One Experience or Two

I agree entirely. I don't really understand the need for two services. We fragment our ability to know each other (or at minimum recognize each other without asking, "Are you new here?" "Nope, I've been coming her for 2 years but I'm in the early service."

There would definitely be more energy and better connection.

And as a drummer who is -- let's be honest -- fundamentally lazy, I agree that two sessions makes for a very long day, after which I'm pretty wiped.

---------------------------------------
I believe in God because every once in a while, I hear a voice that says, "You're my favorite."

The question about 2 services came up last night. At the Journey, the 2 services can be very different due to the crowd--depending on the message that week. One can be more "just sit and talk at me" and another one can be more "I want to talk too". People get set into their routine of which service they attend....even yesterday I heard someone say, "My people are in this service" (after they had "visited" the other service the week before. Here are some questions:

What happens if one service "bombs" using the new J2 "ways" and the other service excels?
Will 2 services provide the relational building that we want? Rather than "cliques"? ("These are my discussion buddies from last week and I don't want to change groups!"

I don't know---alot of this is going to be "try it and see" but I think 1 service should be considered.

DougEFresh
I agree with Christine. I think the main reason the energy is often low at the first experience is because the attendance is low. I'd love to see us make it easier on the speakers and on the band by just having one experience at an easy time, like say 9:00 or 9:30. If our size skyrockets, maybe we could consider having 2 again. Right now, we're not that big, and we do often miss connecting with people.

10 am service.
More energy, more people! Better connection.
Some church types think you look bigger with 2 services, but I'm not worried bout that.
Less demand on the band, speaker, etc.
More time to do small groups after too: "Hey, the mountain bike group is going on an excursion today an hour after service. Anyone can join us."

There are some significant reasons why I plan to keep the two experience format - after the move to Pioneer.
Two experiences allows Journeyland teachers to still attend a worship experience.
Two experience keeps it small enough to say hi / greet people personally... notice new people - key to our mission.
Two experiecnes gives people 'options' of times that work for their families.
Two experience "forces" the issue of growth...

having said all that... I too am 'missing the energy' when the 8:45am hour is only 65 people in that huge auditorium!

The new times at Pioneer will be 9:00am and 10:45am. I believe it is better long term vision to keep it at two....especially when I plan to add at least 25% MORE people when we make the move...
Time to get agressive and grow the number of people... not reduce the number of experiences. :)

Hmmm... I want to look at some of the reasons you brought up.

"Two experiences allows Journeyland teachers to still attend a worship experience"

This is true but I wonder if there are other options for this. I was a part of a single service church for many years and they simply rotated the kids ministry teachers so that they only missed service once a month. If we have only one service we will have more teachers available because we won't be staffing everything twice and therefore a better rotation schedule becomes possible.

"Two experience keeps it small enough to say hi"

Is our goal to create and environment that is small and intimate or large and energetic? I don't think we can accomplish both fully on Sunday morning. I tend to lean twards big and energetic on Sunday and then provide other venues for small and intimate ( Small groups, LTG, interest groups etc.) I could go on about this but that's another topic.

"Two experiecnes gives people 'options' of times that work for their families."

Well...I suppose... But it's been my experience that people make time for what they feel is worth being part of. I haven't met anybody under the age of 70 who has chosen a place of worship based on the time that the service is offered. I would rather put my energy into creating something that is worth adjusting the family schedule for to be there.

"Two experience "forces" the issue of growth..."

Does it? I can think of quite a few examples of churches that have 2 services with very low attendance at either service. Just ask the Methodists or the Lutherans. Or even the Cathilics. The entire Mid-West is dotted with 2 service churches that are dying. No...I don't think that it's the number of services that dictates the rate of rowth of a church.

Hey Kay,

great to see you jumping across the digital divide to come after my logic... now "it's ON!" :)
Actually... this is a good discussion to have... and both sides have valid merit...
Let me expand a bit... but this is one we will need to discuss in person...
Just for a historical reference.... when we switched from one experience to two experiences we GREW in overall attendance.

here is a bit more of my attempt at logic...

