bob.blog

Number 3, baby!

In a Technorati™ search for church planting blogs, I come up number three... rock on! Only need about 420 or so more blogs to link to me to overtake the Tall Skinny.
C'mon people, help a brother out :)

Link: Technorati Blog Finder: church planting.

Seven Questions, pt 2

2) what do you see as the four (because three is too traditional) differences between the community of faith you are serving, and those churches in your area?

Well… we meet in a pub, which at least on the surface would be a huge one. That means we exist in a public space. One effect this has on our community is that we very much feel the “strangers” part of our Christian identity. We are perpetual guests, existing in someone else’s context, attempting always to bless our hosts and yet to be countercultural and proclaim the Gospel clearly. It’s a challenge. I think that churches who exist in their own spaces, particularly the ones who build up their own campuses that act as small towns, often lose this sense of aliens and guests…

We tend mostly to be within the range of 25-35, with the next biggest group being under 25. That’s a pretty big difference from the average evangelical church who’s really struggling to connect with 25-35’s.

Much of Evergreen falls into the category of “formerly churched.” These are people that at one point or another stopped going to church- whether for two years or for twenty.
We have smaller number of people who never really went to church much. Recently, we’ve been seeing more just flat-out churched people coming, whether because they move into the area and look for a church (something we’re happy with) or because they come to us after leaving a church. This is something we used to wring our hands about, not wanting to build a church out of people from other places, but rather of and for the unchurched and the formerly churched. We’re still not completely comfortable with the idea of people coming to us from other places, but…
I guess if people are leaving large churches to come to evergreen in a quest for real community (a story I’ve been hearing a lot lately), I don’t want to deny them that. And since our goal is to grow steadily but to remain small through church planting, I look at it as helping those large churches to plant new communities, even if they don’t quite realize it.

Though there’s not a ton of racial diversity at evergreen, there’s a bit more economic diversity and a ton of political diversity. I think that churches tend to be pretty homogenous politically, and even though I'd love to see us become more diverse in other ways, the fact that so many viewpoints exist side by side at evergreen is something I’m pretty happy with.

Seven Questions, pt 1

I've been sitting on John O'Keefe's Seven Questions for weeks now, waiting for some time to open up to take a crack at them. Today's as good a day as any. I'll be working on these and will post 'em throughout the week. I'll send in the completed doc to John and it should show up sometime at Ginkworld.

1) Planting a church in an emerging/postmodern culture, what do you think are the key elements of a community of faith in an emerging/postmodern culture?

Good question. I think that in this issue, as in most, there’s a ditch on either side of the road. The ditch on one side is to see the early church as a model, disconnected from the culture in which they existed, and attempt to craft a “1st century church.” I think what God wants is a Church that, like the Old Testament sons of Issachar, understands the times and knows what to do because of their present context.
Of course, the ditch on the other side of the road is becoming so relevant that we forget to be counter cultural.

At its heart, the Gospel is a message with something to offend everyone. For the postmoderns, the Gospel proclaims an authority and a truth- a King. For the moderns, the Gospel proclaims a God who can be experienced, not just theorized about propositionally- a Friend. For the liberals, the Gospel and God’s Kingdom give us a system of morality that will undoubtedly seem “regressive.” For the conservatives, the place of the poor in the Kingdom and in God’s heart is a huge challenge.

It seems to me that a key to planting a church in this postmodern context is not only navigating but using the tension… embracing it. Know to whom you are speaking, connect them with the parts of the Gospel they will resonate with and challenge them with the parts of the Gospel they would rather forget.

Unfortunately, that takes a skill that they don’t teach you in seminary: Listening before speaking. This is something I'm still struggling to learn.

resume season

So, from my past experience these last two years, and even already a bit in the last week or so, I can tell you we're heading into Resume Season. A lot of people looking for ministry positions will be sending out resumes, hoping to find the right place/a better place/any place but where they are at.

I totally sympathize. Been there, done that.

To simplify the process, I'm going to post what evergreen is looking for so I can just point people here...

First the bad news.
We don't have any paid jobs for anyone.
We're a brand new church, just trying to get up to speed with the people we have now.
So...

But now the good news.
I seriously doubt you'll find a church at which it is easier to work into leadership and perhaps even something more. My dream is planting more churches out of evergreen. To do that, we need people to help make that a reality. So yeah- there's a place for you if you can come be a part of what's happening.

Here's what I tell people:
Come, be a part of evergreen, love people, build trust, work into leadership/elders and as we plant churches, you'll have the opportunity to lead them...

I realize that scenario doesn't work for everyone, and I'm sorry for that.

Here's specifically some people I'd love to see come to evergreen-

Women leaders- If you are interested in pastoring, in mentoring/shepherding/teaching in general church ministry (not just women's ministry) we need you. I'd love to talk to some people who are at Western or Multnomah about being a part of evergreen and perhaps getting practicum/student ministry credit etc.

Worship Leaders- come work into leadership in our worship ministries, work with our worship pastor Rich, put together and lead a house band, get sent out as a worship pastor with a church plant...

Those interested in Church Planting- Feel called to plant churches? Not sure but maybe? Come hang out with us, be part of a plant, explore the possibilities, and see where things go.

Questions?

church planting program?

I got an email awhile back from an old friend in response to an article I had done in our weekly email about desiring multiplication (planting other missional communities) for evergreen rather than just addition (getting bigger and bigger ourselves). His email said:

Bob, I always enjoy your writing and work.

However, in reading your most recent newsletter about missional = multiplication.... it kind of smells funny. What you are really saying is that a missional church really sets up a program and a value of planting churches...which is a PROGRAM no matter how you spell it or call it. Isn't it. What I find interesting about this movement is that it is really much of the same thing but trying so hard not to use old words. Believe me, to plant a church, whether you call it missional or whatever, is following a certain "way" of doing things which then is really a program.... right?

