Consulting, Coaching & Chatter

Those who read my previous post may have been surprised that I suggested scripture reading may be the most transformative spiritual habit. I’m sure there are those who would argue that prayer offers more opportunities for the Spirit’s injection into our lives. However, so long as the average prayer is a monologue, it’s unlikely to be a means of transformation. Hence, the second foundational spiritual habit is prayer that listens more than talks.

When I introduce this spiritual habit in most churches, I regularly get questions on exactly what I mean. It turns out that the church in general hasn’t been adequately prepared for two-way communication with God. Some of the reluctance to engage in listening prayer may be related to the cultural derision toward those who “hear voices” and the skepticism toward those who claim they’ve been given a message from God. There is also a third group of churched folk who image God as a distant deity who rarely gets personally and directly involved in individual lives.

On the other hand, I’ve found that when a church gets serious about teaching and practicing prayer, amazing things begin to happen. Perhaps not surprisingly, those changes are less in the “answered prayer” department, though great things happen there too; instead the greatest changes are in the lives of those who are praying. Soren Kierkegaard wrote “Prayer doesn’t change God, it changes him who prays.” However, those who experience personal transformation are generally those who have learned how to listen.

It’s beyond the scope of this post to go into the details of how to hear the voice of God, but let me share something a spiritual director once said to me. “There are only three voices in your head. Your voice, God’s voice, and the voice of darkness.” Though the voice of darkness can be deceptive, it’s normally pretty easy to pick that voice out. That normally leaves you trying to discern between your voice and God’s voice. In my experience, God’s voice is the one calling me to the greatest good and my voice is the one rationalizing why that’s not such a good idea.

Often I’ve found that there is a much easier – and often more effective – way to help people hear God. Get them to go into prayer, visualize themselves sitting down in a room where Jesus is, and then just listen.

However it’s taught, prayer that is spent listening to what God has to say, rather than the other way around, is one of the most foundational and transformational spiritual habit. Get your leadership practicing it and the change will be palpable.

I was invited to check out the newest book by Geoff Surratt, Greg Ligon, and Warren Bird A Multi-Site Church Road Trip (look for its review in Net Results in the March-April 2010 issue). After reading the book, I proffered a question to the authors. The question and the answer is posted below. The authors of the book will be following the comments, so if you have thoughts or additional questions, don’t hesitate to post and we’ll see what kind of a conversation we can get going with them.

Question:

With all the hype, success stories, and publicity given to multi-site churches, for many congregations struggling to survive, the multi-site option may seem to be an enticing enterprise (dare we say “program”?).   With this in mind, what would you say are the foundational/key/bottom-line traits that a church/congregation must have/exhibit before it seriously entertains the idea of planning or implementing a multi-site option?

Reply:

Bottom line – if a church is struggling to survive, multi-site is not for them.  It rarely has successfully catalyzed growth in a dead or dying congregation. In fact, we are not aware of any churches where this has been the case.  It can be an effective tool for sustaining growth but not for creating growth.  The foundational questions for a church to ask before making a decision to go multi-site include:

1. Is your church healthy?  Is it growing?  Are members excited about bringing their family and friends?  If you’re unhealthy, why export your disease?

2. Is there a driving impetus behind your desire to go multi-site?  All the leaders we have interfaced with over the last 7 years chose to open additional sites because they saw no better options for fulfilling God’s purpose and direction for their church.

3. Are key leaders behind the decision?  Going multi-site is not easy and therefore it is vital for key leaders to be unified and excited about moving forward with an additional campus(es).  Employing multi-site as an “end-around strategy” is doomed for failure.

————————————————————–

For further dialog, see more Q&A at the authors’ blog www.multisiteroadtrip.com or contact them via Twitter: @geoffsurratt, @gregligon or @warrenbird. To order Multi-Site Church Roadtrip, click here http://bit.ly/7pmFZQ, and to order Multi-Site Church Revolution, click here http://bit.ly/5q5AaD.

… I didn’t know where else to put this, here’s a short video of the light, sound, and decoration’s display at our home this Christmas. Perhaps sometime I’ll figure out how to marry the music that’s playing in the front yard (with many thanks to our tolerant neighbors) to some sort of sound quality. But for now, you’ll get the idea.

Outside, we have 11 dancing trees, 7 blow-ups, 8 old-fashioned blow-mold figures, 10 lighted candy canes, 15 penguins lining the driveway, 2 manger scenes, and about 2500 LED lights outlining the house, windows, yard, and bushes.

