continuing the blog conversation, begun Feb 26th, that introduced the topics of church planting, second services and second sites for Vista, i wanted to comment on second sites verses church plants… first, we don’t know everything about either option, but we know something. ideas and such posted here should sound less definitive and more inquisitive. we really want to do what’s best as we keep trying to follow Jesus…follow God’s leading. and by “we” we mean as many as are willing to engage the discussion…
second, discussions are built upon the presumption that God continues to bless Vista with increasing numbers – that’s certainly not the only way he could bless, but if that particular dynamic should continue, it makes sense to be ready for some sort of expansion…
Let me toss out a few thoughts. we talked last time about the relative simplicity in adding a second service at our current home, Jerome HS, Sunday morning. it’s more of a numbers-management strategy than a broader-community-impact strategy and typically requires added staff and increased demand on existing servants. and it doesn’t really fit our culture of being organic…having the people “be the church…out there.” broadening our impact by spreading out seems more like us than creating a bigger “center” from which to work.
considering a second location brings two other major options to the table. a church plant and a second site. let me describe each one, somewhat superficially, at first. a church plant requires (by most standards) a moderately dynamic leader with public gifts, an entrepreneurial spirit and a fairly decent size crowd of folks willing to follow. a plant tends to tilt toward being autonomous, in that it is developing a unique and distinct identity from the sending church. a plant also requires a fairly significant pioneering spirit from those that “go,” since there are substantial sacrifices related to what they enjoy in/with the sending church.
a second site is similar to a church plant in that it seeks to develop a new congregation, but it is less distinctive and more interdependent than it is autonomous, with respect to the sending church. in our view, the distinctive of a second site is that it shares significant central processes and programs with the sending church (and other future sites). For example, in our case, a teaching team anchored by me would share the load at all sites; operations such as financial responsibilities would be centralized (although each site would set and manage its own budget); Christmas and Easter programs could be a shared endeavor; possible other staff positions like Discipleship Pastor might be shared. A site would, though, have it’s own lead pastor (likely gifted more in care and discipleship than teaching), a musical worship team and other site-specific ministries like Kids Community, set-up, welcome, etc…
we are truly open to all three options: Second service, second site, church plant. What are your thoughts?
As this discussion goes on, it does seem that the 2nd site seems beneficial. By going with a 2nd site, we retain the identity of Vista that people are being drawn to. God has definitely blessed our efforts thus far, and we should honor that by continuing to move forward. If a 2nd service doesn’t seem to be the vision of Vista, then 2nd site resonates. Unless we are seeking to move into a new geographical area (i.e. Southwest Columbus), then it makes sense to keep Vista sites linked, rather than artificially separating into a church plant.
It “sounds like” the tenor of the conversation may be tipping more towards the 2nd site option over a church plant. In my mind, the question boils down to deciding which option creates the greatest opportunity for impact in the community. Ashley — really liking your thoughts, great stuff! Brian Webb — this statement makes a great case for a 2nd site w/ centralized ties back to VISTA… “sense of loss would be tempured through the sharing of a teaching team, central processes and shared endeavors like Christmas and Easter”… even as I type this I find myself more and more in favor of a 2nd site… yup, I think I’m going to go make a t-shirt w/ a 2nd site slogan on it… keep an eye out for it this Sunday! ;^)
I love the vision that Vista has to be worshipful, relational, and missional. We put proper emphasis on the importance of developing our body inwardly, but I love that we are very outwardly focused – working in the community and various ministries that we’re already involved in and taking others with us. I think it’s SO good that we don’t have lots and lots of internal programs to detract the hands and feet of Christ from the community back into little church activities all throughout the week. That internal support is vital for sure, but it’s not overcompensated for with extra programs every other night of the week. I think that should stay that way. Therefore, it would seem much more beneficial and fruitful ministry-wise to plant or have a second church as opposed to just adding another service to our church, whether it’s Sunday night or another day of the week. That would give our people a chance to grow and step out in faith as well as more opportunity for more to hear the Gospel and get plugged into the Body. If we continue to grow and don’t break off and plant anew, we will not only lose the joy of sharing the Gospel effectively, but will forfeit the intimacy in our own fellowship. So I would definitely support second church or church plant over another service. And I’m still definitely a fan of renting and using the resources we already have, instead of building a church at this point.
This is also nice for a regular attender of one service to attend a “makeup” service later or earlier in the week if they need to miss one…
Just another idea, IF going with / starting with a second service, instead of two Sunday AM services, add an evening service on Sat, Sun, Wed or Monday…? (Who doesn’t need something to look forward to on Mondays? – haha.) Unfortunately, this will double setup and teardown work, but, may be able to reach a whole new set of people and eventually volunteers that are unavailable/uninterested in traditional Sunday AM services… We still love the renting idea, btw:)
Here is a thought… more of a cool vision. Do a plant/second site at Scioto High School. It would open a whole new market (the other side of the river) and would still be close. I also thought it could be at 5:30 and Mike could help co-pastor it for a few months and slowly turn over to another pastor. Vision time: How could would it be to have churches at all 3 high schools servicing the entire city of Dublin. It keeps with the intimacy of a smaller church, but maintains the ideals of a larger Vista community. 🙂
I like the site vs. plant concept. Having additional campuses or sites with some central oversight and shared resources helps promote the “family” part of the church concept as well as lightening the burden in some of the logistical roles. It also helps with taking advantage of the gifting of certain members, allowing a relatively small body to still be able to pull from a larger pool of gifts and talents to make things run well.
I can’t help but feel pulled to the second site option as well. I feel like we have such a great thing going, and keeping the relationship symbiotic, as Tim said, I feel would be most beneficial. As a “brand,” Vista is surely a strong one, and continues to draw fans and followers of Christ. We’re reaching the community and the organic nature has really taken off and resonated. Perhaps with a second site, we could “spread the love” and uniqueness of Vista, by expanding our breadth instead of starting over. An old saying comes to mind… “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” 🙂
Chris – good question. It’s one that has certainly influenced the direction of our discussions. Like with any new venture, once established, we often look back and are able to identify things we could have done differently and things we probably wouldn’t have. For many who planted Vista, there was a real sense of loss to the connections and relationships at Heritage. With the second site option, that sense of loss would be tempured through the sharing of a teaching team, central processes and shared endeavors like Christmas and Easter.
How about finding a bigger facility,that we all could be under one roof worshiping God,Iknow this wasn’t one of the 3 options.
I am brand new to Vista (2 months)so I have no right to speak to this question. But I resonate with the process of providing a forum of discussion about issues of this nature. That is impressive. I am particulary intriqued by the 2nd site idea. That would allow for an on-going symbiotic relationship where complementary gifts of various people could bless both groups. I will be praying for you all during this process.
Leaning away from second service. The more I hear from Vista leadership, and the more I pray, the less peace I have with a second service.
What are some of the initial thoughts amongst your leadership team w/ regards to the impact to VISTA between a plant vs. 2nd site? Perhaps there’s some value in looking at the positives/negatives of the relationship between VISTA and Heritage?