Well, not quite... but if so, okay :)

Here's what I mean-
When we say we are pursuing organic, non-progammatic ministry, it doesn't mean we are anti-structure or that there will never be anything at evergreen that resembles a "program." One of the things we mean by "organic" is this: Programs we have will be the result of ministry, not the means. In other words... structure is a result of needing to help and encourage and systematize something that's already happening, and just needs to have help to happen better. What we don't want to do is to become programmatic in the sense that we start with nothing happening and assume that if we draw up a plan, get a cool logo and name, put something on the calendar and buy the handbook from the megachurch that did it and saw thousands increase their giving... well, then we've got ministry!
We'll have programs at evergreen (someday!), but they'll be started by people who just want to expand what they are doing in ministry to allow others to participate with them... not by staff who see starting programs as their raison d'etre (that's an unfair characterization, I know... but there's some truth there).

In terms of church planting... we don't have a program, we have a strategy (or at least some hopes and dreams... does that count as "strategy?"). Saying that we want to multiply rather than simply add isn't programmatic in the least- it's a philosophical commitment to growing constantly, but remaining at a manageable, sane size for our community.

Programmatic church planting exists, believe me... and we're trying to stay away from that. There's no "package" plan for church plants out of evergeen (Do it this way and get results! Or even "Do it OUR way and get to put our logo on your website!"). I think it's just us saying "It seems right to us and (we hope and pray) to the Holy Spirit to send some of us out to start something new." And those new things will have an amazing amount of freedom to organically be and become whatever it is they need to be and become as they, as a community, listen to God and follow His leading. That's why we started (and are still trying to start) nextChurch- to encourage church planting by encouraging church planters... and one of the most discouraging things for church planters is to tell them how it must be done.

Okay- I'm not sure if I really answered your question. I think I need more coffee before really clear thinking/writing becomes a possiblity, but there you have it. Feel free to ask for clarification or tell me how off base I am :)

video Venues... follow up 7

Geoff asked:
"4. Why is church planting superior to opening campuses? At Seacoast we do both. If a we have a leader who has a unique vision and a call to preach we help him plant an autonomous church. (We've helped plant almost 25 new churches in the past few years) If a leader resonates with the vision God has given Seacoast and does not feel a call to preach we help him plant a new Seacoast campus."

First. Very cool. I appreciate churches that plant churches and really, seriously desire for us to be that kind of church and plant that kind of church. I can't wait to see our first "grand-daughter" church... the first church planted by a church we plant out of evergreen.

However, where I find myself feeling some friction here is "If a leader resonates with the vision God has given Seacoast and does not feel a call to preach we help him plant a new Seacoast campus."

I think in general I have a problem with one body, one local church, being overly connected to another. It seems two seperate buildings on one campus is one church. One building on one side of the street and another on the other... maybe that's one church.

But when you start talking about across town or two hours away? Regardless of common branding and similar vision, it's different people and a different church community.

And to me, that means some things.

I've already told you why I think a church should have it's own teacher(s). While I believe in the unity of the Church as whole, I also believe churches should have their own elders... and vision... and mission... and control over their own community.

The main reason I believe planting churches is superior to planting campuses is that what you are really doing (if I am understanding the model correctly) when you plant a campus is planting a church that has had it's leadership outsourced to somehwere else. It's not just that the teaching is done remotely, but also (it seems) the leadership is done so as well.

Now, I'm sure that a "campus" church can still, as a body, listen to the prompting of the Holy Spirit and develop as their own unique body... the problem is that they can only take that so far. Their vision/mission, etc is determined by a group of people relationally and geographically distant. Thus, it seems that long term, there is some leadership development that cannot take place in this local church.

My contention is this: This makes for good short term, church planting results but probably for not-as-good long term body maturity results. Not only do I see this model having a problem developing competent preachers and teachers, but elders and leaders as well... It seems as though part of the maturity process for a church body is going through the steps of re-inventing certain wheels for themselves, learning certain leadership lessons over and developing their own unique community, people growing to maturity and into real leadership in a body, and that body as a whole, listening to what God is saying to them and having the freedom to work that out as a local, organic entity.

My big fear is that with the proliferation of churches with no control over their destiny as a body is not a healthy thing in the long run, for the church in America.

I'll wrap this up tomorrow with some more thoughts along this line...

Video Venues... follow up 6

Geoff asked:
3. Would Paul have used video if it had been available? I'm not sure I understand the difference between watching a video and listening to a letter being read at a church service. (Obviously Paul's video would have divinely inspired, we don't have that advantage at Seacoast. :)

Would Paul have used video? Sure. But that's a different question than whether Paul would have been in favor of setting up a congregation in Ephesus that was taught primarily by a video feed from Corinth. :)
It seems as though Paul not only had a heart for seeing leadership and gifts developed within the local church, but saw teaching by the local elders as being an integral part of the local church gathering. When he wrote letters to them, and asked them to be read aloud, I'm fairly sure that he did not mean for that to completely replace teaching by the elders of the church, otherwise, he would not have made teaching a requirement to be an elder. His encouragement to Timothy was to "preach the Word." He said "Elders who do their work well should be paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching." This is part of the job of the elders of a local church community. In 1 Cor 14, one of the things we do when we come together is that "When you meet, one will sing, another will teach... etc."

So even though he could have commanded that when they met, the early Christians would have nothing but letters from Apostles read to them, he seemed to steer them in a different direction.

But... the question is, "Couldn't a local church teacher just do it from another building by video?"
I think that the answer (for me) is a qualified maybe. :)

Sure, overflow rooms are one thing. Differently themed Video Venues start walking down an odd road (to me), but at least they are all in the same place being taught by someone they know and could meet after coffee in the central area, etc.

It's when we begin talking about placing venues miles and miles (and even hours) away that it begins to fall apart for me, and in large part because of what I have talked about here (and in the last entry on this) in terms of leadership being developed from within, people being allowed and encouraged to teach, a body being able to interact with those teaching them, the teachers knowing those they are teaching, etc...