Journeyland teachers are attempting to disciple, know, pray for, and develop deeper relationship with kids ... no way a 'once a month' connection can do this...
Kristin Guenther's vision is for an increasing connection for teachers / children.
**This reason alone pushes me to have two experiences.

My personal 'connection' with people is massively reduced when we have only one experience. Not that it's all about me... but I am unable to greet / connect with people (most of whom come 5 minutes late) when we're all in one hour.

Time options is significant... for families with young children... for people like you who really don't want church to start before noon! Early birds and late birds - really are there.. if Vanessa had her way.. .we would have one in the morning and one at night to connect with people who had hang-overs or just don't want to have to set an alarm for a Sunday morning!

the 80% rule... when the seating in a church is over 80% full - the growth rate of the church declines...
now while I know we're not close to 80%....I want us to stay on the 'hungry' side... not on the 'everything is great side.'

Why do we need to measure growth in terms of numbers?

Why do we need to measure relevance to undiscipled people by number of baptisms?

If we are big enough for two services, then why not use the second service to plant a new church?

I’ve been fairly active on the website and if I have aggregated the content well in my mind, many people are concerned more with qualitative growth than quantitative growth. People are asking for depth not quantity. You could challenge me by saying that I disagreed with the notion of depth but my concern is not the desire for depth but that given the mission of Journey, we want to keep Sunday oriented toward the undiscipled person and drive depth in our small groups.

This does not, I don’t think, invalidate the concern that an emphasis on tangible, measurable growth can cause problems for a church. People begin to care more about the people who aren’t showing up than they do about the people who are already there. Continually seeking more more more leads to being discontent with those who have already shown up and are involved.

I have to say that I get uncomfortable when we start using percentages and growth strategies that are numerically driven. If all readers will allow me to make a very broad generalization, I suspect that church leaders in America tend to want to quantify ministries because it brings tangibility to an inherently intangible quality, because it is the modern American way, where bigger is better, where numbers drive income and in some cases, measurement appeals to the ego of both leaders and congregants (and no, I am not saying this is necessarily true at Journey or with Jeff).

In America, the assumption seems to be that we grow by adding to the size of an existing local church rather than adding to the number of local churches by splitting an existing church into two, much like organic biological processes. This assumption is what drives the Joel Olsteen’s and Bill Hybel’s of America. Huge churches with huge economics, huge infrastructures, huge staffs. It’s an assumption that pushes thousands of people into a stadium church, where now a church has a facility that in the past could only be afforded by a pro sports team with local government subsidy.

In the early church, no one was renting out the Roman Coliseum and no one was constructing church buildings. Now, to be fair, no one was using electricity and good sanitation then either, so the question then becomes, how much facility, size and infrastructure is legit? And when does it become absurd, a reflection of American scale, of outsized economics and ego?

So, I ask Joel Olsteen: Instead of spending $75 million on a building with huge expenses to house tens of thousand of people, why not split them into hundreds of smaller churches where people can actually know each other and each church can be its own pocket of relevance to its community?

I’m using the super-awesome-megachurch as an exaggerated example to set the ideas in your mind. And now I want to ask: When we work backwards from the absurdity of a stadium church, where does it make sense to stop growing as one local body and split to grow as two local bodies?

A numerical emphasis on quantifying ministry effectiveness is a temptation that I think pulls many churches into eventual irrelevance. They look for ways to create enough juice to draw people in but I believe some studies done by Barna have shown that often, church growth strategies don’t lead to real kingdom growth. One church grows by taking people from other churches. This is not organic, mystery-driven kingdom growth. It’s sheep stealing.

Also, we need to keep in mind that while it is cool that consistent teachers helps build relationships, it also leads to burnout. Burnout can undercut the life of a church.

