i can’t think of a better reason to dust off the ole’ webspace than for our annual christmastime music download.
mr. sean munoz & i got together for a day and came out with 4 little mp3s to add to your holiday soundtrack.
so, download, unzip, drag it into iTunes and enjoy our 2012 gift to you: Comfort And Joy.
it’s free music time of year.
mr. munoz & i have 3 songs for you to toss into your christmas playlist.
i hope you enjoy them.
so, my church had a night of worship back in november. we recorded it and now the original & public domain songs are available free online for you to enjoy. the whole night from start to finish (featuring 6 more songs) is available on CD in our chapel store on sundays for you locals.
go grab it. we don’t ask for your email or anything.
Imagine a fireman who goes into a burning orphanage to save some young children because they are unable to escape by themselves and can be saved only if he rescues them. Only he can save them because he has an asbestos suit.
He comes back in a few minutes bringing out 3 of the 30 children, but rather than going back in to save more children, the fireman goes over to the news media and talks about how praiseworthy he is for saving the three children.
Indeed, saving the three children was a good, heroic deed. But the pressing question on everyone’s mind is, What about the other 27 children? Since he has the means to rescue the children and, indeed, is the only one who can save the children since they cannot save themselves, do we view the fireman as morally praiseworthy? I suggest that we would not. In fact, probably he would be charged with depraved indifference. He had the means to help them, but he would not.
If we do not find that praiseworthy in a human, why would we find it praiseworthy in God?
Steve Lemke
whosoever will
“What makes Steve’s methodology different from everyone else’s is that he always believed the most important decisions you make are not the things you do, but the things you decide not to do,” Sculley said in a 2010 interview with Businessweek.
“That’s been one of my mantras: focus and simplicity,” Jobs told Businessweek in 1998. “Simple can be harder than complex: You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple. But it’s worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains.”
“It comes from saying no to 1,000 things to make sure we don’t get on the wrong track or try to do too much. We’re always thinking about new markets we could enter, but it’s only by saying no that you can concentrate on the things that are really important.”
the multi-site church (meaning 1 church whose congregation meets at different locations or campuses) isn’t really a new thing. i don’t know who first started it, but it’s been around for a while now. as a phenomenon, however, it seems to be spreading into more and more parts of the nation. no longer is the multi-site method confined to large metropolitan areas. it’s happening all over and it’s an interesting thing to watch.
because of technology, a single church can now have campuses miles, if not cities away from each other. and, while each movement does multi-site a little differently (i will not attempt to speak as an ‘expert’ since i’ve little experience, only observation), you typically find one prominent, charismatic (used in the personality sense, not the theological sense) teaching pastor who is piped in to every campus. then, at those campuses, one might find any variety of administration formats: some have live music, some are all video. some have individual campus pastors, some have a network of assistant pastors for congregants to interact with.
again, i’m certainly not an expert, (though here at calvary we like to jokingly refer to our overflow hall as our West Campus).
but i was thinking about multi-site churches the other day and wondering about the benefits and drawbacks it might have as a method.
on one hand, a multi-site church is able to pool resources and do larger work than individual churches, even compared to individual churches cooperating together. one church with multiple bodies can do some real damage (in the positive sense) because of the number of people, resources and opportunities which are all gathered together under one administrative roof and vision.
growth is a good thing. though some advocate smaller churches, i wonder how you decide when a church ‘too big’? if God is adding to the church, if people are showing up to be a part of the ministry, at what number should you start turning them away? 10,000? 1,000? 100? logistically, if a church is quite sizable and continues to grow, at some point you will run into space issues. i think most people have no problem with a church that has 2 services, but you can’t very well have 8 sunday services at the same location (well, you could i suppose, but you’d go through staff pretty fast since they’d probably die at that pace).
from that angle, i understand why a church would want to perhaps split into 2 or more campuses. it can solve logistical problems for a church bursting at the seems. it can also elevate the presence of that ministry in different parts of the community, or often different communities altogether.
on the other hand, i wonder if the tip-top pastors of these multi-site churches really are ‘pastors’ to, say, the individual congregant 2 cities over who may never actually meet said pastor.
more importantly, i sometimes wonder if some congregants aren’t attached to the church as much as they are attached to the personality in the pulpit. and, if that is the case, is that a characteristic that is more…papal in feel? would it be better for people to just grab his teachings online and then be involved with a truly local ministry?
these are just some of the thoughts i think from my safe and comfortable armchair here.
and they’re really just thoughts. i’m not attempting to make a statement.
i believe that large churches can do incredible good. growth is good. i believe that methods must change and update in order to engage each generation and culture. when method doesn’t change, movements die.
but, i also look at the evangelical church and see a trend toward something that’s very new and, perhaps, untested. i’ve just been wondering if what we see is an adaptation to growth and a technologically advanced culture or if it’s something else. a personality driven Church that elevates a few individuals while potentially negating some of the pastoral duties we see demonstrated by guys like Paul or Timothy.
like i said, i’m wondering.
and i’m wondering what you’re wondering.
a couple people will read this post. some of you attend a multi-site church and some of you don’t. if you’re inclined to click a link and type a little bit, i’m interested in hearing any thoughts you’re willing to share. because i’d like to think more about what we’re seeing around us. and i’d like more thoughts than those my armchair can generate.
so, be a pal and do what normal people don’t do anymore on the wide, wide world of web: comment on a blog post.