Inside, we have 18 decorated Christmas trees (many decorated to themes) and every room has been transformed into a Christmas wonderland – with lots of thanks to the family for helping and especially Kris (my wife) who takes a week off from her denominational job every year following Thanksgiving so she can decorate.

Open house is Dec 12 from 11-2, so if you’re in the Columbia, Missouri area, please drop by and tour the house, eat some of the Christmas cookies the children are busy baking and decorating, and drink some Christmas punch. 308 West Blvd. N., Columbia, MO 65203.


Click to Watch!

Over the past couple of years, we’ve been telling church leaders that getting into the mass media advertising game is, by and large, a colossal waste of money – unless your church can afford to spend upwards of $25,000 per campaign (per event you are advertising).  Some of the reasons for this are pretty obvious, but some are not.

Let’s start with your target audience. Most of the time, when a church advertises, they are trying to reach the likes of “Saddleback Sam.” If you’ve read Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church (and if you haven’t, you should stop reading now and go get a copy at Amazon.com), then you know I’m talking about the unchurched guy or gal whom your church is likely and able to effectively reach. For most churches today, that target is often a poorly defined “Unchurched Young Family with Kids” kind of target. If that’s who you’re trying to reach, then before you invest so much as a dollar in advertising you need to get someone to walk you through the demographics and psychographics process and match that with the level of targeted guest hospitality of your congregation. Why? Because if you get your “Saddleback Sam and young family” to walk into the door of your church and they are “exposed” to a worship service with pipe organ, ancient hymns, cryptic language, an understaffed or inadequate nursery or children’s program, they may not stay, and they are pretty unlikely to ever return.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you know exactly who your Saddleback Sam is. The thirty-something “nuclear” family, married with children, double income, watches Big Bang Theory and Office, prefers Alternative music, some discretionary income, has significant debt, and is buying a home. How are you going to market to them?

Before you answer, remember that the average USAmerican sees well over 3000 ads per day. The rule of thumb is that someone has to see or hear your ad at least five times before they are able to recall the ad (before it’s made the slightest impression on them), and between seven to nine times before they are familiar enough with the ad that they consider making an inquiry. With the exception of rural towns, newspaper readership by our aforementioned Saddleback Sam is at an all-time low. According to the Nielson Rating folks, television viewing continues to expand – and there are a number of mid-sized churches who are interested in getting into the cable television market, since the cost seems pretty reasonable. But let’s take a look at what the Nielsons are saying. The average USAmerican household receives 118+ channels. Of these, the average person watches only 16 of them as much as 10 minutes per channel per week. With bulk television ads running as low as $4-$5 a spot, it seems like a great deal – and admittedly, that is a great price. However, let’s do the math. Five-hundred ads spread out over a month (which is typically what congregation’s are willing to invest in) works out to about seventeen ads per day. If you advertise on a 24 hour television channel, your ads will be run at all hours of the day and night. You can “count” on your ad running once during the morning peak and once during the evening peak. You might get lucky and get two in each, but you shouldn’t count on it because there are fewer opportunities for local stations to run their ads during peak periods (typically only 2 minutes of local advertising per half hour segment during peak viewing periods). Many of these television marketing packages will place your ads on multiple channels – if you want to specify the channel, you may well be asked to pay more per ad. With 118 channels to choose from and the bulk of your ads running from 9 AM to 4 PM and 10 PM to 5 AM, what are the odds that your ad will be seen five times this month by an adult member of the household who may only tune into your “channel” ten minutes per week?

In the words of the Television advertisers though, “Wait, wait … there’s more!” Advertising a Florida vacation to Disney World or a hot new Camaro is one thing. Advertising anything that has to do with church is yet another. Let’s remember that the church doesn’t exactly have a stellar reputation in the West these days and successful advertising depends on at worst a neutral audience and at best a receptive one. And before you start running the “our church is [better, more authentic, more conservative, more liberal, more open, yada yada] than theirs” kind of ads, consider that each time an unchurched person hears this kind of advertising, they get the message that the church is divisive, judgmental, and dis-integrated. And in any event, negative advertising generally only works on those who are interested in your “product” in the first place.

