Something has happened to me over the years. I have learned a lot about myself, my motivation and my direction. But today I am a little stuck. I am in new territory. I have come through some larger issues, understandings and realizations only to find myself on the other side not knowing what’s next.

I had a great chat with another church planter friend yesterday, who more than anything else, allowed me to vocalize some of my current thoughts and stresses. It was in this time that I realized that I am officially in unchartered territory and the reason for this is that I no longer have a unifying idea of why I have done this in the first place. You see I have realized that my reason for starting this church in the first place was a “reaction” of sorts. It was a chance to start something originally canadian, and although that still may be true, the truth is I didn’t know what authentically canadian was due in part to a lack of examples and so I instead (perhaps unknowingly) decided to create something “anti” what I knew and struggled against.

I was never vicious, or blatantly against any one style, but instead found motivation from being different. And now I see all the methods, styles, types of churches, groups, gatherings very differently. I find goodness in them all, I find God in all of them and I am not sure if I know now what I am “for” after for so long being sure of what I was against. But today I am quite free from critique, but the funny thing is, this freedom has put me in a peculiar place.

In this video from CTV’s Steven Brunt he suggests that being sure of what we against as a national identity is changing.

And maybe Shane Koyczan said it best in his Opening Ceremony Poem…

“we are choices.”

And perhaps that is where I need to start;

…all over again.

I am about halfway through the book and really enjoying it. I totally recommend it as a helpful book if you are going through a time of questioning the church and your faith.

Anna looked at me and in a frustrated way shared that this commercial appeared to be demeaning to women and who would buy this product? After some thought I shared that with all the marketing out there and our ability to turn off (in our minds) the commercials that “yell” at us that most companies have turned to advertising to niche groups and not to the masses and perhaps this commercial, as degrading as it was to you, was probably perfect for someone else (mainly one in that world of stay at home, make your house perfect type of lifestyle). Of course for us, spending our money on fabric softener isn’t exactly something we want to use our disposable income on, but for someone else it might be the best thing since sliced bread. That’s when it hit me that these commercials and maybe most commercials are not for me, they are for someone else competing for products in a totally different market.

I was thinking of this in light of the church and marketing and how personally I have beeen adverse to doing any sort of marketing/ awareness of our little church community. But I realized it is because most church marketing that I have seen has been to the “church” folk. People who buy fabric softener, so to speak. But there is a total group of people out there (which include the people in the open house and our friends in the neighbourhood) that would totally block out that sort of ad, because it is obviously not for them.

So I guess what I am saying is that I think a type of “new marketing” needs to take place in our faith communities that make up a minority and have their own niche. A marketing that makes people aware of faith groups that are welcoming, non-de-script in their structure, but are active in their community, participating and transforming their communities with good works.

To be honest I haven’t seen any “church” ads in the mail of late and for all I know they may have changed their “tactic,” but the truth is our model and message (Sunday gatherings for example) is an advertisement to the fullest. So how do we celebrate the good of what our churches are doing, to connect and welcome others to participate with us, without labeling the “message” as not for them or irrelevant, because whatever clever, outward message you advertise on the outside with be thwarted if it is nothing like what you are about on the inside.

So with this I am now seeing the connect. The outside and the inside need to connect if you wish to draw people in and get them excited about what you are doing. People who buy Bounce probably have a similar culture in their homes as other Bounce buyers, but how many people do you know that have different values and a different home buy Bounce and then realize that even though the advertisement was clever it really doesn’t fit with they way they run their household? I’m guessing these people never buy it again.

In and amongst this rambling and I am requesting something. Those that are familiar with the open house and what we are currently involved in, I am asking you to send me your thoughts on what a new wave of marketing might look like in a community like ours. Not just the message, but the method as well. I would like to work on some ideas toward a campaign that allows us to be true to who we are and want to be, but be able to reach out into our neighbourhood and welcome some of those that share values and want to better their neighbourhood with us. This will involve both an analysis of what we currently “do” and who we want to “become.” The mediums (like our Sunday night meal, book studies and outreaches) for sharing that hope will be critical in the process.

So share your ideas here, or email me at kyle AT theopenhouse.ca

I’m excited for your ideas.

I hear his words of participation and transformation!

