So we'll be implementing a variety of things on Sunday and Wednesday evenings that stem from the multi-site feel. Of course, there will only be one worship gathering on Sunday morning. We will no longer have Sunday School starting in October. Rather, Discipleship Groups will be held on Wednesday nights. Then Sunday nights will vary from week to week. Every other week will be Sabbath rest, or what we're calling Family Groups (hey, how about the church PROVIDING time for families to eat, play, and be together). Then we'll have Community Groups one night a month in neighborhood homes spread all over the county, allowing church participants to bring their non-believing friends along to meet some people. Finally, Formation Groups will meet one Sunday night a month. This is sort of a mix of diversity within unity type emphases.
Now, shouldn't we all package this up and sell it to GROW magazine as a formula in the bag for miracle turn-around churches. No! This may not even be a meaningful process in the long run here, much less anywhere else.
It seems the "grass-roots" notion is where our true spiritual growth comes into play. If I had taken this responsibility as TCON would have me do, it just wouldn't work in this circumstance (although the GROW magazine makes excellent fire starter material). Whatever approach is taken, the hopes of the local congregation cannot be placed in a program or a system. Holistic process necessitates that the content of ministry be clarified, unabashed and authentically and historically Christian: Christ crucified. Interestingly, the main road that connects the subdivisions and neighborhoods and that borders the church property already has signage of some future churches that will be building out this way. (Of note, my congregation bought this land when it was still "rural", before the boom in population). One of the signs for a church has the word "relevant" printed boldly as its header. Although, our reorganizing of structure may appeal to families lives, I hope, by God's grace, that our message will stay as irrelevant to the contemporary, consumeristic American notion as it always has.
Anyway, I'm in it and trying and loving the extra time on my hands to invest in the virtual community. Which leads me to one final interesting tidbit: .... How is it that as "just a staff pastor" at a large church with what one would assume is a large and thriving and involved laity (and about 10 pastors for Christ's sake -- literally) I never had time to nourish my brain, and theology, and thinking, and so forth like this? With much more responsibility (though at a small church) I find the people want me to be engaged in this very thing. Hmm.
9/08/2006 11:57 PM
Greg Arthur said...
Bye the way no offense at the Wesley comment, because the only reason I have read him, and many other theologians is that I have a BS in Biblical Studies and an MDIV and neither are from a Nazarene School.
No knock on my multitude of Naz school friends, just laying down some theological smack talk! You guys are awesome, I love the dialogue.
Brian,
Good for you. The scenario that you are talking about is the kind of scenario many of us find ourselves in. I am currently trying to discern if God wants me to plant a Naz church here in NC, or take over a smaller church that has a foundation but needs to grow and maybe be rebirthed. How did you end up where you are?
Peace-
Greg
9/09/2006 9:01 PM
Joni Brandyberry said...
I guess after reading the articles and reading/skimming the many comments I have one question: Where does evangelism fit in to all of this? Is there a difference between "church growth" and "evangelism"? It seems to me that if we are to evangelize (essentially to follow the great commission and preach the gospel, baptize and disciple) than our churches will grow. Since we are obviously called to "evangelize" (Matthew 28:19) it would seem that we are called to "church growth". I think that we often hear the words "church growth" and think "numbers" - but when those numbers represent actual people being changed and renewed in Christ, I don't think that can ever be considered a bad thing. I don't think that the end result of being a Christian is simply to live out our lives in a small Christian ecclesia. I think that when Christ came he was an example of how we should live and in being that example he showed us that we have to have a balance between intimate community (the 12 disciples) and outreaching evangelism (the 500 at the mount). To be anti-church growth seems to be anti-the mission of Christ.
Now, in saying that, I'm not saying we need to create a McChurch nor am I saying that we need to abandon the idea of Christian community. What I am saying is that Christian community will cease to be a possibility without church growth and that if as Christians we don't desire to see more people come to Christ than we've missed the mark.
As far as multi-site churches are concerned I think that the title "multi-site" is misleading. I'm sure that these people have intimate Christian community happening at each of their individual sites, community that may not be possible if they all met together in one large meeting. Saying that each individual "church" must meet together in one huge meeting is, to me, like saying that the entire denomination or Church universal should meet together in a huge meeting in order to retain "unity". I don't think that "unity" is to mean that we actually have to meet together (geographically this just isn't possible), but to mean that we are like-minded in our love for Christ and that we have the same mission to spread his gospel of love to many.
