Associated Canadian Theological Schools

Church Planting in the Resort Communities of Western Canada:

Issues and Challenges

By Shane Edwards

Prepared in partial fulfilment of the requirements

For the Master of Arts in Christian Studies

MCS 810: Graduating Essay

Dr. Daryl Busby, Faculty Advisor

January 15, 2009

Abstract

Church planting in the resort communities of Western Canada, with particular respect to the village of Whistler British Columbia and Canmore, Alberta face peculiar challenges. These communities share many characteristics of both typical urban and typical rural communities in their regions, but also share certain characteristics which are common between them. These create a unique planting context that is shared with other communities founded or experiencing growth through the expansion of the local tourism industry. Viewing the reported challenges and successes of local pastors provides some insight into what prospective church planters must prepare to face if they choose to pursue their vocation in such communities.

Table of Contents

Abstract 3

Chapter 1: Introduction. 5

Chapter 2: Literature Review.. 10

Context: Is it important?. 10

Chapter 3: Understanding the Context 19

Demographics Contrasted. 19

British Columbia: Whistler 20

Alberta: Canmore. 23

Conclusion. 25

James Nikkel’s Chart Contrasted. 26

Interview Results. 29

Preliminary Discussion. 29

Whistler Interview Results. 31

Canmore Interview Results. 33

Analysis of Urban/Rural Classifications. 35

Chapter 4: Conclusions. 36

Introduction. 36

Reducing and Summarizing Results from Interviews. 38

Can Resort Communities Be Considered a Distinct Context for Church Planting?. 39

Concluding Comments. 40

Bibliography. 42

Appendix 1: Interview Questions. 44

Church Family. 44

Before the Plant 45

Challenges. 45

Denominational/Fellowship Perspective on Resort Communities. 45

Chapter 1: Introduction

The world is rapidly urbanizing[1]. Cities around the world are growing at tremendous rates. Even the smallest, most underdeveloped countries are industrializing and the poor of the countryside flock to the city in the hopes of a job and a better life than the rustic existence they were raised in.

In developed nations which industrialized long ago, this trend continues. The “better life” advertised on TV, in movies, and on the internet is a life of urbanity which draws the young out of the small towns that were once grown around resource extraction or cultivation. Cities like Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto continue to swell while many small towns in their provinces shrink. Unlike previous generations which were predominated by immigrants from nations of a Christian heritage of one variety or another, the wave of immigration driving growth in Canada little or no such heritage. The effect of this is that Christianity is slowly being pushed out of the cities. Even as the numbers of Christians in cities remains stable, the numbers of people of other faiths – Islam and Sikhism especially in Western Canada grows rapidly through immigration, and decreases the per capita numbers of Christians.

As more research and thought were focused on the urban challenges facing the churches, others began to view the rural areas as neglected. In small towns spread far and wide were people living quiet lives who also needed to hear the Gospel. A new round of interest began to arise focusing on this rural “mission field”. The unique characteristics of rural churches and culture relative to what had become the normative suburban focus for new churches were studied and means of reaching these communities were considered in a new light.

Recently, new thinking on church growth and church planting has simply centered around the buzzword, “contextualization”. A recognition is being made that missions do not just take place overseas. This understanding, and efforts to apply concepts long in use in the study of missions to our own neighbourhood and communities has spawned whole new conversations[2]. The question is now asked, how to live missionally, sent to the place where we live, even people where we live. Instead of assuming that our homes or residences are havens and places of rest, there is a growing recognition that it is here at home where we live our lives that must be our first mission field[3], without excluding a view to the larger global picture. It is all well and good that contextualization is being talked about, but cultural trends have changed the appearances of many communities to the point that simple terms like “urban”, “suburban”, or “rural” may not apply cleanly anymore. One American Senator pointed out that inner-city churches with which he was familiar and rural congregations experienced some of the same difficult issues: elderly congregations, out-migration of the ethnic base, and aging facilities.[4] This similarity is no coincidence, and is characteristic of how changing trends can blur lines between traditionally clearly understood contexts.

It is into this landscape that the question of a new type of community arises. Shaped by the interests of its new denizens, once sleepy old mining towns or villages in the mountains are being looked at anew with an eye not for the resources contained in the dark forest or the mineral-rich rock, but in the experiences that exploring such places provides the rich consumer culture of the developed world. In Canada, they were perhaps inaugurated by the construction of the Chateau Lake Louise, just off the Canadian Pacific Railway’s passage through the Rocky Mountains one hundred years ago. It was then that the burgeoning North American upper middle class began to seek out “the wilds” as it realized how quickly they were vanishing. Since that time, gaining momentum in recent decades, with few exceptions, the only places of real population growth outside of the metropolis has been in these resort communities.

It is these communities that this paper will examine. There are unique challenges represented by the completely different origin and development of these communities. The people who reside in them behave in ways that are not typical of either the size or location of the community. This apparently represents a major obstacle to church planting as misdiagnosis of local culture can quickly lead to the failure of the effort and the waste of churches’ and denominations’ resources. Indeed, there are questions that will arise from this study as to whether these “resort communities” should even be targeted for church plants in the traditional understanding of the term – the development of self-sufficient church bodies which are capable of self-support and short-term growth.

This paper focuses specifically on the resort communities of Western Canada. Two communities stand out for their growth and the attractions they offer to both domestic and international tourists: the Banff-Canmore complex of Alberta and the “village” of Whistler, British Columbia.

Outreach Canada in Discipling Our Nation believes that to effectively evangelize a nation, saturation church planting must proceed[5]. This means planting churches in every community and people-group to the point where the church to population ratio reaches one to one thousand. They suggest that planting efforts must focus on those communities that differ in the greatest way from this ratio. Urban areas in British Columbia and Alberta most often fall into this ratio as the fastest growth in Canada happens in the largest cities and it requires a fast rate of church planting to keep up. But outside this, especially in Western Canada, the ratio is not far off the pace for most places. Disparity is found in the two communities to be studied. Whistler’s ratio as of 2001 was 1:4445[6]. The aggregate of Canmore and Banff’s ratio was 1:1630 (with Canmore at 1:1,040 and Banff at a stunning 1:7,135).