Let me be clear here, I’m not opposed to a great advertising campaign for a church. At this point in time, a well-run campaign still has a good bit of draw. However, to get your church’s message before the right people enough times and in enough ways for them to even notice, let alone make a conscious decision, takes a war chest, not just a bank account. In today’s church world, it really isn’t unusual for a church to go through $25,000 or more per campaign – and by a campaign, I’m talking about spending that kind of money is less than 90 days, and in reality, often less than 60 days.

For churches that can’t afford to compete in the mass media pond, there are ways the smaller church can still make a splash in their community – and sometimes a really big splash (if you’re creative, you don’t need to pay for local and national attention).

I’ve covered a number of these in a number of formats before, but here’s a reminder.

• WOMM. Word Of Mouth Marketing is still the most effective marketing on the planet. The problem is, it turns out the Western church is suffering from low self esteem and there are proportionately only a very few church members who feel good enough “about” their church to actually invite their friends and co-workers. Here’s a reality axiom: if your members won’t invite guests, you will not grow your church.
• Website. The numbers keep rising. Over 85 percent of those who “look” for a church start with the Internet. The heart breaking thing is that most churches put more money into their YellowPages ads than they do into their website. Instead, they get a volunteer who has little time and often less commitment to build the church’s website and once it’s “done” it rarely gets updated. I’m constantly amazed at how many church’s sites don’t have their location and times of worship services on the Home Page. And I won’t even go there about those who have pictures of their building on their banner … (think smiling, happy, people!).
• The Church Sign. Cute and pithy is a colossal waste of time and money. “Ch_rch: The Only Think Missing is U” will not bring one person through your door (ever notice that McDonalds never puts “Hamb_rgers: The Only Thing Missing is You” on their sign? Hmm.). On the other hand, “Bullet Proof Your Marriage: Sundays in September at 10″ just might bring in a guest or two. Your sign is a marketing tool, not a poetry or proverbs page. Use it accordingly.
• Your Newsletter: Most church newsletters get sent to both members and former visitors, but has virtually nothing of interest for the visitors. Guests readers really don’t care whose birthday or anniversary it is, how much money your deficit budget is (go ahead, scare them away permanently), who won the 4-H cooking contest, or how pretty the flowers were on Sunday. Oh, and they especially are not impressed when they read a pastor’s column that addresses some conflict or another in the church (thanks for letting us know just how bad things are there!). If you want to impress both your visitors and your members, fill your newsletter with articles on how to develop their spirituality, how to make Godly decisions when times get tough, and news of upcoming events and sermon series that are both relevant and specifically helpful.
• The Public Service Announcement and the News Release: Here is where creativity can beat a $25,000 advertising budget. Do something positive that no one else is doing, do it consistently, do it well, and then let the media know. Our church made it to Good Morning America with Charlie Gibson back in the day by setting up a card table on Monday mornings, giving out free cups of coffee, and waving cheerfully at early morning commuters as they drove from the burbs to Atlanta. Of course, we waved every Monday from 5 AM to 7 AM in rain, snow, and thunderstorms, but it got a lot of attention locally and nationally. And yes, we did see guests from the event. In Seattle, we made International Public Radio’s Marketplace, plus the front page of local papers, mentions on television, and a number of articles in magazines when we “paid” people to come to worship in order to evaluate our worship services. And that time we didn’t just grow – we started our church from the crowd.

  No one cares much about your church’s yard sale or cookie drive. That’s only news in rather small communities. But do something totally out of the box (again, keep it positive) and once you’ve got it going, let the media know. You’ll fall on your face eight out of ten times, we certainly have tried a lot of things that didn’t make a splash over the years, but when you nail it those two times, you’ll be set up to capitalize on the attention.

You don’t have to have a war chest to get the word out. But if you’re going to consider mass advertising, you’d better have a stupendous budget. The rule of thumb for most churches is … don’t.

It happened again recently. I was in a large group of mainline church leaders who professed their interest in church transformation. We were all milling around the room waiting for the convener to launch the meeting and the conversation was pensive. Then the “transformational church leader” stood up, thanked us for coming, and said, “We’re gathered here to talk about church transformation … just us who are on the front lines … no church consultants.” There was a spontaneous spattering of applause, vigorous nods of heads, and a collective sigh of relief. No church consultants … you know, those men and women who have not only dedicated their lives to helping transform the church, but who have invested research, education, observation, and ongoing training to their vocation.

