Sad Possibility for the Establishment In America

I saw this video about churches that died in europe! It's too bad the church planting movement didn't catch on there-4% geez!

Establishing Respect for Leadership

Recently I had a situation where someone wanted to sing a solo in church. This person showed up for the rehearsal and began singing. The problem was that the song was not up to par with my standard of music. I had to graciously tell this person that the song was not yet ready and that I wanted to help get it there. I tried to arrange to meet with the person in order to give lessons and perfect the tune-the person refused. After a few offers on my part I finally gave up. Today I found out that that person was griping and complaining about me and my decision. Fortunately the person who told me about it had corrected that person with a Godly rebuke that seemed to put the fire out.
This is one of the many weaknesses about the established church. It takes a lot of time to set the standard that you as a leader desires to uphold. Of course the standard should be set immediately; however, the respect for that standard and your decision is a long time coming. When multiple leaders come in and out of a church with different ideas of leadership it takes a long time for things to change. With the short stay that church leaders are averaging now a days it's easy to see why people don't think that they should change their views.
How do you teach people to respect the decisions of the leadership? How do you help them realize that those decisions are based on a genuine concern for their well being as well as the well being of the body as a whole? My time in the establishment is winding down now. I know that the best way to correct people is one on one! Talk to them! Love them! Communicate your vision for the church and begin making steps to see it through. If they buck than leave. Don't waste your life trying to change those that "don't need a doctor, or throwing your pearls before the swine."

Here's how I would do things if I went to an established church. These seven points should be communicated to the church when you are preaching in view of a call.

1. Don't touch the music for awhile.
2. Improve the quality of the facilities and youth/children's ministries.
3 Improve quality of family ministries as a whole.
4. During this time slowly change the service to be more conducive to everyone (if need be.)
5. Hire or let go anyone that's not on board by this point that needs to be.
6 Over all you should maintain direct communication with everyone so that they know where you are heading at all times. Talk to the perceived "Krap heads" first.
7. Quickly begin community outreach projects-helping/loving people that can't help back.
8. Teach the Bible-be topical and expository.
9. Jesus should always be the focus.

These seven steps will get the ball rolling big time!

Read "Developing the Leader Within You" and start climbing those five levels of leadership with everyone in a very intentional manner!

Many times the people that are ministry heads are volunteers. These are the people that you should spend extra time with: loving, teaching, casting vision, guiding...etc. Do not slide on anything that's below standard quality ministry (this point is hard because the music is typically really stinky-you should take a step to arrange the service in a better way as well as play prerecorded music that sets the mood well.) It will take you about a year to really make a huge improvement in the music. You need to treat the music side of things like you're baby sitting someones kid-it's that dear to every one's heart I promise! They have to be assured that you can and will take good care of it.

The Fellowship of the Hills

I recently visited a church plant in Tallahassee, Fl called The Fellowship of the Hills. Over all, it could be considered a typical contemporary church plant. However, there are two things that struck me as slightly different.

Thing #1-They are what they call a "Parachute Plant." There are three families on the original plant team. These guys simply moved to Tallahassee and started making contacts and recruiting visitors and support. After only a few months they had several hundred in attendance-mostly college age (even though the guys are 40 and 50 something.) There was the usually summer slump that every church has while we were visiting. The Pastor I spoke with (Pastor Brian) mentioned that there are pros and cons to having a core group (or launch team). Con's being making sure that everyone is on board with the vision. It would seem easier to bring people on board as your doing the ministry rather than before you do it. Of course I can see the good thing about having a core group as well.

Thing #2-They don't have a "lead" Pastor. This is first time for me honestly. Of all the churches that are effective in our country, I can only think of one that doesn't have a pastor personality driving it. Everywhere else there is a name of a pastor that goes along with the success of the place. My only fear with the pastor personality is what happens when that pastor leaves? Vines leaves First Jax and things get crappy. Adrian Rodgers leaves then dies and his church just about falls apart! I am glad to meet a church staff that's really a team. Pastor Brian definitely made it clear that they have a pastor team that operates on level ground.

