In the fall of 2007, the Rooftop Elders presented a long-term strategic vision to the people of Rooftop Community.  That strategic vision expresses where we hope and believe God might take us as a congregation, as we journey into the future.  It is the Elders' hope that we might become "an expanding regional network of healthy-sized, locally-rooted, big-six church communities."

An introduction of that Where Statement can be found on this website, under the "About Us" tab.  Click on "Strategic Vision."  The purpose of this forum is to give you the chance to debate that vision.  If we want to get everybody rowing the ship of Rooftop in the right direction, we'll need plenty of time and space to debate and discuss.  Here's an opportunity. 

So on this forum, feel free to ask questions for clarification, express opinions and make suggestions.  Feel free to interact and respond with each other--don't wait for a leader or elder to respond if you have something to say.  If you have a new line of thought or a new question to ask, feel free to start a new thread to the conversation, so that this one doesn't snake on forever.

Please remember, also, to be constructive and respectful.  No swinging oars at each other before we've even got out of the harbor.  (Gosh, I love boat metaphors.)

      Just looked at the website to see what's going on.  Wow.  Let me commend you on such a bold vision for the church.  I'm feeling some regret that I won't be around to help lauch a downtown Rooftop.  (although if you need some meeting space, I can make you a deal on an empty house!) 

     As someone whose unsolicited, personal vision for Rooftop was for it to shine its light outside of Affton, it seems like this will be a good way to reach open-minded seekers, more likely to be found in downtown and university areas, who might be uniquely reached by Rooftop's contemporary and relevant worship style.  These seem like especially great areas to start, given that the Vineyard already has branches in Metro East and West County that share a similar vision to Rooftop's. 

     The Vineyard has shown that the regional church netword idea can be successful, but there are still some hazards to be avoided.  Some of the challenges are obvious: funding, volunteers, meeting space, extra leadership.  You know all that already.  The area in which I though I might be able to help was in pointing out the less obvious challenges that you might want to guard against.  Perhaps the biggest hidden problems to guard against is a "passing the buck mentality" among the main congregation.  Let me explain:  Rooftop, has by its own admission, struggled previously in becoming more diverse and in fitting people into the "core" of the church.  When there are a couple different Rooftops out there, it's going to be tantilzingly easy to stop trying as hard in these valid pursuits.  In other words, it will be easy to justify Affton rooftop being mostly white if people can point to an Inner-City Rooftop that's rainbow colored.  It will be easier to overlook the difficulty newcomers sometimes face in getting connected to the core of the long-established Affton Rooftop if there are new cores developing at other Rooftops where these people can be directed.  It strikes me that Rooftop will have to be very careful to make sure the everyone knows that the creation of satellite Rooftops is not a justification to be insular, or to stop trying to improve. I caught a hint of this problem a year or so ago, when someone was explaining the possibility of satellite rooftops to me by saying something to the effect of "we're geting too big to operate efficiently."  You'll have to take proactive steps to prevent the creation of satellite churches from being an excuse not to continually strive to become more efficient, move diverse and more welcoming, and more in the image of God.  I'm sure with God's help you can do it, but perhaps it's something that will need to be emphasized to overcome human nature.

      2 other thoughts:  1) I know in the past there have been ministry ideas that Rooftop liked, but couldn't do because you didn't have enough church leaders.  This will obviously be more of an issue now.  This seems like a perfect time to re-explore the idea of women's leadership in the church, as allowing women leaders would expand the pool of servants available.  I believe the Vineyard allows women in leadership, and it's possibly one of the reasons it has succeeded.   I've become even more convinced of this since moving, and seeing the fastest-growing church in Nashville being pastored by a woman, who is astoundingly good leader and whom God is using magnificently in bringing people to God.  I'm not sure she could be so good at her job if God didn't mean her to have it.   2) One could forsee a future in which an inner city Rooftop leadership will feel the need to be edgier than the Affton Rooftop would prefer, or a West County Rooftop might be offended at something allowed at the Affton Rooftop's coffeehouse.  Indeed, it would be surprising if each branch didn't take on the attitude and feel of its community.  But it will be a delicate balancing act to stay true to the mission/values the Elders believe in without disenfranchising the leaders of local branches whose priorities and ideas are likely to slighly diverge at some point.

 that's all I have for now.  Good luck and God bless in your new endeavor.  If I can be of any help from Nashville, please let me know.  You'll be in my prayers. 

Hi Andrew...

