Consulting, Coaching & Chatter

Once upon a time, I used to teach. It was a one room schoolhouse with up to twelve kids ages preschool through seniors in high school. I taught the ABCs, 123s, algebra, trig, chemistry, history, social sciences, and pretty much everything else. In order to make this gig work, I was trained in what we called Foxfire. Foxfire was outcome-based-education before anyone had ever heard of OBE. But it was more than that. Lots more. And when I got my certification I had been schooled in many things, but most of all, I was educated in how people get educated.

I’m a visual learner first and an auditory learner second. These are followed by the other learning tools. My understanding of how I learn has served me well over the years. Despite being ADHD, I made good grades in school, muddled my way through three degrees with a GPA ranging from 3.5 to 4.0, and I’ve got six books (so far) that I’ve written under my belt. In all of my classes throughout my life, I’ve managed to make the best of whatever teaching style the professor used. Most were lecturers, but others knew enough about learning styles that they offered a variety of experiences for the rest of us to truly enjoy learning. The best teachers are those who understand that people learn in a variety of ways and that by using a variety of learning styles, even those who match the primary teaching style of the teacher will have a richer experience.

With all we know about learning styles, and with as highly educated as our clergy are in North America, one might be tempted to believe that when it comes to worship in general, and the “message” in particular, the church would be a multi-learning style experience. One would think. However, given that the Church on this continent continues to lose both members and attendees, it might be time for both pastors and worship teams to seriously reconsider how they’re teaching.

I’ve had the joy of being in a variety of different churches over the past several weeks - being on the road has a number of advantages. In my travels, I’ve attended a couple of twenty-something worship services … services filled with young faces. One of these churches in particular has a service called Odyssey. The worship is led by Justin Mackey and they have a tech team for creating a multi-sensory service that connects with most (not all … there’s no perfection out there yet) of the learning styles. There was video support for music and for the sermon (not just words on a slide - but video clips), preaching (by the lead pastor Chip Freed), and intentional conversation. The opportunity to write and to have an additional tactile learning opportunity would be nice, but as far as providing multiple learning experiences, it was heads and shoulders above anything I’ve experienced in the past couple of months. My partner in church consulting, Bill Easum, commented that he thought that Odyssey might be the best service offered by any church in Cleveland. High praise from Bill.

Contrast that with what I typically experience in church services - even in most twenty-something churches. If there’s video at all, it’s little better than an overhead projector. Static. Words and a graphic (if you’re lucky). Nothing that couldn’t be done with a color printer and a sheet of acetate. The sermon is presented in pure auditory style, so those of us who are visual, conversational, or tactile learners are … well … out of luck. Although the preachers tend to be fine looking young men and women and their faces are animated, they really don’t add much to the teaching presentation. No fill-in sheets or notes pages for those who learn best tactically with a pencil in their hand. No invitation to turn to those next to us to bounce ideas around for those who are conversational learners. No video clips to illustrate the sermon points and to drive the point home for visual learners. Nope. If radio or podcast listening isn’t your primary learning style, you can expect to go home with about a third of what you might have learned otherwise had the worship team understood the dire need to present the Gospel and it’s application in a multi-media format.

So, to all the Justin Mackey’s in the world who really do “get it,” thanks. And the rest of us would do well to seek out those churches to experience multple learning style presentations. With the state of the church these days, we just can’t afford to keep on doing church the same old way and expecting or even hoping for something different.

Another one bites the dust. If I had a dollar for every pastor who started the transformation process and ended up leaving the church and/or ministry, I could have retired long ago. But here we go again. Earlier in the month I wrote about a church that was embroiled in battle over transformation and the ethics charges rained down. Charges about monetary mishandling (dismissed), charges about using a bully-pulpit (dismissed), and charges of clergy misconduct (also dismissed). With all those dismissals, you’d think that everything was rosy. That’s not the case.