I'll say more about the importance of local leadership and control and teaching in the next couple of entries...

Video Venues... follow up 5

Geoff asked:
2. Are there people called to lead congregations who don't have the gift of teaching? One of our most effective campus pastors at Seacoast is a former farmer who has no formal theological training, can't spell expository, but is incredible at helping people to grow in their faith. If he planted a church on his own he would be able to minister to very few people; because he doesn't have to preach he is able to pastor a congregation of over 600 people.

Are there people called to lead congregations who don't have the gift of teaching?
Well... no.
There are no people called to lead congregations who don't have the gift of teaching.

Now, before everyone spits out their morning coffee and writes me an angry comment, let's remember: One of the qualifications of an elder/overseer (a word used interchangeably in Scripture with "pastor") is that that person "be able to teach." (1 Tim 3)

I know what you mean when you say "gift of teaching", though. At least, I can infer (maybe wrongly) that you mean someone who is good at it... good enough to draw a crowd.

And here again is where our models may differ. I certainly don't want people who teach poorly to lead our discussions on Sunday... but biblically, I can't allow people who can't teach to lead our community as elders/pastors. My duty then is to make sure that those who are called to lead are given the opportunity to develop in this area.
Make sense?

I'm not advocating that one person be the only teacher in a community, though I can definitely see a role for one person being the one who ends up teaching a good chunk of the time (In our community, this is me... Statistically I have spoken at just over 75% of our gatherings since we started. But my strong desire is that this number decrease to somewhere around 60%... I want when we are able to get Chris, our associate pastor on board half-time- and eventually full-time- that he begin to share more of this load with me and bring more of his unique self/perspective/gifts to the community. This is something I haven't put on him too much since he's been working full time and to do this well it takes preparation... Rich (our worship pastor) as well and whoever plants out of evergreen and people who are elders and potential elders and so on...) I think it's possible that in a group of elders one person becomes more of the shepherd, one more of the teacher, one more the administrator, etc.

But it's a biblical qualification- can't teach? Shouldn't be a pastor.

We could go into a lot of the reasons why that might be... But suffice it to say that if someone feels called to lead, but can't captivate a thousand people with his or her speaking gifts, rather than sending them out with a video tape of someone who can I'd like to think we could re-work a couple of our expectations and do some things which make it a workable scenario without resorting to video feeds.

1. Rework our definition of numbers success. I have no idea if my speaking could captivate thousands. The most I have ever spoken to was four services of about 700 a piece. I did okay. :) But at evergreen, I don't have to worry about it. We've set an upper limit on our growth (somewhere under 200). We grow, and then we plant. We grow more- we plant more. I don't need to find people who can preach like Spurgeon! I just need to find men and women who love God, love people, can teach in a somewhat larger than home-group setting and set them loose. That's makes it a whole lot easier because for every person who can speak to thousands, there are literally multitudes who can lead a dialogical teaching time with between 30 and 150 people. I'll bet with some experience and some coaching, Goeff's former farmer would do just fine!

2. Rework our method of training. "Pastoring" has always been on the job training. We (should) send people to seminary for formal theological education- not to learn how to shepherd and teach people. Rather than in the classroom learning to shepherd and teach people should be done in the context of... shepherding and teaching people! I know the pressure that exists as a community gets larger... as we grow, it's harder and harder to turn the "pulpit" over to those who might not teach as well. But it's a necessity. So the solution? This seems easy to me- Through planting other communities, keep your community from growing to a size where you can't let a college-aged student or seminary aged man or woman teach, where you can't let someone who feels they may be called to be an elder someday (or now) not only lead and love people, but teach them as well.
(I knew this would be a temptation for me... to not do this... so right off the bat, shortly after we planted, we did about a month and a half of people other than me speaking. We did it again last Jan/Feb... We're now re-tooling that a bit. Rather than a block of time where others speak (say for a month or more) I'm trying to schedule others in once a month or so to speak.)

3. Rework our planting model... pair those who teach well with those who can teach, but don't want to do it all the time or who don't feel it is their main gift.

I know that there is more to "teaching" than taking the pulpit on Sunday mornings. But, one of my main concerns about Video Venues is this:
If we plant a community led by a person who can't preach, and taught by a video feed from elsewhere, aren't we making it nearly impossible for that community itself to equip, train and develop people who can preach? How would they do that? And even if they can and do, why make it harder?

Comments/thoughts/pushback?

video Venues... follow up 4

Geoff asked: ". Does an effective preacher always make an effective pastor? I've seen excellent preachers who IMHO do a very poor job of shepherding their flock and lousy speakers who are great pastors."

I totally agree. My beef with Video Venues is not that they disconnect one aspect of pastoring from another, but rather that they disconnect the one teaching the people from the people being teached...err... taught.

But this is my beef not just with Video Venues, but with large church in general. When, because of the size of a community, those taking the lead in teaching the community become inaccesible to that community, I think we've moved into an unhealthy place. I'm coming from a paradigm that says it's best if we keep things at a size where we can all know each other, particularly where those leading can know those being led and vice versa.
I know the model of getting "smaller as we get bigger." And though I understand it, I just don't like it. What I see happen, practically speaking, is a huge disconnect between those making decisions and teaching and those affected. I may know the leader of my small group, which is cool... but at a certain point if most of the church is completely unaware of who their elder board is, and unable to get on the calendar of the person/people leading and teaching them, I think something is wrong.

So, again, I feel like Video Venues take us in the opposite direction of what's intended. I know that one of the reasons stated for doing Video Venues is so that as a church grows, it can remain "small" and people can know each other. It probably works fairly well on that count. Where it seems to fall down is the second part of the equation... Allowing leadership and the led to know and access and interact with each other. The best leadership comes from a place of intimate knowledge of those being led- what is needed now, what are our people wondering, struggling with, etc. And the best "being led" comes from a place of knowing and trusting those doing the leading.