I gained a lot of insight from my short visit there about leadership! The leader creates the atmosphere!

later

Kill or be Killed

There are three types of churches in America today: ones that are brand new, ones that don't want to change, and ones that do want to change. How do you differentiate between the ones that want to change and the ones that don't want to? You tell me! I don't have a clue. More times than not I've heard of churches that say that they want to change then buck when it comes time. There are two different ways that churches "buck": they become reluctant followers or they fire you! In the words of Joe Seneca from the movie Crossroads: "Either way they both mean the same thing-Dead!"
There are two scenarios in regards to those churches that refuse to change. The first, is the unmoving church that is one-third filled with people that want change. These are a very frustrated bunch of people that have been waiting around for years hoping for a turn around. Now if those "good" people manage to hire a "good" pastor and they also decide to hang in there and refuse to give up, they will see change somewhere between 10 and 20 years (that's how long it takes for the new pastor to gain a high level of leadership, and for a few people to die!)
The second scenario is the church that, once again, has a small group of "good" people. However, the only problem is the church down the street is growing, moving, and reaching the world around it while their church is still fighting for the 50's. The problem here is it's way to easy to leave. Those "good" people may stay for five years, but sooner or later their going to give up. And who can blame them? After all, what are they giving up on? It's not Jesus or the Kingdom, that's for sure!
Our area is filled with desperate churches that can't get a pastor to come. A college professor told me that music ministers are getting out of the ministry by the loads because all they encounter are "pastor killers!" He said: "People in churches just aren't very nice anymore!" A growing number of Southern Baptist churches are dying today! Why? There's been thousands of books written about the why! It boils down to their excuse as to why they are dying. Every Sunday morning they sing "Send a great Revival to my soul" then leave deaf, dumb, and blind to their world around them.
This blog is dedicated to church planting around the world. There are others that might choose to go to that little brick one hundred year old church. Keep in mind the wisdom of: don't waste your life! Does that little church really want to change? That's up to you to decide.

Help me think through my ideas.

For this post I would like to submit my own model for church and ministry and maybe a few folks wouldn't mind helping me see its strengths and weaknesses. I have been inspired greatly by the book Simple Church and one of the churches profiled in the book, Northpoint Community Church. If you are familiar with their stuff or the book some of what I am saying will sound very familiar. I doubt I will cover all my bases in one blog post, but this will be a good overview. Also, before I get started, let me say that no model is perfect and we need to be careful allowing our vision of a model cloud our vision for people. All models are only servants to the gospel and the cultures we seek to reach. With that being said, let me begin.

The mission of this church in my mind would be "to help each person in our community discover God, discover purpose, and discover impact." If you are familiar with the Simple Church concepts and Northpoint's "steps" idea then you will see them pretty quickly in that statement. If not, let me clarify. The church is really about helping people do three things: discover God, discover purpose, and discover impact. I think any mission statement or strategy should really be a re-wording and fleshing out of the simple command from Jesus, "Make Disciples." I think that these three elements describe the process by which a person becomes a disciple. I think it will be obvious how i think this all works out as I explain more details below.

Each of those statements not only describes one of three major steps in the process of discipleship, but they also describe the tree different kinds of events (or environments for you Northpoint disciples). The Discover God Event is what most people would call the Sunday morning worship environment. It's goal is to help the people who attend discover and develop a friendship with God or "discover God" for short. This gathering is focused on new or weak believers with the idea that if when you are teaching to this demographic you will also find it easy to connect the dots for unbelievers. (So, while the focus is on new believers, great effort will be made to make sure everything is explained in the language of a radically unsaved person). The idea really is to meet the spiritual needs of a person who had never sat foot in a church but had recently be led to Christ by a friend. That friend can bring this new convert into this gathering for those first few steps of growth. It also provides a a great environment for a person to bring a friend to when they are in the process of leading that person to Christ since we will make sure that the environment is relevant and interesting and understandable (in every way) to a radically lost person.

Step two is "discover purpose." This event is a home based/ cell group/small group environment. (We will call them impact groups. The goal of this event is to discover and develop God's unique purpose for your life. One or more of these groups will be for people who want to join the church. This special group will include the usual basic church overview so that new members know what they are committing too and understand the vision and strategy of the church. In addition the real focus of this church membership orientation is to help each person discover their purpose or sweet-spot. Really, the entire process is based around the idea that each believer has a unique purpose and the church process should facilitate them fulfilling that purpose through training, accountability, inspiration, and structure. (By the way, I know i am using a bunch of stupid technical sounding words... It is 4am. I can't do any better!) We simply want to help people find God's mission for their life and then do everything we can to help them fulfill it.

Other than the membership group, other groups will be meeting together on a weekly basis to discuss a bible study (prepared for them by a church leader), pray with each other, and generally share life with each other. Of course the curriculum they use needs to be as cool and media supported as possible. It also needs to follow an intelligent plan.