It should be noted that the reason Canmore and Banff are discussed together in this study is because Banff the town is situated in Banff National Park. The National Parks system places very strict rules on the growth of that community, despite continued pressure to allow it. However, Canmore is situated less than five minutes’ drive time outside the Park boundary, and less than fifteen minutes from the Banff townsite. It is experiencing tremendous growth as there are not nearly as many limits to development. Over the past twenty years the town of Canmore has grown from 3,484 in 1981 to 12,039 in 2006[7]. It is fast taking on the character of Banff as many who would prefer to live there but cannot due to building restrictions are settling for the close proximity of Canmore.

The questions this paper seeks to address are, “What is a resort community? What are the characteristics of a resort community? What are some of the challenges faced by church planters in a resort community?” All of these questions will be approached with specific reference to the resort community in Western Canada, as exemplified by Banff-Canmore in Alberta, and by Whistler as representative in British Columbia.

In the following chapter this paper will survey existing church planting literature with regards to resort communities – what they are, why they should be identified, and how they can be identified. It will also record any reference to what difficulties could be expected in existing literature.

The third chapter will focus on two main areas of discussion. First, a case will be made by examining demographics, to determine some quantitative differences between the concepts of “urban”, “rural” and “resort community” using nearby major urban agglomerates and several representative rural centers as reference points. The second area of discussion will focus on the feedback gathered from a questionnaire distributed to local church leaders in the two communities. This section will attempt to find patterns in their responses and organize them.

The fourth chapter will offer an answer to the questions. What is a resort community in the Western Canadian context? How can they be identified? What unique factors need to be considered when attempting to plant a church in such a community? Is it appropriate to attempt to differentiate this type of community as a distinct class, or is this discussion merely “contextualization” that should actually be made on a case-by-case basis when it comes to church planting? Are “resort communities” reasonable targets of church planting as a class of community?

Chapter 2: Literature Review

In preparing this part of the paper, many books on church planting were consulted, including several specifically dealing with urban church planting and rural church planting. An effort was made to locate texts and articles in journals which dealt with church planting in resort communities specifically. At this time, books specifically on the resort community context with reference to church planting were not discovered. However, the question at hand pertains to context. The literature can be examined for several questions that relate to the subject. Firstly, the importance of context in church planting may be examined. Second, broader categories utilized in church planting literature will be discussed, with special reference to where mention is made of categories that may pertain to resort community church planting. These categories will become important in determining in chapter 3 whether or not resort communities represent a distinct context or if it can be treated as something already widely discussed.

Context: Is it important?

Before these subjects can be addressed, the question should be asked, “Is this important?” Do we really need to look carefully at context? If we wish to plant successful, growing congregations, the answer must be yes. The Great Commission[8] demands that we strive for success – the objective of making disciples cannot be done without some measure of success. Joel Owens Rainey in his dissertation stated, “The need then, is to ascertain which models of church ministry will best fit the cultural, geographic and ethnic contexts that now exist on this continent.”[9] Defining contexts to correctly diagnose the appropriate tools is a key in mounting an effective church plant.

Indeed, J.D. Payne stated, “Church planters must ask themselves at least the following two questions: 1)How can I best reach these people with the Gospel; and 2) How can I best teach the new believers the most basic elements for a church to exist as a church, with as little of my culture as possible?”[10] The language of culture segues into discussion of context. Context, with reference to church planting location is a component of culture. Location informs and colours culture to a degree, though it is not the only factor in informing culture.

Indeed, a reason that multiple church planting models exist is because the differing models exist to contextualize church to specific places, times and cultures. Joel Rainey stated, “Church planting models utilized in North America are a result of applying the principle of contextualization. The contextual approach to church planting is based upon the understanding that everything, from the name of a church to its location and worship style will determine who it will reach.”[11] Careful study must be done to prepare the church planter for selecting the appropriate model and even orienting the model to reach the desired people.

John MacArthur has been quoted as believing that contextualization is not Biblical. His position is that the Gospel transcends all culture, and efforts to contextualize may be characterized as unwarranted watering down at best, and corruption at worst[12]. Jon Dodson contended in response, the very act of God in Jesus Christ becoming flesh, meeting man as an infant, and growing to adulthood amongst us represents the penultimate contextualization[13]. The Incarnation is a more astonishing contextualization than anything any human could attempt. Rene Erwich concluded that contextualization is implicit in the form of the Bible itself – “…the eternal Word speaks in the voice of the local dialect.”[14] That God used the writers of the Bible to speak out of their own culture and language God’s eternal truth is a prime example of how God has always contextualized, and an example of how church planters can go about it.

What happens when churches do not contextualize? A study of Southern Baptist churches planted in the Pacific Northwest contains interesting evidence. “They offered a religious experience that was familiar to transplanted southerners. This was their greatest strength when the pool of transplanted southerners was large, and has become their greatest weakness as the pool of southern transplants has declined. …the profile of the person most often reached was the adult child of a former southern Baptist.”[15]

Urban Vs. Rural

Before any discussion of what an urban context is like, it must be differentiated from the small-town or rural setting. Daniel Morgan wrote:

“Against the backdrop of rapid growth in urban areas stands the historical strength of northwest Southern Baptists in reaching rural and small-town southern transplants, and their ineffectiveness in evangelizing, incorporating, and retaining urban people. This ineffectiveness in urban settings is in part a reflection of the SBC’s rural roots, and partly a reflection of loyalty to methodology that does not address the psycho-social distinctive of urban people in the Pacific Northwest. A clear understanding of the differences between urban and rural people is essential for designing strategies to evangelize the city. (Emphasis mine)”[16]

Determining the nature of the people in resort communities, or any community is vital. As the Southern Baptists have learned, treating an urban populace like rural folk is futile.

Examining the church planting environment of a resort community must start by differentiating a resort community from the other major church planting milieux. Stuart Murray wrote, “The rural environment is as diverse and complex as the urban scene, and no one model of church planting will fit every context…”[17] It is for this reason we must turn to examining definitions of both the rural and the urban planting milieu, as understood in extant church planting literature.

The first challenge faced is that most resources on the subject do not trouble themselves by defining the term “urban” or “rural”. They just assume that the reader understands what they are talking about. In fact, the definitions of these terms are tricky to pin down. The word “urban”, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary of English reads, “in, relating to, or characteristic of a town or city”^[18]. However, an expanded understanding can be found in Oxford’s Dictionary of Geography, which reads:

Of, living, or situated in a city or town. As no standard figures are given for the size of cities and towns, this concept can be rather vague. In Iceland, a settlement of 300 people is classed as urban; the figure is 10 000 in Spain. An area may be classified as urban by its role as a central place for a tributary area, providing a range of shops, banks, and offices. A high density of population may also be used as an indicator but the city may include large areas of low-density housing.^[19]

A key feature of this definition is evident range of thought in defining an urban setting by population. Depending on the regional or perhaps national location of the urban space, a smaller or larger concentration of population may be considered urban. It is clear that large city aggregations qualify (concentrations of a million or more people), but the line between urban and rural is a hard one to find.

The same problem is found with definitions of “rural”. A basic definition like this one, “Living in or characteristic of farming or country life; beyond the limits of a city , town , village , hamlet , or any other designated residential or commercial area,”[20] begs the question of what the rural area is being differentiated from. Further clarity of the problem is offered by this definition:

In, of, or suggesting the country. In practice, it is difficult to distinguish truly rural areas because of the blurring of the rural–urban fringe and the increase of commuting whereby rural inhabitants work in cities. Perhaps the clearest indication of rurality in society is the distance to large urban centres.^[21]

Fringes of clearly urban areas segue into countryside, without clear boundary or demarcation. This is especially in Western countries like Canada which feature urban sprawl. This definition also suggests that relative position to a clearly urban environment might be a way to establish a place’s rurality. However, this does not help to draw the line between an “urban” concentration of humanity and a “rural” concentration of humanity.

If we can say that a city of a million people is definitely “urban”, what about a city of a hundred thousand? What about a city of ten thousand? How about one thousand? The importance of defining the geographic parameters of this study helpful to clarify the working definitions we will be using. Douglas recognizes this difficulty in her discussion of terms. She stated, “Urban missiologists struggle to agree on definitions of the world ‘urban’. For my purposes I am using the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of ‘urban area’ defined as ‘comprising one or more central places and the adjacent densely settled surrounding territory that together have a minimum population of 50,000 people.’”^[22] While this is helpful, given the western Canadian context, we may rule out settlement patterns of the United States with ten times the population in one half the total geographic area. In the Canadian context, with the vast majority of the population living within three hundred kilometers of the border with the United States, we can also rule out settlement definitions relative to the sparsely populated far north. Chelfant and Heller described a rural setting as being “residence outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) from “open country” through towns or villages with less than 10,000 in total population.[23] This may be the most relevant to the discussion here. Ruling out close proximity to a metro urban area, and also placing a cap on the population creates workable boundaries on which to base study.

Given the caution of the above rural definition with regards to urban sprawl and commuter culture, a certain radius around a major city should also be ruled as urban.

Meeting these churches and their pastors leaves one impressed with the enormous, diverse intellectual energy needed to minister in the changing city. No one church can do everything in response to massive and various human needs. The successful ones concentrate on doing a few things —connecting to people through hospitality, art, companionship, theater., food or service. Theological distinctions seem to fade amid the challenges of the city. Mainline pastors. Catholic priests and evangelical ministers are all improvising, trying new things, risking failure, scattering seed and seeing what fruit might spring up.[24]

The sheer mass of people in a city lends itself to division into segments and cultures. A major difference between the city and the rural church planting environment is that the urban planter can narrow his or her focus into a specific niche, marketplace, culture or people group. The church doesn’t have to reach everyone – it has the luxury of having a mass of people to reach for nearly any niche.

In contrast, the rural or small town church planter cannot afford to segment the people of the community. There will not be enough people to sustain itself as a church if the people group is too small. The small town church planter must be more of a generalist in terms of contextualization, or else seek to target the largest segment of the community and risk leaving the smaller groups unreached. Typically this is dominated by a single industry – in BC, a mining interest or a lumber mill. In Alberta, it is most often agriculture, but in the north and west, lumbering and oil often can drive a community’s economic engine.

Daniel Morgan described the difference succinctly: “The basic difference between rural and urban society is that rural societies center on the family while urban societies center on the individual.”[25] James Nikkel. Similarly, characterized small town churches as “more personal” where “people know each other, and often have for generations.”[26] Morgan agrees, describing this “neighbourliness” as “Everybody knows everybody’s business, and when people have trouble, neighbourliness dictates personal intervention to bring aid.”[27] This is comforting to some, smothering to others.

Because of the slow growth rates of most rural areas, ratios of church to population are fairly low. This has caused some to wonder if it is a place worth investing in. The question has been approached in two ways: Biblically, and from a pragmatic view in terms of population and need.

Stuart Murray addresses the pragmatic question. He wrote,

Are more rural churches really needed? But this reaction may be based on an outdated understanding of the rural scene. There are several reasons why church planting needs to be considered: village communities are expanding as a result of population shifts toward rural areas; those who live in the countryside but commute to work and to shops prefer not to commute to church as well; the church needs a relevant presence in the countryside if it is to connect with the boom in leisure and tourism in these areas; and there are many ready-made buildings waiting to be reclaimed by congregations.[28]

Murray makes a key point and discerns that it is the fact that not every “small town” is the same and notes specifically that the “boom in tourism and leisure” has led to growth in such communities, warranting attention from church planters.

Revisiting Stuart Murray, he pointed out perhaps the most salient point for this study. “There appears to be more resistance to the idea of rural church planting than church planting in urban or suburban areas. Are more rural churches really needed? But this reaction may be based on an outdated understanding of the rural scene. There are several reasons why church planting needs to be considered: village communities are expanding as a result of population shifts toward rural areas; those who live in the countryside but commute to work and to shops prefer not to drive to church as well; the church needs a relevant presence in the countryside if it is to connect with a boom in leisure and tourism in these areas; and there are many ready-made buildings waiting to be reclaimed by congregations.”[29] (Emphasis mine.) Murray recognized the impact tourism is making on formerly “rural” areas.

Problems experienced by church planters include, “…rural suspicion by strangers; relatively slow growth often experienced; the difficulty in obtaining premises; the demoralizing effect of Christians travelling to the larger towns to belong to churches there, rather than participating in village plants; and the fact that in many situations there is little prospect of the new church becoming independent from the planting church.”[30]

Stuart Murray said, “Colonization and planting teams are not likely to be appropriate models in most rural situations, particularly in the ‘deep countryside’. Strategies which depend heavily on newcomers arriving from outside the local context are problematic, in a way that is less true of urban areas.”[31] This would be true in an ordinary rural context, but the continuous influx of “newcomers” that differentiates the resort community from a traditional rural context would obscure the “strangeness” of a team. These communities have a built-in acceptance of strangers, as strangers are in a way the lifeblood of this community. However, the expectation of these strangers’ stays being short could hinder the growth of relationship and intimacy in efforts to grow the church community.