So I guess what I'm saying is that while one pastor can primarily shepherd while others primarily teach, disconnecting those functions from one another may be fine, but disconnecting those functions geographically or organizationally from the people seems a move in the wrong direction to me. And it seems as though this is what Video Venues do, by locating the "vision", "mission" and leadership decisions of the church in a place geographically and organizationally removed from the people.

Comments/pushback?

Video Venues... follow up 3

(ed note:I "unpublished" and then reworked this for tone...)
Dave asked:
what if church plants had pastors but used videos of other preachers because:
3. they decided that there are very gifted preachers in the body of Christ and they wanted to learn from those diverse voices as well.

Ahh.. see, now, now you are getting tricky! Using all kinds of good "emergent" sounding words like "diverse"! :)

But again, I think Video Venues actually work in the exact opposite direction of what you are saying here.

It seems as though the Video Venue you have in mind is one where there's a rotation- a community hearing the best taped/broadcast messages from all over, rotating different communicators.
While I'm sure it exists, I've never seen/heard of it. The model we seem to be processing here is one where a single communicator is the one who is (mainly) speaking to the people via the video. (Other pastors may speak, just as in any church, but there's a main teacher).

If I thought videos were a viable long-term solution, your model would be the best. But I have a feeling it's not even on the table. What we're talking about in these satellite campuses, which started as overflow rooms, morphed to overflow buildings and are now complete overflow capuses, sometimes hours away from the main campus, is, in a very real sense, (please excuse the term) franchising.

So, a little thought experiment.

Let's say YourTown Community Church decided to set up a satellite campus an hour and a half from their main campus, showing video of their main guy every week. Now let's say that because of the top quality music and kids programs, YourTown West™ really grew... but it's in a different town, with different kinds of people, people who have heard of YourTown's Teaching Dude, who may even have driven the hour and a half to hear him on special occasions, but don't really have a relationship to him as pastor. And now let's say that YourTown West™ decides that they would like to do a rotation. They are fine with the Dude's teaching and want to keep including him, say every few months, but since there are so many good preaching resources available on video, why not have Bill Hybels speak at YourTown West™ one Sunday, Rick Warren the next, Erwin McManus the next and so forth.

How well would that go over? With the mother church, I mean.

But that thought experiment is more of a tangent than anything...

Here's what I want to see from the church- more pastors/teachers and not less. Video Venues get us less because more and more local churches will be feeding on steady diet of communication from elsewhere rather than developing the teachers among them. Where does a man or woman who feels called to preach get practical experience if their local church is a video venue?

Your question, "they decided that there are very gifted preachers in the body of Christ and they wanted to learn from those diverse voices as well" is the exact reason why Video Venues are a bad idea, I think.

Comments/follow up/pushback?

Video Venues... follow up 1

Dave asked:
what if church plants had pastors but used videos of other preachers because:
1. they decided the sermon is just one element of their time together and not the premier thing.

To be honest, I think this is the right reason and the wrong answer. That is, it's good for us to become less sermo-centric (critics: please don't read as less bibliocentric). I tend to think that Video Venues push us in exactly the opposite direction.

Now, I'm not saying that with using Video Venues, you couldn't allow everything in your gathering to preach, but you are by definition adding more focus to the sermon event monologue, not less.

I think the way to do what you are talking about, Dave, is not to watch the sermon on the screen, but rather to cease allowing it to be the climax of the morning. Cease the monological style of communication that doesn't make room for dialogue or hearing God's voice through other speakers or even follow up and clarification questions.

What we've tried to do (and we need to try harder...) is to diffuse the teaching and experiencing and hearing from God throughout the whole morning. You can read about Sunday mornings at evergreen here, but what we've done, in short, is try to do away with the "worship" time and the "sermon" time, diffusing the "point" of the morning rather than distilling it into three points delivered monologically.

Now, I could see the use of something like a Rob Bell Nooma video, where it's short, to the point, and allows plenty of room after for discussion by the people (in fact, I think we need to use one of those occasionally, now that I think about it). But when we are by definition locking our communities into passively watching a 30-40 monologue with someone they can never, ever speak back to...

I know that much of what is shown on Video Venues is top quality, very creative and inspiring preaching. It has to be! :) But if we want to make preaching not the "main point" of what we do, perhaps this is a step in the wrong direction.

But I may have a flawed understanding of this. My experience has been a Video Venue at North Coast and some stabs at it at the mega church I worked at for awhile. Tell me how they can be used, positively, to make preaching not the main event. And tell me if I'm making any sense here at all... been up since 3:30 again, dangit. :)

Comments/follow up/pushback?

Why do I blog?

I was driving to the Horse Brass last night with our associate pastor, Chris and he thanked me for bringing him along on our little church planting adventure and giving him, via our conversations, a window into when I'm doing well and when I'm doing not so well and the ups and downs of the pastoral thing. (My pleasure, man!)

What I told him, and what I tell you now, is that I'm doing my best to live transparently, to put myself out there (which is a scary thing for an introvert). And I do it on purpose and with reasons.

In no particular order, my reasons are something like this...

The era of the pastor on the pedestal is over. Not that we shouldn't respect our pastors, but too many of us grew up being allowed to think that the pastor was a cut above, on a super-spiritual plane that we should aspire to, but probably would never reach short of becoming pastors ourselves (or missionaries... missionaries were even better in some cases). The problem is that pastors are only human and the first time they show that, those who enjoy the pastor-on-the-pedestal are left feeling hurt and betrayed. Better to let people know up front- I'm just like you. I struggle with self-doubt, with identity and motivation issues just like everyone. I struggle with sin. I get angry. I'm selfish too much of the time. Sometimes I don't want to spend time with God. I hate the fact that my hair is deserting me, but my stomach seems to be hitting a growth period.
But in the midst of all that God shows me grace and forgiveness, God is my center and my ground. It's possible to live this life and not be swept away, not be pulled under. And it doesn't happen because you reach a level of spiritual perfection where the waters calm and the clouds part. It happens because through those very things you struggle with you are driven time and time again to God Himself.
And if I didn't live that process openly with people, what right would I have to try to tell them that's how it works?