Before I work with a church that’s about to embark on the transformation process, I counsel both the pastor and the congregation that 80 percent of transformations fail … and honestly, I think that number is charitable. The primary reason these efforts come to naught is because either those who are pulling for the change surrender and leave when the distractors get wound up or because the pastor leaves (voluntarily or not). When I offer this counsel, the response is almost always like the Israelites who repeatedly recounted their vow to remain faithful. “Oh, we’re stronger than that! We’re in it for the long haul.” Turns out the long haul can be effectively translated “Until the going gets uncomfortable for us.” Sadly, in many, if not most, church transformation efforts, there will be a couple of individuals or families who have a small following who will not just speak against the necessary changes for transformation, they’ll build factions, threaten, and get ugly … sometime really ugly … in order to get their way. Like in the church I’ve written about earlier. You read about the ugliness there. Ugly.

All the charges got dismissed. That’s the good news. You’d think that the pastor and the faithful would raise a cheer that the battle was over. But it wasn’t. It isn’t. The ugliness continued and I’ve received word that the pastor has resigned and isn’t sure whether to remain in minstry or not. Too young to retire, but frankly too theologically educated to find a decent paying job in this economy. The costs of transformation are high.

So, here’s my final thoughts on this … at least for awhile. Why would anyone in their right mind want to take on a transformation? Aubrey Malphurs once wrote that there’s no one young enough in ministry to effectively turn around a church. I’d add, there are very few who have the stomach and the commitment to see a transformation through. So why do so many men and women try? What’s in it for them? It’s not glory. It’s not big money. It’s not a multi-book deal with Doubleday.

I can’t think of a single thing that’s “in it” for them. Except for that quiet voice and not-so gentle urgings from the Spirit that calls them to the task. So, if you’re one called to the task … or you’re one trying to support your pastor who’s called to the transformation path … don’t quit on them. Don’t give up. Remember that Jesus faced this exact issue and look what it cost him for facing down those who would not engage the transformation. Following Jesus in the path of transformation isn’t easy … but in the end, if you can endure the pain, it will be worth it. He promised.

I was involved in a conversation earlier today about hiring a staff member at a church. Hiring staff can be a real sticky situation. In some churches, the denomination does the hiring. That can be a huge issue that I don’t personally “get.” What happens if the Lead Pastor (or in a larger multi-staff church the ministry leader) doesn’t get along with the new staff member … or vice versa? In a healthy church, the immediate supervisor does the hiring (the HR or Staff Parish may have veto power) and they do the firing (period). This curtails a lot of staff problems from the git-go, if the Lead Pastor chooses wisely.

The rule of thumb that should be used for all hires is found in the following maxim I learned from my colleague Bill Easum:

1. Hire for passion.
2. Train for skills.

However, there are a number of other criteria I used whenever I went looking for a team member. I looked for a couple of significant qualities. These qualities are in order of most important to least important.

1. Passion. When I shared the mission and vision (and the rest of the DNA) of the church, if their eyes weren’t on fire, they were a miss.
2. Loyalty. I never hired anyone I didn’t think was going to be 100% loyal to me. They didn’t have to agree with me all the time, but if they disagreed they did so in my office one-on-one and NO where else. This was one of two areas where I had a no-tolerance policy (the other was breaches of ministerial ethics).
3. Teachability. I only hired those who knew they didn’t know it all and were hungry to learn more and were flexible enough to suspend their judgment long enough to give something new an honest try.
4. Chemistry. If we didn’t click, it was an immediate nix.
5. Teamwork. Did they have a history of playing nice on the playground and could they gather enough friends for a good game of kickball? If not, they weren’t going to do well on our team.
6. Intuition. Mine. If I had any nagging doubts or red flags, I’d keep looking. I would reconsider if the “right” person didn’t come along, but if my intuition hiccuped, I’d take note.
7. Intuition. My wife’s. If her spirit said, “No” that was good enough for me without questioning it. I’ve been burned too many times not listening to her heart … she’s has an incredible gift of discernment and I pay heed. Find someone who has that kind of intuition, if yours isn’t incredible.
8. Ability. Notice this is dead last. If everything else checked out, but they didn’t have all the skills they were going to need, I considered them anyway and if they were hired they were trained at our expense.

One last caveat. If the Lead Pastor is saddled with hiring everyone and there are more than four employees, I always want to know why. In ministry, overseeing more than four team members is untenable. The fifth and beyond staff members should be supervised by one of the pastor’s team members. If you need to know more about this, be sure to check out the Fractaling information on Easum, Bandy & Tenny-Brittian website.

