Consulting, Coaching & Chatter

Although my book High-Voltage Spirituality is a compendium of forty-eight different spiritual habits (disciplines), in practice I maintain there are five core spiritual habits that provide a foundation for personal maturity and church growth.

And so it was with a mix of horror and relief when I was informed my book High-Voltage Spirituality was going out of print. Horror because I realized that I hadn’t been talking about spiritual disciplines as much on other topics. With a core belief that sustainable transformation is only possible when church leaders are committed to spiritual formation, I realized I’d lately been putting cart before horse. On the other hand, relief came when I realized that the Kindle version will still be available, and that we’ll be able to directly offer the PDF version on our sites.

And so, as a first-step to rectifying my recent lapse, I present the foundational five core habits. Practice these yourself and watch life fall into place. Get your leadership to practice these and watch your church embrace transformation. Over the next couple of days, I’ll post on each habit separately and there I’ll share details on how to practice the habits effectively and offer observations on what happens in churches when the leaders collectively begin to practice them.

The five core spiritual habits are:

• Personal, Regular Scripture Reading
• Prayer that Listens More than Talks
• Intentionally Encouraging Other Christians
• Kindnesses Done in Jesus’ Name
• Personal Faith Sharing

In my experience, the list order provides a progression from those habits that most aid personal transformation to those habits that most aid church transformation. Sort of. Without the personal transformation of the leaders, congregational transformation simply isn’t going to happen. The church might grow by having excellent programming or an extraordinary marketing budge, but it won’t be sustainable growth – and it won’t transform the lives of those who come to taste-and-see. If leaders aren’t spiritually transformed, it’s a virtual guarantee wanderers (seekers/guests) won’t be either.

The next five posts will explore each spiritual habit in detail.

[Continued from "Tomorrow's Church Today - Pt. 1." The first half of this post was first published in the Mar-Apr 2010 issue of Net Results magazine.]

The technology used in the service would have been astounding to see in many churches, and yet nothing being used isn’t already a part of the culture’s fabric. Even the most traditional church is filled with members who are immersed in screen technology – television, movies, and computer screens grace their lives, so it is hardly surprising to find screen technology fully employed in the worship center. Multiple screens display much more than just the words to the music and the outline of the sermon. Videos illuminate, illustrate, and touch the core of the congregation’s emotions. Supporting and ancillary materials and suggested links flash on the screens to encourage deeper study and reflection – even during the service. Images, both static and animated, invite viewers to reflect, meditate, and contemplate the sermon’s teaching, like the stained glass of old opened windows of understanding in the great cathedrals of Europe. Dotted throughout the worship center are participants using laptops, iPads, smart phones, and cell phones to do further research; to find and consider alternative views; to provide additional material on the church’s wiki of the week; to exchange comments, thoughts, and opinions on the congregational forums and chat rooms; and even to communicate their questions, confusions, and affirmations to the speaker. What seems amazing is that the speaker is able to clarify points, explain concepts, and even answer relevant questions that are being delivered digitally live from the participants – and the speaker makes those adjustments on-the-fly. Clearly, the speaker isn’t just familiar with the sermon topic, but is well versed, well read, and therefore well received.

When the service is over, it’s clear that the service isn’t over. Although there are a few who race to the parking lot to beat the restaurant lunch rush, most of the participant appear to be in no hurry to leave. There is much conversation, and again we see clusters of people praying for each other. Many of the participants make their way to what must have been a fellowship hall at one time, but has been converted to a cozy cafè. Food and beverage services are available and soon many of the tables are filled with conversational groups most who seem to be discussing the service’s teaching. Floating throughout the room are hosts who drift between groups fulfilling hospitality needs from refilling coffee to answering questions, to clearing tables to facilitating conversations between table groups. The service’s speaker does similarly and engages several of the groups in further discussions.

All in all, though, the church of tomorrow doesn’t immediately appear to be all that different from a number of what some call “contemporary” or “alternative” churches today. However, peeling back the veneer of the weekend service reveals a couple of core differences. Whereas most churches today seem to exist for the weekend service, the church of tomorrow uses that service to enable, equip, and deploy the participants into the real world. During the week, we find the majority of the participants are connecting with one another informally. Some meet in multiple small groups where they are encouraged in their faith walk (and held accountable for their faith practices and behaviors). Others get together for meals, coffee, after work, or whenever they can “get away” to connect. They too find their faith habits and general conduct receiving attention from their Christ-following peers.

As “flies on the wall,” we can oversee these folks putting their faith to work in their vocational callings during the week. We see spontaneous, silent prayer breaks throughout the day and especially just before meetings and when decisions must be made, even before those that seem to be minor or banal decisions. But silent prayer is only the beginning. These men and women spend more time listening to faith stories than they do talking about why their coworkers should come to their church or consider their brand of faith. And when they hear accounts of dispair, pain, frustration, or fear, they offer to pray – and they do so then and there. Hand on shoulder, hushed pleas and quiet thanksgivings. Nothing elaborate or showy – indeed, it seems that few even notice the brief interchange. But the effect on the coworkers is profound.

When we look under the hood, so to speak, it seems clear that the weekend services play a distant second to the discipleship and ministries that seem to bloom spontaneously during the week. But we all know better, don’t we? All those weekday manifestations are part-and-parcel of a comprehensive commitment to life changes that surpass just head changes. It begins with a vision, not of a transformed church, but of a transforming process that invites and encourages all, from the most cynical unbeliever to the most entrenched church-goer, to take a first step in exploring a faith that demands more than just an enlightened mind. Knowing more about faith, about God, about theology, and even about expectations is good. But there’s a bottomless crevice between knowing and behaving. Our culture knows this – and has generally castigated Christianity because of that gap. The church of tomorrow not only knows this – it is intentional in creating processes to engender personal transformation. It encourages seekers and pilgrims alike to embark on that journey.  And it expects those who claim the name to live accordingly.

I received a thoughtful note from a Church-Talk listener. He contended that the church has fallen under the spell of the culture’s understanding and practice of leadership. He went on the say that the church must follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit rather than fallen mortal man. I thought he was pretty perceptive in his observation – but that there’s more to the story. So, below is my response.

It is true that in the New Testament the word for Leader or Leadership occurs rarely – in fact, only eight times, and five of those times it has less to do with church leadership and more with leading households or leading in “good works” (see http://www.jbc.edu/college/images/churchrelations/churchlink/PDFs/Linton-Prohistemi.pdf).  On the other hand, the word “pastor” only occurs once – and that in the list of church “offices” in Eph 4:11 – though there are other words used to describe those in church “leadership” such as elders/presbyters/bishops.

And though the words “leader” and “pastor” are notably absent in the New Testament, the focus on Followership is predominant. Jesus repeatedly called one person after another to follow him. Later, Paul took up that mantle and on repeated occasions (and five quite blatantly) he says “Follow me” – including once when he instructs “Follow me as I follow Christ.”

However, that brings up an important distinction. By definition, a leader is someone who has followers, and although the New Testament focus is on “following,” followers by definition are following a leader (formally or informally).

Jesus was expressly clear that those who lead (in the church?) should not “lord it over one another as the Gentiles do” (Mat 20:25-26). Leadership in the church, when it’s finely exegeted and understood in context, is a lot more about mentoring, modeling, and serving and a lot less about barking orders.

Which is the paradigm we work from in Net Results, Church-Talk, and the 21^st Century Strategies: effective leaders lead as mentors and models of discipleship. Further, we firmly believe that poor leadership in mentoring and modeling are the primary reasons the church in North America is in serious decline. Far too many pastors and church leaders are involved in management and administration rather in disciple-making and conspicuously living the faith.

Once again, the New Testament, and especially the book of Acts, illustrates what the church “could” look like. The leaders were busy making disciples (both more and more effective) and the “congregation,” that is everyone else, was active in doing direct, hands-on ministries (practicing personal worship, one-anothering, reaching out to the unchurched, and discipleship/holding accountable). And though the leadership of the Holy Spirit is a key feature in Acts, the leading of the Spirit was through the head, heart, and hands of those who served in leadership (particularly demonstrated and seen in the leadership of Peter, Paul, and Timothy).

The problem with the church is that it is, and always has been, made up of fallen people (as if it could be any other way). Whether these people serve as a leader or as a disciple (a fine biblical word that once again implies followership), each is called to hold one-another accountable in the practice of the faith (see Jesus’ model of accountability throughout Matthew’s gospel, e.g., Mat 5:22-23; 18:15-17). But ultimately, a local church without those serving in a leadership capacity (whether we call that office using the New Testament terms pastor, elder, presbyter, or bishop) is a church with a rudder, but one without anyone holding on to it.

From the beginning of 21st Century Strategies, a long, long time ago, we’ve had one driving value: help transform churches. We suspect that pretty much all our readers understand that one of the ways we do that is by offering professional consultation services, church leadership coaching, and congregational training. What many folks may not realize is that when we write books, articles, newsletters, FAQs, ore respond to questions on the Advanced Leadership Forum of the 21st Century Strategies Community, we don’t hold anything back. Everything we do is focused on helping churches – and ultimately, for us, there is nothing more important than that, so we don’t keep back the secrets to success.

All that’s to say, for those willing to do the work, pretty much everything we teach, every recommendation we make, and every “secret” we have is there on our website and in our books. And with that knowledge, there’s really no reason they couldn’t do a respectable and effective Do It Yourself Consultation. With that in mind, let me (us) point the way.

Step One: Data Gathering

The foundation for every consultation we do begins with demographics. Now, before you surf over to the Census Bureau, Percept, or MissionInsite, some of the most important demographics you need to really “know” and “understand” are those of your congregation. And how old and how many and how long and how much and so on is just the start. You’ll want to measure attitudes toward leadership, hospitality, and their aversion to changes – and what specific changes will create the most waves. The forms we use for gathering and compiling all this data is found in The Complete Ministry Audit.

Congregational demographics are only the starting point for understanding your congregation. Next, you’ll need to pull some decadal statistics. You’ll be looking for trends, once the data is compiled, so make sure you pull the statistics for each year so you can plot them. You’ll want to get the information on income and giving; expenditures, including capital, maintenance, program, staff, and missional spending; attendance in each worship service, Sunday/Sabbath school, choir, and any small groups; baptisms, transfer of membership, deaths, departures, and general membership figures. One of the revealing, and often startling and disturbing, trends can be seen when these are plotted on a line graph. In far too many churches, the trend lines trail off and even the least savvy can make an educated guess on when the church will be no more and/or have inadequate funding to sustain even the most basic ministries.

Once you have a true understanding of the congregational, then it’s time to pull community demographics. The boundaries of your ministry area are important, so choose them carefully – and remember, your effective ministry area may not be equivalent to a particular zip code or a simple circle with the church in the center. In addition to the standard demographics, you will want to get a psychographic workup as well so you not only the raw statistics, but will have some understanding of what’s important to those in your community, plus how they spend their time and money and affections.

With the basic data gathered, you’ll be able to find connecting points for reaching into the community, but you’re not even close to ready for that now. The next step is to begin the evaluations.

Evaluating

Data is pretty much black and white, so it can be tempting to start making recommendations immediately. But before effective recommendations can be made, you’ll need to honestly and seriously evaluate virtually everything associated with the church. And though everything we’ve covered up until now can be found in our books, it’s time to mine the 21^st Century Strategies website (ChurchConsultations.com).

Building and Grounds

It’s probably easiest to start with evaluating the physical plant. How much property do you have – and need – for the number of seats you have in the worship center? How is the property divided up and how many parking spaces do you have? What is that state of your property? Is it in good repair, or do you need to resurface the parking lot and paint the church’s shutters? Once you’re done outside, move inside to check the usability, access, and repair of the facilities. How many usable seats are there? Where is the nursery and does it meet minimum hospitality standards? The list can go and on, but literally everything you need to evaluate – and the measures to use – can be found on the website. Here’s a mining tip: most of the information you need can be found in the extensive FAQ section.

Congregational DNA

Once the building and grounds are out of the way, you may be thinking it’s time to evaluate the programs of the church. Before you can do that, you’ll need to put on your critiquing hat and look over the congregational DNA. Start by evaluating whatever foundational work has been done in the past and consider whether or not the mission statement is even viable. The sad fact is, many are theological and sociological treatises that carry lots of baggage, but little weight. Next, if the congregation has done additional DNA work, carefully evaluate the core values, the bedrock beliefs, the vision, the expected behaviors, and any strategic foci that’s been adopted. Again, you can find evaluation tools on our website – and don’t forget to check out our respective blogs (www.billeasum.com and www.billtennybrittian.com).

Of course, the real evaluation is in whether or not decisions are made based on the DNA, or is it just so much window dressing? The only way to find this out is to check the hierarchical, organization, and decision making structures – and here’s the tricky part, to get a real feel, you’ll have to ferret out both the formal and the ever-elusive informal structures. Once you discover these, then compare the DNA to the way decisions are made. Is the loudest voice more influential than the congregational DNA statements? If so, who are those loudest voices?

The DNA evaluation doesn’t stop with decision making though. The next step is to compare staffing against the DNA and the congregational size/budget. You’ll need to consider whether the current staffing is effectively organized around the congregational mission and vision or are they organized around anachronistic “generalist” or age-graded structures. In addition, you’ll need to consider whether you’re staffed for growth, maintenance, or decline. And of course, there’s the question of budget projections you’ll need to consider as well before you begin the recommendation process.

Programming

Finally, it’s time to evaluate your congregational programming. For sanity’s sake, you’ll want to consider your worship programming separately from the rest of your programming.

Once again, begin your evaluations by comparing everything the congregation does against the congregational DNA – and we’re talking about measuring everything. Start with the obvious programs: Sunday school, small groups, fellowship events, classes, gender and age based groups, ministry and outreach events and groups, and so on. It may be easiest to work from the congregational calendar and ask of everything on the schedule, “Does this specifically support and enhance the congregational DNA?” If you have to think about it for more than a split second, the answer is probably that it doesn’t. Make your list so you’ll be ready to make your recommendations for what programs should get the axe, which should be phased out, which should receive no support (a Do Not Resuscitate order), and which should be embraced and enhanced. Your recommendations will need to include these, along with specific steps for accomplishment while minimizing conflict (you can’t avoid conflict, but you can certainly minimize it).

As you consider each of the congregational programs, you’ll also need to seriously evaluate whether or not they are “doors” for guests to become integrated with the congregation. It’s critical that you identify each open and closed door. For instance, some Sunday school classes may “say” they are open to guests, but in reality guests may find it difficult to become a “part” of the group. This kind of information will be necessary for making effective recommendations later on.

Worship

In most churches today, the worship service is the core practice of the congregation and so demands significant scrutiny. However, this can be difficult for an “insider” to evaluate – but again, mining our websites will offer concrete suggestions.

If your congregation has multiple worship services, you will want to evaluate each separately, unless they are duplicate services. For each service, begin the evaluation by asking yourself, “For whom is this service targeted?” Begin by exegeting the explicit target (heavily churched sixty-year-olds and older; church-lite baby boomers; rarely churched thirty-somethings with families; etc.). Next, compare the actual service to the expectations of that target. It’s not just about music – you’ll need to consider style, formality, language, dress code (including the unspoken code), technology, participation opportunities, music selection, music performance, instrumentation, sermon theme, sermon delivery, presumptive participant foreknowledge, gender/age/dress/appearance of anyone who conspicuously serves, the content and layout of any bulletin/handouts, hospitality, feedback opportunities, level of excellence, and more. In addition, when evaluating the suitability of a service to a particular target don’t forget to check the supporting services such as children’s worship and nursery care.

When it comes to the worship service, you will want to take special notice of hospitality services. Start with the parking lot and work your way in. Are there smiling, friendly, gregarious “never-met-a-stranger” greeters on both sides of the front door? How long after the service starts do they remain in place? Are there greeters at other doors of the church that might be used by a first time guest who didn’t know for sure where the front door is? How about ushers? Are they glorified bulletin dispensers, or do they actually ush? Is there anything in the service that could embarrass a guest who wanted to remain anonymous and unmolested? Don’t forget signage. Is there any place in a hallway, narthex (vestibule/entry way), fellowship hall, auditorium , multi-use room, etc. where a guest would be unable to see a sign that pointed the way to the restrooms, nursery, or worship center?

Marketing and Follow Up

When embarking on the DIY consultation, don’t neglect to evaluate the systems the church is using to reach out to the community, let them know they’re there, and then follow-up once someone has visited. Check to see how much money the congregation is spending on low-response marketing such as newspaper and Yellow Pages advertising. Check the website for missing critical information or critical information that’s buried deep within the site. If directions or worship times are more than one click from the home page, it may be considered inaccessible by the average web surfer.

Guest follow up cannot be overlooked either. You’ll need to evaluate the church’s effectiveness in getting guest contact information. The next issue to check is to see what they do with that information. How soon after a visit is there an in-person home visit and who makes that visit? You’ll also need to find out how effective the follow-up is by crunching the return rate of first time guests.

Finally, check to see if there’s an intentional integration (assimilation) plan for helping guests connect with those in the church. If not, do guests have to claw their way into the fellowship? You can find out how effective the congregation’s integration programming is by crunching the number of first time guests who remain active in the congregation a year after their first visit.

Evaluate the Main Thing

Although there is much more that can, and perhaps should, be evaluated, there is one more area that is essential when attempting a Do It Yourself consultation. I’ve left this to last not because it’s least important, but because without  making this area a priority in the evaluation, it won’t matter what you recommend: the transformation will fail.

The main thing of the church is discipleship. The question that must be answered is whether or not new people are becoming effective, practicing disciples of Jesus who engage in the spiritual disciplines or not. And the second is like the first – are the church leaders spiritually centered, grounded, and practicing disciples of Jesus who engage in the spiritual disciplines. In any consultation, whether we’re doing an onsite consult or you’re engaged in a DIY consultation, this is the number one, most important, make it or break it question. If the leaders are not model disciples of Jesus who are engaged in the regular study of scripture, immersed in prayer and reflection, sharing their faith with the unchurched and marginally churched, and practicing the one-anothers in every aspect of their lives, then it won’t make any difference what you recommend. Indeed, this was the primary failure of the Church Growth movement of the seventies and the eighties – program without spiritual foundationing.

Evaluating the main thing can be difficult, but you can get a pretty good read on it by measuring the level on ongoing, unresolved conflict and by simply asking some key questions of the leaders (try the Discipleship Development Questions – again, found on the website). If the leaders aren’t modeling discipleship, then it’s a pretty good bet the congregation isn’t. And if the congregation isn’t, then guests will come and guests will go, but it will be the rare guest who is still a part of the congregation eighteen months after their initial visit.

Making Recommendations

When it comes time for making recommendations, there is a specific order – at least at the front end – that is imperative to follow … at least if you want to actually transform the church.  Top on that list is the spiritual discipline practices of the leadership. This, of course, also includes intentionally dealing with unresolved conflict and implementing systems for dealing with conflict as it arises. How you recommend putting this into place is largely contextual, but leadership modeling, integrity, and accountability is core to a successful transformation.

Next on the list would be shoring up the DNA if it’s needed. Since the DNA infuses every aspect of the congregation’s function and form, it’s virtually impossible for a congregation to move forward without  clear, concise, embedded, and modeled mission, values, vision, beliefs, and behavior statements.

Third comes hospitality. In this case, we’re not just talking about greeters and hosts, but everything the church does to engage both those outside the church as well as those inside. For instance, as “friendly” as a church might be when a guest walks through the door, if the music is foreign to their ears; if the language is encoded with Christianese;  if there is an expectation that they are familiar with the Judeo-Christian meta story and/or have memorized the rituals and rites; if the location of the restrooms is the church’s best-kept secret; if the nursery has security, sanitation, or safety issues; or if a newcomer has to commit felony breaking-and-entering to get into a group, then there are hospitality issues.

The rest of the recommendations are pretty much determined by context. Reorganization and bylaw rewrites are rarely more than a miscellaneous item – giving it priority is a rookie mistake since form follows function, not the other way around. Again, virtually every recommendation we’re likely to make can be found on our websites or in our books.

So, there you have it – a veritable step-by-step DIY consultation. If it sounds complicated and complex, it’s because it is. Between us, Bill Easum and I have done hundreds of customized consultation and each one is as unique as your situation. On the other hand, as you’ve no doubt surmised, there’s a method to the work we do and the recommendations we make. Follow the steps in this article, mine the depths of our sites and our books, and you’ll have at your fingertips everything you need to work from data gathering, through evaluation, and ultimately to making church-transforming recommendations.

Final Note

Just in case this all seems like too complex and too much work, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that Bill Easum and I both have room in our schedule to work with you and your church. Whether your congregation needs an onsite consultation, you or your leaders need coaching, or there’s a  need for congregational training, we’re committed to helping churches become increasingly effective.

When last week’s Barna Report came out, the one that suggests that the smaller the church, the fewer the Christians, I suppose I wasn’t surprised, but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to being dismayed. Although I’ve had a lot of experience with small membership churches during my years in the pastorate and as a consultant/coach, I’d always secretly hoped there was truth in the claim that these smaller churches were a “faithful remnant.” And to be sure, there are indeed a number of very faithful church folk out there who attend smaller membership churches. But as I’ve observed when I’ve preached, pastored, consulted, and coached in many – dare I admit most – of these churches, the “faithful remnant” claim didn’t seem to bear up well in the light of reality.

It’s true that when church experts talk about ongoing, unresolved, crippling conflict in churches, the hotbed of their conversation is primarily in reference to smaller membership churches. When church sociologists speak about unhealthy churches, they tend to admit that, in general, the smaller the church, the less healthy it is. But the straw that broke my heart was last week’s Barna Report. His findings demonstrate that those in smaller membership churches are less likely to manifest faith practices and beliefs than those in larger churches. Put another way, in smaller membership churches, there are simply fewer practicing disciples of Jesus Christ.

How can I say that? How can Barna suggest that? Well, here are some of the findings (you can read the whole report at http://bit.ly/144GmY):

• On all nine of the belief statements tested, attenders of large churches were more likely than those engaged in a small or mid-sized congregation to give an orthodox biblical response – e.g., the Bible is totally accurate in all the principles it teaches, Satan is not merely symbolic but exists, Jesus led a sinless life, God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe, etc.

• On seven of the eight behavioral measures, attenders of large churches were substantially more likely than those of small churches to be active. (These included behaviors such as attending church in the past week, reading the Bible in the past week, volunteering at their church in the past week, etc.) The average difference related to these seven behaviors was 17 percentage points.

Let me be really clear here. The first bullet point bothers me a lot less than the second. I’m sure that “right thinking” is important, but the North American mainline and evangelical church has spent a couple of generations pushing their theology agenda as if heaven and hell (or not) hangs on their particular dogmas. But the fact is, we’re not going to solve the “right thinking” issue on this side of life’s curtain. God is God, and regardless of what one side or the other says about God, God’s the arbiter of how important all our arguments are – and who’s right or wrong. Besides, as I look at the listed belief statements, I don’t remember any of those points being key “get into heaven” or “go straight to hell” issues in Jesus’ teachings.

On the other hand, that second list bothers me a lot. Jesus didn’t seem to be too concerned about correcting most of the finer points of the Sadducee’s and Pharisee’s theology, but he got hot-and-bothered about right behavior towards others. In fact, a close reading of what Jesus taught reveals, surprise-surprise, that he was very concerned about how his followers should behave towards God, one another, their neighbors, their enemies, and even how they treated themselves. He kept talking about things like bearing fruit, witnessing, doing good works, and love. Especially love.

Barna’s report is counterintuitive. For years, we’ve all heard the accusations that the big churches were practicing Christianity Lite. Church leaders across the nation have pointed their fingers at the mega churches and accused them of being all about having the best show in town, practicing entertainment religion, and preaching feel-good theology. But it turns out that folks attending the big churches are apparently experiencing more personal life transformation than those in smaller, intimate churches.

Of course, the most important question in all of this is “Why?” Why are those in smaller churches less likely to read scripture, share their faith, or even go to church than those in larger churches? Here are some of the reasons we’ve discovered in our studies of both large and small churches.

1. Smaller churches tend to embrace the Modern myth that education is the catalyst for personal transformation. One of the key tenets of Modernity is that increased knowledge motivates behavioral change, and so Christian education, preaching, and teaching from the local church all the way through our seminaries has emphasized information.

However, in retrospect, it’s clear that increased knowledge doesn’t correlate with Christian faithfulness. North America has the best educated clergy and laity alike. The average USAmerican “Christian” knows more about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, biblical stories, and generalized theology than our counterparts in India, China, Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. In each of those nations and regions, Christianity is spreading like wildfire with over 90,000 individuals making a commitment to Christ each day – compared to the approximate loss of 3,000 Christians a day in North America and the West.[i]

On the other hand, larger membership churches tend to emphasize behavioral change. The sermons and Christian education can be likened to training and coaching sessions that emphasize putting spiritual disciplines and practices to use. This has evoked criticism from many church leaders that the sermons and training in these larger churches is shallow and theologically unsophisticated – and though this might be true on some level, it’s proven its effectiveness over the alternative. Better informed Christians does not make better practicing disciples of Jesus Christ.

2. Smaller churches often put more emphasis on organizational survival and sustainability than they do on personal transformation. This is manifest in a number of ways, but I’ll just mention two. First, there is often more emphasis placed on getting people to serve on church committees and to get involved in church-related ministries (Sunday school teaching, potluck suppers, etc.) than there is on getting people to invest in spiritual growth activities such as small groups, accountability partnerships, or hands-on ministry beyond the church building. Second, the survival and sustainability mindset creates a heightened awareness and emphasis on the “us” of the local congregation. Both energy and conversation is channeled into what the church needs, rather than on what it would take to reach the community. This inward foci distracts the participants from the wider mission of the church, and thus from effective discipleship.

In most cases, the larger the church, the more streamlined the organizational structure and the less fears about survival and sustainability. This allows the church leaders to help focus the church on personal spiritual development as well as on serving, reaching, and touching those outside of the church in mission. In addition, larger membership churches generally place their energies outside of the membership in order to make a difference in the lives of those in the community. This encourages their own membership to get involved in faith sharing, both on a conversational level and a good-deeds in the name of Jesus level.

3. Smaller churches are often more invested in maintaining tradition than in adopting effective methods, tools, and technologies for communicating both the gospel and discipling. The learning styles of our culture has changed significantly over the past sixty years. Whereas, in the early 1950s there were two primary modes of teaching and training (reading and lecture), today screen technology has surpassed both. In addition, there has been an increasing emphasis on kinesthetic learning and expression (learning by touch and movement). By and large, smaller churches are reticent to adapt or adopt these tools.

Larger churches tend to be flexible with how they communicate the gospel and discipling. They are often the first adopters of new technologies and they are generally more nimble and willing to sacrifice “what’s always worked” slightly ahead of its expiration date in order to be forthright and effective in their communications. These churches tend to have little investment in maintaining traditions, choosing instead to embrace the attitude of “whatever it takes” to disciple their membership and to reach the community.

4. Smaller churches tend to impose low expectations on their members. The popular “warm body” model of church membership that comes with low or no expectations of their membership is particularly rampant in the smaller churches. There is a good bit of fear in these smaller churches that by putting high expectations on their members the church will find itself empty on some future Sunday morning because the members will leave. Indeed, I now know of several churches that allow full “membership” to people who have never been, and refuse to be, baptized. Few small churches place any significant requirements on their members. Indeed few expect or require their members to commit to worship attendance, sacrificial giving, personal spiritual development, etc.

Larger membership churches often place significant expectations on those who are interested in membership, and regularly demand an even higher level of commitment from those who serve in a leadership capacity. Many churches demand potential members to take multi-week membership introduction classes; classes that teach less about the denomination or church history and more about personal holiness and spiritual disciplines. It’s not uncommon for these churches to have leadership covenants for all church leaders, from committee or team leaders, Christian education leaders, and even the custodial team members to commit to small group participation, sacrificial giving (often tithing), weekly participation in worship, and a full commitment to fulfilling their leadership position. Indeed, these large churches are unhesitant in removal from leadership those who do not fulfill their commitments.

5. Which brings us to the last, and probably the most important, reason why smaller membership churches are producing fewer practicing disciples than larger membership churches. Smaller membership churches not only have low membership and leadership expectations, they seldom practice accountability among the membership. Again, this is often related to the fear of losing members … even poorly behaving members. Smaller membership churches are notorious for harboring bullies and terrorists, that is, people who behave badly in order to “get their own way.” There are a number of articles on this phenomena in my blog and published in Net Results, but let me repeat just one thought. No other organization would tolerate the kind of behaviors smaller churches regularly see in their church meetings and functions. People who behaved like that at work would be terminated – often without notice. Behavior like that would get them thrown out of virtually any service club (the Lions, Elks, Kiwanis, Rotary, Optimists, etc.). And even the local restaurant would demand that they leave and not come back. But smaller churches not only tolerate it, they make excuses for the behavior. When that kind of environment exists in the church, discipleship is seldom taken seriously by those in the congregation. The subconscious reasoning may be that “If a Christian can behave like that, then I must be doing alright.”

Beyond the accountability of bullies and terrorists, members and leaders are seldom held accountable for discipleship practices either. It’s the rare small membership church that not only insists, but actually inquires of its leaders and members whether they’ve read scripture during the week, or shared their faith, or even prayed. In addition, those who do not keep their commitments in terms of participation, or even in accomplishing the ministry tasks they agreed to fulfill, are rarely removed from leadership.

Large membership churches seldom have these issues. Leaders who misbehave tend to either be removed immediately or quickly rehabilitated (or else!). Those who don’t fulfill their responsibilities are removed. And so it goes.

But again, that accountability extends beyond misbehavior and missed deadlines. Larger membership churches often have no problems asking their members about their spiritual practices. They have a high bar for their expectations and they are willing to hold people accountable for what they’ve covenanted to do.

I guess what bothers me the most about Barna’s findings is that I want to maintain a belief that the smaller membership church is in a unique place to make a significant difference in the lives of their membership and in their community. But until the small membership church is willing to face these five issues and place their energy and emphases on personal spiritual growth and maturity, I’m afraid that they will continue to fulfill Lyle Schaller’s prophesy that as many as 150,000 churches in the US will close before 2050 … and that we’ll keep on dissolving eight or more churches every single day.[ii]

[ii] See Lyle Schaller’s Tattered Trust.

Monday through Friday on www.HitchhikersGuideToEvangelism.com we provide a motivotional – a motivating devotional – to help our member churches stay focused on sharing their faith. This is Monday’s motivotional that was shot at Lake Tahoe last week.


Click to Watch!

I was working on a worship evaluation and thought that I’d share words and recommendations about a church’s welcome. If you’re going to be open and welcome to guests, you might want to consider the following.

Hospitality begins in the parking lot. Well, it really begins when a guest goes to your website to find out where you are and what time your services are, but that’s a different post for a different time. If you have outdoor greeters, and parking lot greeters specifically, the congregation’s hospitality truly begins as a guest comes out of their vehicle. Indeed, with an effective parking lot greeting team, any lack of signage and parking issues actually become mute (during worship hours), since a guest couldn’t get lost because there would always be a greeter in sight.

I can’t stress how important greeters actually are. Some other time I’ll share the story of Dean King at Decatur First Christian Church in Georgia, but let me say that one of the reasons I became a member of that church and the Disciples of Christ denomination is because of Dean’s welcome and greeting. There are few more important jobs in a church than being a greeter, so why do we rotate greeters and use people who are, shall we say, less than gregarious? Whomever is your best welcomer should be permanently recruited and deployed as the church’s lead greeter. Frowns, scowls, or even inattentive folks need not apply. With that in mind, here are some recommendations I regularly make to churches I work with.

Recommendation 01: Raise up a team of parking lot greeters for all public services. There should be no less than two parking lot greeters, and three would increase the level of hospitality significantly. These greeters should be outfitted with walkie-talkies, safety vests, and either directional flashlights or white gloves (which looks really sharp). In addition, they should have access to large golf umbrellas for rainy day greeting.
The Parking Lot Greeters should be individually stationed at the entrance to the church’s driveway as well as in the corpus of the parking area. Guests and members alike should be pointed to appropriate parking slots. In the spirit of hospitality, service, and sacrifice, able bodied members should park in the farthest reaches (least desirable) of the parking lots to ensure guests and differently-abled participants can park nearest the worship center. Membership has responsibilities, not privileges.

Parking Lot Greeters are charged with ushering vehicles to appropriate parking, greeting members and guests alike, and providing a helping hand to those who need it. The greeters should do more than just point out open parking spots, but should be gregariously engaged with arriving participants. For those who are well trained, the name of guests will be extracted in the greeting conversation … and relayed to the Information Booth team who can then greet the guests by name when they enter the building. Of course, the Parking Lot Greeters should escort participants to the entrance when it’s raining, with the infirm, or whenever guests need assistance in any other way.

Parking Lot Greeters should remain at their posts until at least fifteen minutes into the worship service … and the greeter stationed in the main parking lot should take up a post either just outside of the worship center doors, or just inside the doors with their eye turned toward the parking lot in search of any latecomers who need to be greeted.

Recommendation 2: If  your congregation uses them, dispense with member name tags. First, they are not ecologically renewable and second, they may add to a guest’s discomfort as their paper badges set them off as an “outsider.” It is a better practice for everyone – members and guests alike to wear paper name tags (a renewable resource). To facilitate this each week, you could place at least three or more high-top tables in the patio area for greeters and name-tag artists to work. Greeters should greet every person and help them to the high tops to get their name tags. Members and guests alike should be introduced to the name tag artists who quickly write out a name tag. Everyone should have a name tag … if someone gets in without one, it should only be because they were not greeted. During inclement weather, the tables could be either moved under the overhang, inside the building, or perhaps patio screen “tents” could be erected to provide shelter.

Recommendation 3: It seems that most greeters and ushers remain active at their posts only through the first five minutes or so of the worship services. However, first time and returning guests, as well as members, may arrive late … sometimes quite late. To provide excellent hospitality services, there should be at least one greeter in the narthex at all times during the worship service. This greeter could serve as an Information Center host as well.

Recommendation 4: Train a number of gregarious folks to be Worship Hosts. These hosts are strategically located in different zones within the sanctuary. Their job is to ensure first time and returning guests are greeted, questions answered, and generally made to feel welcome without overwhelming them. They should be “at their posts” before worship no later than ten minutes before the service begins.

Much more could be said of all four of these greeting stations, but you get the gist. Greeters should greet and not get involved in distracting conversations, especially with members. Ushers should ush – they should do more than just hand out a bulletin with a smile (or a grunt). Helping folks find seats, asking congregants to slide into the middle of the row to allow for space on the aisles, and so on are all ushers’ tasks. And hosts welcome – they ensure folks don’t fall through the cracks. If you get these four recommendations implemented, it’s a good bet your guests will have at least know they were welcomed.

In difficult times, churches have a tendency to clap shut their shutters, hide their money under mattresses, and delay anything that might be innovative and new – especially if it costs more than a nickle. Okay, so I exaggerate. A little. But the reality is that when the economy or the political winds turn fierce, churches tend to put on their most conservative faces and practices, and I don’ t mean theologically (though I guess some of that too). Amidst those practices, the church often defaults to it’s oldest and wisest leaders for direction for almost everything. Decisions are made carefully, thoughtfully, and conservatively lest the actions make the situation even worse than it is.

And yet, these are the very best times to test the mettle and buff the rough edges from new and future leaders. It’s been said that no one learns to be great by success – only in failure. And though the possibility of adding failure to the already tough times seems counterintuitive, the risk is well worth the potential, especially when there’s so much to gain. Since most churches have been in a decade slump in terms of attendance, membership, and finances, the risk level of empowering new leadership seems relatively low. What do we really have to lose? What most churches are doing now hasn’t been working for awhile.

One regularly expressed concerns is that it’s difficult to raise up new leaders. Although this may be a legitimate concern, often the reality is that new leaders are unwilling to step up because they do not expect to have the space to lead as God leads them. Indeed, some potential leaders have tried to lead, only to have current leaders step up to micromanage the project, to criticize the way the project is being handled, or to complain that they weren’t consulted, invited, or honored. When this kind of treatment happens once, the word spreads quickly … when it happens repeatedly, it becomes virtually impossible to raise up new leaders.

Letting go of leadership is difficult. There are power issues involved. Personal feelings are involved. Tradition is involved. No matter what, getting current leaders to step back enough to allow new leadership is difficult, and yet that is what’s called for – especially in these times. If you’re committed to raising up new leaders, here is a brief bullet list of how to effectively hand over the reigns while limiting the risks of catastrophic failure.

1. Don’t give the new leader a job description, give them mission and vision statements that include expected outcomes. For a new Christian Education Team Leader, a mission and vision might look like this. Mission: “To teach, train, equip, and empower all ages and stages of disciples and would-be disciples of Jesus.” Vision: “Seventy percent of all adults and 100 percent of children and youth participating in some form of effective faith formation opportunities.”
2. Ensure the lines of responsibility are clear. Each new leader of a program or ministry should have a staff member (paid or unpaid) to whom they are responsible for results.
3. Insist that new leaders lead, not just do. If they cannot raise up followers, they are not leaders. All leaders must develop a team in order to accomplish the ministry task.
4. Allow the new leader to develop their own plans. So long as the plan fits into the mission and vision of the church, reflects the congregational values, and does not violate the beliefs and expected behaviors, then the leader should be allowed to strategize, plan, set goals, and implement as needed. However, the use of resources must be coordinated with their staff liaison/church office.
5. The staff liaison should be in conversation with the new leader regularly, and at least monthly for a mentoring and check-in appointment. This meeting should be an encouragement meeting that keeps the motivation high and supports the work of the new leader. Help the leader set reasonable and measurable goals.
6. Above all, do not allow former leaders to rain on the new leader’s parade. The staff liaison should help provide a safety shield around the new leader if necessary.
7. Hold the new leader accountable for results, especially the results that they have set themselves (in #5 above).
8. Remember that failure is a learning opportunity – and is only a failure if the new leader doesn’t pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start again.

In times like these, the need for our brightest and most innovative is required. By helping new leaders to take the reigns, the church can make the most of this leadership training school paradise.

I wrote this entry the other day and I think I posted it … but in the great server switchover, it appears to have been misplaced. So, just in case, here it is again.

I had a conversation with some pastors about one of the seminars they had attended. They had gone looking and hoping for another program that would help them launch their churches into the stratosphere – or at least grow their churches past where they were. As I reflected on the conversation later, it dawned on me that what they were hoping to find was that elusive bottle of magic pills that would cure the ills and grow their churches for them.

Just a couple of years ago, a Lilly research project looked at mainline churches that were growing through conversion growth, that is, churches that were reaching and transforming the unconnected into disciples of Jesus Christ. That study revealed that there are indeed a lot of “programs” that are being used to grow churches. Small groups, Alpha, Disciple, Forty Days of Purpose, and more. However, what the study suggests is something most of us already know: it’s not the programs that are growing these churches. We know that because small groups, Alpha, Disciple, Forty Days of Purpose, and so many more are also failing to grow thousands of other churches. All these programs, literally all of them, are placebos that have absolutely no power in themselves to transform or even grow churches in the long term.

As revealed in the study, the difference between the churches that are reaching the unconnected with abandon, compared to the many that reach few, is that growing churches have developed a climate of evangelism that permeates the church’s culture. The study also clearly showed that that culture was largely created and maintained by the pastor, staff, and congregational leadership. But we knew that, didn’t we?

So, why do we still seem to be obsessed with finding a magic pill bottle to cure all our ills? I have a number of ideas that I don’t believe I’ll but into print, but I will say this: The solution is not another program. So long as church leaders continue to spend their time overlooking the obvious in hopes of finding shortcuts or magic pills, their churches will continue to struggle.

George Barna recently came out with a poll reporting that the majority of Christians don’t believe in either Satan or the Holy Spirit. Since then, I have received a small mountain of emails with Christian leaders crying “Where did the church go wrong?” I suppose these questions probably deserve and answer, but I’m not going to be the one writing treatises on where the church failed – at least not with this blog post. The sad fact is, that anyone who’s suddenly astounded with reports like these are woefully out of touch with the “real” world anyway.

The real question that needs to be answered isn’t about where the church went wrong. The burning question that begs an answer is “What are we going to do about the sad state of Christianity in developed nations?” Just a reminder for those who are unaware, the world of Christianity is doing very well on a global level. Figures show that global Christianity is gaining some 90,000 converts each day. However, Christianity in the West is doing, shall we say, rather poorly. The ARIS report that came out a couple of weeks ago showed that Mainline Christianity has lost over 6 million adherents since 2001 and that Christianity itself has shrunk from 86 percent of the USAmerican  population in 1990 to 76 percent in 2008. Of course, any religion that can claim 76 percent of the population should really be making a difference in the culture, but that cannot be said of Christianity. With less than 15 percent of us showing up for organized worship and discipling on any given weekend, it’s clear that our practices don’t match our verbiage (there are lots of other examples, but that one will have to suffice).

The problem with the problem is that it’s so encompassing that it’s paralyzing our church leaders. It’s one thing to say “Think glocally,” it’s quite another to do anything differently. Since I seem to be particularly fond of lists of five, here are three steps to start turning things around in your world.

1. Build a foundation of faith beginning with you. It’s been said that Billy Graham once estimated that only about 10 percent of church goers were practicing Christians. Hearing his pronouncement, a prominent sociologist reflected that Graham was being generous. As James put it (2:17–18), it’s one thing to say you’re a person of faith – it’s something else again to put it into practice. So, let me ask you a couple of questions (that you’ve no doubt heard before). What did you read last week in the Bible that intrigued you? If you’re a pastor, add the proviso “outside of your sermon study.” Here’s another one – with whom did you personally share your faith story last week and what were the results? Again, pastor, sharing your story in the pulpit gets no credit. And one last one – who have you personally encouraged in their faith journey today? If you’re not praying, reading scripture, encouraging fellow Christians, and sharing your faith with the unconnected then, frankly, you’re contributing to the problem, not to the solution. Without a foundation, the rest of this is pointless.
2. Get excited about what’s going on in your church, or get another church. And when I say “get excited, “ I mean Prius owner excited. According to Ron Crandall, the number one issue facing smaller congregations is self-image. Let me add that it’s not just the little churches that struggle with self-worth. Any church over forty years old is faced with the temptation of looking back on the “good old days” of yesteryear. John Maxwell observed that if what you did back then looks pretty big now, then you haven’t done much today. I’m coaching a congregation that is struggling with that very issue. The reality is that they have a lot going for them, but they’re facing some tough decisions for the future. Some of these decisions are painful, and so there is a feeling of dread amongst many in the congregation. This malaise has perpetuated a sense of “we’re not worthy” or “we’re not good enough” across the congregation. And a member who feels that way isn’t going to invest much in the future of the congregation. They won’t invite their friends, acquaintances, neighbors, or co-workers to the church’s worship service. They won’t write large checks, let alone tithe checks, to support the work of the congregation. The truth is, there are a lot of churches “out there” that are going to continue to choose tradition over  faithfulness to mission. The solution for the faithful is to either instigate a change or to find a new congregation. And when I say “instigate a change” I don’t mean wait it out. I mean do something to bring about the change or leave. If there aren’t enough of the faithful in the congregation to out maneuver  the bullies and terrorists, then leave them to themselves. Get excited or get on down the road.
3. Major on the majors. The Paraeto Principle states that 20 percent of what we do brings 80 percent of the results. The corollary is that we spend 80 percent of our resources dealing with those activities that waste our time. We see this demonstrated in the church regularly. Twenty percent of the leaders do 80 percent of the work. Twenty percent of our programs and activities bring 80 percent of the results. But in a church, what are the majors? I’d tell you that it depends on what your mission is, but if you’ve read almost anything I’ve written you know that I’m a real believer in the “there’s only one mission” of the church school of thought: make disciples. Making disciples includes both making new disciples and making more effective disciples – but you can’t have one without the other. What we’ve found is that most churches do neither effectively. Why? Because they don’t major on the majors.

Emphasizing the majors means putting the church’s resources into those activities that net real results. Although that sounds easy, there’s really little that’s more difficult. It begins by being honest – ruthlessly honest – with your programming and activities. Ask the question of each activity on the calendar, “Will this activity facilitate making more disciples?” If it’s a choir tour of Anglican churches, the answer is obviously no. If the answer to the first question is no, then you ask the second question, “Will this activity help the participants become more effective disciples?” That’s a trickier question. First, you’ll need to determine what an effective disciple looks like. In many churches, an effective disciple is obviously defined as someone who’s heavily involved in the church’s activities. If they show up for committee meetings, Sunday school, board meetings, all church clean-up days, bake sales, choir practice, worship, and Bible study, then they’re deemed “faithful.” They may not have shared their faith with an unconnected person in over twenty years, but they’re “active” in  church, thus they must be a faithful disciple.

Once you’ve defined what a disciple is like, then you can take a stab at measuring your activities. If your activities aren’t helping Bob and Sheila to become more effective disciples in their “real” lives, then it’s probably something that should either be “tweaked” so that it does or else it should be abandoned completely.

I get a good bit of pushback on this, generally because someone has a pet project that fails both tests, but they want to do it anyway. I’m not suggesting that everything that fails the two tests should come to an end, but I am saying that these activities must expend a minority of the church’s resources. But in most churches, that means that there are a bunch of pet projects that are going to end up on the cutting-room floor. Save the annual all church picnic, if the doors would close without it, but do away with the other resource wasters. Simply put, if an activity isn’t making more or better disciples, then it shouldn’t be on the church’s calendar and the church shouldn’t be investing any staff, facilities, or financial resources on it.
So, there you are. Three concrete and practical tasks to start turning around the church. Will it change the minds of those who don’t believe in Satan or the Holy Spirit? Probably no time soon. But in the meantime, it will change the face of your congregation.