Consulting, Coaching & Chatter

I received a question from a recent seminar participant that was buried in one of the comments. I started to answer it there, but when I finished I realized it was way too long to be just a comment … so I repost it here.

The question was “So, how does one confront the “Fog Horns” that create so much conflict in the transforming church? And the words to use? While I enjoyed reading several of your articles, I did not readily find anything on the subject.”

The following response is predicated on the need to confront a congregational controller after they’ve “misbehaved.”

Step one: Develop congregational expected behaviors. If you don’t do this, you cannot effectively move on to step two. DO NOT SKIP THIS STEP. I’ve written about this is a number of other posts, so I won’t belabor it here. Except to say again, do not skip this step!!!!!

Step two: Rely on Matthew 18:15-17 when someone misbehaves.

• After an incident, the pastor or board chair immediately visits the controller one-on-one and says, “As a congregation, we’ve agreed that we will not treat one another like this. Your behavior wasn’t in keeping with our expected behaviors. This cannot continue.” If an apology and repentance is offered, the issue is done (until the next time, if there ever is a next time). If, on the other hand, the controller refuses to repent and/or makes excuses or turns the blame on the board/pastor/committee/church etc., conflict resolution goes to the next level.
• The pastor or board chair reports to the executive committee (if the board is over 12 people) or to the board the response. Then two people, the original visitor and one other (typically an elder or a senior member of the board/executive committee) goes to the controller and says, essentially, the same thing as in the first visit, except this time the controller is told that the behavior will not be tolerated and that it must cease. If the controller repents, the issue is done. If not, the conflict resolution goes to the final level.
• The two visitors next report to the board (the whole group this time) about the visits. The board should discuss the issue and the behavior. If the board agrees that the behavior was and is inconsistent with the congregation’s expected behavior covenant, then they have no choice but to invite the controller to appear before them. If the controller comes (highly unlikely in my experience), the board then informs the controller that the controller’s behavior is unacceptable and if the behavior does not immediately cease, then the board has no choice but to remove the controller from all leadership positions and to instruct the controller to not return to the church until they have decided to behave otherwise … and if they so decide, the controller must seek reconciliation beginning with the pastor and then the board.  In other words, show the controller the door and tell them to not come back until they’ve had a change of heart.

Is this easy? No. I’ve had to do it four times during my ministry career. It’s painful and hurtful and unpleasant. But in every case … and I mean every case … when a controller is removed, there is a collective sigh of relief by the congregation. Attendance goes up (after the supporters of the controller leave in protest), giving goes up, and the spirit of the church improves significantly. Oh, and one other side benefit. