Just heard from the plant team that a great crowd showed up! Of the 165 only 15 were from St. Andrew’s the rest were from the community. Fantastic start to an important work. Well done, City Church team!!
Current Reads
By:
By: Amy Orr-Ewing
By: Amy Orr-Ewing
By: Robert Ruark
By: Louis L'Amour
By: -Multnomah Books-
By: Eleanor Gehrig and Joseph Durso
By: Roger Steer
By: John Stott
By: Richard J. Mouw
Related Articles
3 users responded in this post
Is it really church planting to go into the “Holy City” and plant a church in a heavily churched area? Wouldn’t it have been a better use of resources to team with one of the existing churches (Anglican or not) to assist them in bringing a new style that reaches out to younger people?
Kingdom expansion happens when new churches are birthed… not when butts move from one congregation to another.
I think that Steve and the staff of St. Andrew’s would agree with you that sheep stealing is not Kingdom expansion. If you keep up with this blog and take a look at St. Andrew’s City Church’s website, you might come to understand why St. Andrew’s would start a church in bar that is surrounded by churches.
Style is not the only part of City Church that is different from existing downtown churches.
Hey “Fred”,
Your post is curious for several reasons:
First it is presumptuous of you to suggest that downtown churches are in need of our help – or would welcome our help. Implicit in your presumption is the assumption that the downtown churches are failing – or at least inadequate – in an aspect of their ministry. I am friends with men like Pete Dickinson and Al Zadig and Haden McCormick, do you really mean to assert such things about them and their parishes? A further assumption is that these established churches wish to alter their liturgical heritage and develop a “new style” of service that reaches a younger crowd. All fairly significant assumptions, all fairly presumptuous.
Secondly, you speak of “churched” area. I would contrast this by suggesting that we have identified, and seem to be reaching, a “de-churched” demographic that both knows of and has departed/neglected the established churches in their community. Would you leave them to a Christ-less future while hoping and waiting for someone to reach them?
Thirdly, you accuse us of populating our church plant with pew jumpers. Do you have any evidence? Have you visited St. Andrew’s City Church? 65 people departed St. Andrew’s Mt Pleasant to form the plant team. 15 more have joined the work in these first three weeks. The 65 core team members were to invite 3 friends who do not have a church home. Is it possible that the invitees actually showed up? Furthermore, Todd has aggressively discouraged pew-jumpers in verbal announcements. To date the leadership and core team have yet to meet a pew jumper. Instead we are encountering curious people who have found their previous church experience(s) wanting.
Fourthly, as 80 “butts have moved” from SAMP to SACC we now have room in Mt. Pleasant to welcome 80 more new folks (our 10.45 service is at capacity in the Ministry Center with another 100 or so sitting in overflow watching on CCTV). History tells us that as we send people out and/or start new services we fill their empty chairs within months.
Fifthly, there is a church planting axiom – the chance of success (reaching an unchurched/de-churched community) is substantially greater with a new start church rather investing time, energy, money and enduring the inevitable conflict involved in transforming the mindset and mission of an established church.
Lastly, with your exceptional knowledge of church planting, your prescient knowledge and your linguistic abilities you might find your time better spent investing your talents in the employ of an established church helping them develop a new style attractive to an unchurched/de-churched populace rather than worrying about our meager efforts to bring the gospel to a vastly underserved and unreached community.
Kindly,
Steve