Consulting, Coaching & Chatter

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.

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

Question:

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

Reply:

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

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

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

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

————————————————————–

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

Acts 1:8. You probably know the passage by heart: “You will be my witnesses from Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Those words were spoken to the apostles just before Jesus left them in charge.

And of course, we know the rest of the story, don’t we? Holy Spirit weekend, thousands of converts, the launch of the Christian movement, and the apostles immediately mobilized to head out to be witnesses to the “ends of the earth.”

Ya think?

Nuh uh. Let’s take a look at what really went on.

Pentecost is over. The new church is in full swing. Good things are happening – except for the Hebraic widows who needed some attention. And the apostles? They do a good job of delegating the task to seven who were charged with taking care of the issue.

But wait – what is it the apostles said? “It wouldn’t be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God” (Acts 5:2). Sounds like they’re really busy spreading the word from Jerusalem and in all of Judea and Samaria … right? Well, not so much. They’re still hanging out in Jerusalem (taking care off all those administrative tasks, no doubt).

But those seven guys, the first deacons, tasked with taking care of the widows? Well , six verses later we find Stephen street preaching and getting himself killed. Then a “great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1). The verse says that the whole church was scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.

Everyone except the apostles. They hunkered down in Jerusalem while the rest of the church fled. Well, so much for all that administrative work.

Philip, one of the deacons, however, gets busy being a witness and taking the word to the people … in Samaria (Acts 8:4). And folks there became Christian and the news about it spread – all the way to Jerusalem. So Peter and John actually leave the office to go check it out. They come to Samaria, verify that God has actually shown up there, and then … they returned to Jerusalem (to their credit, they did preach their hearts out on their way home – 8:25).

In the next chapter, God gets a hold of Paul and the focus of evangelizing the world shifts. Paul tries to break into the inner circle in the main office in Jerusalem, but he didn’t get far. For his own safety, he’s hustled up to Tarsus (9:30).

The next thing we know the Holy Spirit gets involved and Peter is called up out of Jerusalem to visit Cornelius and the Gentiles are no longer off limits to the witnessing Jesus talked about in 1:8. But do the apostles jump on that bandwagon? Nope. Peter returns to Jerusalem where he makes his report to the other eleven apostles.

The rest of the book of Acts reads like this. Paul hits the road and starts churches. Then he returns to Jerusalem and reports to the apostles what God’s been doing. Then he bids the apostles farewell and hits the road as a witness to the ends of the earth.

Repeat. Twice.

From Acts 11 until the end of the “Acts of the Apostle” Paul and Barnabas and Silas and others are on the road doing the “ministry of the word” while the apostles – the “one’s sent” stayed in Jerusalem.

And so it would remain, or so it seems, until God sent the Roman “bulldozers” to Jerusalem in about AD 70 to motivate the twelve to leave their office.

So, what are the lessons to be learned here?

First, God’s the one in charge and if God could work around the twelve guys who were “sent” but chose to pretty much stay at home, then there are none of us so darned important that God’s work is going to be sidelined. The final chapter has already been written with our without us.

On the other hand, if we don’t take seriously God’s calling to be witnesses beyond our office walls, then we had better be willing to bear the consequences. For one, if we won’t be faithful, God will raise up someone else who will be and ultimately they’ll not only get the credit for what we were supposed to do, but they’ll get to experience the joy of fulfilling what the Lord has ordained.

There’s a potential second consequence that we need to be aware of as well. If we are reluctant to be faithful to our calling, God may allow (or arrange) circumstances to “motivate” us to faithfulness. I’m not saying Jerusalem was routed because the apostles refused to be witnesses any further than their own backyards, but God will use what God will use to get the point across.

The good news in all of this is that the apostles themselves did eventually move out into all the world. But our world (or our neighborhood, community, county, etc.) isn’t going to get evangelized unless we get  out of our church offices. In the words of Dr. LeRoy Benefield, my beloved Southern Baptist evangelism professor, “No one gets saved in the church office.”

(BTW, if you need help figuring out how to get out of the office, you might want to take a listen to the Church-Talk  episode on the topic at: http://church-talk.com/church-talk-video-archive/11-03-09/.)

This post comes from my Editor’s Foreward in the Nov-Dec issue of Net Results, North America’s most enduring and trusted church growth and evangelism magazine (for which I’m the managing editor). You can check out the whole issue at www.NetResults.org.

---

The following account is a compilation of four or five church visits. It takes the best from each of the churches and creates what I can only call a Christmas vision.

It was Christmas Eve and we were new to town. Our family’s tradition is to attend an early Christmas Eve worship service with our children and return home for a late dinner. We’d seen a likely church a couple of miles away. Although it was further than we really liked, their sign gave us all the Christmas services information we needed. Many other churches used their sign to remind us that Jesus is the reason for the season or to wish us a Christmas filled with peace.

