NOTES FOR THE CHURCH COUNCIL

The Exploratory Committee for a Second Service has met twice, first on April 17^th and then again on April 29^th to explore various issues related to the creation of a second service. The committee members included John Cain, Martha Cooper, Faye Fuqua, Rhonda Harpole, Jeremy, Jim and Richard Judkins, Scott Little, Glen Page, Susan Parham, John and Rebecca Purdue and Gina Tatum.  The first meeting of this committee was also attended by Ben Cowherd, the pastor’s nephew who is studying acoustic engineering in Nashville.

The committee met to look at four variables related to the creation of a second service. These are If such a service was advisable, Who such a service would be targeted toward, When such a service might occur, and Where it might be held.

At the first meeting it was generally agreed that, assuming certain conditions, the time is good for the launching of a second service. Several reasons were given, including reaching more and new people with the Gospel, especially those our current service is unlikely to reach, changing with the times without jettisoning our current service and giving people a greater choice in worship styles.  There was deep and at times contentious discussion about some specifics, but the group seemed in wide agreement that such a service is needed, is achievable, would be of value to the church and community, bring glory to God and help persons in the community who are not presently in a worshipping community draw closer to God.

Ben Cowherd reported that the CFC was an excellent space in terms of acoustics and overall design for a more contemporary service. The Sanctuary, on the other hand, was designed and built for worship in a traditional setting and would be very expensive to retrofit for contemporary music.

The second meeting of the exploratory committee, on April 29^th, dealt with where who, when and questions along with several structural (how) questions.

WHERE: Four different areas have come under consideration for a potential service: the CFC, the MS auditorium, the HS auditorium and the Chamber of Commerce building, located just to the south of the church building. There was consensus within the exploratory committee that the CFC presented several advantages over the other spaces, but that it was too early to rule out other spaces.

Following the meeting, conversations with committee members not at the second meeting, church members beyond the committee and persons connected with the various spaces have made it clear that the CFC is indeed our best option. The lack of benefits of an off-campus sight is tangible, but is, in the pastor’s opinion, substantially outweighed by the costs, both known and unknown.   

WHO: At least three streams of thought were present in the meeting:

1.      After study of the attached documents relating to the demographic realities of DeKalb County, the committee came to the understanding that we as a church represent an extreme of persons within the community:  First Church has a substantially higher average level of both income and education than is normative in DeKalb County.  Our goal of reaching people for God within the community thus is built in part on broadening our appeal across the demographic.  At the same time, it was recognized that consideration needs to be made for continuity with the present nature of the church.  This includes a solid United Methodist theological tradition and strong Biblical teaching.

2.      Additionally, the demographic data showed that there is a strong presence in the community of persons under the age of forty, but our demographics at First Church skew to an over forty population.  A second service would be designed to appeal to younger persons within the community.  Since the exceptionally  great majority of persons who either change religious affiliations or join a church for the first time as an adult do so before the age of 35, this is a key demographic for the enduring life of the church.

3.      There was also significant agreement within the committee that, beyond the demographic data, a new service would also need to be attractive to those who feel uncomfortable in more traditional church settings for whatever reason.  This group would include a broad demographic with the commonality of a negative experience of Church but an openness to God.  Thus the service would need to be a non-judgmental place of warm community.

THUS: the committee recommends that we pursue a service that is designed to appeal to a broader, younger demographic, including those whose experience of God has been diminished by their experience of church.

WHEN: While this question was not answered definitively, two issues came forth in discussion:

1.       Rev. Purdue reported that he has received permission from the District Superintendent to pursue a second service at First Church as a first priority and that if this included the installation of a new pastor at Bright Hill UMC, the DS was more than willing to proceed with doing so.

2.      It was reported from the literature that a Saturday night service was generally successful only as a fourth or fifth weekend service.  While some churches have done well with one service on Sunday and one on Saturday, the norm is for a plurality of Sunday services prior to the addition of a Saturday night service.  Thus, especially given the traditional nature of the community, we are looking at a Sunday morning service.

HOW:

Church council will need to approve the idea of moving ahead with a new service and formally set up three committees: Prayer, Launch, Worship

1.      Prayer:  Lilly Vaughn and Betty Turner have initiated a weekly prayer vigil to pray specifically for the church.  This group could be at the center of the creation of a new service by immersing the church in prayer as we move forward, including this possible service.

2.       Launch:  ST team to pull together construction, funding, initial marketing and such.  This team would be recruited to do the one-time set up work and work in close coordination with the worship committee.

3.      Worship:  An ongoing team, to be folded into the normative life of the church (to be formally appointed as a part of the regular process of church committees and such) to develop and execute the service. This committee would be completely different from the current worship committee.  The church would have two worship committees.

++++++++

The Plan from here:

If the church council approves this report, the following issues will need to be addressed:

-        Developing at least one focus group of the target demographic.

-        Visiting “next tier” churches that are doing now what we hope to be doing in the future.

-        Recruiting of missional families from our current service to attend the projected service for 4 months.

-        Defining with more clarity the goals of new service.  We need a clear plan so that we can analyze whether the service is working or whether we need to pull the plug on it at some future time. 

-        Raising funds

-        Identifying appropriate worship themes

-        Clarifying timing issues

-        Designing service, including space

-        Coordinating with Sunday School

-        Promotion and visitor follow-up.

-        Developing infrastructure to support the whole church

o       Making current service more guest-friendly while designing new service to be the same.

o       Improving our children’s ministry.

o       Moving beyond our current website into social networking, blogging…

o       Developing video for both sanctuary and CFC

Pastor’s Pilgrimage:

I am very excited about the possibility of expanding our ministry here at First UMC in this manner. We do a great deal of good in the community for Jesus already, but it is my desire to move forward with this project to expand not our church but the Kingdom of God here in DeKalb County.

Issues and Answers: (some raised in research, some in committee, some in email conversations)

  The following charts were published on April 27^th 2009 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life