In terms of my thoughts on becoming a church, some might say that it’s when your church has a certain number of programs, or people, or finally has a building or a regular gathering or money then you can say you are a “Church” and not just a “church plant.” Still I think there are others that hold onto the church plant posture for way too long and it’s probably some insecure way of avoiding failure. I know I have pondered this within myself. As long as I am a church plant, I can’t be expected to do “this or that.” You see what I mean?

But something deep within me has challenged my current church planting posture that involves always creating something and replaced it with a new one. So for next 3 months I am in what I might call a observing posture.

Now does an observing posture mean that we have arrived? By no means. We have not arrived as a church and I doubt we ever will and I mean this in the most encouraging way possible. Knowing that we will never arrive is actually quite comforting, but maturing on the other hand, I like to think we have at least moved in this direction.

I am sure you must be wondering what makes me believe that we have made the jump. Well it’s hard to explain. It can’t be the numbers, unless 15-20 counts. It can’t be the programs, unless one girls group or a mens time at a pub counts. It can’t be a building, unless meeting in a loud coffee shop counts, and since we give away 51% of our money we can’t really afford to look like a real church so I am not sure that counts either.

But for me it’s simple.

I am seeing connectedness. I am seeing people excited to be around each other. I am seeing people step up and try things that may or may not work. I am seeing people honestly share where they are at that might scare most church people and I keep seeing the same people show up over and over again, not just on Sunday’s, but in each others lives. I see a community planning events together and attempting to make a difference in the neighborhood. There is a community that has been created that looks out for each other and I am proud to say that to me that means we have become a church and not a group of random strangers trying to be or act like one.

Lastly, I just want to give one more reason. Of all the things that we are actively doing as a church community I am not officially leading any of them! Sure I speak once in a while on Sunday and help communicate to the group, but I have no official duty for the next 3 months. I see that as a victory and for me a great excitement as I take the next 3 months to observe and report. I’m going to Ob(serve) those actively making a difference practically in their faith and report to the whole church how the open house is for real and slowly but surely earning credibility in the community as church that gives away more than it keeps, as people continue to come and go very much like an open house.

Maybe it’s time to change the tagline. But this missional community is definitely walking in a Jesus direction.

The hard answer is no we shouldn’t. At least not as much as we used to. The effort to show up to something planned for you each week due to a facebook posting, or twitter or email is not what it used to be. I believe that at one time showing up weekly was a huge endeavor, from getting there, to the extent you spent time with people that day, due to the fact that it was hard to connect during the week and there were no other options for community. But today that is not the case and it actually becomes easy to just come on Sunday’s and not really take part in other ways. One hour in and out and done. And then believing that you are a major contributor because of this “attendance.”

The complicated answer is that it is both. Our community prides itself on being able to connect outside of our Sunday night gathering. Whether it’s an organized study, dinner, a bbq or breakfast at Bons there seem to be spaces available to connect during the week. But what also seems to be the case is that many feel that if they connect with someone during the week, they have done their bit and don’t need to go to the larger gathering. And still there are a few in our community that come Sunday and have not moved into relationships outside of that and act in the same way. They feel like the church is not doing a good job connecting people, and yet they are not involved in those connecting spaces.

I am not sure where I am going with this, because I am actually writing this from a place of freedom. This isn’t a major problem, but I think I am working this out as we begin organizing ourselves for the Fall with our weekly gatherings at little nest starting on the 13th, a book study going on, girls group, and other random activities.

At the end of the day I value relationship and those who are my friends, the ones I count on the most, journey with me in all spaces, public, social, personal and intimate and avoiding one puts a stalemate in the relationship. And for me, attendance is valuable… if you are investing in the community, in all spaces.

It is my premise that the way we church plant in Canada has not really changed over the past 5-10 years even with all the emergent hope/ activity. Very little has been changed in the church model itself. It appears that we have encompassed the same model with a hopeful/ new message… yet for many of us it didn’t seem to work, and so in the end we have reverted back to the “good old days,” keeping with the same old model. (This is not all bad, in fact I appreciate those that did this for many reasons).

So I have thought this through and think I might have an idea that could encourage more innovation. It’s centered around trials and experiments. Encourage many church plant experiments and trials, as many as 100 different ideas, no cost, and many may fail, but the best work out.

You see, in the past a church planter needed: 1) to be part of a denomination, 2) a large amount of funding, 3) to pass a strict application process in order to be sent as a church planter. I have a feeling this is no longer necessary. What if we just sent out 100 random experiments? This freedom could lead to more people trying things out. In the past only a small percentage of church planters would be funded after getting through the denominational filters. That means that the denominational gurus decided who can attempt to church plant, so if they had 5 applicants, maybe only two were sent out due to available money and skill set. But in this new wave of information, resources, etc. 100 church planters can go out into the world and do this. There still may end up only being 2 left at the end of it all, but I have a feeling they may not be the same 2 that had to go through the vigorous application process as in my previous example and might be perhaps even more successful… (without going further as I wish to write more about this in my next post, this success may not look anything like Sunday morning, FYI).

I think money is a hindrance for innovation. Money will be necessary and needed to be able to continue to fund existing church plants in the more traditional bent as they will still be needed, but unless planters/ innovators/ leaders are passionate before they get paid there will always be the tendency to do whatever works for the sake of getting paid.

If we are able to really give enough freedom to thee planters, the 100 ideas may not necessarily be church look-a-likes. Instead they could be new expressions of the church in our world that many of us have not thought of yet. And it might be this wording that changes our expectations. Active church rather than big “C” church.

I also have a feeling that innovation will be stifled by those with a more traditional theology that is not open to changing. (This might alarm those of you with a certain bent towards orthodoxy). It is this more traditional theology that ends up producing a church that in most cases looks like a large public gathering, fueled by smaller groups that grow the larger one, which in turn determines success.

I also have the feeling that it might be the case that in order to truly be experimenters, church planters will have to come into their context with more of a blank slate… we can’t have our name, look, etc. of our church already determined before we land in the city that we wish to plant. We have to welcome more people (experimenters) with an entrepreneurial heart and allow them to run wild without having it all together.

How would we determine who can come? I guess if money wasn’t involved it would be easier? Maybe it would be harder at first. Remarkable needs to be emphasized and encouraged, even if they fail immediately.

I have also been thinking a lot lately about transaction costs; the cost for us to attend, or contribute to a church. Use of twitter, meetup, facebook have made it easy for people to come to a gathering. In the past being involved with a church type event was a form of commitment because it was harder to come. Getting people to come is actually easier these days. Having them stick (consistently) is the problem. The type of people that come in many cases are not committal. I was reading that in the past 1 hand written complaint letter to the government used to mean that 200+ people were represented (or had they same concern) due to effort it took to hand write a letter and mail it off… this is no longer the case. Writing an email or having a pettiton signed takes minutes, just have a look at how many groups people join on facebook. It is easier and people do not make the same commitment.

I think for me it might be nice to visit a few new church plants just to get a feel for the type of people that are showing up.

Lastly, (and thanks for bearing with my random thoughts) i’ve been thinking about user generated church content versus leader generated content. The leader of the church in most cases is paid to create content for the church (sermons, bible study material, etc.) But I am starting to see more clearly that leaders should create environments, not just content. I am imagining what it would be like for laity (in groups) to create the programs, activity of the church versus the majority of the decisions being made by a few people such as the paid staff. This will involve more patience and waiting for the users to create and generally “patience” isn’t successful. It’s hard to wait on people, but I think if we could be more patient we might see some serious life giving examples of church in the world… at least in Canada.

Please comment and help me develop these further, these are random ideas and i’m excited about working them out.

The second cool thing I learned from this book (or maybe realized) was that the ultimate goal needs to be collaborative action. We can create discussions using all the information out in the world, but unless the tools on the web and the people collaborate to some sort of action it too will be rendered useless.

The most applicable thing I gleaned from this book as it relates to church planting (rated CP 4/5 if you are wondering) is the movement of user generated content versus corporate generated content. The filters are gone and now anyone can create content in basically any industry.

How this relates to church planting is this: Anyone can now plant a church. And anyone can do it any way they want. And they can have access to all the same tools as anyone else for starting it. And (whether we like it or not) nobody can stop them.

I think this is good and here is why:

In the past a church planter needed: 1) to be part of a denomination, 2) a large amount of funding, 3) to pass a strict application process in order to be sent as a church planter. This is no longer necessary. And not only that but this freedom will lead to more people trying things out. In the past only a small percentage of church planters would be funded after getting through the denominational filters. That means that the denominational gurus decided who can attempt to church plant, so if they had 5 applicants, maybe only two were sent out due to available money and skill set. But in this new wave of information, resources, etc. 100 church planters can go out into the world and do this. There still may end up only being 2 left at the end of it all, but I have a feeling they may not be the same 2 that had to go through the vigorous application process as in my previous example and perhaps even more successful… (without going further as I wish to write more about this in my next post, this success may not look anything like Sunday morning, FYI).

