The first response after I finished my presentation on parallel ministry, the first response was "well, that just looks exhausting". This really seems to be a theme of this whole process. Not only will anything we do require loss and risk, but they will require work. There's no avoiding it. Not doing work is what got the church into this position in the first place.
There was a lot of reflection done on the church's previous attempt at an alternative service. I tried to clarify that what I'm suggesting is different from an alternative service, but an entirely different service with a different board and worship service. The previous pastor had done some great work reaching out to the community to bring people into this service. When this pastor left, the service ended and those people left. It wasn't considered a loss because those folks couldn't support the church financially. The idea of a parallel ministry reminds people of this and the fact that we may actually have to go out and get those folks back. "Who is going to do the work of outreach/evangelism?" is what was both implied and explicitly asked. We don't have energy to do that.
In the midst of these negative thoughts was some recognition that this idea might be the church's best hope of not just surviving, but also thriving. It's about taking a risk. Some seem ready for that and that is encouraging. I just don't know that their voices can win out among the negativity.