← back to Index

Fallback Recommendation — A Regional Ad Hoc Committee Inside MW/NW

If the national leaders of Sovereign Grace conclude that this is not the right moment for a national-level spotlight on the Mountain West, the workable fallback is a regional ad hoc committee — formed inside the present MW/NW region, comprised primarily of church-planting committee members, sitting under Chris's RCPC role.

This path produces a smaller, slower version of the same outcome. The work still happens; the network of support is narrower.

Why this is the right fallback

• The MW/NW already has a regional church-planting committee — the people and the meeting cadence exist. Forming the ad hoc committee from inside that body is a low-friction move.
• Chris already chairs (or coordinates — RCPC, full title TBC) the regional church-planting work; the new ad hoc committee operates as a sub-charter inside that role.
• The work doesn't depend on national resources to begin. It depends on national resources to scale. So this committee can start the field work and bring proof-of-concept back to national later, in a stronger position than asking national to lead from the front.

Who would serve

A subgroup of 4–6 members drawn primarily from the MW/NW Regional Church-Planting Committee. Suggested categories:

• Chris Oswald — convener, RCPC, primary author
• Two MWNW regional church-planting committee members at-large — to bring committee-process discipline and regional accountability
• A Mountain West pastor — preferably Ron Boomsma (Bozeman) or Dave York (Roseburg)
• Optionally — Jeff Palen (Center Church, Star) as the on-the-ground voice for Idaho-and-the-growth-zone
• Optionally — one outside-the-region SG pastor with relocation-recruitment gifts, to keep the work from becoming insular

If national-level partners (Joel Shorey, Ricky Alcantar) want to participate informally, they're welcome — but they're not committee members under this fallback. They're advisers.

What it actually does

Same five workstreams as the national version — see the committee charter — at a regionally-scaled cadence. The work is identical; the budget, reach, and visibility are smaller.

The single biggest practical difference: no national campaign. The recruitment of relocators and the building of national-level launch teams are out of scope for a regional ad hoc committee. Those happen, if at all, through informal pastor-to-pastor advocacy.

How it would convene

• Inserted as a recurring agenda item in the MW/NW regional church-planting committee meetings — no separate meeting cadence at first
• Quarterly written check-ins to the broader regional leadership
• One in-region visit per year (Boise or Bozeman)
• Initial term: 12 months, with the explicit goal of producing a brief that either (a) advances to a national ad hoc proposal once the data is on the table, or (b) concludes that the Mountain West is best served by current arrangements

What this fallback gives up

• National financial backing
• National narrative reach (no campaign in SG digital or at the Pastors & Leaders Conference)
• Cross-regional relocation pipeline at scale
• Faster timeline — likely 18–24 months added to any plant timeline versus the national path

What this fallback preserves

• The work itself — exploratory in Kalispell, support to Center Church, scouting across MT/ID/WY/UT, regional vision-casting
• Field credibility — the committee's findings, after a year's work, become the strongest possible argument for a later national elevation
• Optionality — if national leadership later decides to lean in, the committee can be promoted in place rather than reconstituted