Good points.  It seems like you had three: 1) Don't let this become an excuse not to make each individual network site all it can and should be (especially regarding diversity); 2) The network concept only heightens the need for leader recruitment and development, which might make us want to consider our understanding of 1 Timothy which seems to limit eldership to men; 3) Be careful to allow each network satellite the chance to reflect the values and personality of its own community.  I agree with the general gist of each.

With respect to your second observation, I agree wholeheartedly that this sort of strategic vision will require a much more intentional effort to find, develop, and release leaders--both male and female.  (You might disagree, but I think the issue of female eldership is a different matter--at least a slightly different matter.  We can dialogue more about that if you'd like.)  This reality does seem a little more stark given Rooftop's ongoing need for more leadership.  I am currently wondering if there is anything more official we can do to become a training ground for Christian leaders / site leaders or lead volunteers.  Last year Paul Seidl led a small group leadership training opportunity, and we've experimented with various leadership training opportunities in the past.  Plus, the small group apprentice concept has been at least a decent way for more near-leaders to experiment with becoming actual-leaders.  But alongside this vision we will almost certainly need some ongoing leader development thing.  Not sure what yet, though.  Or who will lead it. :)

My best to Liz,

I know that it had to take a lot of time and energy to create the vision, so congratulations on accomplishing it. 

What is the difference between what Rooftop proposes and a denomination?  Couldn't what Rooftop wants to do be better done in the context of an existing denomination?  I guess I don't really understand the difference between what you propose and a bunch of church plants in the metro area birthed by Rooftop and in relationship (corporately) with it and the other birthed churches (call it a network or a denomination, I don't care.)

 Another question:  Will the finances of the different community congregations be co-mingled with the whole group?

Churchseal: good question.   

 From how I understand it, Rooftop has purposefully avoided affiliating with a denomination as a means of showing acceptance toward a broader range of ideas.  Denominations within Protestantism emerged largely over disagreements about secondary theological beliefs.  (things like Predestination, divine foreknowledge, the number of times communion should be taken, ect).  Rooftop's idea was that if you have a community of believers agreeing on the divinity of Jesus and seeking to emulate him, there is no need for everyone to agree on every minor theological subpoint.  In fact, such an approach may lead to a make a church seem more accessible to a wider variety of people, and the difference in viewpoints make the church community more likely to learn from each other.  If Rooftop were to become a regional entity by affiliating with a denomination it would have a harder time attracting people from other denominations, and pin itself down to having "official beliefs" on all kinds of theological subissues it would rather leave open to discussion. 

 Also, not to change the subject, but going into the SPC meetings, I thought we needed to spend the most time on the "what" statement.  I know I'm not around anymore, but I haven't heard alot about what came out on that issue, and I'd be curious to hear.  What is Rooftop's unique identity and purpose within the sphere of St. Louis area Christian churches, and how are those characteristics different from other local interdenominational Christian Churches (the Vineyard, the Journey) with contemporary services?  And if the differences (aside from the geographic area where the church is located) aren't that significant, should we look into asking for their help in developing churches in areas of town where no interdenominational contemporary service can be found? 

Thanks for the reply, Andrew.  The irony of two ex-Rooftoppers discussing the future of Rooftop doesn't escape me.

 I guess I don't understand the difference between a group of related churches with common statements of faith, ministry focus, missions and ulimately top end leadership that are part of a denomination and those that would be part of what the Where Statement describes.  You seem to suggest that it is simply a matter of how granular the statement of faith is, yet there are at least a few denominations who have statements of faith not much more detailed than Rooftops.   Furthermore, even if Rooftop didn't join an existing denomination, wouldn't it simply be creating its own?

I wonder how Rooftop leadership would react if another young, like minded church wanted to partner with Rooftop in this vision.

I thought I would add a third former Rooftopper to the conversation.  I am actually attending a church in Orlando that has successfully implemented what Rooftop is proposing.  They have seperate worship teams at each campus but the message each week is broadcast from the main campus.   Everybody receives the Discovery Church experience at a location that is near thier home (or in their home since it is also webcast.)  Each location has its own small groups but they are open to all locations so that there is still socialization. 

Hey Sarah!  The more former Rooftoppers we get in here, the better!  How do you like the broadcasted message approach?  I know it's been successful some places, but it seems to me that some might find it a little distant.  (ha!)  But seriously, does receiving a message via tv broadcast take some of the emotion or authenticity out of it? 

