Adapting AG's Church Multiplication Network for the COGOP

[EagerBeaver]

What if the COGOP were to shutter the "money pit" churches, or better yet, "paper" churches? A large part of financial losses in COGOP, from what I would estimate, are from churches who are not gaining in membership, exist only as a place to congregate on Sunday morning and Wednesday night, and can't keep their own lights on.

How, exactly, are small, financially strapped local churches any cause of financial loss for COGOP as an organization?

I am not following your logic.

PG - I should have clarified, I meant local churches, not COGOP as a whole. My bad...

Maybe the church multiplication idea is a bit ahead of its time for the COGOP, and I agree with PG that we need to make better use of what resources we do have -- but honestly there are some principles in the CMN method that COGOP could start to adopt in the near future.

Chris, with all due respect, you are a classic example of one of the problems COGOP needs to solve; you grew up in COGOP, acquired great journalism skills, video shooting and editing skills, audio skills, internet savvy... and all of that is now NOT being used by the COGOP, because you are self-described Assembly of God.

I am not sure what caused the switch... lack of a good local church nearby, or whatever, but the talent drain is killing us from within. You are exactly the kind of person we actively seek out and encourage at my church, and have the ability to take a mediocre, small local COGOP to another level of visibility and community outreach.

There were many reasons for the switch...the most important being that God called me to an AG at this moment in time. I am soaking up some good stuff and I do indeed plan to return to COGOP in the future. The Lord Himself has confirmed that I am not done in COGOP yet.

I hope to bring a valuable trove of resources back with me, even more than I had before, and I hope to be able to help my local church and even on a grander scale when the time comes.

[dawgs10]

I agree with putting resources into churches we have rather than planting new ones. I STRONGLY agree closing the churches that have had no growth over the past 10 to 15 years.

We could be much more effective if we were united in one church in a town versus having 3 or more churches in a 20 mile radius. (huge pet peeve of mine). I'll stop there before I say things I will regret.

you speak of congregations like stores that are not making a profit. just close them down. what about the 15 people that gave everything they had for years to that church and meet together, enjoy worshiping together and go on doing church as a church. will they reach a cutting edge generation. more than likely not. will they one day go away? more than likely yes. then we can start a new church or sell the building. what ever. but there are some that have earned the right to have church in the building they paid for and be left alone. now, i dont agree with that idea of church. i am a youth pastor at a fairly large cogop. but if you cant combine them its not up to the overseer to force them together for the sake of numbers. i would say that those of us that want larger cogops, work with what you got and respect those that got a there.

[dawgs10]

What if the COGOP were to shutter the "money pit" churches, or better yet, "paper" churches? A large part of financial losses in COGOP, from what I would estimate, are from churches who are not gaining in membership, exist only as a place to congregate on Sunday morning and Wednesday night, and can't keep their own lights on.

How, exactly, are small, financially strapped local churches any cause of financial loss for COGOP as an organization?

I am not following your logic.

PG - I should have clarified, I meant local churches, not COGOP as a whole. My bad...

Maybe the church multiplication idea is a bit ahead of its time for the COGOP, and I agree with PG that we need to make better use of what resources we do have -- but honestly there are some principles in the CMN method that COGOP could start to adopt in the near future.

Chris, with all due respect, you are a classic example of one of the problems COGOP needs to solve; you grew up in COGOP, acquired great journalism skills, video shooting and editing skills, audio skills, internet savvy... and all of that is now NOT being used by the COGOP, because you are self-described Assembly of God.

I am not sure what caused the switch... lack of a good local church nearby, or whatever, but the talent drain is killing us from within. You are exactly the kind of person we actively seek out and encourage at my church, and have the ability to take a mediocre, small local COGOP to another level of visibility and community outreach.

There were many reasons for the switch...the most important being that God called me to an AG at this moment in time. I am soaking up some good stuff and I do indeed plan to return to COGOP in the future. The Lord Himself has confirmed that I am not done in COGOP yet.