Just some thoughts.
And in all seriousness, I don't get the "Biker Sunday" point at all. Am I missing something?
9/15/2006 11:53 PM
L. Hamilton said...
Joni, the discussion we should be having is about "Church Growth" which is an evangelism technique. I don't know of anyone on this blog against evangelism, but it is the technique of evagnelism labeled "Church growth" that we find problematic. "Church growth" is widely understood as a no holds bar way of getting people into the church. This includes turning sanctuaries into gymnasiums/multi-purpose facilities, biker Sunday, coffee house night, etc. The central problem is that church growth techniques tend to shy away from any specific talk of God or church symbols that may be offensive, i.e. the cross. The people are attracted to these club's that are accepting and inviting, which church should be, but not at the expense of our tradition, or for the message of the Gospel. Church growth techniques tend to "trick" people into coming to church and then after some coffee and icebreakers out springs the "Gospel" like a surprise birthday party (Your fortunate if they even mention something spiritual at many of these places). The result is simply numbers as you pointed out...but often this is the only result. There is no depth in spiritual discipline...often the people attracted to these techniques go unchanged having only gained a new friend or two in the process. The whole technique is dishonest and without integrity. Sure we can have gyms, but we ought to talk seriously about the ramifications of a sanctuary with fold away goals suspended overhead. We can have bikers come to church, but does this mean they should ride their bikes down the aisle on to the chancel ("stage", for you church growthers). I love coffee as much as the next guy, but does dimming the lights and listening to live music while communally ingesting legal narcotics really how people should experience the radical power of Christ's Passion. This is simply the result of a generation that refuses to admit that theory and practice are two sides of the same coin. The Church is responsible and will be held accountable for the saying of the Gospel. This is the same technique all of the stores you pass on your way home from work use to get you in their doors to buy their product. There is no depth or change required to be a part of those types of communities.
I agree, the end result it not to "simply live out our lives in a small ecclesia." The end result, is the glorification of God in the coming of Christ. In the meantime, I often dream about what it would be like to "simply live out our lives in a small Christian ecclesia." We should be so lucky. This doesn't mean we ignore the outside world. No one in this discussion believes we shouldn't tell the world about God. I think we can all agree that if we are going to see to the saying of the Gospel, it should come without gimmicks and with integrity. People come to church because they know someone who was changed by grace, and they are thirsty for that grace. It is the small simple ecclasia's of the world that were there in the beginning, and they are the ones who will be there in the end. Thousands of simple small ecclasia's all over the world living faithful lives sharing the Gospel with integrity without fear to their neighbors, co-workers, classmates, garbage men, carpoolers, bloggers, etc.
*There are some missing comments and some holes, but I tried to patch them up. I did some editing so that it flows cleanly despite the missing parts. If you find something amiss with a comment you said or feel this is inadequate send me a note and I'll edit it.
-L. Hamilton
Thanks, Levi, for going to the trouble of reposting.
I'm new to the blog, so please bear with me while I get a feel for the place. I just wanted to chime in that I'm a Nazarene pastor of a church plant in Valparaiso, Indiana. We just turned 6 this past September. (We were in GROW magazine back when we were getting started.)
I get to see "Valpo Naz" & their multi-site approach up close. I know those guys. They're the real deal. I also know people at other churches using the multi-site approach. There's a lot of variety. In many cases it seems to be doing a good job of providing contextualized ministry to a new location or people group. Very missional.
As for the grieving for church planters who are "cut off" after their one-year funding agreement runs out... Yes, that's frustrating, but that's why you have to be careful on the front end. If you agree to a year of funding at a certain level, then you'd better plan for that. That district or parent church or other supporting agency has to come up with those funds somehow, and those funds aren't unlimited. If you're unhappy with the funding arrangement, don't take the money. If God's called you to start a church, start it, whether the funding is there or not.