 CS:  You're right.  If you define "denomination" to mean "churches with a defined set of beliefs," then a series of Rooftops (or if there was one in the Ozarks, it could be called "Mountaintop") would in some ways be its own denomination.  I guess my primary point was that the other Protestant denominations that Rooftop might conceivably affiliate itself with (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian) do have more detailed Statements of Faith than Rooftop would be comfortable with adopting.  Also, most all new interdenominational Protestant churches out there share Rooftop's core beliefs and worship styles, so there would be no way to theologically distinguish the "Rooftop" denomination from, say, the "Journey" denomination. (although they may have different personalities or structures).   But underlying your denomination question is an intriguing premise I hadn't been bright enough to consider:  if Rooftop's goal is to place interdenominational Rooftop-like churches all over Metro St. Louis, why not just affiliate with the Vineyard, which is an interdenominational Rooftop-like church that already has branches all over Metro St. Louis?     

Hi guys...Let me number out some comments, starting with a question:

1) Who is ChurchSeal?

2) As far as the denomination thingy, I'll admit that it's been briefly mentioned as something we might want to consider.  However, we've mentioned no names, made no phone calls, haven't even talked about it officially but only (briefly) mentioned the possibility.  (Emphasis on "mentioned.")  The logic is what Andrew's described: if there is an existing network of churches building what we envision building / becoming, why not cooperate and save ourselves some work, celebrate Christian unity (and synergy!), and leap forward 15-20 years.  There are a few issues to consider in this possibility:

a) Theological affinity.  Rooftop makes a pretty direct effort to live out the Augustinian code: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."  Whatever network / organization / denomination we consider would have to value the same.  Yes, this general Augustinian theological spirit is championed by many existing organizations--Vineyard, the Journey (A29), Restoration Churches, etc.--BUT every fellowship has their non-essentials that they consider essentials, in either a de facto or official sense.  Restoration churches consider baptismal mode an essential, some Vineyard churches believe very centrally in miraculous gifts, and A29 churches (to my knowledge) are very reformed and complementarian.  And Rooftop, for our part, has only male elders and is de-facto anabaptist in our practice of communion and baptism.  Yet all these churches would claim to be inter-denominational and Augustinian ("In essentials...non-essentials...etc.")  Not saying it's impossible, but there'd be a lot of theological considerations to make, and even some compromises.  As we all know, Christians aren't very good at theological compromise and cooperation.  The downside of this is that the church is constantly divided.  The upside is that there exists every type of church for every precise type of Christian.  Rooftop appeals (theologically) to evangelical folks who might be complementarian, have a high view of Scripture, and are more anabaptist in sacramental practice.  Are we will to become something slightly other than that in order to join a denomination that is doing what we want to do, a few years ahead of us?  Or do we value our own theological identity enough to believe we should attempt to do it ourselves?  That's the question.

b) Spiritual Alignment.  Then again (and this is thought #b), if God is doing the same thing in another organization as we seem to discern he wants to do in our church, why not fit the pieces together?  There's a spiritual component to this.  I really do believe that God never gave up on the unity of his people, and is not only working holistically in and through his many-styled children, but is moving us together.  There is a growing spirit of ecumenicism in the worldwide church today, and it should be fanned.  If, on paper, God has given the _________ denomination the same general sort of vision that he seems to have given us, then the "One Spirit" might enjoy doing "One Thing," instead of two. 

c) I had a "C," but lost it.  Sorry.

3) As far as Andrew's question on the "What," that's a good question.  Andrew...this answer will, most likely, NOT satisfy you...but I offer it all the same.  The SPC and the Elders did discuss the "what" question (as opposed to the where): "What is Rooftop as a church?  What type of church are we and what style of church do we want to become?"  In practical terms, we finalized this discussion by revamping our value statements, and adding some new, more precise adjectives which should (theoretically) keep us tethered to our identity.  Instead of simply valuing "relevant teaching," for example, we specified it further: "relevant, Biblical and formative."  Furthermore, while the SPC recommended doing what we could to focus on our strengths as a church--worship, teaching, community--the Elders rejected the notion that we should be anything but a healthy, balanced, big-six congregation that successfully lives out each of our six values.  We (or at least I) have no interest in being a "teaching" church that give less attention to being a "serving" church.  I think that'd be a terrible way to live out our calling.