The final step is the "discover impact" event. This event actually comes out of the impact group as well. Each impact group is built around a common interest (such as football, fishing, crafts, feeding the poor, etc.). The interest may be intensely spiritual in nature or not. The interest may be community service oriented or not. It may just be something all the people like to do. The idea is that people form their group around a common interest. Then, once the group is formed around this common interests they plan regular events where they participate in this common interest such as playing golf together, or watching the game, etc. They should have at least one of these a month and can have as many as they deem feasible above that. (a group may want to talk together every day for instance.) The goal of this even is "to discover and develop impacting friendships through common interests with people outside the church." Maybe it needs to be re-worded a little. It use to simply be "to discover and develop impacting friendships through common interests." I didn't think that was evangelistic enough. Obviously from this goal, the point is that these groups that are based on some interest will meet together to do whatever it is they are interested in and invite unchurched people to come along. (This is an attempt to capture the power of friendships. As you may know 90% of the people who come to church and stay do so because a friend invited them. Nothing is more powerful than our peers.)


Here is what I like about this plan.

First, it is simple. Easy movement through the system.

Second, there are three clear steps.

Third, It allows people to use their gifts and creativity to do ministry in radical ways.

Fourth, it is built on the people doing the ministry. The platform ministry is just a support to them.

Fifth, Simplicity also allows focus which means bette ministry. Less is more. You can do one thing better than five.

Sixth, It allows for a neat staff structure.

Seventh, it allows for most of the teaching to be done by the Christians in a share format.

Eight, The small group format allows for better prayer and intimacy (which allows for better "body care" and accountability.)

Ninth, It is easy to measure your efficiency. You want people to be involved in all three steps. You can easily see who and how many are where in the process so you can test your system. Even better than that, you can see how "reproductive" the system is. How many people are connecting through an interest event of an impact group and then moving through the cycle themselves.

Tenth, There is no compromise on teaching theology. Your impact leaders can be lead to teach anything you want.

Eleventh, funding and building needs are minimized allowing better focus. You need an event center for only one of your events.


There are a few negatives:

1) Childcare can always cause a problem for small group ministries. I wonder what is the best solution? I always kind of just think that each group should take care of it themselves by hiring a babysitter or letting the kids sit in (though I am not a big believer that this is somehow mandated by Scripture nor is it better for the child or the adult).

2) There is also he danger of controlling what people teach. (Of course that is a danger no matte what).

3) How do you integrate teens into this model? Do you just let them work in like the other adults? Do you allow them to have adult sponsored groups where the teens actually lead the groups and it is built around there interests?

4) Basing groups on interest could pull families a part some though not necessarily. It would in my family if it were a group based on watching football, but my wife and I could be a part of "board game" group together. i don't like pulling families apart at all.



Oh yeah, (through with negatives) I would also have a monthly or quarterly meeting with the Impact Group leaders. Also, all ministries of the church would happen through these impact groups. The children's ministry leadership would be an impact group. The worship band would be an impact group. A group going on a mission trip would be a group. The groups would work on a four month schedule (Jan-April; May-Aug; Sept-Dec.). There will be no automatic group divisions (like the traditional cell model). Groups may be on-going or seasonal. Each group would be required to have three people from three different families for church approval; no other size limit.

Bruce Lee Teaches Church Models

Wow! I think we've broken all the rules when it comes to blogs with this one! Sorry to all three people that read this!

Church models-what an interesting concept! This may sound a little strange, but I think church models sort of might be like Bruce Lee's idea about Kung Fu! I was watching a doc. about Bruce Lee and he made a comment to the effect of: "You can study Kung Fu for years, but it's not until you let go of the forms and methods and just go for it, concentrating on the goal and not your Kata or whatever."

There are so many methods that are working right now!

First Woodstock is very traditional in programming, but average six-ten thousand every weekend. I know that they are going to the simple church model, but all that is is cutting out all the business! Johnny Hunt said that the big killer at Woodstock is its calender-try going to the website and find your way.

Aside from business (that's done at the highest level possible-really top notch), Woodstock has a traditional Sunday School and weekly worship schedule. Their music is who they are as well. I went to their "contemporary" service over Easter-pretty cool! They rocked it out. Sure they had a line of singers on stage (80's) but the sound was pumping and the band was rockin! The place was packed!