We were fortunate & had adequate support from our parent church and a quick jump to financial self-sufficiency. But when my associate pastor left to start our "daughter church" in Washington state, he had no promise of funding. They just knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were supposed to be there. So they went. Fortunately, the district there decided to support them with a couple of block grants, which has helped them get started. Was it perfect? No. They are still making sacrifices to get the church off the ground. But it was better than having to come up with all the funds on their own.
I'll keep exploring here to see what you guys are all about.
(This is following on a discussion Joseph and I had while he was visiting us in Glasgow, so I'm just tossing this one out for disucssion...) Perhaps there is something in this multi-site ideal that resonates with the traditional model of having a cathedral/church which belongs to a larger geographical area (a "diocese") around which local "parish" churches "revolve" (man, it's hard to get away from that "satellite" language, eh?) and work and minister, etc. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting that this is a conscious thing, nor am I anywhere near convinced that it is a desirable alternative to the time-tested parish model, but maybe there is a similarity here, or at least a desire toward a similar end. I'll leave it at that for now, but will elaborate if need be. I wonder what others think.
Why would you need the larger "cathedral"? The best multi-site churches I'm aware of have lots of sites of a variety of sizes. There might be a "main campus" but only in that it was the first campus. (I guess I'm thinking primarily of Community Christian Church in Naperville, IL, since it's not that far from here & is one of the pioneers of the recent multi-site movement.)
Right now we rent a banquet hall to worship in on Sunday mornings. If we were to start worshiping on Thursday or Saturday nights at some other site, which would be the "cathedral"?
As I envision it, the cathedral would be the main "hub" of the worship-life of the larger community, so probably wherever you have your main worship gathering, if indeed there is one. I'm not saying this is a perfect analogy - not by a long shot - and as I said, I'm still rather skeptical that it is an authentic alternative to the cathedral/parish model in the first instance...but rather merely suggesting that perhaps there is a resonance here; that in some way the move toward this ideal of "doing church" indicates a certain "need" or subconscious desire for a more coherent model that has been lost, if not downright rejected, somewhere along the way.
I am not a theology student, but I am interested in discussing what we (the Church) should be doing in order to be who God has called us to be, so please bear with me. . .
I completely agree with your (negative) opinion of multi-site churches as explained in the GROW magazine. However, I do not believe that the multi-site church was represented as it should have been. I was raised in the Nazarene church, and God has brought me back to the same church I was raised in to bring about change.
However, the church I most recently came from was a multi-site church in Florida. It did not describe itself as a "multi-site" church but as a "distributed church." The distributed church philosophy is that the focus of a church should not be on what happens inside the four walls, but on what happens outside those walls. The church I attended, Northland (see www.northlandchurch.net) had 5 sites when I left. All of the services were the same and were connected technologically. The purpose of the different sites was to provide a presence in different parts of the greater Orlando area as opposed to having people drive into one location for church. Its focus is not on separating people into different age groups; rather, one of its core values is intergenerational leadership.
Another church that is using "multi-site" worship is Mars Hill Church in Seattle. (www.marshillchurch.org) This church, like Northland, has different sites for geographical purposes. (This is one I found through iTunes, and I listen to the podcasts of their sermons.)
Both of these churches are very outwardly focused and focused on community, discipleship, and service rather than on programs or activities.
And one comment about the importance of "numbers" in a church. . . the Great Commission of Jesus is a pretty clear command to increase our numbers. Now, if we are only pulling people from other churches or simply getting them in the door for a count, we are not fulfilling the mission. The mission is to make disciples, and this is done with the current members, but it also includes the adding of new disciples. I believe that we SHOULD be concerned with numbers - we should want as many people as possible to come to know Christ.
Hi guys. Great discussion...
I have had some exposure to multisite, but not firsthand. One exposure is my reading of mondaymorninginsight.com; the blog owner is a big fan of multisite.
My other exposure is by way of hearing a nazarene pastor toying with multisite as a way to franchise his ego.
I believe that multisite is the 'bus ministry' of this decade. Some churches will do it right and do it well. Other pastors (notice I didn't say churches) will do it in their mindless pursuit of whatever will get them featured in Grow magazine.
-ArkRocker01
I've never heard of a pastor doing anything in order to be featured in GROW magazine. And I know a few. Maybe I've just been fortunate that way...