I hope to bring a valuable trove of resources back with me, even more than I had before, and I hope to be able to help my local church and even on a grander scale when the time comes.

you wont be young forever, dont spend your young adult life soaking up the good stuff. get in and work!!! sometimes the right thing is hard work and watch it grow.

[Pastor Gary]

what about the 15 people that gave everything they had for years to that church and meet together, enjoy worshiping together and go on doing church as a church. will they reach a cutting edge generation. more than likely not. will they one day go away? more than likely yes. then we can start a new church or sell the building. what ever.

With such legacy congregations, you suggest leaving them alone and allowing attrition to take care of the problem. As an Overseer, how would you convince an effective pastor to move to a church of 12 - 15 members with no desire to be anything other than 12 - 15 members? How would you support that effort? At what point would you, Overseer, step in and declare the patient dead? 12 people left? 10? 5? Do you wait til the last couple die? I am not being sarcastic -- I struggle with these issues daily, and wonder how those not charged with the responsibility would handle it.

...but there are some that have earned the right to have church in the building they paid for and be left alone.

I'm not sure I can agree. At what cost to the larger organization?

[paul]

I agree. Also Peter Wagner of Fuller states "I begin this book with a categorical statement that will seem bold and brash to some at first sight, even though it has been well substantiated by research over the past two or three decades: The single most effective evangelistic methodology under heaven is planting new churches."

With all due respect to Fuller and Wagner, I disagree emphatically, and cite the preponderance of evidence in the U.S. as evidence. The constant churn of latest-greatest new thing church plants have largely built their empires NOT on the evangelism of the unsaved, but upon the graves of small community churches they raided for musicians, teachers and volunteers.

I have seen it at work here and elsewhere. The big exciting church plant mega-congregation here in Honolulu features a sax player from a Pentecostal Holiness church, 3 vocalists from my local church, a keyboard player from an Assembly of God, several staffers from a Baptist church nearby, and a congregation that is 60%-70% refugees from smaller churches attracted by the flashy show-biz atmosphere and ability to come and sit and have little to no commitment.

While I understand your point I think there is much more involved. We have a churc here in our area which runs in the several 1,000's. A good friend of mine was on a new church plant team as the praise and worship leader. The team set out for Palm Springs. the new church plant just celebrated its second anniversery. It is running just over 300. The people came from the core team of the mother church and the majority are new converts, unchurched and those who had dropped out of church years ago. Amazingly in a more retirement area a significant portion of growth have been from young families.

I believe it comes down to the mind set of why we do what we do.

very seldom does that happen. pastor gary has the more realistic option. new church plants normaly leave people feeling used and abused. it does hurt smaller churchs and most of the time doesnt reach the unsaved. just transplants "church folk".

I am not in total disagreement with you are PG. But I am still a strong advocate of church planting as a powerful form of evangelism. Here in southern California two example come to mind that would support my view.

Calvery Chapel and Victory Outreach.

Calvery chapel ( Chuck Smith) has created a system of church planting that is incredable. Most become very strong and financially sound and generally would be considered a large church by cogop standars and other pentecostal groups.

Victory Outreach plants churches but directs itself to the gang bangers, drug addictics and prisoners. Certinally not drawing from any church. Yet they grow and continue to plant churches not only here but other countries.

To be open I feel one must look at many different organizations. It is not a numbers game, churches can't be planted just for a person or SO to get a feather in their bonnett. Which was the case for many some years back.

There are 195 million unchurched people making the U.S. the third largest mission field in the English-speaking world and the fifth largest globally.
Seems to me a couple more churches wouldn't hurt if they are planted for the right reasons

[dawgs10]

what about the 15 people that gave everything they had for years to that church and meet together, enjoy worshiping together and go on doing church as a church. will they reach a cutting edge generation. more than likely not. will they one day go away? more than likely yes. then we can start a new church or sell the building. what ever.

With such legacy congregations, you suggest leaving them alone and allowing attrition to take care of the problem. As an Overseer, how would you convince an effective pastor to move to a church of 12 - 15 members with no desire to be anything other than 12 - 15 members? How would you support that effort? At what point would you, Overseer, step in and declare the patient dead? 12 people left? 10? 5? Do you wait til the last couple die? I am not being sarcastic -- I struggle with these issues daily, and wonder how those not charged with the responsibility would handle it.