James Nikkel, in illustrating how geographical context affects the character of a church, described rural church planting as, “Church planting in smaller communities is usually more personal. People know each other, and often have for generations. Most have their official historic church ties even though in practice they are not involved. The new church may experience a number of years of struggle until it builds friendship and credibility in the community.”[32]

Chapter 3: Understanding the Context

Demographics Contrasted

This study will look at a few key demographics for the cities in question. These include: growth rate, education levels, age distribution, mobility (transiency), and earnings. It will contrast Whistler and Canmore with the province in which they are located, the major city (urban center) closest to it, and with another representative town of similar population located in the same region of the province. Whistler will be compared with Merritt, a town approximately one hundred kilometers east, and Vancouver. Canmore will be compared with Brooks, a town approximately one hundred and fifty kilometers east, and with Calgary. The purpose of this comparison is to understand the similarities and differences between clear examples of both a proximate urban center and a proximate small town non-resort community.

Merritt was chosen because of its presence in the same geographic region as Whistler (known as the South Coast area of the province) and its similarity in size. Another consideration is whether or not the town’s development has been influenced by another major center. Other comparable cities are in this region are all heavily influenced by the urban sprawl surrounding Vancouver. Possible characteristics that may bias the comparison include the development of some retirement communities in Merritt over the last few years, but this is increasingly common as aging baby boomers seek quiet towns in which to retire. Two more rural communities were included to confirm the representative nature of the rural community data. Trail is from the extreme southeast, and Quesnel is from the central region of British Columbia. Neither have significant tourism industries.

Vancouver is not compared with other similarly sized cities because it already represents an agglomeration of approximately 12 cities, all urban and comparably sized[33].

British Columbia: Whistler

		British Columbia Comparison Chart
			(Resort)	(Rural)	(Rural)	(Rural)	(Urban)	(Province)
Demographics			Whistler	Merritt	Trail	Quesnel	Vancouver	BC
Population (2006)			9,248	6,998	7,237	9,326	2,116,581	4,113,487
Growth Rate (%, 2001-2006)			4.10%	-1.30%	-4.5%	-7.1%	6.50%	5.30%
Education Level (% with college/university degree)			53.40%	25.62%	25.42%	22.73%	47.12%	41.37%
Age Distribution (peak)			20-34	40-59	45-59	40-59	35-49	40-54
Age (median)			32.2	42.2	49.4	41.5	39.1	40.8
Mobility ( % residents in municipality last year)			83.56%	91.01%	90.59%	93.87%	92.28%	92.28%
Mobility (% residents in municipality five years ago)			64.23%	76.01%	81.02%	87.63%	76.59%	76.77%
Earnings median ($ gross/household/year, 2005)			$62,299	$44,280	$43,087	$54,044	$55,231	$52,709

Figure 1[34]

The growth rate disparity is clear. Whistler is growing near the provincial average, while the three sample rural cities are shrinking slowly. Despite Whistler’s small size, absent resource economy, and lack of services for immigrants, it continues to attract growth because of tourism. In fact, outside of the major metro areas of Vancouver and Victoria, the only cities in excess of ten thousand people that displayed growth in the last five years are cities heavily influenced by tourism (for example, Vernon and Kelowna)[35]. This differentiates Whistler clearly from the rest of what might otherwise be considered rural communities of British Columbia.

Education levels are clearly different in the two communities. More than half of the residents of Whistler have a college degree or better, while this is true of only one quarter of residents in the other three rural samples. A factor in this disparity may be the older median age in Merritt, Quesnel and Trail as earlier generations did not require as much education to initiate a career as today.

It needs to be noted that Whistler’s education levels are significantly higher than even Vancouver’s, an urban area. It is twelve percentage points higher than the provincial average, while the others are significantly lower. If these example communities are truly representative of their types, then this illustrates a common assumption that small town or rural residents generally have less higher education than urban dwellers, but also serves to differentiate Whistler from Vancouver.

Age distribution is a significant difference between Whistler and the rural samples. Whistler, in addition to being more educated in general, has a much younger population than the rural samples. It also skews younger even than Vancouver or the provincial average. While Vancouver is younger on average than the rural samples, Whistler is younger still. This once again is an indicator that there is something different about Whistler as distinct from either the urban or the rural samples.

The transient population also deserves notice from the church planter. Both Vancouver and Merritt exhibit similar levels of annual mobility rates. About nine out of ten residents of both Vancouver and Merritt resided in the same residence one year ago. By contrast, close to eight in ten in Whistler were resident in Whistler last year. This difference becomes more pronounced when looking back over five years – less than two out of three residents of Whistler were resident in Whistler five years ago – one third of the community has turned over in five years[36]. During the last five years, more than three quarters of both Merritt, Vancouver, and the general BC population were resident in the same community. This transience is a unique quality of resort or tourism-based communities, due to the seasonal nature of employment.

The last demographic examined is household incomes. Merritt is well under the provincial average, while Whistler is well over both the provincial and the Vancouver numbers. Whistler is a wealthy community – even moreso than the city of Vancouver. By contrast, Merritt as a representative example, rural communities generally exhibit a lower level of median income than urban ones.

With reference to these examples in the province of British Columbia, it can be seen that Whistler is unique in many regards, with respect to selected urban and rural community examples. Rural communities in British Columbia are in decline – Whistler, while similarly sized, is growing, though not as fast as urban centers with more services to support immigration. Whistler appears more highly educated, younger, wealthier, and more transient than either comparable rural communities or even urban centers. We shall see below if these trends hold up in the Canmore study area.