In my mind, multi-site is just an extension of doing multiple services, with the added dimension that some of the multiple services take place at a different location. If a person is OK with one, I don't see why they would have a problem with the other.
And yet, when was the last time we really sat down and thought (together) about whether or not multiple services are even a good thing...? I mean, if multi-site churches are simply an extension or evolution of something that is a bad idea in the first place, shouldn't we maybe take a certain critical stance in relation to such new "trends"?
(By the by, I think ArkRocker's bus ministry comparison is probably more accurate, as I don't suspect the multi-site paradigm to have much more of a life-span than that trend did. There will always be clever ways to try to provide a quick-fix to an ever-shifting cultural situation; it seems to me that the more difficult, but ultimately more valuable approach, would be to practice the Christian faith in such ways that are time-tested and proven as effective.)
Brannon, maybe it's been a while since YOU sat down and reflected on whether or not multiple services are a good idea. I'm a pastor. I've been reflecting on that question critically (and discussing it with others) for around 9 years now. I've come to the conclusion that multiple services can be a very good thing, for all sorts of reasons that we can discuss if you'd like. I'm sure there are contexts where it might be an unwise choice, but mine's not one of them.
BTW, if you've already decided that a multi-site approach is a "trend" or "quick fix," then there's probably not much point discussing it with anyone, is there? Your mind's made up already...
No, Rich - see, these are my impression, my suspicions, my concerns - my prejudices, even...I'll admit that. I make all-too-hasty judgments just like every other human being. But my mind is in no way made-up. Conversation is about hearing what other people think, learning and sharing, so it is, I think, deeply valuable as a way past prejudice and towards clarity and understanding. If my mind was made up, I wouldn't waste my time spouting my non-negotiable opinion on a blog called "Nazarene Roundtable" and then check back with interest to see what other people say - I take time out for these conversations, these opportunities to think and reflect TOGETHER, because my underlying stance is always one of openness to the voices and views of others. All I'm saying in regard to multi-site churches and/or multiple services is: "convince me." As of yet, I am not very convinced.
Now, a bit of bio for clarification's sake, so that we don't jump to further conclusions about the background and concerns of others (I have been aware that you are a pastor since your first appearance on this blog, by the way) - I am a Nazarene PK and have served the church in various ministry capacities for about 12 years now, most of them music and youth related, but I have also been known to preach the odd sermon when called upon. I am not an ordained elder and am not pursuing such a vocation, so I don't want to sound like I'm claiming any kind of pastoral authority on these matters under discussion, but I did want to make clear that the church (and the COTN in particular) and her worship is deeply important to me and something I have been continually stopping and reflecting upon, individually and in communion with others, ever since I was about 14 and began writing worship music.
Now, it seems to me that you are taking my comments as almost somehow personally critical of your church and the way you do ministry (while on the other hand, your comment does seem rather directed at me, and in a way that assumes a great deal - but perhaps this is best passed over), and I assure you, they are not. But neither are my comments simply polemical talking-points that I'm carelessly tossing out into the ether of the internet just to stir things up and see what kind of reactions I can provoke. These are things that I lose sleep over, that I get angry over, that I cry over, and I am never finished thinking about and discussing.
So I again extend the invitation: if you're convinced that these things are a good idea, persuade me.
Forgive me, Brannon, if I misread your previous post. The impression I picked up from the way you expressed yourself was that you are enjoying the luxury of theorizing on an issue without having to come to conclusions or make decisions on it. What I meant by my "I'm a pastor" comment is that I have had to make choices on the issue of multiple services: Do we stick with one service, or move to two? If we offer two service times, how do we sustain a single identity? Or should we? Etc. So your "And yet, when was the last time we really sat down and thought (together) about whether or not multiple services are even a good thing...?" comment struck me as presuming that I am (along with many other pastors leading churches with multiple services) acting unreflectively.
Perhaps I should have simply answered your question: The last time was about six months ago, and a year before that, and two years before that. We've rethought it and dialogued about it at least 4-5 different times in our church's 6 year history.