...but there are some that have earned the right to have church in the building they paid for and be left alone.

I'm not sure I can agree. At what cost to the larger organization?

you dont. thus the problem. an effective pastor should be used in churchs that is ministering to communities and have a chance to grow. there are babysitting type pastors out there and thats their kind of church. and yes i do think at some point something must be done with a church of 5-10 people.

[MrDanger]

I have one relative that has participated in the program and one friend. Both of their churches are doing well.

In both of their cases, the AOG targeted the areas because there were not any pentecostal churches in their area. That is why those churches were planted.

[PastorDaniel]

what about the 15 people that gave everything they had for years to that church and meet together, enjoy worshiping together and go on doing church as a church. will they reach a cutting edge generation. more than likely not. will they one day go away? more than likely yes. then we can start a new church or sell the building. what ever.

With such legacy congregations, you suggest leaving them alone and allowing attrition to take care of the problem. As an Overseer, how would you convince an effective pastor to move to a church of 12 - 15 members with no desire to be anything other than 12 - 15 members? How would you support that effort? At what point would you, Overseer, step in and declare the patient dead? 12 people left? 10? 5? Do you wait til the last couple die? I am not being sarcastic -- I struggle with these issues daily, and wonder how those not charged with the responsibility would handle it.

...but there are some that have earned the right to have church in the building they paid for and be left alone.

I'm not sure I can agree. At what cost to the larger organization?

I believe that this is the situation that you send in a church planter and do a re-plant.

If the church building is in good shape, no debt, with reasonable utilities....then you find a young effective pastoral family that is willing to sacrifice and go....then you send them there.

That is what happened at Lafayette.....I consider myself a church planter who is doing a re-plant....the Church of God and AG both have websites that relate to replants with good information. I'll try to find them and post them later.

I've thought about leaving a 100 times....but what for....if I do...there will not be a church there at all....and there's not really anything better out there that I've seen. Here I have a chance to grow a church without the past issues.

Sure it'd be nice to have a larger church...but I hope to grow into one....

[paul]

what about the 15 people that gave everything they had for years to that church and meet together, enjoy worshiping together and go on doing church as a church. will they reach a cutting edge generation. more than likely not. will they one day go away? more than likely yes. then we can start a new church or sell the building. what ever.

With such legacy congregations, you suggest leaving them alone and allowing attrition to take care of the problem. As an Overseer, how would you convince an effective pastor to move to a church of 12 - 15 members with no desire to be anything other than 12 - 15 members? How would you support that effort? At what point would you, Overseer, step in and declare the patient dead? 12 people left? 10? 5? Do you wait til the last couple die? I am not being sarcastic -- I struggle with these issues daily, and wonder how those not charged with the responsibility would handle it.

...but there are some that have earned the right to have church in the building they paid for and be left alone.

I'm not sure I can agree. At what cost to the larger organization?

you dont. thus the problem. an effective pastor should be used in churchs that is ministering to communities and have a chance to grow. there are babysitting type pastors out there and thats their kind of church. and yes i do think at some point something must be done with a church of 5-10 people.

Church planting is a stragety. One must litterally look over the lay of the land and begin the approach systematiclly. I will qualify the following by saying I am not sure of the current situation of the location I will mention>

I grew up in St. Louis, Mo. there were two churches at that time South Side and NorthSide. Both were good churches. Northside, where I attended,had a good attendance and was a strong spiritual church. When I left for the navy, came back several years later there was no longer a cogop in the city. they had migrated to the suburbs.

So now you had a city , very large city without a cogop. Why leave this huge city without a church. Decline, ethnic changes. My approach, find the strongest Pastor I can pray and see if he will committ to the city. Fund him from the home mission funds for two-three years and allow him to plant a strong church in that city. ( again I do not know the current situation of cogop in St. Louis. But saw the same thing in Dallas and opther areas. People say, the money is not there, then rearrange whatever needs to be rearranged and make it be there.