Today I’ve spent all day … well, from 10:30 AM until 4:20 … training fifty-two participants the first half of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to Evangelism seminar. I’m exhausted (that’s a lot of time up in front doing a lot of the talking) and yet I’m too wound up to sleep. There’s something about watching folks “get it” when it comes to good-newsing the world. What’s most gratifying, is the number of the under-thirties who shared how much they got out of it and that what they heard are tips and tools that they realize will work in their contexts.

One of the hot topics of conversation at this event has been the discussion of the “church’s” role in evangelism. When I use the word “church” here, I’m meaning the cultural understanding of the church as a local expression, that is, a typical North American congregation that meets in some sort of dedicated building. What happens, several were asking, when we share our faith stories and invite our friends to come with us to church and when they get there the welcome and the love and the acceptance just isn’t there. In other words, is our evangelism efforts for naught if all we have to invite them to is church-as-usual?

That’s the rub, isn’t it? I’ve been on staff at churches in the past wheren I was hesitant to invite the unchurched and the irrelgious to visit. I figure that I get ONE chance with someone who’s authentically seeking and if I, or the church, blows it, the seeker may never give the church another chance. Rather than risking the loss to the kingdom, I’d invite them to other churches in the area where I knew they had a pretty good chance to meet Jesus rather than to a church where I knew they had a better chance of meeting ho-hum church-as-usual. I’m afraid there are some things that I’m just not willing to risk.

Which is a real dilemma for some in this evangelism seminar. Just what DO you do when the church you attend is “stuck” or in the midst of its own transformation? How can we prepare the serious seeker for their encounter with “the church” when it’s more of an insider’s club than a well-functioning rescue station? When is taking the risk the “right” thing to do?

It’s a dilemma and I’d be interested to hear your answers. My response is, instead of inviting a serious seeker to the “church” (i.e., the Sunday worship service in The Building), I invite them to an effective small group that I’m a part of. Hopefully that small group would be attached to the “church,” but I’m less concerned about that than I am in creating an incubator for love, warmth, hospitality, and discipleship.

What do you do when your friend, relative, associate, neighbor, or co-worker is seriously seeking spiritual answers? We live in a time where the economic crisis may be helping people get “ripe” for asking those questions. When they do, will you “risk” taking them to church? If not, what will you do?

Just a quick post while I’m on the road. A colleague of mine and I were talking about appropriate follow-up plans for first-time visitors and I referenced a recent thread on the Easum, Bandy & Tenny-Brittian Community Advanced Leadership forum about what was considered a “valuable” gift. I had written about the pastor taking a gift to a first-time visitor within 24 hours of their visit in an earlier blog post and mentioned a coffee mug as a gift. In the “valuable” gift thread, I echoed Tom Bandy’s sentiments that a gift taken to a guest should reflect something of value … and folks, coffee mugs just don’t make it much in that realm. Why, even the local garage and the banks give away mugs and though they can be a “nice” gift, very few people marvel at the gift of a mug from a Realtor, let alone a church. A gift of value is something that sets you apart from the crowd … it makes an impression.

So, back to the convesation with my colleague. We were talking about “valuable” gifts and I mentioned that in some locales, a plate of homemade cookies (with a fridge magnet for posterity’s sake) would be more memorable than a mug. That sparked an insight. Turns out that one of the churches there in Jefferson City has a bee keeper and first time visitor leave the worship service with a small jar of honey. On the following day, a member of their follow-up team takes the guests a loaf of hot homemade bread to go with their honey. I thought … what a good idea!

But their program could be made even more effective with two additions. First, I love the idea of sending them home with honey. That’s a nice way to get visitors to identify themselves and give up their contact information. Second, I love the idea of taking them hot homemade bread … but the pastor should be the one taking it, and s/he should be taking it that day. But there’s still one thing missing. Permanency. Once the bread’s gone and the honey’s gone, there’s nothing but a memory. It’ll be a good memory, but they may or may not remember where the great gift came from six months from now when a crisis hits and they seek both God and a church in earnest.