Newspring church, in Anderson NC, is very contemporary with corporate worship (Modern praise and worship which includes secular music at time-love it!) and weekly home groups. They are as big if not bigger than Woodstock!

Granger Community Church, in Granger Indiana, is very contemporary in worship, but includes a midweek service dedicated to deeper Bible study.

All of these guys preach the same! No holds bared Bible teaching! I will say that the contemporary guys are usually always topical on Sundays-they will exposite during their sermons, but not through entire books. However, Mars Hill Church in Washington State offers a mixture of both-I love that!

How is this like Bruce Lee? Tho every church that was mentioned have a certain program (martial art form) it's all about the goal above all! When it comes down to it, these churches are energized for one common purpose-(as Mark Beeson says)-to "bring up there down here!" To reach the world for Christ! How 'bout the Karate Kid? He used the crane technique in the US and won-tried it again in Okinawa and got jacked up! These guys do whatever it takes and aren't afraid to change, or develop new strategies. The leaders lead and the people are equipped to follow! It's all about Jesus!

Above every model should be the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. Power that's obvious and infiltrates the entire church! Models are great and needful! We can't do anything without them! Operating under the leadership of the Holy Spirit is what really breeds success!

Congregational Control is the Devil's Idea!

The elder lead model is certainly becoming more and more popular these days. It's hard to ignore the success of churches that use this model of leadership! I have to speak from the American Baptist prospective because that's where I've had the most experience. The typical Baptist model is a three part battle between: pastors, deacons, and congregations. Congregation control is usually the model that most will find. This of course, means that the "movers and shakers" in any given congregation have the control. I had a prof. in college that called them "Big Mamas" and "Mr. Money Bags." The sad thing about this is that those Big Mamas don't shoulder the responsibility for the church at all. They lead the mob, but for some reason are not viewed as a leader with responsibilities. Before leaving a church in Florida I had a conversation with a long time member (I was feeling brave because I was leaving). I was trying to convince him that the Pastor should have the lead in church not the congregation. He told me that: "The people need a vote!" It felt like I was talking to Ronald Reagen!
I have never been on staff or attended a congregatoin controlled church that I thought was healthy.
While I was on staff at that church in Florida the Pastor had an idea to start a fund raising campaign in order to pay off a building debt. We came up with a name and started talking it up. An additional desire was to show the people what a blessing it is to give, and thus motivate people to be better givers. All for the betterment of the church and Kingdom!
Well, you guessed it, "Mr. Money Bags" and his posse mounted an attack that lead to a big "Town meeting" that in turn led to throwing out the fund raising campaign. Crazy!

Even though most of the people in the congregation wanted to follow the Pastor they didn't have a voice-they were afraid! So many pastors in congregational controlled churches want to lead but can't! Sadly, they stand by this form of church government like it's the best thing for everyone! Congregation controlled churches are dead churches! I wouldn't step foot in one, even if it meant leaving the ministry!

Salvation Doctrine and Church Growth

Calvinist or Non-Calvinist? Lordship Salvation or Free Grace? These are the kinds of debates us preacher folk use to have in seminary. Don't have much of a chance to discuss this stuff any more.

As a friend of mine and I was talking about such things a few days a go, I got to wondering about the kind of impact a person's soteriology has on church model. I mean why are most home church guys calvinists. What about the missional movement? It is similar. Is it just because the early leaders of these models and movements were themselves a part of a particular theological brand or is there a deeper connection between theology and methodology?

A brief review:

Calvinistic Soteriology: Calvinists (who like to be referred to as reformed) emphasize God's sovereignty in the salvation process. Man has nothing to do with getting saved. God chose whom He will regenerate in eternity past and each individual discovers his or her election in life. This discovery is made through a person's faith and obedience.

How does this affect a church model? It doesn't (as has been accused) usually  mean that the church is not evangelistic. Some of the fastest growing most effective churches in the world would consider themselves reformed. 

It may however affect how the salvation event is motivated. For example, a Reformed church may not feel any disregard for presenting the gospel in obedience terms since that is a part of the process of discovering your regeneration. One well known Reformed teacher, John Piper encourages pastors to "keep his people saved" by which he means that the pastor should regularly challenge the people on matters of holiness and obedience so that they are compelled to live in righteousness out of fear that if they don't, then they aren't genuinely saved. I am not here to debate whether this is logical or biblical (or even traditionally reformed), but only to point out that such a tactic would throughly affect one's church model.