Also, I want to share. I'm the kind of guy that when he finds a band he likes, he's likely to make you a disc of their stuff (copyrights be darned!). I feel the same way with my experience in life, in pastoring and in church planting. I hope that what I share of our journey will help in some way for those who are on the same trip, or thinking about it. I don't have much to offer, but what I lack in quality, I try to make up for in quantity :)
Blogging for me is like journaling, keeping a diary. I just don't want to have to die before anyone gets to read it.
But more than that, it's my way of making a contribution to the conversation.
A couple of years ago I was doing a guys group in my home, and we were going through Wild at Heart (Oh c'mon... you know you've done it too.) We were talking about "why are we here?" Aside from our main goal in life being to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, what specifically was our piece of the puzzle- what did God put us here for?
The image that came to my mind, as blustery as it sounds, was this: to help change the church.
I'm thankful for the couple hundred people who stop by here daily, reading my thoughts on organic church, on non-programatic ministry, on walking away from the consumer-church mentality. If they pick up something while they're here, great... that's another tiny, tiny piece I've contributed to that which is a life goal for me- to change the church to be more focused on God and the Gospel/Kingdom of God and more healthy for people.

But lastly, it's valuable for me. I'm a verbal processor who often doesn't know what I think until I'm saying it. This discipline, this little blog is worth it for me because it helps solidify my thoughts, helps me form my thinking and refine my ideas. It helps me express myself, what I'm feeling and exercise my demons. It just plain helps

So thanks blog, for being here for me. Even when I should be in bed...

more on video venues coming...

Okay... some very good push-back on the ideas of Video Venues (planting churches where the teaching is done strictly through a video feed from another location).

I wanted to quote some of the good questions that were asked in response to what I said here and on Steve McCoy's blog, and then later, after working over a sermon I'm not completely happy with :) I'll do my best to answer...

Dave asked:
what if church plants had pastors but used videos of other preachers because:

1. they decided the sermon is just one element of their time together and not the premier thing.

2. they decided that allowing their pastor time to shepherd was more imporant than having him prepare to preach every week

3. they decided that there are very gifted preachers in the body of Christ and they wanted to learn from those diverse voices as well.

such a model might include using many different videos from different churches...

And Geoff, pastor of one of the innovating churches in this area asked:
1. Does an effective preacher always make an effective pastor? I've seen excellent preachers who IMHO do a very poor job of shepherding their flock and lousy speakers who are great pastors.

2. Are there people called to lead congregations who don't have the gift of teaching? One of our most effective campus pastors at Seacoast is a former farmer who has no formal theological training, can't spell expository, but is incredible at helping people to grow in their faith. If he planted a church on his own he would be able to minister to very few people; because he doesn't have to preach he is able to pastor a congregation of over 600 people.

3. Would Paul have used video if it had been available? I'm not sure I understand the difference between watching a video and listening to a letter being read at a church service. (Obviously Paul's video would have divinely inspired, we don't have that advantage at Seacoast. :)

4. Why is church planting superior to opening campuses? At Seacoast we do both. If a we have a leader who has a unique vision and a call to preach we help him plant an autonomous church. (We've helped plant almost 25 new churches in the past few years) If a leader resonates with the vision God has given Seacoast and does not feel a call to preach we help him plant a new Seacoast campus.

5. If people are committing their lives to Christ and growing in their faith, what difference does it make who preaches, who controls the purse strings, what the name is over the door? I'm not sure God is overly concerned with the forms that we invent for how church is done (house church, mega-church, multi-site, community church) as long as we are obeying the Great Commission.

Video Venues... Good Problem, Terrible Solution.

Last week I commented on SteveMcCoy's blog about the latest sermon to be podcast by the Cussing Pastor. CP's church has grown and grown big. So... they are launching Video Venues as a solution to this problem.

Now... I want to be careful here. The CP serves God, not Bob. CP's community is different than mine, and its choices are its own.

But like Steve is now doing, I want to raise some questions. I'll try to do it carefully, tactfully, but still... some questions.

First, this is a great problem to have. When your community is healthy, growing and pushing out the walls, that's something to celebrate.
The obvious question is "what's next?"

I've written a lot about the role of pastor and how I believe that the larger a community gets, the harder it is to be an actual pastor as opposed to a manager, a CEO, an administrator... and eventually (both figuratively and now literally) a talking head.

It seems like the clear choice to me is to plant churches.

If you have the resources to plant a video venue, you have the resources to plant a church. If you have the need to do a video venue, I believe you have the need to plant a church...

I can think of very few reasons to choose a video venue over a church plant... and I don't like any of them. All I can say is that to me:

1. Video Venues seem to perpetuate the celebrity pastor model we (well... at least I am ) are trying to move away from. As Rick McKinley here in Portland is prone to say, "The celebrity-driven church must die." Now, while I'm sure that the CP would agree with that statement in principle, what good is your principle if your structures don't concur?
By setting up video venues, we not only perpetuate the structure that feeds the celebrity-driven church model... we plant it, water it and build a wall around it. We literally splice it into the DNA of our communities by going to great length, expense and trouble to ensure that everyone who wants to hear one single individual speak on a Sunday morning, can.

2. Video Venues seem to place an unbridgable distance between a pastor and his or her people, which I believe is unhealthy for a community. I've talked a lot about shepherds knowing those they are trying to shepherd, whether as a pastor or an elder. This is nigh unto impossible in the 1000+ person mega church... adding a Video Venue that meets 20 miles distant from the "main campus" does absolutely nothing to alleviate this. In fact, it says it is normal and good. I disagree.

