Here’s a huge block of text for y’all that combines some of my favorite topics: business paradigms and church. I know, I know, riveting.
First over on Out of Ur we have a recent article about Cumberland Church:
Eddie Johnson, the lead pastor of Cumberland Church, espouses the franchising concept when it comes to the relationship between his church in Nashville, Tennessee, and North Point Community Church in metro Atlanta. On his blog, he states, “Just like a Chick-fil-A, my church is a ‘franchise,’ and I proudly serve as the local owner/operator.”According to Johnson, his job is to “establish a local, autonomous church that has the same beliefs, values, mission, and strategy as North Point.” He completed a three-month internship at North Point and continues to receive training and support. He claims to rarely deviate from the “training manual.”
Here’s what Missio Dei had to say:
It’s really easy to read this as satire and think, “People really can’t be saying this.” But it was inevitable that someone would say it this way.
I really wanted to see if the pastor was as gung-ho about using economic paradigms to describe Christianity as everyone was out to make him be. Turns out the answer is yes:
Church History tells us the “Franchised Church” works and that God uses it. Church History is FULL of franchised models. America was built on the franchised church…Truth is, most of us grew up in a successfully and strategically planned franchised church.
And:
Leadership is stewardship…In light of that principle, you’ll have to excuse me as I strategically chose to ignore and dismiss most of the recent criticism I’ve received about my leadership…I’m here because I truly believe Cumberland Church is God’s idea and not mine…Knowing that tells me that there’s really only one opinion I should be concerned about and it’s not yours.”
He makes an interesting point here:
Every church leader and church planter I know is implementing parts of, or in full, a franchised church system from another church. Whether it’s Willow, Saddleback, Fellowship, Fellowship Bible – Little Rock, Life Church, North Coast, Hillsong, Mars Hill, John Piper, Ed Young Jr., Perry Noble, Erwin McManus, Dino Rizzo, Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell, John Maxwell, North Point or First Baptist-something….we’re all transporting something from somebody. You pastors and church leaders are lying to yourself and fooling no one to think that you and your church are TRULY 100% original. It ain’t happenin’. As Solomon said, “there is really nothing new under the sun”...Truth is, we’re all doing it. I’m just more upfront, honest and strategic about it than you are right now.
(Fun fact: I go to one of those churches, used to attend another, and have regularly listened to podcasts from two others)
On the surface, Cumberland isn’t doing anything radical with spreading their brand of Christianity. Denominations have been doing that for centuries. The main kerfluffle is about how much worth we actually ascribe to models and systems. I have no doubt that if Cumberland can stay focused on Jesus they will do a tremendous amount of good.
So, should churches embrace the idea of franchising? While I’ll gladly concede that there are some franchising-esque tendencies in how we do churches now, do you agree that churches are currently tacitly practicing franchising? Can anyone see any positives or negatives with this system of thought? Other ideas?
Loading ...
February 4, 2008 at 18:15
There are a couple of low hanging fruit in the positives and negatives of this. On the good side there is obviously the fact that there is ongoing training for the leadership of the franchise. But on the bad side the systems could become more important than the people.
Thinking about this a little more, I think within denominations there is a franchise model going on. Perhaps the first few congregations joined by common consent, but then there is a belief statement or something and then a seminary and so on until congregations have some autonomy, they are still beholden to the central structure. This can be good for things like child protection training and guidelines, but may seem stifling for creative and adventurous people.
I’ve been having Lean manufacturing training at work recently and while I’ve been trying to think how we can apply it to software development I’m more thinking about how to apply it to the church. From mundane things like 5S in the kitchen to standard work in organisations via identification and elimination of sin via kaizen, as well as the concepts of muri (unreasonable stress on people) and mura (unbalanced processes). Small groups and cell groups and things fit into Lean quite well already, but there’s still a long way the Lean principles can be taken. Again, though care must be taken not to put processes above relationships. Our Lean trainers have pointed this out as good business practice and always say that everyone with a stake in the process should be involved in trying to improve it. My big question is how do we measure, or at least define, value? Who is the customer of the church? God or the congregation?
This link gives a good overview of Lean: http://www.npccmauritius.com/gembakaizen
February 4, 2008 at 18:47
Boy I hope this Eddie Johnson is joking. Because this is really a problem with the American evangelical church. They are personality based. It is the cult of the superstar. Whether the Baptist superstar, the Pentecostal superstar or the Presbyterian superstar. Paul was never the pastor of a church. Timothy was never the pastor of a church…He was a traveling evangelist/missionary whom Paul would leave behind to evangelize and help commission elders and deacons PLURAL. When you read Acts and Romans, you find they never stayed in one place long. There were no owners or superstar pastors. In fact, Paul criticized hero worship, saying, “For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?”. Of course there are sincere, Godly pastors today, but I don’t think the body of Christ was designed to function like this.
The word “pastor” is used only one time in the New Testament, in Ephesians. And yet the word prophet is used 69 times. We have things really backwards. Today, one man becomes the sole preacher, authority figure, teacher, facilities manager and chief pulpit joke teller. At least Eddie Johnson is honest by saying “my church is a ‘franchise,’ and I proudly serve as the local owner/operator.” Often church is a business, a money making venture, a career path, a publishing business. No wonder we wake up one day and realize no one ever talks about the Holy Spirit or sees evidence of the miraculous.
February 5, 2008 at 00:53
I wonder if part of the emotional reaction people have to church plants being called “franchises” is semantics. When we think franchise, we think McDonalds, Burger King, Radio Shack, and now Starbucks. “Franchise” brings up emotions and associations: “cookie-cutter”; “bland”; “mass-produced”; “impersonal”; “greedy” or “capitalist”.
