The church where I am presently serving at is some where between stages 3 and 4.  How we came to be there is anyone’s guess.  Most likely when they entered the second stage Life was comfortable and there was no need to return.  The bills were paid.  The programs that came from the head office sufficed to stop the questions.
When change came to the community around the church no one was prepared to assess or address the social and economic changes.  So they just ignored the world at large.
Now after a series of failed actions the church ahs became demoralized and have lost hope.
We are beginning to enter a process where we address those issues that take us from focusing on the here and now and will ask what future we want to occur.  This will be a painful and slow process but hopefully the church will chose to live and not die.  But at least they will have the opportunity to make an informed decision.
As a leader in the church I am the person who points the church to Christ and to ask the question:  Do you want to go with God or …..?
To return to stage 1 is say we want to go with God.
Peace

I think part of the art of keeping a church in Stage 1 is finding ways to help them share the gospel effectively. The biggest celebration of a creative church is when God recreates a human being! New christians have this amazing ability to take God at his word!

It is hard, but pastors and leaders have to do what i call “fuzzy” planning. Plan to reach so many people, and build so big that the edges of the dream remain fuzzy and in God’s hands. We have gone to our whole town a number of times...reaching every house. (Something most people thought was impossible.) Now we are looking at reaching the region...and the world. It is great to be part of a creative, fuzzy church. People who are hurting can stick with a graceful, healthy, creative church because there is hope there.

Hey Bruce,

Small world… I think we actually used to go to church together years ago at Montpelier Baptist.  I was the little punk boy who used to played the piano.

I would respectfully disagree with your assessment of Mark’s latest book.  I really didn’t see this as a ‘church growth’ book; but more as a ‘missional church’ book.  If you’re looking at it as a mere church growth book, then yes, it would fall short.  But as a missional book to determine and clarify where your church is at and where it should go (leaving attendance out of it), I really think it’s a winner.  Perhaps the fact that each chapter looked at a different size of his church and the distinctive problems they faced will cause some to focus on the numbers.

Todd

It seems to me that one could define any number of phases or series of phases a church goes through, and Driscoll has selected one such series.  I certainly don’t see this excerpt as all-inclusive and would suggest that it may not provide an adequate (or accurate) description for every church.

As for the idea that a church needs to be around for 30 years to have a valid say, I would respond with Paul’s words to Timothy: “Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.” (1 Ti 4:12, NIV) While Mars Hill may not have experienced all that some older churches have, that does not discount the validity of what Driscoll writes.  I’ve been around plenty of churches and seen these phases in action (or inaction!), so I can vouch for what he writes.  In fact, I’ve seen churches of many different sizes and many different ages in each of these phases; neither size nor age is a 100%-accurate predictor of what a church will experience in this regard.  I pray that Mars Hill never gets to Phase 4 and spends precious little time in Phase 3.

I think Driscoll aptly describes the seasons of a church. I have been on staff at a church fading in phase 4 and been on staffs that are on 1 and 2. And these seasons happen for each sized church. I do not think that size is the issue, even though most people want to know what a megachurch pastor knows. It is the attitude of the leadership and the community. It is a good reminder that I should not blame my people or circumstances, but look at myself and rely on God and seek to know what he wants me to do. Asking myself the difficult questions about my spiritual vitality. I may be the toughest to convert in the church.

Our church is brand-new, in fact, our launch date is May 21st.  We are obviously in stage 1.

I really enjoyed the article.  I’m sure that we will be in stage 2, “Management,” before we know it.  And it is a good challenge to get back to stage 1.  It’s easy to be creative right now, but the real challenge is to be fresh & creative in the years to come.  I like it when he said that the goal of the Management stage is not to get everything organized, but to get back to Stage 1.  Very good.

And Pastor Rusty, I liked your quote:
“Plan to reach so many people, and build so big that the edges of the dream remain fuzzy and in God’s hands.  It is great to be part of a creative, fuzzy church. People who are hurting can stick with a graceful, healthy, creative church because there is hope there.”

May my dreams & the dreams our our new church always be so large that we can’t see the ends as well.

Bruce...I wonder if you have some insider info on what percentage of the people serve at Mars Hill?  If you do, I’m not sure you would be working from the same assumptions.  Mars Hill has an incredible serve-culture for a large church. 

Where most large churchs go wrong is focusing on “volunteering” to plug the “needs” of the Sunday programs instead of ministry (yes...there is a difference).  MH is incredible at mission...which births real ministries...not just programs to keep the religious people busy. 

I understand your predisposition toward smaller churches.  I don’t think it’s an either/or issue, though.  Also...I don’t romanticize the “aged” church quite like you do.  Far too many leaders and churches do their best stuff in the early years and forget to pass the torch...and kill their churches, effectively (See Blackaby’s final chapter in “Spiritual Leadership” for an excellent explanation of this).

Finally, I would suggest you get to know MH and it’s people before makings some of your assumptions.  They’re good people...on mission...serving their community and bringing the gospel to a city that is tough to preach in.  Give the brotha’ the benefit of the doubt, if you enjoyed Radical Reformission.

Hey Rick,

My comment was not directed at Mar’s Hill directly. It was directed at the general observations or assumptions of Driscoll concerning large Churches. I make no judgments personally about Mar’s Hill. My purpose is to interact with what Driscoll wrote.

I am not sure where you got the idea I romanticize “aged” Churches. I have pastored in 7 settings over thiry years. 3 New Church plants. 3 CHurches less than ten years old and 1 Church 150 years old. In fact, I am a staunch advocate of allowing about 1/2 the Churches in the US to die off. They have little or no purpose and any pretense of ministry has long since been lost.

My point on the age of Mar’s Hill is simply this..........it takes time to judge the truth of what a Church is doing. Anyone can get a crowd short term. Anyone. Spend enough money. Have enough glitz and people will show up.  Remember, I started pastoring in the the early entertainment days. Todd can verify some of the dumb stuff I did at Montpelier. (Tar and feather me with honey and feathers was the worst ) I have no sympathies for the “anything to get a crowd tactics.”

It is easy for a young pastor to get full of himself when he is successful. It is one of the dangers of youth. I have been there. All of sudden you are recognized as “somebody” You are pastoring a numerically successful Church. In a moment a young man (or any man for that matter)can begin to believe the hype about humslef. It is dangerous ground. There are empty Church buildings all across the US that were once filled with people and were pastored by the up and coming successful pastors.

In no way should my words be considered a direct judgment of Mark Driscoll or Mar’s Hill. To our own master each of us stand or fall. I am only trying to interact with the book. I loved the first book. The second book left me so underwhelmed that it hurt. I recognize some of my “feelings” could be due to my prior experience in the Church growth movement. It is easy to become a cynic.

I align myself with the emerging/emergent movement so my sympathies are with Mar’s Hill and other Churches like them.  I am just trying to be a cautionary voice.

I hope I have explained myself....and not made myself look any worse

Thanks for the interaction.

Bruce Gerencser