3. In fact, Video Venues are unhealthy in the long run to the soul of both pastor and people. Doug Pagitt says something to the effect that with the way most do preaching, it's possible over the course of a couple of years for a person to hear literally hundreds of messages from a preacher and have that preacher hear not a single word from that person. At this point, pastors of large churches are literally firewalling themselves off from the people they are trying to love, shepherd and teach. How is this positive in any way, shape or form? The addition of Video Venues magnifies this problem 100 fold. Now, I not only am teaching people I have never and will never meet, I must place even more protections around myself to keep any one of them from ever feeling entitled to offer me feedback or even ask me a follow-up question.

I know that there are reasons why people want to do this- "We're growing! More people want to be part of our church than we can accomodate!" Fine. Time to set up a podcast so whoever wants to hear your sermon can, no matter how many seats you have in your space. Time to tell some of the Christians to grow up, step out in faith to something new and make room for someone not quite as far along the journey as them. Time to get off the celebrity train, say goodbye to the influence, power and resources (money) that having that many people "under" you brings. Time to invest heavily in other pastors, other/new communities. Time to plant churches.

Caveat: I know I come off sounding like I know it all. I know I don't. I realize that as the pastor of a church with just over a hundred people, I'm talking about institutions with multimillion dollar campuses and thousands of people that are headed by famous, well-known and respected pastors. Ok. I'm batting way out of my league... I don't feel like these churches are "apostate" or "shipwrecking their faith" or any of that kind of stuff. These are choices communities make, sometimes with spiritual motives, sometimes with financial ones, usually with a mixture of both. These choices are (on balance) either positive or negative for the Church here in America. I feel as though they will end up being negative... and I'm just saying so.

pastoral angst...

Yes... time for yet another in a series of "pastoral angst" posts. I should probably create a category just for these since they seem to crop up regularly and persistently.
I'm just glad to
a. have a place to express it (you, oh blog of mine)
and
b. have a community that can handle having a pastor who struggles to handle it.

At any rate, Sunday nights, post-gatherings, are when my psyche seems to hit overdrive. All my insecurities and dreck rise to the surface and... weird dreams and trouble sleeping.

I dreamed that I planned a week where we don't do much, you know- just casual. "What if we all just showed up?"

And of course, on that week- all the regulars I lean on (you know who you are) were missing and the place was packed out with people I had never seen before...

I had to get up on a stage so everyone could see/hear me. The band hadn't really put anything together. I started with "I hope you guys aren't expecting a whole lot today..." We weren't at the Lab- not sure what the venue was.
Someone led in the kids for an Advent thing, and they were all in costumes. "Someone has been working hard with these kids" I thought. It was the one comforting thing in amidst a frightening dream.

Frightening?

Well... you non-pastors out there probably won't get that, but it's akin to the "get to school and find out there's a test you haven't studied for... oh and you are naked" dream.

I think my brain is telling me that I
-love the fact that more and more people are doing evergreen things without me- just making stuff happen. I love that, especially with the kids.
-worry. I worry about connecting with new/newer people.

There were so many new faces AGAIN this week. Many that I don't get the chance to personally meet. I think I may have to give up the dream/hope that I will be able to connect with everyone, every week. That could happen when there were 30 of us... but not now.

I guess I just need to trust that the same dynamic of "people doing things" is working itself out in this area too- that people are meeting others, asking them their names, their stories, helping them feel safe, welcome... home.

I know that Sundays aren't the center of our community- at least they aren't supposed to be. But they are the entry point for many.

Sometimes, the new faces can feel like a weight. 5-10 new faces a week x 52 weeks means a lot of people I have shaken hands with, spoken with a bit, that our community has (I hoped) welcomed and made to feel at home... and we have never seen again. That's what I mean by weight... it adds up.

Okay- totally time to turn this post around.
The good news is that every week lately, it seems, I do see someone for the 2nd or 3rd or 4th time... and that's incredibly cool. My goal isn't to build a sunday service, but rather a community. A group of people who share life together, seek and worship God together, love the poor and each other.

And by God's amazing grace, that appears to be what's happening.

emerging church in portland oregon

If you are looking for an emerging church in the Portland, Oregon area, check out The Evergreen Community

"If I move, do I still get to go to your church?"

Kevin Cawley and I were chatting a bit about church planting and demographics/neighborhoods and such...
It all started with some comments by the Cussing Pastor (as Don Miller calls him...)

I made some observations and Kevin asked me:

"Are people in our current culture bound by geography within larger urban centers? If no-- which is what Mark seems to suggest-- is this something that you believe the Gospel seeks to correct and reform?

And, at Evergreen, if you have folks driving 30 min, do you suggest/require them to go elsewhere?"

More dialogue and my answers found here".

speaking presumptuously

In Ezra 8, Ezra makes a bold, if presumptuous statement:

And there by the Ahava Canal, I gave orders for all of us to fast and humble ourselves before our God. We prayed that he would give us a safe journey and protect us, our children, and our goods as we traveled. For I was ashamed to ask the king for soldiers and horsemen to accompany us and protect us from enemies along the way. After all, we had told the king, "Our God protects all those who worship him, but his fierce anger rages against those who abandon him." So we fasted and earnestly prayed that our God would take care of us, and he heard our prayer.

Now, in at least one place in Scripture (Dt 18:22) God censors those who speak presumptuously for Him, though the circumstances are a little different...

What gets me about this passage is that what Ezra said, while sounding good, is not exactly true. Does God protect all those who worship Him? I guess the Clintonian answer would be that it depends on your definition of "protect." I can think of certain OT prophets, certain disciples who experienced something different. We all love Hebrews 11 (The Faith Hall of Fame®!), but those last couple of verses are rarely the ones we focus our preaching on...

"Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground."

