Consulting, Coaching & Chatter

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The following post is from the Editor's Foreward in the Mar-Apr 2010 issue of Net Results, North America's most experienced church growth and evangelism magazine.]

The role of the church is changing. Whether we like it or not, whether we’re ready for it or not, or whether we believe it or not. Back “in the day,” the church was the center of community life. I’m not old enough to remember that, but some readers might be. Back in my younger day, the church was a respected institution that had significant impact on society, but I’ve watched that respect and influence crumble around us. Today, by and large, the church is a cultural non-entity, and for most North Americans, the church is little more than a safe haven for yesterday’s yesterday.

Today, the “worship” service is still the central focus of the church. More of our time and effort is spent creating and developing meaningful content for the weekend service than on any other single task. And though most churches strive to create meaningful, participatory worship services, the actual experience tends to be more of a presentation to a passive audience.

Today’s teaching model for our worship services is a longstanding practice, and indeed the primary role, of the church since the rise of the Enlightenment. Tomorrow’s church will have to bridge the widening gap between “knowing” the truth (cognitive assent) and “practicing” the truth (behavioral modification). However, as Einstein pointed out, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. In other words, continued preaching about how Christians need to behave isn’t going to close the gap between what we know and what we do.

Over the years, I’ve seen several solutions for helping “believers” become “practicing” disciples of Jesus batted about. Ultimately the answer will have to be more holistic than particular. The role of the church itself has to change from being a repository of doctrine to being a people and place that nurtures faith. The church will become an incubator of faith.

Take a quick tour with me as we visit a weekend service in tomorrow’s church – in a faith incubator.

Stepping inside the church of tomorrow is like stepping into the presence of royalty on a good day. The spirit hovering in the worship center, can only be described as a mixture of peace and excitement, kindness and warmth. Even the most sensitive empath or intuit is hard pressed to sense conflict in the air. Clearly, the congregation takes accountability and reconciliation seriously and disagreements are handled both agreeably and immediately.

As we look around, we notice that, like almost any church we’ve ever visited, there are numerous conversations going on here and there. However, on closer examination we watch a number of floating members who move from one person to another having conversations – some brief, some protracted. No one is overlooked by these hosts and kind words of welcome with genuine interest and concern are expressed. Perhaps what is most astounding is that during this informal gathering time, we witness people pausing to pray for one another in the midst of conversations. A hand on a shoulder; bowed heads; hushed pleas and quiet thanksgivings.

The worship service is significant in its interactivity. Throughout the service there is an instructional air, as if in a classroom. But it’s a different kind of classroom than those we have grown accustomed to in a church service. Instead, the teachings begin with the premise that all are striving to attain and maintain the most basic tenets of the faith. Nothing is presumed. Little is taught that can’t be directly applied. No lofty theologies that can’t be reflected in life-giving deeds and words that support and encourage. Interspersed within the teachings are opportunities for conversation and questions and even pushback. Indeed, it’s clear that there are guests who are exploring Christianity and are wresting with deism, syncretism, and pluralism, and their doubts, skepticisms, and even the occasional cynical expressions are taken is stride – as if this is not only expected, but welcomed as part of a process.

See Part Two …

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it’s the circles I’m hanging with lately, but suddenly there’s a jump in the interest on house church. Bill Easum’s article in On Track (the 21st Century Strategies monthly E-zine) reviewed Frank Viola’s Reimagining the Church because of “the importance of the book.” And I agree, it’s an important book, just as Viola’s Pagan Christianity was important. However, when it comes to the mainline church, I suspect Viola’s message will mostly fall on deaf ears. Why? I invite you to read the books for the whole scoop, but here’s a reality of these books: they discount virtually every practice and tradition the church holds sacred. In these books, Viola slaughters more sacred cows than Iowa Beef Processors. Pulpits and pews? They’re gone. Vestments? So yesterday. Preaching? Gone. Buildings? Apostate … or almost … living rooms are okay.

Don’t get me wrong. On the whole, I like most of what Viola has to say. He and I have been singing off of the same page for a long time. But there’s a weighty question out there for me. Is the church of yesterday really the church of tomorrow?

There are a lot of voices “out there” not only saying yes, but nodding their heads vigorously. Why, aren’t we in what amounts to a pre-Christian world?

Nope. Not at all. Those who claim we’re in a pre-Christian world not unlike Paul’s world are idealistic at best, and a half-bubble off level at worst. It is true that Paul’s world was filled with paganism and a menu of cosmo religions. There are any number of similarities between Paul’s pre-Christian world and ours. But there is one huge, overriding difference. Paul didn’t live and breath and work as a part of a church that had a reputation throughout his culture of being antiquated, irrelevant, hypocritical, and impotent. Weird and cultish, yes. Antiquated, irrelevant, hypocritical, and impotent, no.