This book gave me hope. There are holes, as Clay explains, all this freedom also leads to messiness much like his example of the way a group of pro-anorexia girls formed their own meetups, and how there could be some cultish groups that are formed ahead of us, but the more we release control of others I think the more chance we have to see some truly innovative expressions of the church in North America.

I might be presumptuous in saying that, but if you really thought about it, this is what many would be asking, especially if they were visiting this church for the first time. The same thing happens over time, especially in a church plant. Over time people look at the person “in charge” and label them pastor, and then put a lot of expectations on them. I may fear expectations, but the expectations that are generally placed on a person are not that fair, from my experience.

I have been thinking as well, whether it would be worth writing down the expectations people should have or not have on a church leader or pastor, in order to help others understand where their role (congregation) is and what the leader (pastor) is responsible for. The idea would then allow the leader freedom in their role. In fact a friend of mine asked me to look at a document like this, called a covenant, in order to give some of my own insight into such a thing. The problem is the document may start as a public document, but over time it gets hidden, forgotten, misinterpreted and then out of date. The idea is wonderful, but the truth is, unless there is a change in the culture in the church (and probably all churches) the stereotypical pastor role will not change despite any covenants we design or sign or post on our church walls.

I appreciate my friend who is working on this document, mainly because it really is the best idea we have right now. But for me, I need to think this through fully and not just create a document. In our situation a document will not free me up in my ministry… only freedom in Christ will.

Since there is so much transition in churches these days (a call of the times), there will always be people joining you coming from another church culture. It is almost as if churches need to be cross cultural in terms of their own sub-culture… pretty confusing I know.

So (optimistically) perhaps we can begin a change in culture. It might start with our small community of Jesus followers, but being part of the change is also the best place to be.

You think that you are just some guy, with friends starting a community that will hopefully impact your neighbourhood with some exciting Jesus type action and then it happens. Someone treats you like you’re their pastor. I always new that if I was going to start this community I should have “pastor” type gifts, but to be honest I don’t think I ever embraced the idea of actually being a pastor. Pastor’s are guys who speak Sunday morning, and perform weddings and funerals, and have a building on the corner of the street; I wasn’t one.

I still remember when I first “became” a pastor. It was one night after one of our gatherings at my house when my immaturity got me in trouble and when a person I was speaking with told me that she couldn’t believe that a pastor would say such a thing and stormed out of the room in disgust. I was floored. Shortly after, more of my “personality” traits got me into more trouble and then it hit me. I was now a pastor.

A pastor? Me? What happened?

This wasn’t good and as I look back am not sure if I will ever recover.

The first thing that made me realize I was a pastor is that I no longer had the same rules. I couldn’t make the same jokes, I couldn’t go to the same places, I couldn’t hang with the same people (without leaving out others) and my public profile became plastered everywhere. (At least to me). I couldn’t just be a guy working things out with everyone, I was a pastor who should “know better.”

This may have been the death of my journey in some regards. I am in a better place now, but the ministry depression I went through prior to and a good time after my stellar trip to the Bahamas to Soularize in October 2007 was quite painful and I think it’s only now that I understand why.

The truth is, if you want to journey together with your church, make mistakes openly, and just be “one of the boys” don’t pastor. Unless you like being at the top, partially transparent, or are an elder and have been through enough to be able to navigate through the waters, don’t pastor.

I’ve seen people leave because of me. This might be my ego, but they told me so.

I never signed up for this. Then again, maybe I did? Maybe this is the natural progression for all church planters; of course I think most of the others knew this would happen… I’m not sure i did.

I am a recovering pastor right now. And to be honest… I don’t want to be one. I want to journey openly and suggest some “sketchy” ideas, and explore the world (not needing to show up every Sunday). I need to re-define the term. Or perhaps bring its original meaning back… a gift as opposed to a position.

(I love that I can write this. I love that my church will read it and be encouraging.)

Now how do I actually live this out and not continue down the same road?

Sometimes I don’t think I will ever be able to.