1.) We are growing with a mixture of tradition and sensible liturgies that follow the book.
2.) Who says the system is broken and the culture is wrong? Do you speak for God?
3.) Growing evangelical churches have buildings, full parking lots, money and other goodies. How is that different from aping the folks next door with the bigger house, more expensive car, and etc.
4.) What can I learn from them? Peddling attractive snake oil is more popular than teaching truth.

anyone want to borrow my ten foot pole here?

Rebuilt dismantled

Some things I consider when I think about the parish that brought forth the Rebuilt book/movement:

1 - Nativity uses more chant than the majority of parishes in the USA.
2 - they pray the rosary communally 5 days a week - more than the average parish.
3 - they offer 2 hours of confessions per week - not a lot by any means but greater than the huge amount of parishes that offer only one hour on Saturdays
4 - they offer 8 hours of adoration per month. Again not a lot by any means but more than a majority of parishes. And they offer additional hours during Lent.
5 - while I don't find their website particularly great - it does have an easy place to find their address and directions (the amount of parishes that leave this out of their website is mind boggling).

2 - they pray the rosary communally 5 days a week - more than the average parish.

What data are you using about the frequency of weekday rosary at parishes? Around here it is very common.

Though the Yelp review is dated this year, I can attest from first-hand experience that Nativity's new church has kneelers and they use them.

As to their questions:
1. I can't really say in a public forum (though I can say that our parking lot is tiny).
2. We are constrained by broken systems for sure. "Obedient"? Well, unlike a protestant churches of the non-denominational variety, we are part of a wider institution that we cannot simply thumb our nose at.
3. The very idea would boggle some of their minds (and I don't think that's a good thing).
4. I don't really know what the local folks are doing, but from what I know of the "best practices" of evangelical churches: a) having the staff work as a team, b) taking care that preaching is carefully crafted, biblically-based, and relevant to people's concerns, c) having the entire congregation see hospitality and evangelization as their task, d) talking about Jesus more than the Church (not that you don't talk about the Church; you just don't talk about it more than Jesus).

4. I don't really know what the local folks are doing, but from what I know of the "best practices" of evangelical churches: a) having the staff work as a team, b) taking care that preaching is carefully crafted, biblically-based, and relevant to people's concerns, c) having the entire congregation see hospitality and evangelization as their task, d) talking about Jesus more than the Church (not that you don't talk about the Church; you just don't talk about it more than Jesus).

Deacon Fritz,

I) "best practices" isn't something you can glean from Protestant Evangelical Churches, because they're on a different mission from that entrusted to the Catholic Church.

2) not all teams are created equal. Staff shouldn't needlessly obstruct each other, but is that all that's involved in being a team?

3) Of course preaching should be carefully crafted. As to its Biblically-based-ness, I think that one of the greatest weaknesses of the Catechism of Pope John Paul, and of the whole of his pontificate, is that he went from the Church fathers to the Second Vatican Council, as if there was nothing in between.

4) "Relevant" should mean much talking about sin, forgiveness, the need for the sacraments and obedience to Sacred Tradition, since all of us sin, need forgiveness, can only grow in holiness through frequent recourse to the sacraments, and are part of the One Holy Catholic Church, whose sinew is Sacred Tradition. Somehow, however, I don't think that's what most people (including, perhaps, you) mean by the word.

5) Don't most parishes have "Ministers of Hospitality", thus making it the private purview of a few noisy wheels?

6) Before people can understand "evangelization" as their job, they need to understand #4 above.

7) Surely you realize that one can't separate the Bridegroom from the Bride, and so "talking about Jesus more than the Church" is disingenuous.

4) "Relevant" should mean much talking about sin, forgiveness, the need for the sacraments and obedience to Sacred Tradition, since all of us sin, need forgiveness, can only grow in holiness through frequent recourse to the sacraments, and are part of the One Holy Catholic Church, whose sinew is Sacred Tradition. Somehow, however, I don't think that's what most people (including, perhaps, you) mean by the word.

Sin is always relevant, due to the human condition. But you are right, that's not what I meant. "Relevant" preaching would mean talking about the moral problems posed by social media, or careerism's pressure on family life, or trying to vote your conscience in a political system that seems only to present unacceptable options, or dealing with the death of one's parents, or the difficulty of passing along faith to one's children in an increasingly secular culture. "Relevant" in the sense I mean is not preaching simply abstract moral norms or doctrinal formulations, but showing people how those norms or doctrines can have a transformative effect in their lives, how their very truth is life-giving.

7) Surely you realize that one can't separate the Bridegroom from the Bride, and so "talking about Jesus more than the Church" is disingenuous.

When I talk about myself, people cannot always assume that I am talking about my wife. To the degree that I talk about my wife more than myself, I am a far more interesting person.

Among the evangelicals and the main line protestant denominations a kind of interesting thing developed about thirty or thirty five years ago. There arose a number of prophets in the land who became experts on church growth. They did what sociologists and psychologists do. They investigated churches that exhibited characteristics that were assumed to be signs of growth and then they decided that if "failing" churches followed these practices, they would also achieve "success" as defined by these signs of growth. There are several of these experts who are still doing regular studies in this area. I am presently employed, with my wife, in a protestant church and the staff seems to be very concerned about the church's programs. There are quite a few serious Christians here, but the focus on programs may not prove to be such a great idea, in my opinion, because programs are for a larger purpose which is living out the Gospel. The early Church thrived because the members "loved one another", and put the Lord before all else. Advertising industry hype and "rah, rah" programs can't hold a candle to that.

One issue with Mega and Rebuilt is there can be a lot of"volume" of people but a lot of churn apparently. Thus,some seekers may come and stay for a year, or two, but then exit - however the numbers stay up and appear to grow as the next wave comes in and so forth. From my friends in the mega church world.

Deacon Fritz,

not preaching simply abstract moral norms or doctrinal formulations, but showing people how those norms or doctrines can have a transformative effect in their lives, how their very truth is life-giving.

Sin is many things, but an abstract moral norm isn't one of them. I read the newspaper occasionally, and see all sorts of very concrete instances. To borrow an idea from C.S. Lewis, sin is the only doctrine of the church which can be demonstrated to be true just by looking at the newspaper!

"doctrinal formulations" -- when was the last time you can think of an example where doctrine was preached either in the abstract or in the concrete? Independent of that, before one can see how a doctrine applies to one's life, and why it matters, one must have a clear understanding of that doctrine, so a doctrinal formulation, while not perhaps sufficient is definitely necessary.

As to the Bridegroom/Bride question..... gosh, I'm not sure where to start. When Christ established the Church, He did so as His Bride, so the purpose of the Church is to lead others to Christ. If we abandon the Bride, how can we expect to find Christ?

Just read Fr. White's (author of Rebuilt) column on the PrayTell blog about liturgical bullying, of which he says he's frequently a victim.

http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2018/05/21/liturgical-bullies/

He makes a few good points about the lack of charity in many people who fancy themselves liturgy police.

It's hard to take seriously such complaints from a priest whose newly-built church violates practically every principle of sound and beautiful liturgical architectural design and whose Masses adhere to rubrics where they absolutely must but exploit ambiguities and options in the GIRM to take dubious and large liberties that make Mass at Nativity more like a technically, minimally valid Liturgy of the Eucharist wrapped in Megachurch packaging and presentation than anything any liturgical document ever envisioned for Catholic liturgy.

There are more than just a few things that can be legitimately criticized about the way Nativity celebrates Mass; that doesn't make such criticism "liturgical bullying".