Anyway, I’d like to participate in a real time convo with anyone who has posted/will post on this topic. This is a tricky, delicate and potentially difficult topic. There are not easy answers and asking the hard questions could be challenging. But I think this is an issue that is very important and it would be good for us all to be united in whatever perspective surfaces from the discussions.

I believe in God because every once in a while, I hear a voice that says, “You’re my favorite.”

Hey Dave:
You know I think you are great, and God sees you as his favorite - but my friends joke with me that I won't read any email longer than 2 paragraphs...:-)

Wow, this is awesome, there sure is a lot of passion on this topic! This is one of those cool subjects that spans from the tangible to the intangible. In addition to the comments getting posted on this subject, I'm thinking this topic warrants some in person conversations as Jeff suggested...

It's like some sort of compulsive disorder: I HAVE to write. I can't stop. If you go to my blog, you'll see long articles where I blab on and on and on. I need an editor.

I think what I might do is write my primary thesis as a couple-paragraph section and then have supporting arguments later. That way, if someone wants to read all my support they can but others won't have to wade through all my verbiage if they aren't interested in it.

---------------------------------------
I believe in God because every once in a while, I hear a voice that says, "You're my favorite."

are you accepting applications? i’d love to be your editor.

Good posts here! No matter what size of church I’ve personally helped with, there’s always this question of “number of services” vs reaching “critical mass” for the sake of room dynamics. I’ve worked with very healthy churches that have one service and healthy churches that have three of four services. As far as room dynamics, often what we program and the stage leadership that executes it is more important than amount of people in the room. A room FULL of people is easier to “engage” than one half full. Just my thought but if I was concerned about synergy (said that word for Jeff W) I would push for continued growth in stage leadership and in the EPIC team’s quality of programing more than I would focus on butts-in-seats.

As far as giving people choices, its really true that stereotypically each service time really does attract a certain crowd. Usually the first service is the most mellow (I played one mega church in LA that had a Sat Pm, and 2 Sunday AM. It surprised me that the Sat Pm - still the 1st one of their identical service- was most mellow, Sunday Am was second mellow, Sunday late AM was the most energetic).

Sounds to me like people who have posted are looking for a BIGger “Ra ra” event on a Sunday AM than an intimate LTG experience?? (Both are valid).

Sounds also like people would like to pull together and be a part of one singular event come “launch time” and then split to two services later…

I love the big worship and prayer gatherings with loud bands and crazy lights… I love small groups in living rooms worshipping to ipod music. I do know that I miss a whole bunch of folks by coming to the early gathering… and since I have had to shuttle one of my kids to another church immediately afterward I often can’t hang around for very long to meet friends as they come in.

2 Services are fine with me….but I understand how it may be nice to really get to know everyone if we create just 1 service…I must add though, whoever said “10 a.m. service” is brilliant! I’m sorry to those that want to get out of church earlier….but thats a great time!

I know it is difficult to get up early a\nd the set up team I am so garteful how early you get to church. But I was wondering why we can’t go back to the servoce times of 8:45 and 10am. It is so nice to get out early on a sunday. I don’t know about most people but Sunday is my family day and being at church for two services is a long time. I teach and then stay for 2nd service. Can we go back to earlier times?

Would be nice….but I don’t think so….

Already the set up teams and worship teams are getting there at the crack of dawn and working until right before the first service. The team is spread too thin already and I encourage everyone to really think about helping with this team. Sunday mornings would not happen without the set up teams (and this includes Journeyland and coffee teams).

In my opinion, with the amount of set up required at Pioneer, it would not be possible, at this time, to start earlier.

In addition, I believe it is ESSENTIAL and VITAL for the set up teams, the worship team, the Journeyland team, etc to have a small window of time (approx. 15 minutes) to decompress after the craziness of practice and set up to get their minds and body ready to worship. We are doing a disservice to anyone leading, serving or attending when we are still getting things ready or rushing around 10-15 minutes before the experience.