[EagerBeaver]

I have one relative that has participated in the program and one friend. Both of their churches are doing well.

In both of their cases, the AOG targeted the areas because there were not any pentecostal churches in their area. That is why those churches were planted.

Bingo. It would totally turn COGOP on its head...instead of just planting for the sake of planting, there would be a geographic and spiritual strategy like never before.

[one love]

Church planting for the sake of doing so can cause more problems. Let me explain. If you have a growing church and then plant one 20 miles away and half the church is gone, I feel that is 2 steps backwards when the growing congregation could have done more together. If there are a few churches in one area that are small, I say pull them together and let them work together with there talents.

I do not agree with closing a church because it is not growing, ESPECIALLY if there is no other church in that area. If there is only 5 members and they close it, what happens to them. Are we saying these 5 don’t deserve a chance to worship, if it is not growing it maybe time for a pastoral change and start from scratch but don’t close it.
my .02

[Billy n NC]

Pastor Gary and Dawgs10 said:
dawgs10 wrote:
...but there are some that have earned the right to have church in the building they paid for and be left alone.

I'm not sure I can agree. At what cost to the larger organization?

Pastor Gary, the biggest cost I could see would be losing a minister. To many times I have heard ministers going to a small church and after a year or so (maybe less) they get burned out trying to revive the church and get discouraged. Either quit completely or cross over to AOG or COG or elsewhere.

I personally would like to see some adaptation of some of these multi site churches that are growing by leaps and bounds. Instead of shutting down a small church let it be adopted by larger churches. Using new technology to provide a teaching/ministering resource. Lets face it not all pastors are good preachers. They may great ministering to people but putting a sermon together is there weakest link.

I read an article in one of my Church Resource Magazines about a mega church without a minister. At least one that preaches/teaches. When they began they adopted the video resources of Willow Creek. The pastor who was planting the church new that teaching/preaching was not his cup of tea. So he contacted Willow Creek and they began showing the sermon series from WC. They now are building a new facility to house several thousand and still using the sermons from WC.

Could some of our smaller churches that cannot support a pastor financially not be adopted by a larger church. Provide video sermon/teaching to them and treat the smaller church as a Small Group Ministry etc.

Back when we could watch the GA(IA) via satellite, I remember some of our members got involved in the P&W like they were sitting in the audience.

Why would it not work?

[Pianoman]

Could some of our smaller churches that cannot support a pastor financially not be adopted by a larger church. Provide video sermon/teaching to them and treat the smaller church as a Small Group Ministry etc.

Back when we could watch the GA(IA) via satellite, I remember some of our members got involved in the P&W like they were sitting in the audience.

Why would it not work?

I like that idea Billy. Would be interesting to see it at least tried. Some of the older folks may not be too keen on the idea - but I could certainly see potential. Might even allow one pastor to take care of a couple smaller churches or be used in interim positions when the need arises.

I know there would be some drawbacks - but would be interesting.

[Mat]

removed

[Pastor Gary]

I personally would like to see some adaptation of some of these multi site churches that are growing by leaps and bounds. Instead of shutting down a small church let it be adopted by larger churches. Using new technology to provide a teaching/ministering resource. Lets face it not all pastors are good preachers. They may great ministering to people but putting a sermon together is there weakest link.

Billy, this is great thinking. You are correct... there are incredible men and woman of God who love people, are great at being part of their lives and ministering to them, but are just, frankly, not that great in the pulpit teaching and preaching. They could be the Pastor, maintain the cohesiveness and relationships, and utilize the gifts and skills of a great pulpit ministry to strengthen and bless the church.

Could some of our smaller churches that cannot support a pastor financially not be adopted by a larger church. Provide video sermon/teaching to them and treat the smaller church as a Small Group Ministry etc.

Some small churches could, indeed, be led by a solid Deacon or Lay Minister who served many ministerial functions as a volunteer or bi-vocational servant, while being under the oversight of a larger ministry that might be miles (or states) away.

Back when we could watch the GA(IA) via satellite, I remember some of our members got involved in the P&W like they were sitting in the audience.

Why would it not work?

Technology has certainly expanded the possibilities.