I went to Angels and Demons yesterday (I rate it much better and less troublesome than Dan Brown’s other offering). Whether you watch the movie with unconnected or well-connected eyes, you can’t help but notice the church’s struggle with relevance, tradition, and the battle with science (and culture as a whole). The movie hardly helps the church, though I’m pretty sure it doesn’t hurt us either. The church itself has done a marvelous job of shooting itself in the foot (in North America, I’m not convinced we haven’t shot ourselves in the head). A movie that points it out isn’t going to make things worse.

Which brings me back to the question … in order to recapture the faithful practice of Christianity, is going back to the “biblical” church the answer?

Let me shed some light on the myth of the notion of the biblical church. First, the notion that a “biblical” church is/was God’s mandate is seriously flawed. If God had wanted to give us a blueprint for what the church was intended to be like, our New Testament would look a lot more like the Torah, complete with building plans of what the church building should like … or not, as the case may be. Israel got an instruction manual for their version of “church” in the ancient days. The priests were even told what to wear and which fingers/thumbs to dip into the blood of the sacrifices. Everything about that “church” was mandated between the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. Turn to the New Testament to look for any sort of similar instructions and you’ll be sore disappointed. The best we get is a character list of godly leaders.

Turns out, God’s been blessing the church in its many different manifestations over the years. Although the house church is the only “biblical” church, it’s clearly not a mandated model. Churches with church buildings have been variously effective over the years and many faithful and effective Christians have been birthed, raised, and sent forth from that model (Mother Theresa and Billy Graham are two that come instantly to mind). On the other hand, churches without church buildings have been variously effective over the years as well and is now one of the most prevalent and fastest growing models in the world. However, the human tendency and need to institutionalize is a strong one, and I suspect that even those flourishing house churches in India and China will one day be in our boat. History has a strange way or repeating itself.

But there’s another fallacy in the notion that house church is the solution for the church of tomorrow – which it could very well be, but it’s not likely to be the prime solution in my lifetime and not likely in yours. We live in a capitalist, consumerist culture. Not only has the church not been able to change that, in many ways, the church has inculcated that (something about the Protestant Ethic comes to mind). In a consumer, post-Christian culture that carries around the church’s reputation like a chip on its shoulder, house church is going to be a tough sale. The typical questions I hear are almost always about nursery care, youth programming, and so on. Until the church stops being a purveyor of services for its members, the house church is going to have limited appeal. Indeed, it wasn’t that long ago that house church researchers were struggling to find a statistically significant number of North American house churches that had been in existence over five years. They may have found enough by now, but what they were finding is that most house churches disbanded within a couple of years. There are many reasons this is true in North America, but that doesn’t change the fact that short lived house churches aren’t around long enough to make the difference that Frank Viola and others are calling for. Apparently, when it comes to “church,” our culture by and large still insists on “programs.” House church isn’t really big on programs … and either is Viola.

All this may sound like I’m suggesting that the house church is not a solution. In some ways, that’s exactly what I’m saying. House churches won’t “save” the mainline … indeed, it won’t save any denomination. Only a very few house church networks are able to support professionally trained clergy (few of whom “get” house church anyway), so it’s not going to be the hope for appointing Methodist Elders or providing full-time jobs to those leaving seminary with student debt. And it’s not likely to “catch on” suddenly anytime soon so that the North American House Church Movement starts looking like the Chinese House Church Movement. Like the Willow Creek model, most of us aren’t Bill Hybles in South Barrington County and most of us aren’t living in China where the pre-Christian culture is actually a pre-Christian culture.

On the other hand, I think that the church as it exists today needs to learn a LOT from the house church. Discipleship simply hasn’t and generally doesn’t happen effectively within the walls of the brick-and-mortar (B&M) church. It hasn’t and generally doesn’t even happen in most church’s small groups. For the past too-many years, the church has lived under the delusion that it could “teach” Christianity by filling our brains with information about God and about the life of a Christian. That’s gotten us to where we are now (how’s that working for you?). The house church is probably the most effective model for developing disciples of Jesus … but it does it because it’s not curriculum based, but discipleship making, living life as a disciple of Jesus based organism. The good news is that this in infinitely transferable to the B&M church.

So, is the church of yesterday really the church of tomorrow? The answer is definitely not. And absolutely yes. But it’s not likely to look like what most of the pundits would want it to look like.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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