Let's put it out there... when you choose to plant churches rather than simply getting larger and larger, when you choose 10 churches of 200 rather than 1 church of 2000, what are you really giving up?
Resources?
I think that 10 churches of 200 can resource the same ministry that one of 2000 can, if they stay relationally connected and work together. And, I believe they can do so with lower overhead. In fact, I'm betting on it.
I think what you really give up is power. Power and influence.
Would I love to sit atop a muti-million dollar organization? In many ways, yes.
But.
But, but, but...
That's not the goal.
And in fact, as I read the Gospel, choosing to cede power and influence in favor of relational connectedness just might be a more (careful here) kingdom-oriented choice.
Yes, I am glad to see certain mega-church pastors using their influence for the poor and the oppressed.
But.
It seems as if the church as a whole began speaking on certain things rather than relying on celebrity voices to inspire and move and make things happen... When we as pastors step back and refuse to do for the people what they should do for themselves, interesting things happen.
No, I'll never be in Time Magazine as an Influential Evangelical™. The mayor will never phone up for an opinion.
But anyone in my church community can get on my calendar if they need to. My cell phone # is not a closely guarded secret. My sermons can be formed and shaped and influenced by what actual people in our community are dealing with. I know people's names. They know me. By intentionally choosing to remain small through church planting, I get to be their pastor.
And if I have to give up the powerand influence that comes with numbers to see that happen, well then, so be it. It's a choice I gladly make.
Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness ramblings. It's monday. :)
Resources?
I think that 10 churches of 200 can resource the same ministry that one of 2000 can, if they stay relationally connected and work together. And, I believe they can do so with lower overhead. In fact, I'm betting on it.
I think what you really give up is power. Power and influence.
Would I love to sit atop a muti-million dollar organization? In many ways, yes.
But.
But, but, but...
That's not the goal.
And in fact, as I read the Gospel, choosing to cede power and influence in favor of relational connectedness just might be a more (careful here) kingdom-oriented choice.
Yes, I am glad to see certain mega-church pastors using their influence for the poor and the oppressed.
But.
It seems as if the church as a whole began speaking on certain things rather than relying on celebrity voices to inspire and move and make things happen... When we as pastors step back and refuse to do for the people what they should do for themselves, interesting things happen.
No, I'll never be in Time Magazine as an Influential Evangelical™. The mayor will never phone up for an opinion.
But anyone in my church community can get on my calendar if they need to. My cell phone # is not a closely guarded secret. My sermons can be formed and shaped and influenced by what actual people in our community are dealing with. I know people's names. They know me. By intentionally choosing to remain small through church planting, I get to be their pastor.
And if I have to give up the powerand influence that comes with numbers to see that happen, well then, so be it. It's a choice I gladly make.
Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness ramblings. It's monday. :)
Recent Comments