So I did a very brief Google search and came up with this: a small honey pot to go with the bread and honey ($2,70 each). Someone with a steady hand could add the name and contact info of the church on the honey pot (or a ceramic’s group could actually make them and decorate them by hand) and then the valuable gift has everything … it creates good will, it makes an impression, and it has permanency to preseve the memory. And if this church (or yours) did this, first time visitors would be telling their friends about the church they visited that helped them feel valuable too.

Why is it that in a denomination with the slogan “A thousand church plants, a thousand different models” that when it comes to Anglo church planting there seems to be only one model that gets any serious conversation: The Pastor Developer Model.

Talk about so yesterday. And so expensive. .And so very, very ineffective for most church starts. It’s not that the model doesn’t work … it has good potential, it’s simply that very few mainline denominations have the funding to do it right, and so the church plant falters and seldom succeeds in becoming a vital church that is self-supporting, let alone a church that plants other churches. In today’s world the pastor developer model must fund not only a senior pastor, but in general a professional church planting team with a worship pastor and a discipleship/lay mobilizing pastor. Successful PD models often fund as many as five team members to ensure effectiveness. Each of these team members are fully assessed (beyond the pulse and breathing test) and they are fully trained and coach-supported (trained coaches, not just encouragers). When this team hits the ground, they hit it running and when the denomination pushes for an early public launch (and the denomination ALWAYS pushes for a premature public launch), the team is ready for it, ether to dig their collective heels in, or to collectively agree and push forward. And I don’t suppose I mentioned that the funding includes at least five-figures for grand opening marketing.

But here’s what the mainliners typically do (with the PD model). They fund a salary and ministry fully for the first year and then cut the funding over the next two or three years … as if the pastor needs extra funding the first year when s/he has NO worship, no church members, etc. and will need less in the second or third year when it’s most likely the church will actually be ready for a launch.
Something seems backwards to me.

The fact is, there really are a lot of different models for church planting - even in the mainline. But I keep hearing misguided and misinformed denominational leaders say, “We can’t afford to try an experimental model - we MUST have a success” as if their under-funded PD model without effective assessment and coaching somehow guarantees a success.

So … what other models are there? The denominational slogan has it right: there are literally thousands. But let me offer a couple quickies. First, there’s the meta-model - a church of small groups (not a church with small groups). This model begins much more slowly than the PD model, but costs less in the long run. The assessed and coached planter begins by building a small group of genuine seekers that they’ve raised up in the field (not a collection of disgruntled formerly churched retreads recruited by the denomination). BTW, if a planter can’t raise up a group of seekers in month or two, what are they doing planting a church? They’re obviously not suited for it. These seekers are discipled from the beginning and within a couple of months have multiplied their small group at least once … oh, and the planter should have been able to launch at least one new group of seekers during that time. And so it goes until there are at least ten small groups with at least ten in each group … with each group having at least a couple of identified future leaders. Only then is the church ready to begin the public worship process.

The second model, and in some ways the most effective and price conscious model, is for a healthy local church to enter into the multi-site process. In this case, a healthy church simply starts an off-site service that is indigenous to a particular target in the community. The new service launches with a worship sevice designed specifically for that target audience, complete with music, technology, and hospitality in the style and of the calibre expected of the target. The multi-site doesn’t need a preacher, but it does need a host pastor who will be the face of the off-site church and who will do follow-up and be in charge of ensuring effective pastoral care. The founding church generally provides the “sermon” via a feed or a DVD (or USB Flash Drive). There are lots of reasons why this kind of start works, but not the least of which is that the two sites share the resources of the founding church. The key to success here, however, is that the founding church MUST BE HEALTHY, and there are so very few healthy mainline churches that there are many cities, let alone towns, that could not pull this off even if they wanted to. And for those who are thinking it takes a large church to do multi-site, consider that it is reported that churches with less than 200 in worship are successfully launching multi-site churches.

There are many, many more models out there. House church networks are finally seeing some success.
Marketplace driven churches are being launched here and there. And “factory” churches (churches based within an industry, including the hospitality industry) are starting to pop up here and there. The sky’s the limit … but we have to get the lid off of the Pastor Developer Jar first.