The “Family Friendly” service was scheduled at six o’clock, which was earlier than our usual experience, but we were excited that we would able to start our kids to bed at a reasonable hour for a change. Even though it was early, it was getting dark when we pulled into the parking lot. At each entrance we could see a “Shepherd” in full regalia with an orange safety flashlight waving us in and directing us to an open parking space near the front of the church. I noticed other cars being directed to the “back parking lot.” I later learned that as church members entered the lot they would dip their headlights in order to be directed to the membership lot – at the farthest reaches of the property so that guests could park in the “best” parking places.

As we got out of the car, we heard caroling and we noticed a strolling quartet of carolers in Victorian costume singing nearby. A young woman wearing a green elf hat was with them and as they continued to sing, she welcomed us conversationally and asked if we needed any help getting our children to the worship center. We didn’t need help, so she pointed out the open doors to the church and let us know there were light refreshments just inside the doors. We couldn’t help but notice that there were other elf hatted greeters both in the parking lot as well as at the doors.

We entered the entry hall and were well greeted and directed to the refreshment table where there were healthy snacks of apple slices, carrots, both warm apple cider, cold apple juice, and of course coffee and tea. One of the door greeters handed me a sealed envelope that was labeled For Parent’s Eyes Only. On the back was a cryptic message saying the envelope should be opened before the service ended and without child-presence. While my wife took the children to the refreshment table and then to check out the Make an Ornament station (where the kids had their digital picture taken, printed, and they pasted it in a frame they’d decorated with felt pens, glue, and bobbles), I opened the envelope. Inside was a contact card that asked for our name, address, number in the household, as well as an instruction card. The instructions said that within an hour following the service, Christmas Magi would stop by the house and drop off a Christmas gift for the family. It said the Magi would leave the gift at the front of the door and ring the doorbell. They would then make a hasty retreat so the children could find the gift on the doorsteps from the Christmas Magi. The card let us know the gift would include home-baked bread and a pot of local honey. I filled out the contact card and handed it to one of the elf hatted greeters (per the instructions) and we made our way to the worship center.

A cheery usher met us at the door and asked if we had a seating preference. Like most guests, I suppose, we preferred as far back as possible and we were escorted to a row in the back third of the church and were given a glossy, four-color program as we were seated. I noticed the front of the church was filling up, which in my experience was strange. Again, I learned later that members had opted to sit in the front of the church so guests could sit in the “premium” seats.

Before the service began, we were greeted by one of the members who introduced himself as Robert. We chatted for a couple of minutes and he asked about the family, our careers, and interests. He shared just a bit about the church and a small group that was starting in the new year that matched our interests. Then he excused himself and I noticed him having a conversation with another couple across the aisle. That made me look around and I saw a number of these conversations going on across the room as members left their seats to chat with folks that they’d just met.

As the service began, all of the children between two and twelve were invited to be a part of an impromptu Christmas Pageant if they wanted to. Shepherd costumed youth wandered the aisles and invited the children to follow them, but there was no pressure. No cajoling. Our younger children were game and followed like a flock of lambs. The service began with a round of Christmas carols and was followed by a hearty welcome from the pastor. Barely ten minutes had passed from the opening of the service, but as the pastor finished his welcome, he introduced the impromptu children’s pageant. The kids were wearing very basic costumes. Some wore oversized robes with a towel tied around their heads like scarves. Some wore robes and crowns from a local burger place. Others wore headbands with sheep ears, donkey ears, piggy noses, and so on. The Christmas story was read from the Bible from the Message version (with Luke’s and Matthew’s versions strung together), and the children acted it out while being shepherded by youth. There were a couple of digital photographers snapping photos and the program told us we would receive photos of the kids in action in the mail in a week or two (we got an 8×10 of each of our children posed in front of a manger scene that must have been in the costuming area) and a group photo of the kids in action at the front of the church.

After the Christmas Pageant, the kids rushed back to their seats while the pastor told us about their upcoming children’s worship themes. It turns out their Children Worship Too program has multiple-week series that correspond with the adult worship themes. The congregation was led through a couple more Christmas carols and then, using a clip from A Charlie Brown Christmas, Linus recited the Christmas story from Luke. This led to a very short sermon that even the children could follow. The title was Making Memories, which was really an introduction to the upcoming sermon series they called Putting Fun Into Dysfunctional Families: Making the Best of Reality that was to begin the following week (rather than the first week of the new year). They ran a faux “reality show” video clip to introduce the series and bring the sermon to an end. All total, the sermon time must have been no longer than ten minutes and the children stayed with the pastor’s words from start to finish. Then we sang a couple more carols and one of the Shepherds prayed for us to have a memory filled and Christ focused Christmas.