Alberta: Canmore

		Alberta Comparison Chart
			(Resort)		(Rural)	(Rural)	(Rural)	(Urban)	(Province)
Demographics			Canmore		Brooks	Cold Lake	Lacombe	Calgary	Alberta
Population (2006)			12,039		12,498	11,991	10,742	1,079,310	3,290,350
Growth Rate (%, 2001-2006)			11.60%		7.70%	4.1%	14.5%	13.40%	10.60%
Education Level (% with college/university degree)			53.87%		24.94%	34.14%	34.87%	47.69%	39.48%
Age Distribution (peak)			30-54		20-34	35-49	35-49	20-49	40-49
Age (median)			37.2		31.9	32.0	36.4	35.7	36
Mobility ( % residents in municipality last year)			87.40%		87.91%	86.72%	89.03%	93.50%	92.27%
Mobility (% residents in municipality five years ago)			64.86%		68.04%	61.70%	65.10%	80.08%	78.19%
Earnings median ($ gross/household/year, 2005)			$69,020	$64,606		$75,900	$64,746	$68,579	$63,998

Figure 2

In a different province, there are many other forces at work. Alberta’s economy has boomed for the last five years as oil prices have skyrocketed and demand for grains has also been driven up with government attention to biofuels as an alternative to rising energy prices. Low tax rates for both businesses and residents, and an absence of a provincial sales tax have made Alberta a very attractive province to live in. As a result, examining growth rates becomes a relative study. Both Canmore and other similarly sized rural communities have exhibited significant growth in the last five years. When all three rural communities’ growth rates are averaged, the result is a very similar disparity between Canmore’s growth relative to the mean as we found between Whistler’s growth relative to the mean of the sample rural communities we examined in figure 1.

Again, we see the education difference between Canmore and two representative rural and urban centers nearby. Canmore has significantly more college graduates proportionate to residents of either Brooks or Calgary. This apparent distinction seems most noticeable in comparison to Brooks. Twice as many Canmore residents claim completed degrees, in comparison to Brooks.

In the area of age distribution things become more unclear. Like Merritt, Canmore has seen the growth of retirement housing, while Brooks, because of its location has not seen growth in this area. This seems to have inverted the age demographics, with Brooks being substantially younger than Canmore, Calgary, and the provincial average. In this comparison, Canmore seems a little older than Calgary or the provincial averages.

In looking at mobility numbers, again we see the effects of a retirement community in Canmore and also the effects of a younger population on transiency. Canmore’s transient rate measured over the previous twelve months appears less noticeable when compared to Whistler’s. People seem to stay in Canmore, thus providing a more stable population base, though the community still has a rate of mobility over five years almost identical to Whistler’s. The Brooks example shares this demographic fact – there appears to be a relationship between its younger median ages and its rate of community turnover[37].

In the area of income, again the effects of a booming economy province-wide are demonstrated. The incomes are very close across the board. However, the trends exhibited in BC are still clear here – the rural community of Brooks has a income median very close to the province median, but clearly less than the city of Calgary’s, and that of Canmore. Once again, the distinction is clear: the resort community’s income median is higher than the urban center’s.

Conclusion

In both Whistler and in Canmore several demographic characteristics demonstrate a difference from the selected urban and rural comparisons. In both cases the communities are more highly educated, wealthier and more transient, especially over the last five years. Both communities express a high rate of turnover relative to the provincial numbers. They both exhibit a higher rate of growth than other similarly sized communities, but not as much as urban environments.

Another factor to bear in mind when considering these statistics, is to also understand that unlike Whistler, Canmore grew out of a resource based mining economy over the years. Until the development of Banff as a major tourist destination, nearby Canmore derived its primary economy from mining investment and industrial developments in the area. While these continue to drive the local economy, limited growth within the national park boundaries has pushed tourism-related growth out to the closest proximity to Banff National Park – Canmore. Now, tourism has begun to emerge as a significant source for financial growth. This duality serves in part to explain more moderate numbers as compared to Whistler which has had relatively minimal industrial development in its formative years.

James Nikkel’s Chart Contrasted

James Nikkel’s Church Planting Road Map (2004) provided a chart contrasting the urban context for church planting against the rural context. Below this table is reproduced with a third column added to indicate which of the entries is most similar to the way a resort community is categorized.

Table #: Urban/Rural/Resort Variations[38]

Subject	Urban	Rural	Resort
Church Composition	Professionally diverse/complex, a wide spectrum of people represented	There is a dominance of one or two professional groups; more homogenous	Those in second residences are diverse in profession, but locals are uniform in service jobs.
People Mobility	People are constantly moving in and out	Core groups remain relatively constant	Constant moving in and out – moreso than even urban areas.
Spirituality	There is a likelihood of more new Christians, with more spiritual diversity	Majority of church people are 2nd or 3rd generation Christians with spiritual evenness	Diverse spirituality, many interested in “the wilds” inclined towards paganism/wicca.
Family Relationships	Relationships are casual. Little is known of weekday work patterns of other church people	Church is like an extended family with intimate awareness of one another	Few families in residence, private lives except where recreation intersects.
Outreach Programs	Public announcements result in anonymous attendance	One-on-one friendships and long-term relationships are the norm	No relationships to reach through, public announcements may reach tourists instead of locals.
Church Schedules	Church programs are adjusted to suit the business life with breakfast and luncheon meetings	Programs accommodate the farming lifestyle with more seasonal adjustments	Schedules need to meet the demands of 7 day a week employment, adjusting for town’s tourism attractions.
Theological Diversity	Church problems reflect the diversity of a city life of secularism	Dialogue reflects a ministry pattern in response to rural life	Reflects am emphasis on quality of life and recreational interest.
Opportunity and Challenge	There is involvement in civic functions, ministerial, chaplaincies, counselling, radio, TV	People are involved in their own and nearby towns for their functions and rural celebrations	Addressing buried spiritual needs, meaning beyond temporal pursuits.
Values Preferences	People prefer anonymity, mobility, diversity, and change	Rural people prefer familiarity, stability, and sameness	Prefer anonymity, freedom, independence, no responsibility or authority.
Professionalism	Church involvement is often by specialization and professional preference	Church involvement is more by people availability and faithfulness	Professionalism and quality are important.
Information Flows	Forma printed materials are used	Information flows informally (grapevine)	Multiple vectors of communication to break through busy schedules.
Finance	There is a business approach of payment for services given to the church	Services rendered are often gratis with members carrying the cost	Time is critical value. Willing to pay to save time.
Audience	Audience is often more critical and more demanding of competence; there is less lay involvement	People are more tolerant and loving of one another; family style	Audience may change from week to week. Not available regularly/weekly.
Personal Ministry	Contact with parishioners is brief and often online in church situations	Visitation is often combined with social visits to the home	Contact may be brief and in absentia, or on site, playing or working together.
Program Visibility	Extensive advertising, using various media gives the program high profile and visibility	Local posters and one-on-one information flow about events lets the people know what is happening; low profile advertising	Extensive marketing presence required – permanent locations too expensive/unavailable.

There are similarities with both urban and rural descriptors, which is precisely the problem .