That having been said, I love that Ezra spoke this way. He had the...err... guts to lay God's character on the line, and to do it publically, for all to see. Ezra wrote a check... and God cashed it.

We're pretty reticent to do this, and probably with good reason.

We should be careful to not walk around saying that God will do things He hasn't guaranteed He will do.

And yet.

Sometimes, perhaps by the nudging of the Holy Spirit, I feel able to say "God will do this." It's rare, I try to hedge a little (my non-charismatic upbringing hobbles me), but sometimes, I think we need to get downright presumptuous

I can think of few endeavors in this life where this type of thing is called for more than in church planting. We step out in faith, walking away from sure things, good salaries, comfortable places to walk into... who knows what? There are absolutely no guarantees in planting churches. You can professionalize it all you want, you can test, and market, and focus group (things I think we can do without, but that's a different blog entry) and still whether anyone shows up or not, whether God shows up and is pleased to see people come into the Kingdom through our efforts, whether the risk "pays off" is completely a God thing.

We tell people- "We're gonna start a church! We'll call it (insert cool name here)! It will be church like it is supposed to be".

Presumption!

Just the act of church planting itself seems a bit presumptuous- akin to falling backwards with no visible means of support and hoping God will catch you.

I guess I'm writing this, because as I was reading this bit in Ezra today, it seemed as though (presumption coming!) God was telling me that someone who reads this blog needed to hear this. You are afraid to speak out and say, "If we do this, God will go with us- He will be behind and before and around us. And even though we can't see how it will all work out, it's still the right thing to do."

It's okay- go ahead and do it. Say those things. Talk that way. What you fear is presumption is really faith. Take the step, lean back, and trust the kind of God who watches His children say some really dumb things on His behalf sometimes... and still comes through for them.

a new hope... and a deep bullpen

One of our core values is "hope."

A rarely discussed part of this, in my mind, is the investment we as a community offer the next generation of leaders for the Church.

As I moved through my 20's and made my inevitable newbie mistakes in ministry, mistakes of pride and hubris as well as people and relationship mistakes, what I never heard was "it's okay- we are committed to you." The feeling I often got was that I was an interchangeable bible college/seminary unit, expendable and easily replaced.

It seems as though everyone "knew" I would be moving on, so they paid me (or failed to pay me) like I would and treated me like I would and thus created a self-fulfilling prophecy. There was a lot of talk about "passing the baton", but the day never seemed to come, and I don't think I ever even got to see that stupid baton...

What I really needed was a safe place to make those mistakes. What I needed was for someone to invest in me, not see me as simply an employee. I needed real entre' into the leadership of church, not just a title like "youth pastor" and the occasional job review. The only way to really train someone for leadership is, oddly enough, to actually let them lead.

Now, not all my ministry experiences were like this. In fact, there were some really notable exceptions... but, I think a lot of people have experienced this as they "paid their dues" in ministry. And I want to do my little part to change stuff like this.

I'm with C. Peter Wagner and others when they say that the absolute best way to reach people for Christ is to plant churches. I believe this... so we are going to plant churches. My dream is 20 churches in 20 years. I think we'll be partnering in helping to launch a church this year and hopefully launching our first true plant (core group/leadership from evergreen) in 2006.

The question is, who will pastor these churches? Who will help them come into existence?

I still believe in both the calling and the necessity of pastors. In thinking through issues of organic church planting, I know that the pastoral role needs desperately to be refocused, but I'm more convinced than ever that shepherds are essential for the body of Christ. God gave pastors to the church (Eph 4:11)... and if He did so, how will we nurture that in people? How will we call it out, take care of it, and invest in it?

One of the odder goals I have for church planting is never to need to look at a resume. It seems as though if we are doing our job "right," we as a community will be developing those that we will send out. Rich, our worship pastor, will be developing, discipling and training musicians and worship leaders. I and our other pastors and elders will be doing the same with those we will send out as pastors and elders- those who will teach and lead.

It's important, I think, to have a fairly deep bullpen if you are going to do things this way.

With that in mind, I'm always talking to people who may be interested in church planting, telling them to come to evergreen, become a part of the community, work their way into leadership, build trust with people, build themselves a congregation, and... take it from there!

And in preparation for future communities we launch out of evergreen, this is also why I'm eager to begin paying my associate pastor ASAP. I love the guy. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he'll be twice the pastor I am, and I can't wait to see that. I know how effective he's been while working full-time at an "outside" job this last year... and how hard it's been for him to do this. He's done his best at being a pastor after "normal" work hours and on his days off.

But, I know his heart is in full-time, vocational ministry and I want to invest heavily in him in a way I was rarely invested in. I don't think he'll be our first church planter or even our second... but after that? I just want to see this guy get as much experience and education, as much investment and support as we can possibly muster.

And I can say the exact same for our worship pastor (whom I selfishly hope we never "send out." I'd personally like to keep him to myself for a long, long time). I want to see his time freed up from working for "the man" down at the county courthouse, and devoted to developing musicians and worship leaders who will serve not only Evergreen, but generations of church communitites yet to be born.

Lord... may our bullpen be both deep and wide! May the men and women you are calling to give their lives to your church and your people and to forming new missional communities for the bringing of the Gospel to a hurting world find in us a home that will prepare them for ministry, trust them with that ministry and then bless and release them into ministry... and to start the process all over again.

I feel...

the weight of this pastoring thing.

We're past our one year anniversary now. I guess we're no longer "newlyweds" on this church adventure. It looks like (fingers crossed) God is going to allow us to keep doing this thing for at least a little while longer.

The more "successful" something gets, the heavier it gets.

That having been said, it's a good heavy. It's the heavy of lifting only (or almost only) what I as pastor am supposed to lift.

But more and more I understand where things begin to change for some people... how they go from that pure small thing to that big corporate thing- from soul to commerce and from people to program.