Anyway, moving on... You'd like me to convince you. Of what, specifically? That the multi-site approach has value? As a church planter, I can tell you about certain advantages it has over "traditional" church planting. I'm not sure what specific critiques or questions you have. The same goes for multiple services. I can point out many practical benefits to having them, if you'd like. Or if you have specific questions/concerns you'd like to dialogue about...
Rich: basically, everything I have learned about multi-site churches has raised big flags for me, theologically and practically. But I live in Scotland currently and there is no such phenomenon as a multi-site church - I have no place I can go to "experience" for myself what this might be like in practice, so my opinions are formed based on what I've read and conversations I've had with people who have first-hand experience with this phenomenon. In fact, you are the first real advocate for this paradigm that I've chatted with about the subject, so I just want you to tell me why it's such a good thing. Although I do have some cursory objections that I could list off, I don't really have a bunch of concrete questions - I'd just like someone to present me with a persuasive case for why I should remain open to this paradigm, rather than simply write it off as the "next big thing" that church growth gurus are selling to evangelicals because it has some potential (however short-term and quick-fix). I am frustrated by the fact that evangelicals seem to thrive on changing their paradigm every few years, that we're never content unless our church is increasing in size and revenue and programming, so we've always gotta have something new to move onto - so I am afraid that the multi-site hype feeds into this: "why not cash in on it while the window is open, before it becomes passe?" I think this mentality is dangerous and can be really destructive.
I can easily see that a multi-site church could be something that works (in the sense of "produces results") in some situations but wouldn't in others. (Can a multi-site church be anything but a suburban/ex-urban phenomenon, or could it work in a city or out in the countryside? I can pretty much guarantee you that it wouldn't work in the UK, but for a vast complex of reasons.) Now, as I've expressed in our other active thread on this blog, I'm totally cool with churches addressing the particularities of their situation in creative ways and figuring out what will work best in their situation. I'm just uncomfortable with strategies like this (or multiple services, etc) that are packaged and marketed to churches and pastors as though they are proven to produce the results you want, like some kind of hair-club for men. I'm saddened when it looks like churches are more interested in setting up franchises and "expanding their territory" than in worshipping God in Spirit and Truth. I'm basically suspicious of the whole mixed bag of what might best be described as American-style Church-growth logic. I fear that any plan or strategy that we can come up with to "grow" our churches is already a step in the wrong direction, as only Christ-lifted-up will "draw all men" - just as it is only the Holy Spirit who can produce real revival, no matter how well we plan our week of services and how good the musicians and preachers we bring in might be, so also, it is only God who can "grow" our churches, so any systematized, strategized efforts we make seem to me to mimic the world (business plans and the like) more than they fall back in total dependence on God to produce the results we want, which are hopefully the results God wants.
Brannon, if I'm the first person you've met to stick up for the multi-site approach... maybe you need to get out more! :) Seriously, if I can help you understand why some churches are choosing this approach, I'll be glad to.
A couple of thoughts, right off the bat: First, you're right that this approach isn't for every church. Different contexts & the challenges that go with them call for different responses. Anyone who tries to package and sell multi-site as a one-size-fits-all ministry strategy is missing the point. FWIW, I don't see that happening (much).
Second, "multi-site" is a broad descriptor that can apply to lots of different things. The only common elements seem to be (1) multiple locations (can be on the same "campus" or hundreds of miles away from each other) and (2) keeping a sense of being one church, not multiple churches.
So you'll have a church like North Coast Church in Vista, California, who helped pioneer what they call "video venues." You can read about their experience on their website: www.northcoastchurch.com/videocafe_startup . What began as an alternative to an overflow room developed into something much more. Most of their "venues" are on the same property, just across the hall from each other, all having a unique feel & style, but sharing a common message on video, recorded in the main sanctuary.
You'll also have a church like Community Christian Church in the Chicago suburbs who helped pioneer a different approach to "multi-site." It all started when a dying church offered to donate their building to them if they could do something with it to help reach their community. So they developed a team of preachers/pastors who would work together on developing the message each week and then each go preach at the different locations. As the number of sites expanded (they have at least 8 now), they learned about the message-on-video approach and now use both live and video preaching, depending on the location. Their website is www.communitychristian.org .