Interview Results

Preliminary Discussion

When examining the characteristics of a resort community in light of its demographics and its similarities and differences from both urban and rural environments, the setting may be clearly understood as neither urban nor rural. It is a different setting altogether. Perhaps it does not occur with the frequency of the other areas, but it is an important facet of the emerging 21^st Century landscape in all parts of the world. Even in places like the Middle East, tourism playgrounds are emerging for the wealthy from areas surrounding, and from visitors from afar looking for something different. Places like Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates are emerging literally from the desert. Even in Africa, communities are arising around tourism destinations[39]. Mexico has long seen the development of communities around tourism hotspots like Los Cabos, Manzanillo, and Cancun[40]. The concept and existence of resort communities is becoming universal.

Ed Stetzer in Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age says, “It is good that the Gen-X, Buster and Millennial terminologies have fallen into disfavor. Those who used the terms recognized that the groups they sought to describe were bound together more by attitude than by age.[41]” This is especially true in resort communities. The young are there to pursue activities, but their views are shared by the less active baby boomers who have come to distance themselves from the rest of their generation in their choice of lifestyle, away from the pressure and demands of the more traditional pursuits of those of their generation.

While it is easy to discern the common goals and viewpoints of the people who live and work here, and the age distribution does tend to skew younger, it is a distinct mindset, characterized by scepticism and doubt of old authorities, and the common aims that bring the target community into focus. A fifty-five year old software manager will talk and sound much like a twenty-five year old lift operator here, because they are both where they are to pursue self-actualization on a mountain bike or snowboard. Instead, Stetzer proposes, “Good missionaries uncover the deeper issues – the underlying values, thought processes, and ideas of a culture or people group.” It is this goal that is the focus of this study. The very fact that these communities are different from others of their size suggests that there is a unique culture created in a resort community. In urban planting, it is possible to identify a sub-group within that larger metropolitan area and attempt to reach them using specific strategies. In rural or small town planting, the work necessarily tries to reach as many segments as possible because the segments are so small. However, in the resort community, there is a greater homogeneity, and a different homogeneity than in other small towns. It focuses on different issues and has different goals.

It was necessary to move out into the field itself to determine what the labourers in the field recognize as the unique challenges of the resort community. The focus of this discussion was on specifically the challenges faced in representative resort communities of Western Canada: specifically, Canmore and Whistler. Questionnaires formed the basis of inquiry with pastors and ex-pastors from these areas. Two were gathered from Whistler and three were gathered from Canmore. The information conveyed has been kept anonymous. The questions used in the survey may be referenced in Appendix 1.

Whistler Interview Results[42]

Whistler has very few churches. Currently there are two evangelical churches in the town, along with a Catholic church and a multidenominational meeting place featuring three mainline protestant denominations. There are also reports of several house churches meeting in the town, but have yet to formally incorporate. In examining the community from Outreach Canada’s perspective of population to evangelical church ratio, the number comes in at around four thousand residents per church – twice the ratio that the most conservative planting targets desire. It is a town in need of more churches.

However, obstacles stand in the way. Both pastors interviewed reported the challenge of the transient nature of the community. People come to and from this community quickly – not just as guests of the resorts, but also as staff of the resorts. The seasonal nature of the town means that certain types of skills are needed to offer summer tourist activities, and then in the Fall this switches to a completely different skill set for the winter ski season. Whistler has grown around the twin resorts, operated by Intrawest, Whistler and Blackcomb Mountain Ski Resorts. Skiiing, snowboarding, snowmobiling, and snowshoeing all dominate the winter season. During the summer, the emphasis shifts to hiking, mountain biking, off-roading, ATVs, mountain climbing, whitewater kayaking, and to a lesser extent water skiing (there are two lakes in the town limits).

Serving the tourists in other ways, such as food service, gifts, and equipment is done by relatively unskilled workers with high turnovers. Construction, comes and goes – as a project finishes the workers leave. Restaurants and hotels employ large numbers of people in part time or low paying jobs, which are occupied by people temporarily as they continue their education or use the job as a base for participating in the local outdoor activities. With the high cost of living in the community, long-term residents simply cannot afford to occupy such jobs.

Transience

One pastor also offered a deeper insight into the transient nature of the residents. He suggested that people who come to live in Whistler are often seeking to distance themselves from something. Its remote nature and lifestyle of adventure offer escape for people who have experienced upheaval in their lives – whether physical, emotional, social, or even spiritual. It is a place where they can go to isolate themselves physically and get away from their social connections. As their isolation provides time for them to heal, they return to whatever it is that they were trying to escape for a time.

The transience that readily typifies the Whistler resident could be caused my several things, but as suspected, it is a major flavour present in the people of this place.

Money

One pastor noted that a major obstacle he encountered was money – finding stable sources and support for the ministry in its initial stages. This is not an uncommon report amongst church planters, so it is hard to say if his experience took on unique characteristics.

Brokenness

A pastor also noted with surprise the brokenness of the people of Whistler. It was in his words, “more than he expected”. A community with such affluence communicates wholeness subconsciously, but upon contact he observed that in many ways, money is no indicator of wholeness – in fact it can even mask problems. This connects to the above observation that people come to Whistler to “get away” from it all. In fact the very word, “resort” suggests a removal, temporary or permanent, from something. People who are on the run from their lives have need for healing. The level to which this was true was unexpected.

Resistance to Authority/Development of Authority

Additionally, stemming from this brokenness was the challenge of building leaders for the local church. People who are running away are doing so from responsibility at some level. They may be content to begin to come to church, but will shy (more than many) away from leadership and expectation. This led to an additional challenge. Growing a church numerically was possible and achievable, but without a growing leadership base the burden began to wear on the pastor and his family. Both the brokenness, and also a spirit of rebellion characterized people and led to resistance to leadership development.

Canmore Interview Results

Canmore’s consideration as a resort community relies on its proximity to a true resort community – Banff, and the reality of strict building and population restrictions on the town of Banff itself owing to its existence in a National Park. Three leaders from this community were interviewed remotely by questionnaire, with identical questions to the ones used in Whistler.

Distractions

One pastor identified the role of focus on the growth of the church. Most people moving to Canmore have a focus of their lives is elsewhere, so it is more difficult to interest them in a consideration of the eternal. ??? not sure what the last sentence means The very cost of living in Canmore forces those with lower incomes to maximize their productivity by working longer hours, shrinking their leisure time and time that could be spent involved in a church. good This not only impacts the chance of reaching the non-Christian, but it also impacts the ability to engage Christians who move here. One leader commented that he was amazed at how many Christians there are in the community who are in fact not engaged in any specific church – either not convinced of the importance of fellowship, or unable to spare the time because of other pursuits – both financial and recreational.

