Future of Unichurch: Option 2: Move

November 26th, 2008 by Rory Shiner Posted in Church

The second option to consider for the future of Unichurch is to move venues. Given our missional commitment to meet on campus rather than in a church building, this only gives us one option: the Octagon Theatre. This venues seats around 800 people, and would therefore give us room to more that double in the next few years. Why would we consider this option?

1. Room to grow.

Unlike the do nothing option, this would be a move with a view to the future. It would be a space in which we could grow, and the empty seats would be a powerful reminder that our work is far from finished.

2. Being noticed.

Would a large crowd in a large venue attract the attention of non-Christian students at UWA and perhaps spark an interest in Jesus? Maybe it would. Only one way to find out…

3. Quality.

Size allows an increase in quality. Everything: our music, our preaching, our graphics, our programmes, could all increase in quality under the conditions of a larger crowd.

4. Rationalization.

There is something inherently rational about doing one service in a larger venue. No re-inventing of the wheel.

 

Well, they are some of the positives. However, there are strong–very strong–reasons to think that this move might not be the best move. Among them are:

1. Expense.

The Octagon would cost around $1000 per week (!). There is no economy of scales to help us here. And we definitely wouldn’t be able to get the Octagon every week at any rate.

2. Limiting of training and opportunity.

Contra the positive of rationalization, when you look to grow rather than multiply, you limit training opportunities. You need less preachers, less welcomers, less bible readers (in proportion to the congregation) which means that less people get to develop in these areas. Large churches tend to have a much larger proportion of non-active members.

3. A lighthouse versus communities of light. 

To borrow an metaphor from Steve Timmis, large churches are like lighthouses: they send their light out a long way across the city; but, again like lighthouses, the light may go a long way, but it goes over the top of the city. However, smaller communities of light allow the light to get into the nooks and crannies of the city. They don’t reach as far, but they do go down deeper into the lives of the people they are serving.

Personally, I think that in Perth we need both. We desperately need large regional churches that are faithful to the word of God, resource rich and (more importantly) resource generous. But we also desperately (more desperately?) need hundreds of communities of light: small gospel communities whose impact is small but deep, communities that are thoroughly convinced of the gospel of Jesus and thoroughly open to doing what it takes to bring that gospel to the people in their area.

While this option is worth thinking through, I note that expense and limited venues means that it is hard to imagine how it would happen. Perhaps this is God’s way of telling us to look at other options?

Love, Rory

  1. 4 Responses to “Future of Unichurch: Option 2: Move”

  2. By Jon R on Nov 26, 2008

    Hey Rores,

    Is Octagon the only option? (Winthrop Hall!!! :)

    Here is a link to the costings on the UWA Webpage: http://www.theatres.uwa.edu.au/university_theatres_home_page/octagon_theatre?f=189799

    I don’t know how many ppl would fit in the Dolphin theatre or Undercroft or New Fortune or Somerville but it’d be worth actually exploring the different options and costing them if that’s a significant opposition…

    Ciao,
    JR

  3. By Dave Elsing on Nov 26, 2008

    Open air, brother!

  4. By Victor on Nov 29, 2008

    hmmm. As one of the newer members of church, I feel unqualified to be giving my 2 cents…but I always like a good discussion! So here ya go :)

    Pros

    1) room to grow.

    Back in my youth group days, during a service, the youth pastor asked us to sit next to an empty seat. This was meant to be a reminder of our mission. We still needed to get our friends! It made us get a vision for our little yout group. However, at times, having so many empty seats made me feel a little discouraged. I felt like we were going nowhere. I guess moving to a bigger venue could be good and bad. It just depends on how you see the glass (room) – half-empty or half-full?

    2) Being noticed.

    You ask a good question. I reckon that a large crowd would spark interest…specially if we held outdoors meetings as Davo suggested!! ha

    3) Quality.

    I’m not sure what you mean here. How would size increase quality? Why couldn’t we have quality (in the areas mentioned) now? And could it actually help increase size? hmmm. Just throwing out questions to stimulate discussion hehe.

    4) Rationalisation.

    True dat.

    Cons

    1) Expense.

    1 grand a week!? Crazy. I think this one might cancel out this option altogether?

    2) Limiting of training and opportunity.

    I agree with you, mate. Although, a larger church could have more hub groups? And therefore more leaders trained up to lead them? You could have a media team, a couple of bands with different musical flavours, umm what else… a choir to crank it up hahaha like a true black gospel church LOL. Now that would be something LOL. (and of course im kidding) But yeah, I agree with you. In proportion to size, a lot of talent could be wasted in a king kong congregation.

    3) A lighthouse versus communities of light.

    WHo is Steve Timmins? I like his metaphor! I’m ‘borrowing’ it for future reference.

    I reckon we need both models too. I’m all for mega-churches as long as they are faithfull to God’s word and not…errrghh other things (dont wanna open a can of worms here). Mark Driscoll has a metaphor in which he calls the gospel preached in a large gathering – the ‘air war’. Then that large gathering will disperse and get together in communitty groups throughout the week, calling it the ‘ground war’. I guess its similar to what you are saying.

    Ground war – “small gospel communities whose impact is small but deep”. Air war – “large regional churches that are faithful to the word of God, resource rich and (more importantly) resource generous”.

    Anyway, good discussion. I pray God guides you and that whatever you decide will help further the gospel.

  5. By Ben on Jan 26, 2009

    One thought. $50,000/year for a venue sounds like a lot, but it’s actually fairly trivial. You can’t buy a house near the uni for much less than $1 million and to build a church building that would fit 500 people would probably cost several million. So it would take maybe 60–80 years of hiring a venue at $50,000/year to reach the cost of building a church building near the uni, and with a lot more flexibility too.

    Of course, splitting church would be a lot cheaper, but the cost of a large venue isn’t as crazy as it first looks.

Post a Comment