Well, here is the autopsy provided to the cabinet by me. I was not sure how much to include since it is rather long to post all at once. I thought about doing it a little bit at a time but the issues tend to be interrelated. I just decided to do it in one post. For those of you who wish to see the assessments offered by the specialists the Bishop brought in, they follow this post. (I didn't get to the conclusion...too tired right now. I'll finish later.)
RLCC Autopsy
Prepared for: Dean Zeigler, Butler District Superintendent
Prepared by: R. Andrew Verner
July 22, 2008
Executive Summary
Overview
Radiant Life Christian Community was an attempt at church planting by the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference. It began with the signing of the lease in the Pittsburgh Mills Mall Galleria in June of 2006 and concluded with its dissolution in September of 2008.
Goal
This document is offered as a learning tool so that the errors made and experiences garnered would not be wasted in the future of new church development in the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church.
Cautions
This summary is my own (R. Andrew Verner). It arises solely from my own observations, in hindsight, for the unfolding of this church plant. If my tone seems injurious, it is not intended as such. I intend candor. I, and my family, have bled for this church and this conference. My heart is broken that I could not "succeed" in this endeavor. I trust that those who read this and know me know that all the excellence Christ has placed within me was expended to bring the good news of Jesus to others and help build a community of faith, hope and love. In many ways we have succeeded, but not in ways that would produce a self-sustaining United Methodist Church. I have tried to exorcise the small bitterness that is within, knowing that all who conceived this effort did so with the greatest and most holy of motives, and yet the failure is too close right now for the emotion of it not to spill out on these pages.
ISSUES
These are the issues affecting the outcome:
ISSUE #1: Conception
The Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church (WPAMUC) decided to lease 8100 sq. ft. of prime retail space in Tarentum, Pa. at the cost of $5000 per month plus utilities with the purpose of launching a new United Methodist Church along the Route 28 corridor northeast of Pittsburgh. This decision was influenced by a the possession of a sizable grant designated for that purpose. While no specific target people group was identified, no local population interviewed, no specific timetable was agreed upon, no church planter was selected, no consultations with local UM churches and pastors were held, and no specific methodology or plan were identified and agreed upon, the location of the plant was fixed by mutual assent.
Clearly, the decision making body was crippled by the lack of a person experienced and trained in modern church plant methodology. Assumptions about church planting and the location were made. These included: the model of planting or church plant methodology required to make such a location work; the necessary level of local tribal church 'buy-in' required to sustain the church and planter through the early stages; the relative benefits and liabilities of using a retail location as the main networking hub; the degree to which mall management goals and church planting goals could be conjoined; the most import was how the location would drive the launch timeline rather than the size of the faith community.
Ideally, a combination of community need, a committed local sponsoring body, and planter passion combines to cultivate a powerful 'ought' in which the community of Jesus takes root and flourishes. In this plant it appears that the possession of the grant, the novelty of the location (coupled with the lower than standard rent for comparable retail property), and other conference concerns overshadowed in the minds of the committee the liabilities of the location.
ISSUE #2: Fantasy Statement v. Vision Statement
The vision of a "Mall Church" was promoted throughout our conference. It appears, however, no infrastructure to realize this vision was put in place. One person, when questioned about the plan for the church, stated, "We don't want to burden the planter with a plan. We want the plan to come from the church planter." While that statement sounds trusting and generous, it is foolish. Regardless of the methodology employed by a planter, clear systems of accountability, concrete benchmarks, a method of funding and disbursement, as well as inter-church networking is the responsibility of the planting body and essential to realizing any church plant vision.
The idea of a Mall Church was not fleshed out prior to lease signing. What is a Mall Church? What is the nature, spiritual expectations, and sociological makeup of consumers? What are expectations of people of a "Mall Church"? What kinds of ministries would attract people from the mall and how many people would it take to create a ministry presence that would have legitimacy in the eyes of the target group? Perhaps these questions were asked by the initial decision making body. If so, there were not provided to the church planter when he asked for such.
ISSUE # 3: Location of Planter Family
The housing for the church plant was, in retrospect, poorly located. The urgencies of a mid-appointment year move dictated a choice of location that proved less than ideal. The planter's decision, conditioned by a late autumn move, inexperience with home purchasing, unfamiliarity with the area, and the 30 day time restriction artificially imposed by leadership, was wrong. While the home served the family well, it did not serve the church plant well. The location would have been suitable if the rented space was further south, since established shopping patterns dictate that people tend toward rather than away from Pittsburgh. Locating the church planter's family south of the mall, rather than north, meant that those with whom the planter was in regular contact at home did not naturally intersect with the planter in the mall environment. Most of those who would later become connected to Radiant Life Christian Community came from north of the mall. Reconnaissance, planning and patience as well as a thorough and accurate sociological and demographic survey could have avoided this error.