The conversation continued with the convener helping the members of the group get to know each other and their respective strengths. “What I want to do, is start a grass roots movement where we pool our resources to bring about church transformation. For instance, Pastor XYZ has a great worship service, so if you need help working through worship issues, you should call him.” And so it went until the room was introduced to a pool of “resources” who were decidedly not consultants but who knew a bit out one specialty or another.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Perhaps it could be the foundation for a new economical transformational movement.

But it’s not new. Denominations, middle judicatories, and the frustrated masses have been trying this model of church transformation as long as I’ve been alive … and research says it’s been happening way longer than that. And what have been the results of these grass roots movements?

I’ve wrestled with how to put this gently, but the above story has been repeated in my life too many times to be “nice.” As nice as the people were in that room, and as well intentioned as the convener was, the fact is that pooled ignorance does not transform churches. For instance, Pastor XYZ really does do a nice job in worship. But Pastor XYZ’s church is in decline nonetheless. In fact, there didn’t appear to be a representative breakthrough church in the room.

There is more to church transformation than a great worship, awesome children’s programming, or even effective conflict resolution. Although each of these is needed for a successful church turnaround, they are not the core of a turnaround. Ask any consultant.

But wait … there’s more. Some time ago I offered a word of coaching on an open listServ on church growth. Even if I say so myself, the advice I presented was spot on, but within a few minutes of my post came a response, “Although I appreciate what you may have to say, I’m really looking for advice from someone who’s ‘done it,’ not just a consultant.” Of course, the writer had no idea whether I’d ever “done” it or not, but since I was a church consultant I was immediately suspect.

Now, let me say that there is some wisdom in the writer’s words. There are indeed consultants and coaches out there who made the move because it seemed easier than working in the church, but who have no transformation experience whatsoever. However, most church consultants have a bit more integrity than that … and significantly more experience.

But when it comes to calling a pastor who’s “done it,” let me remind you that just because someone has transformed a church doesn’t mean they can coach, consult, or indeed replicate what they’ve done. I’m reminded of the great sports players in my life. Bart Starr was my childhood football idol: quarterback for the Green Bay Packers and if memory serves me, still holds a couple of records. Later on, he was hired as Green Bay’s coach. There is really only one word to describe his work there: disaster. Then there’s Michael Jordan, one of the greatest basketball players of all time, but as coach of the Wizards? Dismal. Here’s the reality. Some players go on to become fabulous coaches, but there’s a HUGE difference between a player and a coach.

A mainline pastor who has led his/her church into transformation has done a marvelous thing – and has accomplished something that ends in failure in 80 percent of our churches (and the number appears to be closer to a 90 percent failure rate in the mainline). I want to say up front that any church leader who has led the transformation of a church is my personal hero. Period. But as much of a hero as they are, as talented and gifted as they are, in many, if not most cases, their success was built in a particular context in a particular time with a particular congregation. Put that church leader in another church – in fact, in most churches – and they’ll be battling the 80 percent average. Don’t get me wrong, there are few folks out there who have been successful at multiple transformations. Indeed, I only personally know of one – and he’s an unsung hero who hasn’t written five paragraphs of how he’s done it … yet (I’m after him for a Net Results article, but he’s pretty busy with his current “project”).

Now, I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t be getting input from a church leader who’s led a successful transformation. By all means, go have lunch with him/her. Listen to their story and seek their advice. But before you jump into a transformation effort based on what they’ve done, let me remind you that neither you nor I are a Schuler, Hybels, Kalstadt, Warren, Slaughter, Olstein, Easum, Chan, or McManus. You and I are who we are and trying to duplicate someone else’s success formula will almost certainly put a congregation in the 80 percent group.

There’s a difference between an experienced and trained coach/consultant and someone who’s “done” it: Experience and Training. Whereas the local church leader who’s accomplished the near-impossible has the experience of a success, an experienced consultant comes with a broader perspective (which is also one of the drawbacks of most judicatory staff consultants – they may have experience with multiple congregations, but they have limited experience with the broader scope of church transformation). For instance, when Bill Easum is called to work with a congregation, he comes with a span of experience that’s broader than virtually any other practicing consultant. He’s worked with scores of denominations and has personally consulted with hundreds of congregations (nearly a thousand) of all shape, sizes, locations, etc. In my own case, I’ve led transformation work as the lead pastor in three mainline denominations (UMC, PCUSA, CCDOC) and done church planting in three (SBC, CCDOC, and non-denominational). Plus I’ve worked with dozens of churches as a coach, consultant, and in transformational leadership training.

