Church Creation

Meet In The City

2008-07-21T15:56:00.001-04:00

Most leaders with a heart for starting churches realize that the population shift toward the cities is a long term trend that doesn't appear to be slowing. In North America, certainly there are some who are moving out from the cities to the smaller towns for a quieter gentler life style. And the potential for tele-commuting helps facilitate this. However, that is still only a trickle of population compared to the expansion into larger cities.

Starting a church in, or on the edge of a city is hard enough. But the cost of permanent property on which to build a traditional church building will continue to inflate. Even if you could afford a piece of dirt on which to build you still have to find the money for the building itself. This is still being done. It can be done. However, the reality is that the days appear to be numbered for that concept.

So, you want to start a church? Where will you meet? In a rented school? And how long will that serve you? Suppose your answer is 3 to 5 years. If you are starting from scratch you will need to gather up enough money to have that 3-5 acre site on the edge of a North American town paid for, or at least mostly paid for, before you build. Land costs vary everywhere but just suppose for a moment that land will cost $250,000 an acre. That means that your new church has to gather up about a million bucks before you get the shovel in the ground. The price might be less in a smaller center but it will be more in a big city. Now, does that scare you? It would me! Consider the expectation of the supporters from beyond your church that they will help you out for a few years but not perpetually. You have to find a way to support yourselves. Paying rent and saving up at the same time is rather daunting.

An alternative is to think in terms of permanently renting a space. In another post we will look at that option.

If you are going to start a church you will have to exhibit a large measure of faith. And at the same time you will have to do so within the framework of reality. You have heard of exceptional circumstances where some generous donor covers the cost of a choice property. When that happens it is wonderful! But that is the exception. Creating a plan based on the exception is unwise.

The long term health of your church will be impacted by the questions about where you meet. If you start in one general framework such as a high school gymnasium or auditorium, your people will expect that someday they will have some place permanent like that in which to meet. Only, they probably will expect something nicer.

I am not supplying answers here. I believe there are some answers and I will get to some of them in due course. For today, all I want you to consider is the need to formulate an answer to the question, "Where will we meet in 5 - 10 - 20 years?"

On another day I will suggest some answers. Stay tuned!

Think and Rethink

2008-03-01T21:16:00.001-05:00

There is a big buzz right now on emphasizing words like "authentic" "organic" and "natural." I think this is all part of the "pomo" thing -- post-modern for the uninformed. The resistance to things that are systematized without a heart has overshadowed the things that are systematized with a heart. Since people want something with a heart many are now rejecting anything that is systematized. That is the old "throw out the baby with the bathwater" problem.

As soon as it appears organized, it also appears suspect to some. But when you think about it that is such an over simplification. If six friends agree to get together at Starbucks at 11:00 on Thursday morning to muse about the fact that the world is so plastic and insincere, they are forgetting that the calendar just organized their life. The calendar always has. Systems and calendars. Sorry people, there is no such thing as absolute spontaneity.

If one accepts that premise then the discussion shifts from avoiding structure to discussing which structure can most effectively meet needs. Structures tend to resist change. So it is important that we identify the best structure based on a kind of rolling calendar. And sure, let’s get together at Starbucks on Thursday morning at 11 am to start the discussion.

Super Stars

2008-02-26T14:39:00.001-05:00

I hear the Spice Girls are at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto tonight. I hear but I don't care, except for this -- it got me thinking about the concept of the superstar.

In the church realm, we love our heroes as well. The leaders at the top of the food chain capture our attention. They have the moxy and the manpower to do so using their podcasts. Good for them!

My problem is that we must remember the realities. Few of us are superstars. And we must live in the zone God has fitted us for. That doesn't mean we dumb down our actions to mediocrity. It does mean we realize that in the grand scheme of things Google Page Rank doesn't count for much. It is the last that will be first in the end of the day. Surprises are coming.

My bigger problem as it relates to starting churches is that many have fallen into the trap of believing that the church starting leader thinks of himself as a star in waiting. Or at least those who are looking for church starting leaders are looking for stars in formation. Bad idea.

