From Pittsburgh, PA but have been in England for 18 years. No idea what works in the USA but I was listening to a Podcast with Francis Chan. and he said that he has a desire to get the church back in the home otherwise he went on to say that if we don’t move the church to the home then we forfeit the cities because the scale of an operation that they need to finance a church of 1,000 is too high. It is the Catalyst podcast from March 13, 2009. Fascinating. As for what works in England, not much as we now have more Muslims in Mosques than Anglicans in church.

Tim

I have also had to back-off so not to OVERLOAD people with the cell-based vision for our church. This is a very difficult thing for us ‘primary-vision-carriers’ to do! I’m learning this to be (for me) an aspect of the ‘dying-to-self’ we were presented with at the symposium and letting God be God.

On the one hand, I absolutely refuse to pastor a church that looks like every other church in the US of A and on the other hand wanting to reach as many people as possible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hence, the permiting of ‘anonymity’ for about 4 visits to our Celebration services before informing folks they either climb aboard or continue their search for a church that best fits their definition of ‘church’.

P.S. Since I know most pastors in the area, I’ll even refer them to that church that best fits their definition of ‘church’.

And it is true, Ben, as you mentioned, that Steve Cordle and Jim Wall (Western Branch in Virigina) both have more seeker oriented worship services COMBINED with excellent cell structures. And that’s why I’m not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, both Cordle and Wall transitioned to the cell church strategy AFTER they realized that a seeker/anoymous approach was simply not sufficient.

I could go on about this, but today is my coaching day, so I better prepare. . .

Personally, I agree with what you are all saying. I do believe we have it backwards. I think that our resources are better spent on reaching people through one on one relationships in the lives of believers. I think the large group should exist to support small group communities.

Steve Cordle’s church seems to be a successful hybrid of a cell/traditional model. From what I understand, their small groups and large group are both front doors to their church. I’d be interested to know how they handle the anonymous visitor and get them assimilated into group life.

I would also recommend Ralph Neighbour Jr.’s new book “Christ’s Basic Bodies” for a fresh exploration of God’s original plan for the church “ekklesia” to exist in small group communities.

You wrote, ‘I don’t agree with using anonymity as a key strategy. I’m referring to the crowd to core approach.’

Neither do I but unfortunately there is truth to the ideal of ‘crowds attracting crowds’. And, as with you and even more importantly, as with Jesus, I have no desire to spend my life simply entertaining crowds. And so, we use a dual approach in our cell-based church.

We do have a solid core. These people are easy to identify. They are the ones who ‘actively participate’ in cell and are present in celebration services. And we also have the crowd. Again easy to identify. These are the folks who do the ‘Sunday-morning-only-go-to-meeting-thingy’.

Our core members understand that it is important that they are present during celebration services, of course for many reasons, but in the context of this discussion — so that when the Sunday visitors/guest arrive, they can ‘blend’ in a crowd setting and remain somewhat anonymous while ‘checking us out’.

However, and now I’m referring to the ‘crowd-to-core’ approach, in our cell-based church we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who in our opinion is in conflict with the structure and strategy of our cell-based church system. In other words, we insist upon ‘active participation’ in cell so much so that ONLY those who are connected with a cell are identified as ‘members’ of our church.

And so we permit those within the crowd to ‘check us out’ for a brief period and if they haven’t connected with a cell within about 4 weeks, we lovingly yet firmly pull them aside and instruct them to either climb aboard the vision God has given for the structure and strategy of our cell-based church system OR to continue in their search for a church that best fits their definition of ‘church’.

I once heard Brother Larrt Stockstill, pastor of Bethany World Prayer Center, say (and I wholeheartedly agree), “We need not be as concerned about those who leave as we should be about those who need to leave but refuse to do so.” We have discovered that there are plenty of neighboring churches who will gladly accept such ‘Sunday-morning-only-go-to-meeting-thingy’ folks and add such folks to their membership rolls.

And yes, my blog was trying to contrast the New Testament way of making disciples with our western individualistic approach.

With regard to anonymity as a strategy (what Ben mentioned), I don’t agree with using anonymity as a key strategy. I’m referring to the crowd to core approach. Some teach that you first must have a crowd and then you try to get to the core. Thus, to plant a church you must have someone who can attract and sustain a crowd. I have problems with this. First, it rules out the vast majority of church planters because the majority simply lack the charisma to attract and hold large crowds. Second, it projects a distorted definition of a church (an anonymous crowd). Third, I’ve noticed that “crowd oriented churches” expend most of their energy trying to keep the event attractive each Sunday.

I promote cell driven church which is relationally oriented.

HOWEVER, please hear my heart. I have found that ministry in the west is very hard. I rejoice in the growth of Christ’s church, wherever it may be found. And I’ll be the first to admit that I need help because I desire to see far more and better disciples than I’m currently seeing.

I believe you are right-on about ‘allowing anonymity in a large group environment’. In our church system we have identified the two-fold purpose of the Sunday morning congregational gathering to be worship and biblical instruction; whereas ‘worship’ is man talking to God and biblical ‘instruction’ is God talking to man through His Word.

So yes, you’re ‘right-on’ about providing opportunity for anonymity in the congregational meeting. Afterall, in the corporate congregational setting, the time for ‘worship’ and receiving biblical ‘instruction’ is intended to be a personal time focused on talking to and hearing from God and most definitely NOT the time to be distracted by others or concerned about what others may be thinking about you.

Another fast growing mega-church I know of uses this approach but they make sure it is very clear what the next step are for the anonymous attender. And, by the way, everything this church does aims to get people into small groups. In talking to one of the leaders once, they compared first-time guests at a church service to walking onto a used car lot – your defenses go up the minute a person in a suit approaches you. They have found that allowing anonymity has been very effective.

In my own church, I hope people come to a service because they have been invited by a friend who already attends. But most of our first time guest show up because they moved into town and saw our website.