Consulting, Coaching & Chatter

Imagine finishing your meal at the Great Wall Chinese Restaurant. The server brings you the bill and snuggled up against it is a very special Fortune Cookie. I say it’s special because this time it’s going to accurately predict the future. With great anticipation you break open the cookie and eat it completely before you read it – that’s the house rule for making sure the fortune comes true – and then you uncoil the paper to read,

“Very soon your church will have a worship service and that will host the most unchurched guests for the year …”

You smile with anticipation and as you get ready to pay your bill, you notice that new words begin to appear on the Fortune Cookie’s strip of good news. You unfold it one more time and watch as the rest of the fortune fades in

“… and you will likely squander the opportunity.”

That Fortune Cookie accurately predicts a truth that will be manifest itself on December 24th in churches across the US. Although most pastors are aware that the Christmas Eve service will be one of the two largest worship services of the year, they fail to realize that it will also be the one service of the year they can expect a large number of the unconnected.

In today’s secular world, if a coworker casually mentions that they’re going to attend church on any given Sunday, someone is bound to ask incredulously “Why would you go to church?” Church going is not a particularly savvy thing to do, especially if you’re not already a practicing church goer. But something almost magical and significant occurs during the season of Advent. It somehow becomes politically correct, or at least not incorrect, to drop into church on Christmas Eve. There’s still enough of a national ethos to allow for a one-time pass to church. So if that same coworker announces they’re going to a Christmas Eve service, no one in the office will so much as blink. They might even invite themselves!

But how does the church respond to the one opportunity to really reach out and touch someone who’s unconnected with Jesus and the church? We sing carols. We read scripture (typically from the Good News for Modern Man of 1611 version). The pastor might say a few words, but if s/he does, they’re often laced with sentimentality and lacks any relevance to life’s burning questions. We light a candle, sing Silent Night and go home.

Did I mention that we almost never even bother to try and use the “Pew Pads” or “Friendship Rosters”? We not only allow the unconnected leave with their needs unmet, we endorse and encourage their anonymity.

Great leaders of growing churches recognize Christmas Eve as the best opportunity to connect with the unconnected and they move heaven and earth to ensure they do. They unapologetically create a worship service that’s more meaningful to the unconnected than it is to the well-churched. They ensure there’s a hand-off, an invitation to a near-future event that’s been designed to both pique the interest and meet the needs of the unconnected (like a sermon series or a seminar on Undoing Devastating Debt or Reviving Relationships). They get the guest’s names and contact information. They follow-up with a meaningful Christmas Eve gift (within two hours of their Christmas Eve attendance) even if it is inconvenient for us Christians to do so … remember, this is not about us – it’s about those unconnected with Jesus. They do whatever it takes to capitalize on the opportunity to reach the unconnected. They take Paul’s words to the Colossians seriously: “Be wise in the way you act towards outsiders; make the most of every opportunity” (4:5).

And so, you’ve just unwrapped your Fortune Cookie. What are you going to do about it this year?

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.

Over the past several weeks I’ve had the opportunity to speak to various crowds of church leaders and talk about church transformational issues. I’ve noticed that I can generally divide the audience into two groups: those who want to get it and so are open to giving the presentation a listen, and those who don’t want to get it and so they cross their arms and either glare or get glassy-eyed. I’ve not noticed very many folks in the middle.

Recently I was accused (in a good way) of being an idealist. That comment has haunted me for several weeks now and I’ve wrestled with it almost daily. I think what bothers me most is (1) he’s right – I am an idealist and (2) somehow that’s perceived as odd. My problem is that I have it my head that the church was designed to be a place where idealism was not only heralded as “the ideal,” but that the church was serious about ushering in the Kingdom (whether seen as a future promise or a present reality). And that’s idealism at it’s most extreme.

So, for me, here’s where the rubber is hitting the road … and it’s creating all sorts of acrid smoke as it does. If the church is going to be faithful to its mission … which I firmly believe that mission is about making disciples … then it’s got to live, breathe, organize, and act missionally. The problem is …

…what’s a “Missional” Church? Well, that all depends on who’s asking and especially on who’s answering. According to some of the emerging crowd (emerging, not necessarily emergent), a missional church is one that is willing to reconsider virtually everything they are and do (in terms of tactics, tools, and strategies) in order to reach their mission field. By that definition, many of you reading this are unlikely to become leaders of missional churches. Why? Because your congregation is unlikely to even consider that over 90 percent of how you “do church” is tied up with sacred cows and extra-biblical traditions. Don’t hear me saying that it’s all wrong … or that any of it is “wrong,” but most of the “hows” a church engages in is tradition at best (buildings, Bible reading, preaching, vestments, pews, pulpits, communion outside of a meal, tithing, responsive readings, most hymnody, instruments, “weekly” worship … you get the picture). If a congregation isn’t willing to put 100 percent of these traditions on the block, then the reality, they can never be a truly missional church by this definition.

However, that definition seems to me to be a bit restrictive, if not idealistic. So typically I define a missional church as one that understands what mission is and is willing to sacrifice personal preferences (and traditions) in order to reach their missional calling.

Let me tease this out. Anyone who knows me as a church consultant knows that I’m not a fan of blended services. Blended services [u]almost[/u] always satisfies no one in the congregation. Those who love the traditional music and style generally find drums, electric guitars, and keyboards to be a distraction … not to mention praise music (or worse). Those who are of the Peter, Paul, and Mary persuasion (me, for one) tend to love the acoustic guitar, a little drum, and a keyboard as we sing our so-called 7-11 songs (seven words repeated eleven times … think “I Could Sing of Your Love Forever” et al). Then there’s the younger crowd yet who want, yea need, a beat. Bass guitars and screaming electric guitar solos all at a volume that makes my ears ring. Try shuffling those three and “ain’t nobody happy.”

The solution is to engage in missional worship. This means that instead of trying to produce a plain vanilla worship that supposedly no one could possibly object to (which means everyone will object to it), a congregation develops the best possible worship service focused on “reaching” their mission objective. So, if a congregation of serious seniors (the over 70s) wants desperately to reach their children (the Boomers), instead of adding a guitar to their traditional service, they’ll start a second service that focuses on praise and worship (or country western or classic rock or oldies, all depending on the best options for reaching that mission objective). And the wise church leader will make sure that the “traditional” service is top-of-the-line traditional. And so it goes. If the church’s missional calling is to reach the under 30s, they’ll target their worship service totally on the style, in the language, and with the technology that is most likely to reach that missional objective.

So, let’s get down the the real nitty gritty. Who is your missional target? How do you find out? The past two days I’ve listed a series of questions to ask yourselves to help you get an idea. Today, though, it’s not enough to ask the right questions … you have to have and to use the right tools. Start with a good demographics and psychographics package. The one your denomination provides is typically worth about the cost of the paper it’s printed on. There’s nothing there you couldn’t get from a couple hours with a good Google search. It will give you some raw numbers and it will tell you how likely those in your community are to a particular style of worship, but it doesn’t help you to know “who” your neighbors are. Percept offers a tool called the Compass. It’s good. MissionInsight, the firm EBT has partnered with, provides everything Percept offers and a good bit more for a single price (though you have to use a mediator like us to access their materials). The price for either is comparable. Psychographics were developed for marketers and they help you get inside the minds and habits of your neighbors … and that’s information you can use to at least get an idea about what a worship service for a particular demographic might look like (C&W, R&R, R&B, Jazz, etc.).

But DO NOT rely on the psychographics. If you really want to know who your neighbors are, the very BEST way to find out is to get out there and meet them. Go hang out at the mall, the coffee shops, the book stores, the high school ball games, the grade school band concerts, the Chamber of Commerce mixers, Toastmasters, PTA, the parks, the sales barn, the grain elevator, the drug store, the square, McDonalds in the morning, etc. and be a people watcher and a conversation eaves dropper. Who are your neighbors and what are they concerned about? What are they listening to (what’s on their iPod playlist … ask … you’ll be surprised at how willing people are to share!)? Get to know them by osmosis.

Finally, according to a very recent study, it seems that door-knocking is becoming effective again. I know, the vast majority of you now want to bury your heads in your hands and weep, but the facts are the facts. It appears that the folks “out there” aren’t as wild about their anonymous, cocooned lives as they used to be and they’re more willing to entertain a walk by knocking than they used to be. (To see the research, see Ed Stetzer’s blog entry at http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/2008/11/going-doortodoor-a-look-at-the.html).

But all that’s pretty ideal. Really. Imagine asking a church of fifty to consider starting a second service to reach their unconnected neighbors. I get responses like, “but we’re too small … help us grow our traditional service and when it’s full we’ll start something else” or this response from the pastor “I’ve decided to start a blended service so we can create critical mass … I know someone somewhere who started a blended service and it worked great for them.” There’s always the odd exception to every rule … and everyone somehow thinks that they’re going to be the exception too. Not because they will be, but because it’s easier to convince a small congregation to add a guitar to Amazing Grace than it is to convince them to allow (pay and pray for) two services. And yet, that’s exactly my counsel. If you’re in a small church, you’ll not become a larger church by doing what you’ve been doing … and the fact is, almost everyone who really wants to attend a traditional worship service is already going to church. If you’re going to be a faithful congregation to whatever missional objective God has called you to, you’re going to have be a bit of an idealist and a lot less a realist.

I recently had a great conversation with an older member of a fast-shrinking congregation. She was looking for resources on how to improve communications within her congregation and she was finding precious few resources … could I help? Sure, I could help. But before we went further, I asked her to tell me what she meant by “improving communications” and her response was almost exactly what I expected.

The Intra-Church Communications’ Axiom: Whenever someone in the church claims the church needs to improve its communications, it’s not about communications. It’s about control.

Once upon a time, when the church peacefully coexisted with culture (Christendom), having seventy member boards and lots and lots of committees didn’t hurt anything. Ministry decisions could move much slower and because there was typically a strong denominational ethos in the congregation, there was at least some sense of shared values. Trusting leadership was seldom an issue. First, the leaders rarely made decisions that were contrary to the congregation’s expectations – there was no need to because “everyone” was on the same page. Second, because membership on the boards and committees were so pervasive that anyone who was anyone, and a lot of not-so-much anyones, served together, there were few surprising decisions that needed to be made. The church as an organization existed to a large extent to preserve a Christian culture that existed both within and outside the walls of the church.

That was once upon a time. We no longer live in the fairy tale land where the culture naturally knows the metastories of faith and church members naturally know and share the congregational ethos. The church as an organization largely chose to try and preserve a Christian culture … and when the culture outside the church moved on, the focus subtly shifted to maintaining that culture within the church. The focus for many who could remember the shared culture of the past was to try and fiercely hold on to the realities of back then.

The world moved on. The focus of the church either has to change from being caretakers of a past culture or it has to move on to serious evangelism and discipleship that’s at least as dedicated to behavioral change as it is in intellectual change. As you’re no doubt aware, most churches in North America are still struggling over this change of focii and it’s creating a lot of distrust in the leadership. Suddenly ministry and tactical decisions have to be made with lightning speed in order to reach the folks who are immersed in culture-change-on-steroids. Suddenly church leaders are making decisions that are counter to the ethos of old and the folks who “remember when” don’t understand. Some are never going to understand because the culture is so contrary to their worldview that “getting it” may well be beyond them. Others won’t understand because they don’t like the changes and they’re not going to like the changes and they really don’t care about understanding – they just want to recapture what they once had.

Today, church boards by and large are smaller, much smaller, than what they used to be. Churches today with literally thousands of members are regularly served by boards of five or seven. They’re making critical decisions that are steering the church on a course of ministry that isn’t always popular with a vocal and sometimes powerful minority. And these folks want to know “why” the changes are being made. They pine for a culture where they were included in virtually every decision … and every decision was largely in keeping with their personal understanding of ministry. So this group is asking for communication’s tools. But contrary to what it seems, the reason the vocal few demand communication’s tools is to find a way to reassert the control they are losing or have lost. They miss the “good old days” and they want them back.

They’re not coming back. Those church leaders who spend their time trying to appease the demand for improved intra-church communications will soon discover that there’s no such thing as improved communications. The communications many want is for the church leadership to listen to them, not so much to hear the wheres and whyfores about the decisions being made. Most churches are pretty good about letting their congregants know that there are changes coming, what they are, and why they’re coming. What they don’t do well, according to the vocal few, is listen to the voice of the “church,” i.e., them. But going back or slowing down isn’t going to help the church in the short run or the long run.

So, church leaders, when you hear the demands to improve church communications, remember that it’s not what it seems. You’ll never be able to appease the demands and be faithful to evangelism and discipleship to the unreached in your community. You can’t go forward by going backwards.