We’re typically the first ones out the door when we visit a church in a new town, and generally we “escape” without so much as a good-bye, but every elf-hatted greeter we met coming in was apparently in place before the closing prayer and we were bid merry Christmas, thanks for coming, and hope to see you next Sunday. In the parking lot, the strolling Victorian carolers were making their rounds and the flashlight bearing shepherds were out in force to point the way out. Again, we found out later than members had been asked to hang back so that visitors could exit the parking lot first.

That evening, as promised, within an hour of returning home the doorbell rang and our children sprang to the door, as children often do. When they opened the door, there was a wrapped gift sitting on the steps and with great delight the children spied two Magi disappearing down our driveway.

The gift box had a loaf of homemade bread, honey in a jar, and a small honey pot that had the logo and contact information for the church imprinted on it. There was also a brochure about the ministries of the church, a commercial CD with Christmas carols on it, and a Christmas card hand-signed by the pastor with a church information magnet enclosed.

A Christmas dream of fantasy sugar plums? Hardly. Every part of this vision is being acted out in churches we’ve attended, worked with, or were associated with over the years. Put it all together and you have a service that will move, touch, and inspire your guests – and I’ll go out on a limb and predict that a pretty good number of them would show up again over the following weeks.

This month’s issue is chock full of ideas to help you lead your church through the holyday season and into next year. And though every article is simply fabulous, please don’t miss the Aha! comment on page 32 with Tom Bandy. His “Christmas Clergy Depression” is one that every church member needs to read and contemplate – for the sake of the church. (subscribe at www.NetResults.org)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

---

[i] For statistical information , see Tom Clegg, Lost in America.

[ii] See Lyle Schaller’s Tattered Trust.

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.

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

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

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

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

I heard it again today. “Youth are the future of the church.” Whenever I hear that I realize the person saying that means that if we don’t win the youth over to the faith that the future of the church is bleak. It’s a noble thought, but it’s not particularly accurate. Youth programming seldom grows a church with very few exceptions. First let me mention the exceptions and then I’ll elaborate on why youth don’t grow churches.

The primary exception for youth growing a church is when the church’s PRIMARY signature ministry is their youth program. What this means is that the youth programming is so well funded and so well known in the community that if you asked a pastor of any church in town “What church is known for it’s life-changing youth program?” that church is the one instantly named. Churches with youth as their signature ministry typically purchase or build a youth center off of the church’s campus and it is staffed daily and into the late evenings. The church would sponsor sports, concerts, and so on in the youth facilities. In addition, those that work with the youth ministry are focused on youth and family ministry, in that they are connecting intentionally with the youths’ families to help walk them into the larger church’s ministries. Typically, churches with less than 500 in weekly attendance and a 100% commitment to youth ministry (over any other ministry) are the only ones who can successfully use their youth program to significantly grow their church.

Before I go on, I need to clarify what I’m going to say next with this. I’m NOT saying that youth ministry isn’t important. I AM saying that it is a “mission” of the church that will drain resources, sort of like most men’s ministries. I’m not saying don’t do youth ministry … I am saying that it won’t grow the church. Youth ministry is not a growth strategy. An expected ministry of all programmatic churches, yes. A strategy to grow the church, no.

Here’s the reality. Youth programs are expensive in terms of funding and staffing if they’re done right … and honestly, even when they’re done poorly. The vast majority of churches provide youth programming to round out their family programming and the youth ministry primarily serves the youth members of the church. Few churches are able to compete with local non-church events and activities in terms of attractional qualities and so the local unchurched youth don’t even consider church events as a viable option. Providing pizza and Coke is no longer an attractive come-on for youth. They simply have better and more entertaining things to do.

However, let’s suppose for a moment that the handful of youth a congregation has as “members” or children of members/participants are willing to be evangelists for the youth program. Those of their youth friends that do attend rarely bring their families in tow. If the worship service appeals to their parents, it is unlikely to appeal to the youth and vice versa. Unless youth programming is offered simultaneously to worship, it’s difficult to provide worship opportunities that appeal to both. And so, with all that put together, almost no church that puts their church growth dollars into the youth programming will see a positive return. Are there exceptions? There are ALWAYS exceptions, but if you’re about to put all, or even many, eggs into the youth basket thinking you’ll be one … well, it’ll probably be a very expensive lesson.

At this point in our culture, only two “programs” grow a church. Incredible over-the-top worship in the language, style, and technology of the target audience. And incredible children’s programming. But if you don’t have #1, putting a lot of work into #2 will grow a church with a revolving door because the parents won’t hang around after the children are youth because they won’t be personally invested beyond their children’s needs.