Anyway, the reason I think that answer might not satisfy you is because it doesn't get very specific.  It says nothing about how long we'll be using electric guitars, what the age target is, what videos are appropriate to say in church, etc.  We sidestepped those issues, believing that it'd be pretty difficult (impossible?) to talk more specifically about who we are as a congregation without being too narrow.  Again, I personally am compelled not by some "style" of church, but by the ecclesiastical values we see modeled by the church in Scripture: teaching that is relevant, Biblical and formative; worship that is spiritual, ongoing and transformation; etc.  We don't show videos in church because we believe in a certain style, but because (as Jesus demonstrates) teaching should be relevant and illustrative, and what's more relevant and illustrative than seeing Christian concepts on the big screen?

4) Sarah, I too am curious to hear what your experience is like watching preaching on-screen.  Tell us more...

And let me say, also, that I'm grateful so many ex-Rooftoppers are praying for our future as God's people, of whom all Christ-followers are a part.  Thanks for dialoguing.

Matt,

1.a    I wouldn't say I'm dissapointed with your answer.  It sounds like the elders gave the issue thoughtful, prayerful consideration and reached a conclusion.  What more can a congregant ask of his leaders?  Besides, I tend to agree with all the sentiments you expressed.  I'm glad there is a commitment to do all six values well.  But I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.  I didn't ask about the "who" statement, which, I agree, lends itself to exclusionism and isn't all that helpful anyway.  

 1.b. The "what" statement is a different question, and I think maybe you've already answered it more than you realize, even in your last post.  The last sentence of part 3 of your post describes Rooftop as the kind of place where the most effective means of worship/teaching ect. are used, despite whether it is or isn't the traditional way of doing it.  One of the things you told Liz and I when we first started visiting was that you aimed for Rooftop to be the kind of church that appealed to people put off by traditional forms of religious practice (which would have been a great "what" statement).  You made a post a while back about how Rooftop was part of the "emerging church" movement that, while holding to many of the same values as the "old guard" sought to communicate them differently.  A "what" statement could answer the question of whether Rooftop is philosophically a more "emerging" or "old guard" church (to use vague, inexact shorthand terms), without getting into the specifics you mentioned. 

1.c. This is important to have because it aids in decision-making.  If someone wants to run an ad in the bulletin promoting a "Focus on the Family" or Promise Keepers event, do you say "no" because the sight of those organizations would immediately alienate every non-Christian in the building (and offend some non-fundamentalist Christians), or do you say "yes" because it's an opportunity for some in the congregation to grow toward Christ.  It seems like the elders would be better equipped to answer these questions with a formal "what" and "how" statement in place to guide decision-making. 

2. As to Church Seal, I'm guessing this is a reference to the picture of a seal found in the church bylaws?  So I'm guessing the author is someone who was around when they were written.  

Sorry, didn't mean to be too anonymous.  Church Seal is named after that lovely picture on the lead pastor's wall, which does, as Andrew points out, appear in our by laws.  Church Seal  = Blake.

To be clear, I'm not advocating Rooftop joining another denomination.  I tend to agree with the idea that, gee, if we ever ran across a denomination that is identical to ourselves, we should join in, but that isn't going to happen.  My original point, and question remains, what is the difference between starting a new denomination and the fulfillment of the Where statement?  Arguably, every "non-denominational" church is simply a denomination of one anyway.  I'm just trying to understand the vision as it has morphed from the original church planting church concept.  At one point, Rooftop had agreed to plant a new church before buying a building.  Whether from ego (mine included), vision change or pure practical necessity, we abandoned that, bought a building,  and my sense was that we were heading down the "become a mega church" path, though clearly with limited early success.  The Where Statement seems to split the difference.

I have only seen a few broadcasted messages since the main campus happens to be the one that is closest to where I live.  However, I actually was more attentive to the broadcast messages and less aware of the people around me.  After watching one this weekend I have decided that this is because A) I know that I am more likely to tune out watching the broadcasted message so I concentrate harder and  B) the reactions of the people listening are more subdued since the speaker is not there to see or hear them so there are fewer distractions.  I would not say that watching the message on TV takes any emotion out of it...I still have the same emotional reactions that I would have if the speaker were in front of me it is just a more internalized reaction. 

Good to see you on the forum ChurchSeal/Blake!  I think it's pretty cool that there are so many former Rooftoppers who retain enought interest in the life and mission of the church to chime in on this topic.  I think that says a lot about what kind of place this is (what it says... who knows?)

On the other hand, I also think it's kind of sad that ONLY former Rooftoppers have taken an interest in discussion the vision/direction of the church. Come on, current Rooftoppers, don't let the expatriots show you up!