Here it is- when there are 25 people in your church community, when you are the only one getting paid, when your community is a mix of mature core group people and non-Christians who are being taken care of by those core group people, church is light as a feather. Yes, there's the question of "Will we make it?" But your concern is for you, your family, your finances and you can always go and do something else. Those core people will be okay, the non-christians they are taking care of will continue to be taken care and wouldn't mourn the passing of your little church experiment.

But as the community grows, things change. Now, you're beginning to pay others. They are depending on you. Screw up, and people suffer. There are non-Christians who are becoming a part of your community (and good thing too- isn't that the whole purpose?) who need answers, who need connection to others, and hopefully the community will reach out to them, fold them in, love them and teach them... but you've got to at least monitor the process, keep your finger on a lot of different pulses.

I guess the weight I feel is the weight of souls. Those who need to hear things explained in a simple, understandable way, and who need the next step. And those who walked away from the simple- the irreduceable mystery of the Gospel boiled down to alliterated bullet points and step-by-step Christianity. How in the world do you speak to both of those people at the same time?

I felt this accutely yesterday as we worked through a happy little passage in 1st John. The antiChrist vs Christ, liars vs truth, essential black and white vs the experienced reality of a grey existence. (Inner dialogue: Don't screw this one up Bob...)

It just feels like it's counting more and more and more. Like as offerings grow and we think about paying the other pastors on staff, now it's not just me and my family but they and theirs. It's not just a small handful of people but more and more hurt Christians who may not give church (and God?) another chance, more non-Christians who need to find Jesus in and through us. More people being fed and clothed by our community...

What if I teach them wrong? What if I lead them wrong? What happens then?

In all this I have been comforted this weekend by the presence of the Holy Spirit both in the passage of 1st John we worked through and with me personally. I think Pentecost came at the right time this year :)

Ultimately, Christ is the pastor of these people and the Holy Spirit is the teacher of their souls. I'm a channel, not the source. It's not up to me.

I can help or I can hurt, but in the final equation, it's not my gig. It's not about me.

Whew.

If we give in to the programmatic impulse, it will be at these times (which will happen again and again) when our size has grown larger than our organic approach has allowed us to structure for. These will be the times we're tempted to impose some structure, buy a program, import a methodology, rather than allowing ourselves as a community to actually feel the tension and figure out our response to that tension. Structure will come, but from the community praying about a need and then figuring out what feels right for them, not the leadership figuring out what the next cool thing in that area of ministry is... structure in response to growth, not in advance of it. I know that seems like bad business practice...

But I know there is no economy of scale when it comes to people's souls. It's the work of a craftsman, not an assembly line. You can educate people in groups, but you form them one-on-one-on-one (you, the other person, and the Holy Spirit). You can standardize your approach to making certain things... I just don't know if "disciples" is one of them. And that means this will never be simple. There is no magic bullet. For as many people as we have, that's how many pastoral approaches will be called for.


Before we started this thing I would flippantly throw out the phrase "If your church disappeared tomorrow, would anyone notice?" I never thought about the weight that would come if we were ever able to answer "yes."

be careful...

what you wish for...

I used to dream of doing pastoring in such a way that rather than spending 10 of my time with people and 90 percent of my time doing tasks (creating calendars, programming events... just basically trying to justify my paycheck) I would actually spend the majority of my time with people.

People.

Actually, I shouldn't really say that "I used to dream." Perhaps it ended up as a dream, but it really started as a conviction. The conviction was that I was hiding behind tasks and that ministry would be great if it weren't for all the people.

What a wild attitude for a pastor.

Anyway, when I finally came to grips with the fact that deep down, in my heart of hearts that's how I really felt, I began to understand it was time for a change. The problem is, I existed within a system that by and large rewarded the task-based activity and made the people-based activity a low priority (unless you were meeting with people to talk about, recruit for, debrief from a task-related program type thing).

I knew I'd never be able to change unless I first began to change the structure of my own ministry experience. This, in a nutshell, is what lies behind my drive for non-programmatic church, organic church... simple church. Less structural holes in which to drop your time, money and effort. More space on the calendar waiting to be filled with activity that actually matters...

Why do I mention all this, oh blog of mine?

I find myself with four people-related appointments on my calendar today and an unfinished sermon. (Does anyone else find the simplest concepts, like "love each other" the hardest to preach on???)

Today will be a day of listening, of desperately trying to be present to people, straining my ears to hear what God has been doing and saying in people's lives and helping them to discern what the next step might possibly be.

That takes a lot of energy for this INFP. Maybe it's the I (Introvert) in there, but somehow, I now find that though rewarding, spending time with people like this is also my biggest challenge. It takes tremendous energy for me. It takes more out of me than anything I do, including preaching. Give me two appointments during the day, and if we have people over for dinner at night, chances are I'm useless.

I hate being useless.

I hate having people over, or going out to coffee with someone and being in that sluggish, mind-not-really-working, bob-not-really-present-place.

So I guess, all this to say- be careful what you wish for. We talk about our dream jobs, about doing the things that we were put here on earth to do. No one ever said doing your dream job would be a piece of cake or that it would come easy. In fact, doing your dream job may take a lot more out of you than doing that nothing job you hate. It may require more of you, much more of you, than you thought.

Just so you know.

bearing witness...

So... I want to bear witness this morning.

It can be done.

You can do church without people tearing each other apart.

You can hear what God is saying and listen to one another as well... and perhaps even hear God through one another.

You can plant a church without a big chunk of dough.

You can have elders who love one another and love people and love hanging out with one another and whose meetings are not 4 hours of nails-on-chalkboard torture, but are actually fun times of talking about what's best for the community, what they hear people saying and desiring and how those two things go together really, really well.

You don't need a denomination, but you can connect with other churches in friendships and cooperation. It doesn't have to be competition.

You can do church and be a pastor without it killing you.

It can actually feed your soul.

But you might have to change some things...

I bear witness.