I got a note the other day from a church pastor who asked me to explain to him and to his congregation why they should engage in an on-site consultation. His church is struggling with breaking the 200 barrier, has a large endowment fund that they’re unwilling to touch, and are living as if they’re broke. In other words, they’ve found themselves in “Survival Mode” and are panicking about their decline. In this transitional economic climate this is becoming a norm for many congregations today. And so I thought I’d share my response. Perhaps it will trigger some conversation in your context.

1. We’re no longer living in a culture where church is a part of the cultural conversation, whereas the church generally lives under the false presumption that, with the exception of progressive technology, people are still people and if they would just understand what the church is all about and what we have to offer they would line up to become Christians. People under 40 don’t think that way and we can’t reach them using the old standbys like “Pack a Pew” Sunday, revivals, or even crusades. Good marketing can gather a crowd, but the crowd will primarily be church shoppers who already believe. If the church is going to be serious about being the church, it has to come to terms with the reality that they generally don’t know what they need to know reach their communities. That’s where we come in (Easum, Bandy & Tenny-Brittian). We work coast to coast and understand the national ethos, the changing culture, and what it takes to help a church transform its thinking to become relevant and effective. An on-site consultation gives us the opportunity to adapt and apply what we know nationally to the local context and to help communicate that in ways your congregation can hear.
2. Eighty percent of church transformations fail in the US and the most difficult transformation of all is to break the 200 barrier. To break the 200 barrier a congregation has to move from a Pastoral organizational model to a Program organizational model. A consultation, when coupled with post consultation coaching, increases the odds of success by taking the pressure off the pastor to say what needs to be said. The move from Pastoral to Program is fraught with political implications because it necessitates the relinquishment of power, control, and management by the selected few in order to create a new system that facilitates growth. Few congregations and pastors understand the process and fewer still are able to negotiate the reorganization and behavioral changes. That’s why, at best, 20 percent of transformational attempts succeed. We’ve worked with over 1,000 churches to help them face issues like this one.
3. In tight economic times such as these, churches tend to “hunker down” to weather the storm. They take a look at their dwindling income and the escalating costs of keeping a building open, paying utilities, salaries and benefits, and they begin to wring their hands and make cutbacks, beginning with the church’s program (one of the few line items that appears discretionary). However, this is the one area by which a church is measured by a visiting guest. Cut the program budget in your church to your bane. One of the advantages to an on-site consultation is that we experience and evaluate your programming first hand – and because we’re in churches nationwide, we can offer creative suggestions that can bolster your programming to make it both effective and attractive to those in your community.
4. Most churches in the under 200 category are older … and churches over 40 years-old are in the steepest decline in the US. Further, these older churches have older members. If you create a graph and put the age of the congregation as one axis and time as the other, the escalating age of the congregation in relationship to time has a significant impact on membership. The graying of our congregations does not bode well for the future and many churches we work with discover they have only ten to fifteen years left to make whatever changes are necessary to be relevant to a younger, unchurched audience. Sadly, many of these congregations call us when it’s frankly too late … they need a miracle and we’re not miracle workers. Transformations take time. Significant time. Even a highly motivated congregation will be faced with several years of foundational work. Turning an ocean tanker around takes many miles and much time. An established church with your attendance tends to behave more like a tanker than a speedboat – it won’t turn on a dime. An on-site consultation creates an opportunity for conversations and the great Aha! moments that are necessary before a congregation is willing to invest heavily in their future.
5. Finally, when a congregation is faced with the reality of their graying and decline, they often fall into panic mode and begin to behave as if the Titanic is going down. Church leadership is faced with having to make changes, but they don’t have the experience nor resources to make timely and relevant decisions. Creativity is the first thing that disappears when panic sets in, and yet creativity is the only hope for most congregations. In panic mode, they’ll work harder at what they used to do, at what they have experience in, hoping that their renewed energy will grow the church. But what worked even ten years ago seldom works today. One of the fallacies of many churches is that they’ll send leadership to a conference or two or three that’s produced by large and successful churches. And though these events are motivational, the ideas they present work well for large churches, but rarely can be applied to churches with less than 500 in average worship. The ministry ideas were created for a Corporate organizational church model and though they sound good, they seldom transfer. We’re in hundreds of churches of all sizes and denominations every year, keeping our eyes open, and learning what’s working today in a variety of contexts. When we do an on-site consultation, we bring a breadth of knowledge that few have access to.

When you’re backed into a corner, it’s difficult to see options. That’s true for individuals and it’s true for organizations as well. If your congregation is in that boat, if the only option seems to be cut the program budget, try and do more of what you’ve already done, and if you’ve talked yourself blue in the face trying to communicate that to your congregation, it might be time for something a bit different. Maybe.