Bad idea because you cannot predict with certainty who will become the next Rick Warren or moving in on his heels the next Mark Driscoll or even the next James MacDonald. They all have some things in common. They started their churches. Their churches all got big over time. They are still in the churches they started. The list goes on. But if you were to go back in history before their fame you would find many of the people around them -- probably the majority -- would not have voted them the next in line for the superstar mantle. I wonder if any would have passed a church planter's assessment without being put on probation. I doubt it.

I believe that the quest for the next superstar is ill-advised --or more strongly stated -- stupid. It is a waste of hope and resources.

The far better thing to do is to create a seedbed in which all get the nourishment to grow to their potential. Time will tell who gets to the top. There is no sense in trying to pick and choose. Work with a coalition of the willing and the teachable. If the next superstar bolts and develops his own seedbed, so be it. That is a good thing. Since everyone learns more from failure than from success, if they fail in their quest for significance nothing is lost. Education is gained.

Creating a "franchiseable" superstar system has proven over and over again to be the best idea. This approach takes more ordinary people and gives them to the tools to put out the "fries" at the same quality every time. They don't have to be good cooks. They just need to know when to push the buttons. Granted, this isn't fulfilling if the dictums come from on high and micro-manage. But within a proven framework, it is very possible to create success that rhymes with other successes.

We need to get off of the hero worship and onto creating better systems so that more ordinary people can obtain more extraordinary results. We need an army of church starting leaders who more quietly grow new churches one at a time. If a few emerge and take over the Spice Girl slot at the ACC that is OK with me. Anyone want to buy my tickets? I will scalp them in advance.

Security and/or Freedom

2008-01-17T07:54:00.001-05:00

One of the key motivators that keeps people from starting churches is the desire for security.

The perception is that the church start situation is insecure and therefore to be avoided by all but the most hardy. Potential church starting leaders conclude they are not that hardy and therefore reject the possibility out of hand.

I think this one deserves much more than a blog entry. I just did a quick Google search on "security 'church planting' -eternal" and found that I have "only" 43,200 articles to scan. But then that is much better than "church planting" which gives me 675,000 hits. And just by the way, last month only about 10,000 searches occurred on the Internet for "church planting" but nobody added the word security to their church planting search. And also btw you should always use the advanced search capability if you want to get the best results in the first few pages of a web search.

All that just tells me that while a key inhibitor for church starting leaders is the perceived lack of security, virtually nobody is trying to eliminate the inhibitor.

Note to self: "Gary, you have to add this subject to your to do list."

Here is a start. Freedom and security are strange bed-fellows. There is no more secure place than a prison. Free room and board. Defined schedule. Homogeneous expectations. As secure as it gets. But apparently not desirable. I have never experienced staying there but visiting is enough to know a prison is an unhappy place. Of course, that is an extreme portrayal. But it is a metaphor.

Most Pastors will accept a secure job in a church at which they would not otherwise become a member. How do you spell, "prison"?

Most Pastors have an idea of how they would structure and conduct a church if they had the opportunity to do it with freedom. News flash. That is what happens when you start a church. You get to "put your money where your mouth is!"

There are a lot of things in life that are highly over-rated. One of them is security. And security often comes at the price of freedom. Freedom is a highly under-rated experience. For starters let's get our eyes on the ball of freedom and off the distraction of security.

Now that is just a small start on the subject. I won't even know everything I know about that subject until I write it down and read it back to myself. So I had better keep that subject simmering. It will come to a boil sooner if you help me by poking me with some questions.

One simple internal decision to pursue freedom first and set security further back on the list will start someone on a wonderful, colorful adventure into starting a church. Will that someone be you?

Why Fail?

2008-01-09T09:48:00.001-05:00

"Why didn't I meet you in 1998! I could have taught most of what I learned in my Seminary classes on starting churches. But all this is different."

I have trained some of the sharpest church starting pastors I have ever met in the last few years. It is a common theme. Somehow they didn’t feel they got what they needed in school.

Out in the real world there is a fear of failure. There often is some experience they are overcoming that has led them to believe they have already failed.

My friend from the opening quote further said, "Never mention my name to Prof XYZ. I think he hates me."