BTW, I'm calling these churches pioneers because they were some of the first I'd heard about, years ago, and others point to them as pioneers. This is not based on their trying to sell their approach to others. But as more and more churches have approached them to try to learn from their experiences, they've put together materials, conferences, networks, etc., so that they don't spend all their time answering people's questions. :)
Then there's the church that was highlighted in GROW magazine: Valparaiso Nazarene Church. They're just a couple miles from me. They realized that not everyone connects with the size & style of their main services, and they'd already purchased a separate building a couple miles down the road to do youth events in, so they started alternative services over there on Sunday mornings and Thursday nights. Pastors from their staff lead those services (you could probably call them "congregations"). The environment is smaller, more intimate, more casual, and -- at least on Thursdays -- incorporates more sacramental elements, though possibly not in a way you'd appreciate. (It's the whole "worship stations" idea.)
Willow Creek has started what they call "regional campuses" in the past few years. Their website has a decent description and rationale for why they are doing it: www.willowcreek.org/regional .
For all of these churches, the multi-site approach arises out of their sense of mission. It's "a good thing" because it is helping them accomplish the mission. (And they seem to share the "mission as primary" view of the church that we discussed in that other thread.)
Oh, I should also add that in each of these cases, each location has a pastor who is responsible for that location/venue/campus. In some cases, that pastor also shares in the preaching, at least occasionally. Each one approaches it differently.
I hope this helps get the ball rolling!
Side note: Is Canada still part of the UK? If so, then multi-site is happening there, too.
www.themeetinghouse.ca
One more link, and then I'll stop for a while. :)
http://www.leadnet.org/Resources_downloads.asp
If you search for "multi-site" you'll find a lot of documents you can download and read. It's a bit of a pain, but some of them are interesting. Just reading the summaries gives you an idea of the breadth of approaches that fit under this umbrella.
Rich - just noticed your response, for which I'm grateful, but I'll have to comment back more fully at a later time - just wanted to say thanks for this. I also wanted to reiterate a few things so you're clear where I'm coming from in all this: 1) thought reared in the buckle of the Bible Belt (Nashville, TN), since 2003 I have lived in the UK, where there are no multi-site churches (and in fact very few churches larger than 200, period); multi-site seems to be a concept few are even aware of yet; 2) I live here because I am doing graduate work in theology, in a pretty liberal, multi-faith, interdisciplinary department, I might add, so issues related to church growth and planting rarely, if ever, come up in my academic context (to counteract this, I maintain close links w/ our Nazarene Theological College in Manchester, England, where my wife is a part-time MA student and where I occasionally teach); but the academic scene at my university is my primary social context during this phase of my life, which does indeed create some odd dynamics, and I do often feel like I'm living under a rock (or in an "ivory tower" as is often said of academia) - for example, I have nearly entirely missed the boat on this whole "emergent" thing, which in so many ways feels like something I should or could be very much taken with - but my studies pretty much "own" me these days; and 3) most of my conversations about multi-site churches have been with the friends I keep in close contact w/ in the USA, via email and blogs and whatnot, and as is often the case w/ close friends (for good or ill), many of them have a very similar outlook as mine, and so many of them might, like me, be a bit predisposed to be skeptical toward the whole thing. So, this is just to say: "Getting out more", at least in a way that would perhaps balance me out, is a rather difficult thing at this stage in my life, but blogs like this one are one way I try to keep getting to know new folks and encounter different points of view. more soon...
And no, Canada is not a part of the UK. I just looked it up so I could be sure, and learned that "Canada gained independence from the United Kingdom in an incremental process that began in 1867 and ended in 1982" - that's one inefficient independence process! Oddly, the Queen's likeness is still on their money (I knew that much already).
oops, typo-alert - in my earlier comment, #1 should read "though (not 'thought') reared in the Bible Belt..." - didn't make a whole lot of sense otherwise.
Thanks for the background info, Brannon. That helps me know where you're coming from. I'll try to put something similar up at some point. Right now I'll just say that I'm a 31-year-old pastor of a 6-year-old church plant, married 10 years, pastor's kid, lifelong Nazarene (but not very "Nazareney"), graduate of Olivet Naz. University & NTS (M.Div).
One more link: www.multi-site.org . It's the site for a conference, but it also gives some descriptions & links to articles & such.
Post a Comment
<< Home