ISSUE #4: Mall Restrictions
The Mills Corporation, desperate for tenants and experiencing severe internal corporate difficulties, rented the space to the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference with the expectation of a filled storefront to demonstrate the mall's viability to potential commercial tenants. The conference signed the lease in June, yet left the space unoccupied and undeveloped for 6 months. This encouraged concern by mall management, who were initially uncertain as to what the impact a nonprofit company might have on the retail environment.
The mall lease states tenants will be open during all mall hours. This effectively ties the church planter to the site and requires that people come to the planter rather than the planter going to the people. The mall prohibits any action that could be interpreted as solicitation. These restrictions directly oppose strategies that have been demonstrated to work for new church plants. Outside signage is prohibited. The lease restricts any sales activity to the leased spaces only. The mall has noise restrictions. These restrictions were not burdensome in the early stages, but as worship outreach and preview services began, so too did concern about "noise".
ISSUE #5: Early/Late Launch
Worship was launched too early and too late. The Public Event is the most important item on the timeline of a church plant. In North American anglo culture, a church is not a church unless it has a worship event on Sunday morning in the church location. A church is not legitimate in the eyes of possible attenders if it is not worshipping on Sunday morning. For a "parachute drop", worship launch must be delayed as long as it takes to get a large enough core group (launch team) to feel legitimate to guests. As a parachute drop, Radiant Life was launched too early.
As an "Attract Model" church plant, which is the only way procuring property in a highly visible mall before a launch team is recruited and trained could be construed, worship was launched way too late. An attract model relies on a high profile presence and a blitz opening. For those who did come in to the site, the first question was "When is worship?" A reasonable question when a church is paying rent and has a public presence in the form of a storefront in an upscale mall. Yet the answer had to be "Not yet," since no worship team or children's ministry existed (two core functions that must exist for a church to be viewed as legitimate in the modern mindset). Without worship, the average inquirer, no matter how interested, mentally wrote off the church. The church was "public" in that it was visible to the shoppers of the mall, but not "public" in the sense that it had the "Public Event" (worship on Sunday morning) that denotes a real church. The site was useful, in one sense, since it provided an available space for outreach events. it was debilitating in the way it was perceived by the "consumers" who come to the mall expecting a "finished product". Because no worship was possible, RLCC was dismissed as an oddity.
ISSUE #6: Outreach and Buy-in
An overused, but accurate, expression in church planting is "Church planting is a contact sport." The goal of the planter at RLCC was 20 contacts a week (this works out to meeting a little over 1000 new people every year). This was frequently accomplished (note that the space was unfinished and required some 8 months of time to complete, taking away valuable contact making time in the most important stage of planting). After the site was completed, outreach events were able to be held that helped exceed this goal. Vacation Bible School, Coffee House, Concerts, Teaching/Education Events, Children's Outreach (puppet shows, magic shows, etc.) were all held with the intention of parleying those contacts into a viable launch team.
These events were successful in attracting crowds, especially among families. Each attracted 60-100 people. While there was some buy-in from a few, given the number of contacts made, a greater number of commitments were expected over the pre-launch term. In asking questions, we discovered that the outreach events were crippled by sociological factors. Coming to an event at a mall, people were approaching as they would any other event in a mall: willing to be entertained, looking for something to distract them, and very wary of salesmen.
Fruitful contacts are best made in organic (natural) ways. They also take time, which requires repeated encounters. The mall space put the contact in control of repeating the encounter, whereas normally the planter would ensure repeated contact by going to the people. That's why community based launches (neighborhood) fare better than those removed from community (such as a destination shopping center). That's also the reason why most planters spend 90% of their time where people are already going to build relationships. While some of this was done at RLCC, it has already been noted that the mall restrictions and removal from natural community made this prohibitive.
ISSUE #7: Formalizing Leadership and Structure Too Soon
The leadership structure at RLCC was created too early. This was due to a number of factors, many of them noted above. An early worship launch requires committed worship leadership. Lack of clear financial oversight and disbursement system along with the eventual employment of contractors led to the need for a trained person to handle the immediate and pressing financial issues of a new church plant. Mall requirements early on led to the need for a more consistent staffing in the mall facility. A parachute drop model needs time, yet everything about the mall model launch required urgency. This led the planter to regrettable staffing decisions early on that could and should have been avoided.