I am confident that professor thinks well of him, not has he suspects. You wouldn't believe how experienced and talented he is. You also wouldn't believe how deeply he feels the failure as he now lives on secular dollars. Mind you. Of the hundreds he works around, he consistently rates as the #1 employee. But he still feels like a failure.

What am I offering him that is different? Here is one thing ...

He never understood that to succeed in starting a church you have to learn to manage the perception of rejection. When someone says, "No thanks" you have to learn to not take its as personal rejection. It is only a statement that they are not ready to respond at that point in their life.

They never taught my friend that in seminary and he is recovering from the damage of experiencing that reality. Perhaps the concept was mentioned but not emphasized. The inspiring stories of wonderful successes may have squeezed the hard messages out.

It is OK to have others think you are failing as long as you are succeeding in terms that the Judge understands and will use to evaluate our fruit on the Day.

Chicken or Beef?

2007-12-08T08:15:00.001-05:00

What would you like? For me it is a simple answer. Today I'm thinking chicken. Tomorrow I may prefer beef.

For some people this becomes a cosmic question. Some won't eat red meat. Some point out that it takes less vegetation to to raise a chicken than a cow and that leaves more good food for humans. Some will just count calories and cholesterol.

Me? I just want lunch.

I think of this "chicken or beef" discussion as a metaphor for what happens in church.

Someone might come to my home discovery event but not to my Sunday services. Someone might say they accept Jesus but not the church. Someone might say they like this kind of church and not that.

The other day I got an email from a man who wanted to tune me up. I have never met him. But he was quite sure from our church website that we were off base and he wanted to supply the correct information. He asked a question. So I gave him a forthright answer by email since that was the only contact information he gave. In the essence of it I think we were in agreement. But I never heard back from him. I guess I will never know. And I haven't got my fingers crossed that I will ever see him in church. Nor do I have the inclination to figure out what he wanted.

When you are starting a church you can invest way too much time trying to satisfy the chicken eaters or the beef eaters. But you won't convert many.

Try this question as a prequalifier, "If I could show you why our "beef" is a viable option to the "chicken" you had in mind, is there any reason why you wouldn't want to give us a try or at least hear our story?" If they mumble too much in response, just move on. Be nice. Keep the door unlocked from your side. Even leave it wide open. But move on. There is someone else who is more ready. You have to find the person who is ready to show more response.

If someone is willing to come to your "beef" restaurant it doesn't mean they will also frequent your "chicken" restaurant. Don't assume they will. A person could be open to attending one kind of event but not another. It is really difficult to get carry over from one kind of event to another. They probably won't tell you why they will come to your "chicken" house and not your "beef" barn.

There is much to be said on this phenomenon. But for today get used to the idea that whatever you do, some are going to like it and some aren't. When you talk to more people, more often and in more ways you will get more response. Identify those who want what you offer. Spend much less time trying to convince people they need what they don't want.

Never try to put pants on a pig. If you do the pig will get angry and you will just get dirty. How is that for introducing a third option? Would you like chicken, beef or pork? Shall we add emu to the menu?

It will never end if you invest too much time on the road of trying to convince people and not enough time on the road of identifying the people who are ready for what it is that you offer. Don't get distracted; offer what you offer; let the people decide on their own.

Some day when the conversions dribble in you will understand why they were so resistant. For not, find those who can be found and work with them.

As for me, I still just want lunch.

What If My Last Name Isn't Graham?

2007-12-07T12:56:00.001-05:00

Evangelism. The word calls up many different images depending on your life experience. That is somewhat like the word "church." "Church" itself is somewhat in disrepute as a word. The problem is that people narrowly define the word based on their past limited experience. When I invite someone to "church" who has no positive internal definition of the term it is rather like inviting them to go to the "store." Which store? We all know there are good ones, bad ones, big ones and small ones. We all know there are stores that sell things we might be interested in and stores that carry product lines we would never be bothered looking at. If there is only one kind of store in town the ambiguity is eliminated. But that it is simply not the case very often.

Evangelism. Store. Church. Worship. Television. The categories are so broad and they are not sufficient descriptors for people to make involvement decisions without more information.