One pastor chose to focus on two groups of people in an effort to deal with this problem – young families, who were open to considering the spiritual needs of their new children; and middle-aged people, who have come to a place in their lives where they, like Solomon have begun to recognize the vanity of recreational pursuits as an end, and are looking for meaning.

Housing and Meeting Space

It was also pointed out that in this community, the planter faced an obstacle in securing accommodation for a reasonable price. In fact, two of the three pastors noted this difficulty. Another of the leaders does not foresee ever being able to afford his own home. The desirability of the community as both a residence and a vacation spot caused home ownership to be quite out of reach. Secondly, there were few meeting places available for a reasonable price for similar reasons. This necessitated a certain amount of creativity.

Transience

Another leader pointed out that a major obstacle to sustained church growth is the flow of people in and out of community. He was surprised to find that over the course of ten years, he has experienced at least one hundred of his congregants move out of the community. Given that the current church size is around sixty, this means that while he has grown his church by nearly 150%, the numbers of people moving out of the community have been so high that net growth has been very difficult to achieve.

Adversarial Spirit

One leader in particular reports that there is not just an apathy to Christian activities in Canmore but also real opposition. He mentioned the loss of one meeting space as the result of a policy change disallowing public rentals. Other landmarks of opposition include the removal of World Vision shoebox ministry from public schools, discouragement of “prayer at the pole” efforts and Christian clubs in High School, and even the presence in one of the shopping districts of “Shaman Lane” – a New Age shopping area. He characterizes the community as feeling very post-Christian and “tolerant” in the modern sense – tolerant of everything and anyone, except for those who are “intolerant”.

Analysis of Urban/Rural Classifications

The resort community’s character is wrapped around the service industry. The tourism industry is defined by the pursuit of recreation. The workers can be both the employees and the patrons, enjoying the same recreation that they facilitate during work hours for visitors. It may center around one attraction like Skiing, but workers may be only indirectly employed by that particular resource – restaurants, hotels more often than not are not direct subsidiaries of the attraction. Additionally, there is also demand for other pastimes to complement – snowmobiling, night clubs, skating, etc. It seems that there is a shared character and style of all of these workers, but their actual professions or employers may be very different.

The urban church context for Stuart Murray implies the pursuit of “inner city communities”[43] which do not really exist in resort communities. There is no urban core, and there are few urban poor. The social needs that characterize the urban city center are nearly absent in such places – people don’t come to Whistler without a job, unless they are on vacation. The job draws them, or the location draws them and they have enough means not to require a job.

Yet, the rural church context is described repeatedly in many sources as a place of close-knit family and friendships. It is a place where community is already present and to start a new work is to either utilize the currents of relationships to build momentum, or strive against those same currents to force people into new patterns after resting in comfort in the quiet of their close-knit corner of the world. These ties are hardly to be found in resort communities, unless the development of the place is recent and the old character has not been overcome.

The expectations of the culture of the resort community are technological and highly skilled. The values are often urban and independent, despite the smallness of the town. But most of all, the split of the very rich who are only in the community infrequently and the temporary, even seasonal workers who continually transition in and out of the community contribute in ways atypical for both urban and rural areas. There is a difference here, beyond what the urban or rural can effectively explain.

Chapter 4: Conclusions

Introduction

A recurrent theme in most recent books on missional or postmodern church planting is recognizing the need for contextualization. Another recurrent theme is the need to actualize the Christian message. “The son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give himself as a ransom for many.”[44] Considered in light of Jesus’ message as he washed his disciple’s feet, “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.”[45] In a setting where there are few “poor” as such, almost no homeless or unemployed, and where the vast majority of the unchurched have already settled on a clear purpose for their existence (or convinced themselves they have), the question needs to be asked, what can touch them? The rich have little need for anything until they recognize that they are poor in spirit.

The church planter in the resort community context has to examine where his church can meet needs. Certainly there will be those with children who desire care for their progeny, or even spiritual instruction. One new planting effort in Whistler is starting their church on this premise – beginning with a high quality children’s program as a place for both spiritual nurture and in parents’ eyes, “welcome respite”. They hope that providing such a service will give them opportunity to build relationships with parents and share the gospel with both the parents and children as opportunity arises. This is an old concept, as many churches in the 60’s and 70’s especially in the USA began centered around Sunday school.[46]

However, resort communities do not have large numbers of children in general. They are, for the most part, adult playgrounds. This is especially true in Canada – with Canada’s national birthrate per woman hovering around 1.4, it is a far cry from the USA’s 2.1. There are other needs.

Entertainment may be an approach that can be looked to for an opportunity. Skiing is primarily a daytime sport, and during winter, days are short. Night clubs are the most popular choice by far but people like to have other options as well. In smaller towns like Whistler and Canmore, there is not the critical mass of fine arts people that there is in larger cities, yet the people have cultured, urban interests. Theater, music nights at coffeehouses, street busking, and improvization may be pursued if there is the talent and gifting for them in the church planting team. However, it should be cautioned that there will likely be little patience for mediocrity. Excellence must be seriously pursued if an entertainment outreach is to gain momentum. Performance without practiced skill might be appreciated in ordinary rural communities where longstanding family friendships and relations grant tolerance and sympathy. However, in resort areas, these relations will be few and weak.

One suggested approach proposed by Stuart Murray appropriate for rural planting is the satellite approach. It features the benefits of having minimal expectations of autonomy, numbers need not be significant to allow the body to continue, and there is no expectation of running the comprehensive set of programs that a regular church might. At the writing of this paper, there was one reported example of this model being attempted in Whistler, which faltered after a couple of years. However, information was unable to be gathered on this experience in the time frame of the study.

Reducing and Summarizing Results from Interviews

In looking at the main identified obstacles from the questionnaires, they can be grouped into larger themes.

Both in Whistler and in Canmore we have reported the problem of the transient nature of the community. Several of the leaders had served in leadership capacities in other communities and found this to be a characteristic which was uniquely difficult in this context. Even successful and continuous outreach often only covers the loss of people – not necessarily from disagreement, but simply because they no longer reside in the community.

Logistical challenges are another major category of difficulty. In Whistler, it was reported that finding money for the support of the meeting place of the church and for the church’s expenses is difficult. In Canmore the major problem was in the expense of residing in the community and also in terms of finding meeting places that are both available to churches for use and affordable.