In such a case (or anywhere obedience is emphasized as a part of discovering, proving or acquiring salvation) I can see where any attractiveness to an event might get in the way. The attractiveness may have a tendency to be replaced with "if you are really saved then you won't need all that wow and flash to be lured to Christ". Again, this doesn't necessarily fit reformed churches that I know about, but I can see how this may be an affect.

On the positive side (at least to me), this mentality may free the church from being real pushy with gospel which usually results in a church being more effective in getting people to respond to it since people don't want to be berated by persuasion. Many of the top-tier churches (top tier in growth, conversions, baptisms, etc.) do not have a public altar call any more because they think it falsifies the conversion experience. 

Non-Calvinist Soteriology: It may be a little hard to discuss such a broad category. Everything from "total works based" to the "social gospel" to simple, non-predetermined faith can be placed in this category. 

From the "it is all up to man" category, you can see where a church may turn into a "self-help seminar" every weekend with its leaders trying to persuade the crowd to start being better people. Salesmanship is at its highest in this category.

The social gospel guys would be similar except that they would need to turn the issue into a social concern and community service factory. That is what they would have to sell.

As far as the people who understand salvation to be by faith alone, but that the faith is not predetermined... well that will be covered in the topic "Free Grace" below.

Lordship Soteriology: This position is basically the same as the reformed position, though not all adherents of one are adherents of the other. People who hold to this view are characterized by the belief that people must submit to Jesus as the Boss of their life before they are saved (in addition to simple faith) or, another way to put it, commit to do what Jesus says. You can easily see the similarities between the reformed position and the works position. (It could be argued that it is simply a works salvation soteriology.) 

This perspective likes to challenge people often emphasizing the difficulty of being a Christian. Methodologically, what might happen is that the church focuses often on challenging the authenticity of a persons salvation leaving not so much a mark on the methodology impact but an imprint on the atmosphere. Sometimes the public invitation is emphasized as a way to "prove" your sincerity. 

There could also be more emphasis on getting saved in these churches as opposed to discipleship since they often consider a person who is not growing as not genuinely being saved so they focus on helping people getting "really" saved.

Free Grace: This position suggests that a person is converted simply by trusting in Christ to do everything it takes for them to be saved. It emphasizes faith in Christ as the only prerequisite for salvation.

These churches often allow a person to be saved at any point in their journey without requiring any additional proof. They often do not have a public invitation and sometimes simply ask people to acknowledge if they have been saved at some point during the year in periodic services that emphasize this. 

Often in these churches discipleship is the emphasis of the ministry since salvation is so simple and easy, they expect that people are getting saved and so they need to help them take the next steps (which aren't as connected to the legitimacy of conversion as in some of the systems above).

______________

Ultimately, the main areas that seem to be affected by your salvation doctrine are how you might move a person through a discipleship process in your church, how you might ask people to respond to a service and/or acknowledge their decision. If a church considers the stages of discipleship something very concrete then they might have more of tendency to develop the church along the lines of a process to help move people along the steps in this process. Whereas if a church believes that conversion fixes everything they may simply re-emphasize salvation over and over.

What do ya'll think?

Is Attendance Too Much?

In conversation with someone the other day the point was made that even though there seems to be a church on every corner it's still a drop in the bucket to the amount of people who are moving into any given area. Of course I'm referring to the "Bible-Belt" area of the U.S.

I wonder if we are too building/attendance oriented for our culture? Let me explain.

Is our emphasis on having everyone gather in one place on Sunday going overboard? Even the larger churches don't have "everyone" together! The impact of the most effective ministries is still very small in light of the unchurched living around them.

Are we still being too locked into a single facility? Are our people still wrapped up in ministry inside the building as well as organized ministry endeavours! Are our finances too dedicated to paying the bills and staff, rather than meeting each others needs as well as the needs of widows and orphans.

The only solution to this is home based cell groups. Where the emphasis is on meeting at homes and not in a large building. This would eliminate all the legal junk as well as all the money that's needed to do ministry the way it's being done. Christianity would become more personal rather than corporate. It would also be more "first century!"

Numbers are important, but not for the sake of numbers. Who cares how many you have in attendance! Why do we need to report baptisms and small group counts?

Here's an idea about organization:

Elders: Elders would spend time investing in area leaders. Say, one elder per ten area leaders. One area leader per twenty home group leaders. This would ensure that the work of discipling was being carried out properly! Instead of first time member classes there could be mentoring from inside the home groups. Children's ministry and Youth ministry wouldn't be such a big deal either. The family unit would be priority. Families are the best place to train kids anyway right!