The second difference is training. Let’s be perfectly honest here. Seminary training does not prepare a church leader for transformation. PhD training does not prepare a church leader for transformation. And few DMin programs prepare a church leader for transformation. Now, I’ll agree that book-study hardly prepares someone for much, and any consultant who finishes his/her DMin in coaching or transformation and hangs out a shingle without an apprenticeship or internship with an experienced church consultation firm is, in general, ill-prepared for the job. On the other hand, I know far too many “consultants” and “coaches” who have taken a course or two and immediately began circulating proposals and fine-looking brochures to judicatory offices and started working their networks to establish themselves in the field. Give them enough time and experience they may do alright, but I know of too many congregations that have been left bereft in the name of experience of some of these “consultants.” In this economy we’re seeing a lot of these folks having to return to the parish because they just couldn’t get the experience and the traction in their new career path they’d counted on.

Consultants that match their personal experience with an apprenticeship/internship and training are virtually always better prepared to walk with churches through the transformational, church planting, and transformational leadership training mine fields. Besides a DMin in Church Planting Movements, as the Managing Editor of Net Results I’ve been in the student seat for a lot of years. Both Bill Easum and I are regular attendees at national church planting and transformational training events – often as speakers, but we also attend workshops and seminars to keep up-to-date with the broadest possible opportunities.

So, the next time you hear someone say, “I want to hear the opinion of someone who’s done it,” bear in mind that the speaker hasn’t really thought through their comment. It’s good to hear from someone who’s done it, but it’s better to hire someone who both has done it and has a breadth of knowledge and resources well beyond the reach of the 20 percenters.

I received a question from a recent seminar participant that was buried in one of the comments. I started to answer it there, but when I finished I realized it was way too long to be just a comment … so I repost it here.

The question was “So, how does one confront the “Fog Horns” that create so much conflict in the transforming church? And the words to use? While I enjoyed reading several of your articles, I did not readily find anything on the subject.”

The following response is predicated on the need to confront a congregational controller after they’ve “misbehaved.”

Step one: Develop congregational expected behaviors. If you don’t do this, you cannot effectively move on to step two. DO NOT SKIP THIS STEP. I’ve written about this is a number of other posts, so I won’t belabor it here. Except to say again, do not skip this step!!!!!

Step two: Rely on Matthew 18:15-17 when someone misbehaves.

• After an incident, the pastor or board chair immediately visits the controller one-on-one and says, “As a congregation, we’ve agreed that we will not treat one another like this. Your behavior wasn’t in keeping with our expected behaviors. This cannot continue.” If an apology and repentance is offered, the issue is done (until the next time, if there ever is a next time). If, on the other hand, the controller refuses to repent and/or makes excuses or turns the blame on the board/pastor/committee/church etc., conflict resolution goes to the next level.
• The pastor or board chair reports to the executive committee (if the board is over 12 people) or to the board the response. Then two people, the original visitor and one other (typically an elder or a senior member of the board/executive committee) goes to the controller and says, essentially, the same thing as in the first visit, except this time the controller is told that the behavior will not be tolerated and that it must cease. If the controller repents, the issue is done. If not, the conflict resolution goes to the final level.
• The two visitors next report to the board (the whole group this time) about the visits. The board should discuss the issue and the behavior. If the board agrees that the behavior was and is inconsistent with the congregation’s expected behavior covenant, then they have no choice but to invite the controller to appear before them. If the controller comes (highly unlikely in my experience), the board then informs the controller that the controller’s behavior is unacceptable and if the behavior does not immediately cease, then the board has no choice but to remove the controller from all leadership positions and to instruct the controller to not return to the church until they have decided to behave otherwise … and if they so decide, the controller must seek reconciliation beginning with the pastor and then the board.  In other words, show the controller the door and tell them to not come back until they’ve had a change of heart.

Is this easy? No. I’ve had to do it four times during my ministry career. It’s painful and hurtful and unpleasant. But in every case … and I mean every case … when a controller is removed, there is a collective sigh of relief by the congregation. Attendance goes up (after the supporters of the controller leave in protest), giving goes up, and the spirit of the church improves significantly. Oh, and one other side benefit. Other would-be controllers notice … and when they act out (and they will), you’ll seldom have to get past the one-on-one confrontation. They know the congregation means business – and that they’re not afraid to be faithful to Jesus and his conflict instructions.

Bill Easum and Tony Jones are in the midst of a conversation about the Emergent Church at the Emergent Village website … it’s called a Blogologue. I’m keeping up with it and enjoying the ride. One of the comments on “Part 2″ caught my attention though, and in the midst of another conversation I’m having with a local pastor, it got me to thinking about one of the most common misunderstandings about the early church.

There’s a saying that when you’re lost in the woods it’s hard to see the forest for the trees. That’s never more true than when the average Christian picks up the book of Acts and reads about the early church. Because we are so embedded in our culture, whenever we see the word “Church” our enculturation takes over. Sure, everyone knows that church isn’t a building, it’s a people … a called out people at that. But the fact is, I’ve yet to meet the pastor, let alone the lay person, who doesn’t slip by saying that they “go to church” or that there’s a meeting “at the church.” In our culture, church is a place and Christians are the people who go there.

And so when the average reader reads the book of Acts … or any of the letters following Acts … then it’s difficult not to allow the brain to impose much of today’s culture on yesterday’s church. So, try something. For a moment think about the church at Thessalonica. Paul wrote at least two letters to that church. What do you suppose that church was like? Ask yourself questions like (1) How many members did the church have when Paul wrote the letter to them? (2) Where did they meet? and (3) What would “worship” have looked like?

As for members, first remember that the New Testament never speaks of members … the elect, yes … members, no. There were definitely believers and non-believers, but that was pretty much the dichotomy. As for numbers, there were probably only a handful or two at first. Where did they meet? In homes, in the marketplace, here and there. What did worship look like? Good luck with that. Remember that they didn’t have Bibles … though they had a couple letters from Paul, they certainly would not have considered them holy writ … and the Hebrew Scriptures were pretty much reserved for the Jewish folk, plus you had to be fabulously wealthy (and literate) to afford a single scroll, let alone a complete set. So, no scripture reading, no psalms, etc. In fact, the clearest picture we have of their gatherings is found in Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 20:7-9. In both of those passages, we see that informal was the order of the day. They ate together, they hung out together, and when there was “preaching” it was dialog, not monologue or even “proclamation.” Conversation. Try that this Sunday during the “sermon time.”

Was the church a diverse community? In it’s larger manifestation, yes. In its local manifestation? Not very. Check out 1 Corinthians 1:26 where it’s clear the majority of the participants were of the lower classes. Because the local manifestation of the church met in homes, they tended to be more homogeneous than not. The larger church was clearly multi-ethnic, but there’s little evidence that this translated into the local setting. Indeed, the opposite is actually the case. Sure, some Jewish Christians hung out with some non-Jewish Christians, but that behavior was rare, as evidenced by the practices in Acts and the letters.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not taking a swing at what we practice in our “doing” church today. It would be nice, IMHO, if the church practiced being the church rather than waiting until Sunday morning to “do” church, but that’s not the point. The point is that when the emergents and the incarnationalist and the organics talk about the early church, we can’t stop at the Reformation or even the early pre-Reformation church to get an idea of what the early church looked like. And we can’t presuppose that it’s anything like today’s church because it wasn’t (try telling your congregation that from now on they’ll be spending most meal times with each other and that they will need to hang out with each other daily from now on; that the local weekly meeting will be in homes, not a church building … and each local manifestation will only be as large as what will fit in a living room;  – oh, and no more preaching, but dialogos – conversations – beginning immediately; and I’m not touching the implications of Acts 4:34 where the church made sure that NONE of their brothers or sisters were in need).

One last comment … we are given very little guidance on how to “do” church in the New Testament. However, there is a LOT about how to “be” church in the New Testament. Perhaps that’s what’s really important. I’ve always thought that if God wanted to give us a model for doing church, our New Testament would look like our Old Testament and we’d even know what materials to build our baptismal fonts … or the dimensions of the baptismal pools.

I’m in the midst of a fantastic conversation with a pastor of the Reformed persuasion and the topic of targeting worship for particular demographics, micro-cultures, etc. came up. He suggested that some consider targeting to be less than okay and that he “resists” the target terminology.

That’s not an uncommon notion in the church today. When I suggest that a worship service become more focused in its approach to reach a particular segment of the community, or when an additional worship is warranted and I recommend a missionally focused service, there’s regularly some pushback. There are a number of ways church leaders have expressed why they think targeting is wrong, but ultimately it comes down to the fear that targeting is exclusionary.

I get that. I really do. In fact, I get that all the time. But the fact is, I’ve yet to attend a worship service that wasn’t targeted. Oh sure, some are more broadly targeted than others, but every worship service I’ve ever attended has, in fact, been exclusionary.

Take for example a “traditional” worship service. By traditional I mean that hymns are sung from hymn books; traditional instruments (or no instruments) are used; there may be responsive readings; traditional language is used such as doxology, invocation, and benediction; and prayers are often written rather than extemporaneous. Of course there are alternative practices that could be listed, but you probably get the idea. These traditions, as wonderful as they may be, presume a congregation that is both familiar and comfortable with them, in other words, a “churched” audience that has significant history of being churched. When a thirty-something family with no church memory shows up in a church like that, it’s not unlike dropping into your local Greek Orthodox church or a Mosque and then trying to figure out what’s going on, what’s being said, and then wondering how to worship in that setting. Everything would be foreign to us and the chances of us experiencing the wonder of worship in that setting would be slim.

But at least our traditional service is presented in the mainstream culture … the average person could understand it, at least. That’s not necessarily so. Traditional services often use words, traditions, and rituals that make no sense at all to the typical unchurched person who almost certainly hasn’t memorized the Lord’s Prayer and doesn’t even know enough to ask “Sins, debts, or tresspasses?” Today’s “mainstream culture” is media and image driven. That’s how people learn today, but the traditional worship is print and auditory driven. Today’s music (actually for at least the last 50 years) is beat driven. Traditional hymns are lyric driven. The differences can go on and on.

The point isn’t that traditional worship is outdated and ought to be ended. By no means. There is an important place for traditional worship and when a congregation is filled with those who appreciate and love traditional worship (not always just seniors), a lot of energy should go into producing an excellent traditional service. But let’s not fool ourselves: Traditional Worship Is Targeted.

What about a “blended” service? There are the exceptions (and almost every pastor who’s wedded to traditional churches think their congregation is one of them), but in the vast majority of cases, a blended service tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one. Regardless of the micro-culture that attends a blended worship service, virtually everyone is going to have to compromise their own proclivities to experience worship. Those who live and die by the organ are going to despise the guitar and keyboard. Those who value the freedom of expressive worship will resent the explicit order of service. Etc. Blended services try to target everyone but ultimately discovers there is no “everyone.”

Let’s be honest here. The Bible is exclusionary in its inclusivity. Even Jesus said that he’d come for the Israelite … but then he made sure that there were provisions made to reach each one. No single congregation can reach everyone, and they weren’t called to. The “Church” (capital C) is called to reach everyone, but we have to realistically share the load with one another. Targeted worship simple recognizes the reality that not everyone is going to relate to the style, methods, music, language, etc. of a particular worship service. As Paul said, therefore, we must become all things to all people that by some means we might reach some. That may mean we keep our traditional worship service – maybe even make it more traditional – and start something “new” that missionally targets a different micro-culture.

Those who’ve read any of my church renewal/small group books or who are familiar with my work with Easum, Bandy & Tenny-Brittian know that when I speak about DNA, I mean the six strands that answer the question “Who is this congregation?” A congregation’s DNA can be found in every part of the local church – the leadership, the members, and can even be found in participants who’ve been hanging around with the church for as little as three months. I define those six DNA strands as:

1. The Mission
2. The Core Values
3. The Bedrock Beliefs
4. The Expected Behaviors
5. The Compelling Vision
6. The Strategic Focus

In earlier entries, I’ve mentioned the need for congregation’s to work on expected behaviors early on in the discovery/discernment process. I return to the DNA topic because there’s been a LOT of conversation lately on the EBT Advanced Leadership Forum (an online coaching service that’s part of the EBT Community) about the congregational Bedrock Beliefs.

On that forum, much has been made of this particular strand of DNA … and honestly, it’s a very important strand. However, as I watch leaders from around the world struggle with their congregation’s Bedrock Beliefs, I wonder how much of it is all that necessary.

One definition of Bedrock Beliefs that has been put forth by my partner Tom Bandy is that Bedrock Beliefs are those beliefs you turn to for strength in times of trouble. Examples would include “God comforts us in times of trouble” and “God accepts us no matter who we are.”

I like the imagery of this, but when I work with churches I find it almost impossible to pin down these kinds of statements on a church-wide DNA basis. On a personal basis, no problem. I know what my Bedrock Beliefs are in times of trouble. But when it comes to helping a church define what the core of their heart is, I take a different tack.

When I help a church discern their Bedrock Beliefs, my purpose is to help them get to a bedrock place where they can, as a congregation, build a foundation that won’t shatter when someone lobs a theological grenade into the room. I’ve seen far too many churches get into a fray about what a small group of individuals find core, but the congregation as a whole finds tangental – but without defined Bedrock Beliefs there’s nothing to keep the fray from becoming a fight.

Now, before I write another word … I totally agree with Tom Bandy who says that Bedrock Beliefs are not a congregation’s systematic theology. That would simply be too much for any congregation to swallow. But it is the place where the congregation can agree and then can deflect the grenades.

Some congregation’s are confessional. “Officially” they already have their bedrock beliefs defined for them. I’ve yet to be in a church in USAmerica where that was actually the case, but at least it’s somewhere to start. But for those non-confessional churches (and even some of the confessional churches), congregation’s often come to the understanding that Jesus is the bottom line. Their foundation for their core values may well get stated, “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and we call on him as our Lord (boss, CEO, etc.) and Savior.” In general, few Christians disagree with this as the foundation. Great. Step one done.

If Jesus is the foundation of the faith, then everything gets built on that. I’ve found that churches find they can summarize their beliefs what Jeff Hubbard, a close friend, named “The Four Greats.” Jesus gave us four “great” commandments that can crystallize the Bedrock Beliefs for many congregations. (1) Jesus gave us the Great Invitation: Follow Me. In other words, we’re called to do what he did (and more) and to value what he valued. (2) Jesus gave us the Great Commandment: Love God. Our lives are meant to revolve around honoring God in all we do. (3) Jesus gave us the Great Commandment: Love Others. Everything we do and think and say must go through this filter: Is it loving? And not just is it loving, but would they receive it as loving? and (4) Jesus gave us the Great Commission: Make Disciples. That’s why we exist … that’s why the church exists.

When churches adopts the Jesus and the Four Greats as their Bedrock Beliefs, it helps put focus on what’s important when those “Grenades” inevitably get lobbed into Small Group meetings, Sunday School Classes, Board Meetings, and so on. Here’s one way I coach congregation’s in how to deflect (or even diffuse) those moments: “You know, that’s an important belief, but when it comes to what this congregation believes and practices, we lean on Jesus and the Four Greats. Anything else … anything … simply isn’t worth dying for or arguing about.” If the query comes again, just keep deflecting it. You might even turn to Paul’s words to Timothy to avoid senseless controversies (2 Tim 2:23-24), and since this belief isn’t a core belief in the congregation ….

Is there more we may all hold in common? Perhaps. But in general, Jesus and the Four Greats tend to cover it pretty well. And it heads off a lot of controversy.

I recently completed teaching a college course on Evangelism In Your Context. I had students from all over (east of the Rockies) and a good time was had by all. The majority of the students were either pastors or staff members of churches and the sheer number of Ahas! was gratifying. Perhaps the most common Aha! I heard was when they understood that evangelism isn’t going to happen while the pastor or staff sit in their offices. Leaders have to lead, meaning they have to get out of their offices and do evangelism, not just bang on the pulpit and berate the congregation for not doing it. As goes the leader, so goes the flock.

In the midst of the course, my partner Bill Easum and I had a conversation about evangelism and leadership and the role of the two. The result of our chat was the development of two seminars that we’re going to be presenting in October. In Cleveland on October 17-18 we’ll be leading a conference called Hitchhiker’s Guide to Evangelism where we’ll train church leaders how to create a church full of evangelists (in the good way, not the stereotypical wild-eyed prophets). Then in Chicago on October 24-25 we’ll lead a conference on Leading With Impact, which looks at what it takes to lead and have a glocal impact.

If you’ve not been to one of our conferences, these would be great ones to get your feet wet. They’re pretty inexpensive ($75 each if you register before October 1st) and they’re pretty centrally located. If one’s not near you, don’t despair … we’re scheduling events coast to coast in 2009. LA, Philly, Washington DC, Tulsa, and Detroit are all in the negotiating stage, so if you can’t afford to travel and you can afford to wait until next year sometime, then keep your eyes open for upcoming events.

With that said, here are two links to get more information about the two events. Hope to see you there!