Much of the emergent-church movement seems to be a search for perception of missing authenticity in the church experience. I also think it’s a reaction to the feeling of “McChurch” – they’re all the same, no matter where you attend.
I could see why those in my generation (X’ers) would react to a label with those [negative] associations.
February 5, 2008 at 15:30
Rick, I believe you argue against yourself in the defense of your view. You point out that Paul and Timothy didn’t pastor churches—that they traveled around planting churches and leaving leaders to carry on the work. I would largely agree with your characterization.
But then Paul did several things very much like a franchised business CEO—he revisited the churches he planted in order to appoint elders and leadership systems. Then he later wrote letters to, in part, correct and instruct them in how to carry out church life.
As an apostle, he functioned in an apostolic leadership role over these networked churches and leaders. He even disciplined people in abstentia when the local leadership failed to follow through (1 Cor 5.) I’m wondering how that is different from Andy Stanley and North Point carrying on an apostolic oversite role in leading networked churches like Cumberland and pastors like Eddie Johnson?
Is the problem that they use the word “franchise”? Does a word become unusable for churches just because it is used by businesses?
Whatever we may call it, a church that places itself under the leadership and direction of another healthy, larger church that reaches similar people and has similar ministry values so that in the end, that church can become more effective at making disciples seems humble, smart and even biblical to this observer.
February 5, 2008 at 16:31
We all know that franchises are finely tuned business systems that are optimized to appeal, persuade and even subconsciously woo us.
Franchise chains have spent multi billions of dollars to understand how we think and what drives us on a subconscious level.
In one sense, Jesus is the ultimate franchise because he knows how we think and what drives us. His words and his kingdom is perfectly optimized for what all humans want, need and we inherently recognize as truth. One could even argue that Jesus is the most successful franchise in history.
On the other hand I have to agree with Allen White’s comment that being called a “franchise” is mostly just a matter of semantics. Since “franchise” is a term identified with capitalist ventures, using it to describe the church makes it sound as if the “money changers” have crossed into the church once again and the church has become at home with this world.
While I attend North Point and understand what Eddie Johnson is communicating, I do have to cringe a little in hearing such a worldly term used to describe the church.
Then again, maybe Eddie Johnson is telling us the truth and we should take what he says about his church being a “franchise” at face value. In which case, we may all want to keep a close eye on our wallets. I sincerely doubt this to be true at all, but we should always be vigilant.
February 5, 2008 at 18:39
Kevin: Were these Paul’s franchises? Apollos’s franchises? Cephus franchises? Or were these the Holy Spirit’s franchises and Paul simply planted while another watered? “Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building”. Paul’s authority was moral, parental and it was by permission. Not ecclesiastical.
And who was the owner/operator? Eddie Johnson is the owner/operator at Cumberland. Who was the owner/operator at Corinth?. It sounds like it’s God’s franchise, God’s building and owned by God…operated by Priscilla and Aquilla or whoever the elders were.
Sure I react to the word franchise. I have a chicken franchise client (you guess), and a soft ice cream franchise client. Each store looks exactly like it’s parent and operates exactly like it’s parent. Do I want to be in an Eddie Johnson franchise or a Willow Creek franchise or a Joel Osteen franchise?
Sorry for being a little combative. I really agree with the spirit of your last paragraph.
February 6, 2008 at 03:44
It’s really quite simple. Churches should be praying for guidance from God, trusting in Christ and doing what he directs them to do. If they do anything on their own volition because they feel it will “win” them souls or in some people’s cases make them rich they are sadly mistaken and instead of bringing people to Christ they will be sending them literally to hell. If something is not led of God, then it is led of man and it will fail even if on the surface it looks successful. Case in point Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland etc.
February 7, 2008 at 17:27
I can’t recall a non-denominational church that doesn’t do what all the others do if that is what you refer to as franchising. It goes like this:-
*-You walk in the door and are (often) greeted by someone smiling away and telling you how great it is to see you.
*-You sit down and the service starts with singing so you..
*- stand up
*- You sing three fast songs
*- You sing three slow songs
*- Sit down
*- Pastor makes announcements
*- (sometimes an item goes in at this point like someone sings a song or dances or whatever)
*- Communion (or collection plate)one often precedes the other
*- Sermon
*- Maybe another song or an altar call
*- All over in 1.5hours. See you all next Sunday.
This to me is much like going to a MacDonalds in America, Australia, France, wherever, it’s all the same.
If this is the franchising you’re refering to then it needs to be changed urgently. Year after year it is boring and trying to get a non-churched person to come to that is not easy.
My wife and I broke out of that mold 2 years ago after 30 years of being, what we didn’t realise was, ‘religious’. We had become just like all the old traditional churches that we thought we were better than. I think the devil has conned us into thinking this is what God wants – to be boring and unattractive. We now go to a group that sits down and has coffee and munchies and discusses God and all sorts of things relevent to our lives and we have an 85% previously non-churched attendance. People are asking us what we are about and we tell them about our God and how we want to be IN the community. We don’t want to be another church, our area doesn’t need another church. What it needs is a group of christians who’ll be missed if we weren’t there.Who are actually active in the community. We put on christian leadership courses, we have sessions on real estate investment where we have christian speakers and so on.
Finally after all these years we are seeing enormous fruit because we are doing soemthing differant. And ‘church’ can no longer just be Sunday mornings. Life and society have changed, we have to have church 24/7.
If we are locked into the mentality of we have to have church Sunday morning then we have become subtley trapped. Yes there is a place for that type of thing but unles we are putting our ‘lessons’ into action it is just a ‘Bless-Me’ group. Yeah I’ve just been to church I’m topped up until next sunday.
For our church to grow each individual needs to be ‘healthy’ and to be healthy we need to be out there training. Not just sitting on our butts on a Sunday.