Maybe once a month you could have a corporate celebration! Rent out an arena and have an awesome worship and preaching time! You could have Children's ministry and Youth ministry during that time. All the leading and volunteers would be the elders, area leaders, and home group leaders.

The final question is: What about money? All the money in the O.T. went to the temple to meet the needs of the Levites and conduct daily worship! What about today? What should the money be for? Meeting needs, advancing local and foreign missionary work, paying the elders and area leaders, monthly corporate worship...etc. A group of elders can gather a certain percentage of the tithe and leave the home groups to reach out and meet needs out of the abundance of their hearts!

Could this model be more effective?

The Ultra-Busy Church

You have probably been there like I have. The church that gives you a bulletin four pages thick with thousands of details about their thousands of ministries. Sunday Morning Sunday School. Sunday Morning Worship. Sunday Night Bible Study. Sunday Night Worship. Wednesday Night Worship. Saturday Morning Men's Breakfast. Thursday Morning Lady's Group. Tuesday Night Outreach. Awana.... on and on it goes.

And that doesn't count all the meetings and the gatherings for the super-spiritual elite (like 4am prayer meetings on Sundays before church).

Right now, I am watching a church like this from the distance. I have close family members that attend. The funny thing is that they love it. And the church is growing like crazy. They are are reaching people left and right. My family members that attend the church have been on campus every night this week and one early morning, and yet, they can't stop talking about how excited they are. 

On the one hand, this church has a lot going on for it. The pastor is a pretty good communicator, probably the best in this area. He is a little old school, but this church is located in a rural area so it fits. The ministry (especially the "platform" aspects) is done with excellence. It is not that kind of church that excites me honestly, but they do what they do well and with passion. 

The good thing about the busyness is that it seems to give the body a sense of involvement, and even though the church's pastor is pretty heavy handed,  everybody has a strong sense of loyalty and connectedness to the church.

On the negative side, I wonder if the people are being taught, directly or indirectly, to love church as a replacement for loving Jesus. The busier you are the more you love Jesus. There is definitely an atmosphere of "If I am not here all the time I am not a good Christian." I also wonder if the church could be more effective if they did less (a la Simple Church). Obviously the preaching and music would be better if they had more time to focus on just one or two events (as opposed to the four-five they have now). And, what about doing ministry outside the walls of the church? Shouldn't that be the focus of the body? It seems like people are so busy doing ministry in the church that they don't have time to do real ministry. All too often it seems like busy churches haven't really thought about they "why" of their different events. They just keep adding one on top of another.

For example: what is the purpose of their Sunday School event? Is it Bible Study? That would make the sixth Bible Study event for the week. Is it fellowship? If so, is a sterile room on a Sunday morning the most conducive environment for fellowship and community? Perhaps are they doing Sunday School purely because they believe it is wrong not to?

It reminds me of watching my wife go through my kids' toys. They have way too many so occasionally we cull out the ones that aren't played with that much. Of course they throw a fit over each toy even if they haven't played with it in months. "I forgot about, but I love it!" Ironic. The truth is they are happier (and have a more efficient "play" life) when they only have a few special toys they can play with. Sometimes less is more. (I shamelessly quote people like Andy Stanley in this blog without any credit!!!)

I just don't think it is effective or smart to simply try to do as much ministry as possible thinking  more is better.

On the other hand...

One could argue that more preaching and more praising and more praying is always better! Hallelujah Brother!!!! (Sorry Couldn't resist... I was having a little holy fit for a moment).

And that has too be true right? The Church did devote themselves daily to the Apostles teaching right? Maybe we have too few events in our churches not too many.

How much Bible Study is too much?

Can you please help me think through this?

Intro to the Church Planter's Think Tank

As you might have guessed, I am planting a church (or at least in the early stages). And, like most people in my shoes, it seems that I have to learn from mistakes all too often. And, then, it is usually too late to do anything about the mistakes. 

So, I got to thinking (because of the suggestion of a friend) what would it be like if several church leader types could get together and discuss (civilly I hope!) their different experiences and thoughts with different church and ministry issues? I know I have learned tons from my friends who are out there planting churches.

So, starting with the next blog, I will  begin posting a ministry issue every few days with its pros and cons as I see them (biblically and practically). I hope others will join in the conversation. Otherwise, I will just be talking to myself.

Start brainstorming!