In North America we are running into a buzz saw. In many contexts, fewer and fewer people have residual Christianity. Fewer and fewer people have warm feelings about "The Church In The Wildwood." But we are still singing, "Oh! Come. Come. Come. Come. Come. Come. Come." (For some readers, that old song won't even hit the radar screen. Oh well, one has to show his age sometimes.) We assume there is a transference of a rich and positive definition simply contained in the word "church." Not! That "place is so dear to my childhood" not theirs.

If an individual has a positive attitude towards the gospel message even though they have not accepted the grace of God for themselves, they are more likely to be open to attend your stadium sized event, or even your 10 week course tacked on the end of a nice dinner.

And make no mistake about it, there are thousands of people ready for just such an invitation! The primary thing that makes an evangelistic program work is not the preacher, it is not the message-now hear me out. The message may be spoken passionately, accurately and articulately by a communicator totally in tune what the Holy Spirit. But if there is no one there to listen nobody gets converted. The active ingredient is not the preacher, the message, the venue or the food. Is it the inviter. When a large number of people receive an earnest invitation, those who are willing and ready respond positively. In a sense, they are converted before they ever get to the meeting. Their decision to expose themselves to this "God stuff" is a critical step along their way to full and free salvation.

However, the vast majority of people who respond in this context are those who at some point in their life have already heard about or known the gospel message. The initiative to nudge them forward to receiving Christ is more often than not more of a re-evangelism than it is raw evangelism. For quite some time now in North America we have tuned our efforts and abilities in the evangelism arena for more of a re-evangelism process than a pre-evangelism process.

Sometimes a pre-evangelism process is necessary. I can hear some responding, "That is exactly what we do with our 'backyard barbecue in the park' once a year." Almost always at best this kind of program jumps from an attempt to start new relationships straight to the raw goods of the gospel message. Or no content is given at all except an invitation to the "store." They know what the "store" looks like from the outside (unfamiliar) and find it hard to get themselves through the front door. (They can't usually see in the windows.)

On the other hand, working with them one-on-one does not bring the most powerful dimension into play -- seeing the love between believers. John 13:35 does not talk about our love for the unbeliever. It talks about the unbeliever seeing the love between believers. In some way, you have to get them to a meeting.

So the issue moves to defining the location and agenda of a meeting which does more than demonstrate normal social intercourse and general human interaction. The meeting has to be structured in a way that they see believers in loving unity.

I will have to unpack that concept later. There are many other elements to consider in this discussion. I plan to get to them over time. But to draw some conclusions here and start a new thought process for many here are some ideas.

1. Understand that your vocabulary must be defined in terms that people understand. My love for the church must be put in terms that people understand. What exactly is it that I love about it? Develop the vocabulary that connects. Don't think you have to be "cool." In fact, that could be an inhibitor. Just be real. If, for example, "sermon" means boring lecture in your contact's mind, give practical fact based illustrations of what you got out of a recent "sermon." Get the wording correct.

2. If you have to create an interpretive buffer before you take someone to a church meeting you have a rough road ahead. That is, if you have to explain terms, attitudes, dress, traditions or whatever before the person gets to appreciate the main meeting, it is possible. Do it. But then, why not start a new church instead without the layers of ambiguity?

3. Get them to something. Invite them to your evangelistic meeting. Invite them to your dinner meeting. Invite them to your home with some Christian friends. Just invite them. Most won't come at the first invitation. Stay at it.

4. The following point leaves the most powerful factor out (love between brothers) but do it anyway. Put stuff in their hands and on their screens. Show them your favorite websites. Watch "John The Gospel" or "The Passion" wth them. Get the discussion started.

Your name doesn't have to be Graham. You don't have to have the gift of evangelism. You just have to replicate the concern of the Shepherd who with urgency leaves the 99 to find the one.

Out Reach or In Suck

2007-12-04T14:21:00.001-05:00

I just got back from a great meeting. I love it when I can go to a meeting and come away with 1 good idea. Today I got at least 6.

A new friend Josh invited me to hear about h2o and that was great. I haven't experienced it first hand but they had me at "Hello." I am buying as soon as I finish this blog entry.