Spiritual immaturity of people inside and outside of the church is a problem in both areas. Leaders report that there are large numbers of “Christians” who do not affiliate with any church. One leader in Whistler spoke of the difficulty of taking these nominal Christians and discipling them to maturity in the short time they have them in community – the transient challenge often takes them away before the process is complete. This factors into tithing and into assuming leadership in the body. Just at the time when they may be mature enough to begin to tithe and volunteer, they often move on.

In Canmore the problem is identified earlier – it is noted that there are large numbers of nominal Christians who will not commit even to affiliating, let alone engaging in a community to the point of being discipled. Their reasons vary – from placing worldly pursuits ahead of spiritual ones, to the tyranny of paying for the lifestyle they hoped to live when they made the decision to move to this place. The level of spiritual brokenness was also pointed out in Whistler as a larger need than first assumed, while in Canmore this was described in different terms – the pride of those who have attained this preferred recreational lifestyle. Pride often conceals weakness and self-doubt, over those areas where the person has little control.

Spiritual opposition is a final category, which was best described in the Canmore setting, but would also carry over to Whistler. It came out more clearly in Canmore because there are more families there, and the interface of school is a more significant one. Whistler has few resident children comparatively. In Canmore, pastors reported that the public school system was more adversarial towards Christianity than is generally found. For example, the Samaritan’s Purse Christmas shoebox program was removed because of its overt Christian organization. Prayer at the Pole has been discouraged by administration, and Christian student clubs are banned[47]. It is also mentioned that one shopping area in town is known as “Shaman’s Lane” because of the significant numbers of New Age boutiques in that area.

Can Resort Communities Be Considered a Distinct Context for Church Planting?

Given the evidence of demographics and the opinions of church leaders in the communities, alongside a comparison of both Canmore and Whistler with typical descriptions of urban and rural environments, it appears clear that there are unique qualities that are shared by these two communities that seem not to be shared by other communities around them. Their apparent location in what would seem to be “rural” areas belie their character which is in many respects “urban” (but not all respects).

It may be asked, “Are not all communities different and unique in their own ways? Should we not examine each community before planting to contextualize specifically for the character and history of the local culture?” The answer is yes, but it is still helpful to have larger categories to guide and suggest the best means to get there. Broader categories provide handles, starting places from which church planters can begin. They form shot cuts that make the larger efforts of church planting organizations more effective.

Concluding Comments

It is hoped that this paper provides a starting point for further study into this specific class of community. Expanding the discussion to include more communities would also aid in understanding the dynamic of spiritual life in resort areas. Other communities that could have been included in the study include Invermere BC, Jasper AB, and Kimberly BC, to name a few.

A much more comprehensive look at all churches and leaders would be helpful to gain a complete perspective and more insight into what works and what does not. The small sample size of pastors in this study is a limiting factor. While in the community of Whistler, at the time of this research there was only two other leaders which could have been conceivably reached for comment, the community of Canmore had up to a half dozen more who could have been consulted. An exhaustive study incorporating feedback from all leaders would lend a greater level of reliability to the results.

One question this paper sought to address that cannot be fairly answered by the data is the question whether or not it is reasonable to expect churches in such transient places can reasonably be expected to sustain themselves. It certainly appears from the accounts of pastors that there are many obstacles that inhibit the obtaining of traditional marks of permanent churches. Land for purchase is out of reach financially. Tithing is often sporadic and weak (with exceptions). In such an environment with few mature believers to sustain the ministry, it may be helpful to view new churches here more as mission outposts of denominations and less as self-sustaining entities. More research into the financial pictures of these churches would be necessary to obtain answers to this question.

Murray Moermann and Lorne Hunter wrote, “ We must not plant where it is easiest to plant – though planting is never easy and it is always resisted because it takes from the Kingdom of Darkness – but must always seek to plant where a new disciple-making community is most needed, ie., Where the church-to-population ratio is lowest.”[48] There is no question that resort communities face real challenges that church planting efforts in other communities do not face. Despite these obstacles, the gifted and called must not shy away from such challenges. They must be taken on and the Kingdom must be built. The Gospel must go to the “ends of the earth”[49]. All nations must hear the gospel before the end, so if the faithful want to hasten the Lord’s return, they must pursue with diligence even the most “difficult” of people. Resort communities are one of those difficult places. Many there are rich, and Jesus has already told us just how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Many more there are not rich in terms of wealth, but have so little want that they act as though they are rich – and indeed, relative to the rest of the world, they truly are rich. But yet, it is clear the people in these places are very poor in spirit – they are often so wrapped up in themselves and their pursuits.

The draw of the mountains calls to many people. Some come for the natural beauty, an increasing rarity in our cities of steel and pavement. Some come to escape. Some come to pursue pleasure, or physical challenge, or sporting excellence. Some come to seek and save the lost. For those who desire to make known the name of Jesus in such places, with so many obstacles, this paper was written. Perhaps something in these words will aid the understanding or provide an insight that will break past one person’s objections and let the Holy Spirit into their heart. If even one person is saved with the aid of this research then it has not been in vain. For those who are called to the resort communities of Western Canada, our prayers go with you.

Appendix 1: Interview Questions

Church Family

1. What is the name of your congregation?
2. How long has your church been in existence?
3. What is the denomination/fellowship you associate with?
4. What is the average attendance of your church/plant?
5. What is the average age of your congregation? Does this reflect your community’s demographics as far as you know? Was this intentional?
6. How would you describe your congregation demographically or socially?

Before the Plant

1. Have you ever planted a church before? What was that experience?
2. How were you called to plant a church here in (Canmore, Whistler)?
3. What attracted you to this community, these people?
4. What were your expectations in terms of growth from the beginning of the church plant? Were those expectations met?

Challenges

1. What difficulties did you anticipate before you came to live here?
2. Did those difficulties materialize? How did they manifest themselves?
3. What unforeseen difficulties did you encounter to the process of planting and growing a church here?
4. What approaches or ideas would you say have been the most successful for you in terms of attracting new attenders/members?
5. Why would you say they were successful (other than God’s blessing)?

Denominational/Fellowship Perspective on Resort Communities

1. What does your denomination/fellowship expect in terms of church growth/independence?
2. Do you know how they arrived at those expectations? If yes, How?
3. Do you believe these expectations are fair or unfair?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS