Consulting, Coaching & Chatter

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!

Over the years I’ve found that it can be both tempting and easy to get caught up in the nearly endless discussions around definitions and measurements. When it comes to church transformation in North America, this discussion too often opens as the trap of distraction. The distraction of definitions and measurements has provided far too many church leaders the opportunity to engage in endless dialog and provided them with an excuse for not engaging in the difficult and often thankless work of leading a transformational effort in their local church. It’s been noted by several researchers that in general, the more educated the church leader is, the less likely they are to be successful in leading a transformational effort. I’m convinced one of the key reasons for this is that the “better” educated the church leader is, the more they are interested in the philosophy of church transformation – and the more esoteric the conversation, the greater the investment in the discussion.

So, let me begin by sharing my bias as a church consultant and coach. I’m interested in helping churches become both markedly and measurably transformational. In addition, I’m absolutely convinced transformation can, should, and must be measured – which implies we are working from a definition and a particular paradigm. However, let me be clear. I’m not particularly interested in joining the ongoing, seemingly never-ending, transformational discussions that virtually every mainline denomination is having. These discussions banter about trying to define “authentic” transformation; or theologically or politically correct transformation; or mainline transformation; or, most often, trying to define what transformation “looks like” in the DOC, UMC, ELCA, PCUSA, UCC, ABC, RFA, etc. Though these might be important questions to answer for some, the state of the church in North America is alarming enough that I tend to leave the discussions to others so I can put on my grubbies, roll up my sleeves, and dirty my hands helping churches at the grass roots, local level.
However, having said that, it’s a fair question to ask what we mean when we talk about transformation. Transforming from what to what?

In the largest possible picture, the transform “from what” is the current state of the church in North America and the West. The losses from the church over the past fifty years are staggering. I’m not going to engage in a litany of what those losses look like, but if you want to check out the state of the church in North America, see Clegg’s Lost in America and Missing in America, as well as Olson’s American Christianity in Crisis. Transformation would be turning this around so that the church was a thriving, growing, and culturally influential body.

On a congregational level, the transform “from what” is from plateau or decline to significant growth in what we’ve identified as six transformational marks.

However, although I’m interested in transforming local congregations, I am vitally interested in is helping the church transform the lives of those in their community in the name of, and in obedience to, Jesus Christ. And so, yes, we believe that personal transformation is observable and measureable as well. If a local congregation gets serious about that, then they’ll experience the pangs and joys of transformation.

So, let’s begin with the vital. Without transformed lives, everything else is a waste of time. And to be perfectly frank, we see a lot of supposedly “transforming” churches that seem to be missing this key mark. There are a number of churches that “appear” to be growing and vital churches, but when looking for the marks of personal transformation amongst the general congregation, there are few to be found. We do not count these churches as “transformational.”

Measuring a Transforming Life

Let it be said that my job isn’t to measure individual lives; but as a church consultant (and as any church leader), it’s pretty easy to see trends and widespread practices across the congregation. When looking for transforming lives, look first to the church’s leadership. If there are transformational marks there, next look at those who have been participating in the congregation for a year or so. If both appear to be transforming, then a look at the longer term participants is warranted. Note: When looking at transformation, I’m looking almost exclusively at demonstratable behaviors, not at a greater theological understanding.
To measure transformation, begin with the scriptural marks and then move to look at general practices.

1. Are they increasingly manifesting the fruits of the Spirit? (Gal 5:22-23)

• Do they exhibit increasing love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?

2. Are they decreasingly manifesting the fruits of the flesh? (Gal 5:19-21)

• Are they increasingly becoming free of their addictions, bad habits, misbehavior, gossip, etc.?

3. Is there an increasing commitment to practicing the One-Anothers?

• For a description of the One-Anothers and how they apply, see High-Voltage Spirituality, Hitchhiker’s Guide to Evangelism, House Church Manual, or The Apprentice Workbook. In addition, I’ve written extensively about the One-Anothers in earlier blog posts and in the On Track E-zine.

4. Is there an increasing commitment to the practices of personal spiritual habits?

• Are they praying more, engaging scripture more, worshipping more, etc.?

5. Is there an increasing obedience to Jesus’ commandments?

• Are they demonstrating that they love God more? Love their neighbors more? Love one-another more? Love themselves more? Love their enemies more? Remember, in context love isn’t a “feeling,” it’s a commitment that is followed by behavioral action. This manifests in personal involvement in ministry and mission.

6. Are they bearing evidence of disciple-making fruit?

• Jesus was extremely clear that the fruit of his disciples was more disciples.

Please be aware that the practice of a couple of these marks does not guarantee a transformed life. Indeed, the only one who really knows whether or not an individual life is undergoing a transformation is God alone. However, when measuring a congregation’s effectiveness in transformation, an accurate picture can quickly be formed by applying these six marks on a wider basis.

Transformational Churches

There is no such thing as a transformed church. The only church that completes a transformation is one that has closed its doors completely. Otherwise, a faithful church will always be engaged in the transformational process. As we speak of transforming churches here, note that we’re specifically speaking of churches that are increasingly faithful. Most churches in North America are engaged in a transformational process – but that transformation is from life to death. Our commitment – our life’s work – is to infuse these churches with hope and to help them make the difficult transition from decline to growth, from dying to living. However, we’re well aware that most local churches will not make this transition. Indeed, repeated studies have shown that only 20 percent of churches who engage a transformational process will be successful in moving from dying to living. In the mainline, that number appears to be no higher than 10 percent.

Here, then, is the observable and measurable evidence we look for in a church that is successfully transforming.

1. They experience an increasing number of adult baptisms.

• The fastest growing church-related population in the US is the church of the never-been-to-church. In Christendom, the church largely depended on biological growth. However, in today’s culture, it’s the number of adult baptisms, that is, conversions, that is the top indicator of a successfully transforming congregation. Congregations that show numerical growth without baptisms are either attracting the formerly churched, attracting the currently churched, or putting on the best show in town, but not engaged in disciple-making.

2. There is an ongoing increase in the number of worship participants (or wherever their “front door” is).

• The “front door” for most churches is still their weekly worship service/s. A transforming church experiences significant growth in their services. The exception to this evidence is when the church is intentionally engaged in church planting from within their congregation. In these cases, their reported attendance will see a significant drop followed by increase.

3. They experience an expanding positive reputation in the community.

• Transformational congregations get a reputation for being the kind of church people want to go to. They’re known for their signature ministry or mission in the community and more and more people take note.

4. They experience increasing participation in adult discipleship developing activities.

• Typically, transforming churches report significant and ongoing increases in their small group participation.

5. They experience increasing financial stability.

• Note that seeing increased financial stability does not mean that a congregation no longer has financial struggles. Few building-based churches ever have “enough” money to engage in their ministry and mission as fully as they’d like. However, transformational churches experience increased giving in their church.

6. The congregation has an increasing missional impact on their community.

• Transformational congregations are intentional in their out-reach. This is not always an organized activity, since the most effective missional congregations are those that equip, empower, engage, and encourage their membership/participants into the community so that they can engage their personal passions in hands-on mission.

There are literally thousands of transformational congregations across the nation. Many, if not most, of them were church plants that have been started within the last forty years. However, there are a number of churches that have experienced a transformation from dying to living – that have turned around. That process, however can be painful and most of the time there is a sharp decrease in membership and/or attendance before the transformation can occur. Indeed, virtually every transformation begins with an exodus of those who don’t want to bear the changes necessary to become a transformational congregation (we use the word “virtually” pretty loosely here – we are not aware of any transformed congregation that hasn’t had to endure this exodus).

The Transformational Journey

I want to close this article with a nod to those congregations that have engaged the transformational journey. Here are the marks of congregation that has seriously engaged the transformational process.

1. There is a marked decrease in the conflict level within the congregation.

• Deep seated, ongoing conflict is either being resolved, or the antagonists are held accountable for their behavior. New conflict is dealt with immediately in accordance to Matthew 18:15-17. Sadly, the decrease in the conflict level often is precipitated by an exodus of key, long-term members who simply couldn’t embrace the changes that necessitate transformation.

2. There is a decreasing tolerance for manifest fruits of the flesh (Gal 5:19-21) by both church leaders and the congregation as a whole.

• That is to say that those who manifest bad behavior are called into accountability – which is a nice way of saying that church bullies and terrorists are held responsible for their behaviors and expected to change.

3. There is an increased alignment to the congregation’s DNA by church leaders that is followed by an increased alignment by the congregation itself.

• The church leaders increasingly model and make decisions based on the mission, values, and vision. Ultimately, all programs, events, and decisions are made through the filter of the DNA. In addition, leaders and members are held accountable to the congregation’s expected behaviors.

4. There is an increased commitment to reaching the unreached in the community and there is a shift from the congregation’s obsession with meeting their own needs in favor of meeting the spiritual needs of the community.

• Ministries are being evaluated for their effectiveness in reaching and discipling the community and new programs, ministries, and missional events are designed specifically to reach out to the unreached.

5. There is a decreasing dependence on staff for doing ministry on behalf of the congregation and an increasing dependence of staff for equipping, empowering, engaging, and encouraging members for works of ministry and mission.

• The role of staff changes from doers of ministry on behalf of the congregation to equippers of ministry and mission. Simultaneously, there is also an increase in the staff’s commitment to modeling the faith that includes the conspicuous practice of the spiritual disciplines.

6. There is an increasing level of trust between church leaders, both clergy and lay, as well as within the congregation itself.

• Trust is a must when it comes to transformation. The congregation must trust its leaders to lead effectively. The staff must trust each other explicitly. And the church’s leadership must trust the staff and each other. This is generally facilitated by the increased commitment and adherence to the congregation’s DNA.

I close with this caveat. Transformation is not all about the numbers as you can see by the above. As I mentioned earlier, churches can and do “grow” numerically and are not transformational congregations. In our paradigm, transformational congregations change lives as defined by that first list. But let’s be clear: a transformational church always grows numerically. There are no exceptions. Jesus didn’t die so that his church could crawl into the lotus position and meditate on his holiness. Nor did he die so that the church could become a politically active social services agency. Biblically, it’s clear that his expectation was that his church – and that would be the people, not just the organization – would witness, evangelize, and disciple. Transformed disciples of Jesus engage in discipleship and obedience to Christ, which includes that pesky Great Commission.

Don’t get me wrong, a church that’s not growing numerically may be making a difference in their community and/or the world. Sending money to various causes is clearly a good thing to do. And certainly worship among the faithful enriches the congregation. But transforming congregations make disciples, both more and better. Better disciples make more disciples. They bear “fruit – fruit that lasts.” And the only fruit that has an eternal shelf life are disciples of Jesus Christ. Which means that although numbers are not the ultimate mark of a transforming congregation, they provide a pretty good starting point.

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.