But as I drove home in the car I got thinking. I love words and the words Josh used in passing were "In Suck." His premise is that we are better at that that at "Out Reach." Actually, I don't think we (in general) are good at either. Some are now eschewing (now there is an old word) the word "outreach." It seems we gave up on the word "evangelism" some time ago. And we never liked the word the bad guys use in discussion of our efforts - "proselytization."

We got our eye off the ball when we just decided to focus on those we deemed to be "seekers" so that word is now in decline. The way I see it the Bible describes Jesus as the seeker.

We drifted into the word "marketing" and some still think that is OK. But, and check this out in any Marketing 101 text, "marketing" means 4 Ps - Product, Price, Place and Promotion. That is "marketing" is concerned with adapting all 4 to come up with a "marketing plan." I don't think you want to fiddle with the first 2 Ps. I certainly don't.

I guess we are still left with "advertising" but that one misses the point. You can only effectively advertise something someone is looking for. It reminds me of the graffiti in the washroom, "Jesus is the answer!" to which someone wrote "What is the question?" You can advertise a solution to something if the people you are attempting to convince are looking for a solution to a perceived problem.

Only those who know they have a problem need a solution. Well, that is not exactly correct. Only those who have a problem and know it are looking for a solution. They need the solution whether or not they are looking for it.

The person who knows they have a problem doesn't care if it is "in suck" "outreach" "marketing" or "advertising" by which the identify the solution. My view is that we need to get off our insider talk and figure out how to find ways to get their attention about their need and then the solution. What they want right now is probably not what they need.

They just think that what they want is a solution. Probably it is more like a medication. Medication often masks the symptoms of an underlying problem. If there is an ache, Aspirin or its multitude of derivatives and cousins will make the pain go away and the real problem has to take care of itself. Thankfully, in our wonderfully made bodies, the body usually heals itself in time. Foolishly, we think the Aspirin did the healing. But with the real pain of facing eternity the problem never goes away on its own.

I learned a good thing from Jerry Falwell when he said that he knew more about the sovereignty of God when he was young but that, over time, he had learned that the number of people who came to Christ under his ministry was directly proportional to the number he talked to.

Our responsibility is to "all." Their responsiveness or lack thereof is not totally in our hands. Definitely there are good and bad ways to approach people. But sitting around discussing methods is the enemy if we don't approach people in any way whatsoever.

Most are not going to get it no matter what we do. More will get it if we learn by doing and talk to more people more often in more ways. We might be bad at it. But with most things in life you have to be bad at it before you get good at it. And with the right sense of urgency, conviction and concern mixed with a listening ear we will get much better over time.

Whatever it is "in suck" or "out reach" I am in on it until we find something more efficient at getting the job done. Invest a lot of time testing to figure that out and you won't go wrong.

Thanks, Josh! I now have some new things to test.

What Is Harder Than Learning New Technology?

2007-12-03T10:54:00.001-05:00

It gives me a headache. Every day. It seems to me that there is always some new thing I need to learn. I want you to understand that I am one old dog and the world is demanding very new tricks of me every week. I find it hard to keep up. Can you hear the of whine in my voice?)

A long time ago I decided that since the computers were going to take over the world I may as well stay a step ahead and learn how to master them. I invest at least a half hour of every day learning something new that relates to my computer.

I feel like an ignoramus. There's so much that I simply don't know about hardware, software and the Internet. On the other side, people ask me all the time, "How do you know so much about this?" Perhaps I know more than many people but there are always a steady stream of others that I am learning from.

Technology. Yuck. Oh really? I am actually writing this blog today using my voice recognition software. That makes it go very quickly. In fact I will spend less than 10 minutes on his little rant. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? (Answer: good.)

I have so many friends and contacts of my generation who didn't start with their computer early enough. In fact, I had one computer illiterate friend who told me he was going to take some time on his two week vacation and learn everything. He had no idea how stupid that sounds. But I think he figured it out on this vacation!

What is harder than learning new technology?

Not learning new technology in a timely fashion.

As our son Lee would say, "Suck it up Princess; you're not dead yet!" The only thing that makes sense when you are driving on the information highway is to do your best to keep up with the traffic.