Please read this Article before you Judge me. :-)
---------------------------
Hi Robin
Appreciate the reply very much. I accept the criticism as well as I do have a tendency to focus on the negative as I analyze and chew on things.
Robin, I am not opposed to large churches. I am for healthy churches of any size. I was excited to hear about the healthy large church you participated in, and I am certain that such healthy large churches are not the exception.
However, I do not accept that a church is healthy simply because it is large. Nor is it true that a smaller church tends to be more healthy. We have a unique context where I minister and live. The cost of current popular church planting models is concerning to me. We simply aren't multiplying fast enough, because the model we follow is not affordable, nor doable, with our demographics here. There is a great myopia in church planting. I speak as an insider here. Most church planting associations promote one model, and no other.
We are a very rural area. We have NO mega churches in the Province. Actually, no Mega churches in any of the three eastern Provinces of Canada. There is only one church of about 1000 in the three provinces. Rarely do churches, of any kind, reach 250-300 in any province. We are simply too small, too rural, and too poor, to use such Large budget church planting models. Combined dual family income on PEI is about 40,000 CDN (About 32,000 US). Our capital city has only 35,000 people, a small town by your standards in Florida. Our existing churches spend almost all their budget (90%), on ourselves (Staff, building, heating etc)
Many (No exaggeration) rural churches are closing all around me, and many more are simply too small to keep going as they are "doing" church now. I want people to realize that a small church is not dead, and a church with no building is still a "Church" and they can still be vibrantly missional.
My "Beef" is that people here read books about planting Large Churches, and get salivating at the concept. They think they have the latest "something" that might work here. The demographics are wrong here. The demographics of our region dictate that it impossible for these models to work here. Churches will be smaller, have to be smaller, and they must be more economical in function - Or we simply will not have a multiplication movement.
Our churches are planting about one church every 10 years with a cost of around $550,000-$750,000 for the first 3-5 years of start up. In Canada, we need to plant two (2) new churches per decade (10yrs), just to keep our current number of congregations. We need to plant three (3) per decade, to actually advance the kingdom.
In World Mission circles, the size of a church planted is never an issue of discussion. Here in the west, it seems to be the chief discussion. World mission people are simply saying, plant churches. Churches of any size, everywhere, in every community, every segment of society, but , for God's glory, just plant as many churches as we can. The focus is "Multiplication" while in the West it is more focused on "Mega" - largeness.
Often, the idea here is that a church plant has to be huge, or it has failed. No Denomination has planted a large new church yet in three provinces. If a new church is not large, it has failed. People look down their nose at the concept of small church plants. I am trying to generate interest in looking at more low-Budge models for church planting. My Family is doing a Low-Budget church plant now. Fully self supported by the team involved, with no outside funds. It is working. People are watching us closely. Saying little, but they are sizing me and this Low-Budget method up big time. We rent a facility Valley Christian Church Link.
I am promoting that we stop obsessing about the size of our churches and focus on more multiplication, using more methods. Our income and rural demographics demand that we use simpler more cost effect models.
Until we as leaders present a more manageable strategy, it will be difficult for us to get more more people involved in church planting. Our Church planting association is having an extremely difficult time recruiting a new Church planting team leader for a new church plant in Halifax. Been looking for 2 years now. What they are doing is not wrong. However, what they are doing scares the socks off any Canadian Ministers and leaders. High expectations, low-pay, the reputation of your skills and ability are on the line- determined and judged by whether you have 100 people or 50 people in the end. So they have now been looking in the US for some time.
Church planting as we do it now is relegated to an "Elite Group". There is little "can do" attitude about church planting in the region. It's now the work of "experts". Theologically, I do not see that as healthy, nor correct. But in practice this is the mentality we have. My church planting team in Africa consisted(s) of self-supporting farmers. No salary from me, or any western church, nor their own local churches. Poor farmers, with little education, earning their own income, planting churches using low-budget strategies. But here, people have their "hands off' church planting because what we do is so complicated, costly, and demanding, it frankly scares people from being involved. Only "super-duper" servants have those "skills".
I long to see many more people bringing church to lost people, especially in these small, poor rural areas. These new churches will probably not have church buildings and hired full time staff. Why should they not still be given a church? Can we not be creative and plant self-supporting churches that will require less expense? We are doing it at VCC now, so it can be done.
I think we have an amazing opportunity before us. I have been so excited at the potential here, that I am bubbling about it. But we have to change our strategy to tap into it. Nothing will happen if we continue on the same path with the same approach. We will lose the harvest.
I would love to see ten new small fellowships, with ten people meeting, lead by ten church planters. That is doable for us here. We have people who can do this. This, in my opinion, is a better strategy than having one church planting family, planting one church, in one community, once every 10 years, with 50 people. The potential for multiplication in the ten groups is greater I think. Our fellowship is going backwards as congregations close. But we are financially strapped to plant using our current model. Really, no denomination knows how to do it well in this context. That is what I heard a group of church planters, from all denominations say as a Church planting meeting I was involved in. We are church planting out on the very edge, the very outer limit, of our sustainability, and this leaves no room for slightly smaller than expected results or success.
Anyway, Robin I am not attacking Large churches. I’m for church planting of simpler kinds.
Now the article. Notice I did not comment on the trend? The trend is More attending a smaller number of larger churches. My only question – Go back and look at it again - is why are the reasons people said they where drawn to the large church. Also some of the very same criticisms? When asked what they did not like about the large church they listed many of the same things? How can that be? I am just wondering how you explain that contradiction?
Our Capital city churches are still very small, under 300. Churches of 250-300 are very few in all three Maritime Provinces of Canada. It would be only about 5% of churches. So I have not ever attended a "Large Church" by Florida standards. For most of us the largest churches we know within 50 miles around us would not be more than 100 -150 people. 80% are less than 70 in attendance on PEI.
Anyway, Not sure I explained myself very well. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. Give it to me when you feel I need it. I love the dialogue. This was good, and I would like to see more of this.
God Bless Robin
No comments:
Post a Comment