In response to Andrew, ChurchSeal, and Matt:  Wow!  You guys are really taking this issue seriously, and a little too esoterically for my taste.   I can appreciate the intellectual nature of some of these issues and I enjoy a good philosophical debate as much as the next guy, but isn't that kind of the root of the denominationalism that you're talking about?  We Christians tend to gravitate to the "big picture" theology/philosophy way too easily and lose sight of the everyday grind of living like Christ.  No one is more guilty of this than me.  I have long struggled with substituting the intellectual theory of Christianity for the everyday practice thereof.

I say all of this to make this point:  The purpose of casting a vision like the Where Statement is to inspire people to action NOW, not to inspire debate about what shape that vision will actually take in five/ten/twenty years.  We shouldn't be as concerned about the specifics of the vision as much as in the work that it will take to get to whatever it turns out to be.  Our where statement will change over time, but the actions necessary to keep Rooftop moving forward will not. 

As much as I hate to do it, I'll put this in terms of Matt's boat analogy. (Yes, I can hear the groans, now.)  The Where statement we've proposed is like Columbus telling his crew that they were sailing for the Orient when they headed West from Portugal.  He had a somewhat clear idea of where he wanted to end up, and it was great motivation to get the ships moving forward.  That they did not actually reach the Orient was ultimately immaterial. 

That's sort of the goal here--we think Rooftop could end up looking like the Where Statement describes, and we would be happy with it if it does, but we might run into America instead, and that will be great too!  But we don't get anywhere sitting on the beach and debating about the specific destination and what it will be like when we get there.

What the Where Statement DOES show us is that there is a lot of work to do to get Rooftop moving forward.  That work needs to be done regardless of destination.  So, please, think of the Where statement as a blurry image in your telescope.  There's something out there, and it looks like it will be great, so let's get those sails up and the ship moving.

To your original point/question on the difference between starting a new denomination and fulfilling the where statement:  Having a Rooftop north (I sure hope we go north first) would just be another location.  I think of it in terms of restaurants.  Right now we’re are a mom and pop 1 location joint.  But it looks like we might be able to duplicate the success of this at another location.  It would have the same owners, maybe some of the management from the original one would start up the new one and I'm sure some of the customers that are closer to the new location would go to it instead of the original.  There might even be some people that are closer to the original one who would go to the new one just cause they like the carpet color better.  Now granted the original one really isn't the original location (technically I think it's the 4th) but I'm calling it the original.  Are we starting our own franchise where soon anyone who wants to call themselves a Rooftop church can pay some dues and sign a contract?  I sure hope not.  I really think these satellites after a few years will become 100% independent of Rooftop.  I'm starting to see the where statement more like a plant that sends out a runner to see if it can grow in a new direction (in the physical sense) and then once it does and establishes itself you cut it off from the parent plant and have a healthy plant on its own.  That is probably not the intent of the where statement but I think it will happen.

You can argue that it's the same as starting a denomination but I don't see it that way.  Look at our non-membership congregation.  Our voting roster was seen as membership to some.  In a way it is/does function in that way.  Just as in a sense Rooftop would function as the spiritually guiding force of the satellites.  I really see the satellite leadership eventually not needing the support of Rooftop and on its own.  I think the reason behind the where statement is to allow more people to have a church experience like what is keeping and bringing more people to Rooftop.  (As a side note at some point denominations start making decisions based on what’s best for the “denomination” and not necessarily the members.  I think that if the ownership of the vision of a church is kept and led by local and smaller group (elders) and the buck stops with them, that is less likely to occur)  

By the way I like your username, in hindsight I would have picked *80019220# for mine.  It was the code to open the gates to get the trailers.  

I really liked your Columbus analogy, Will.  Did you just make that up? 

I've had a few discussions with Rooftoppers concerned and confused about how we could just decide what the church is going to become "out of the blue" like this.  And the concern always seems to be related to a presumed willingness on the part of leadership to do whatever it can to achieve the network even if it means eventually going down with the ship and that we are going to launch our new site sometime this year, ultimately unravelling the community that they value today. 

Someone once asked me why we needed a Where Statement or a Strategic Planning Committee anyway.  I asked them where they saw Rooftop in 10 years.  Their response was something along the lines of, "I don't know.  I typically don't think about it any further than it's day to day existence." To which I responded "Exactly!"  I think too many of us have been focused on the day to day for so long that decisions and goals become arbitrary and not working to necessarily advance God's kingdom, but just settle for being a part of it.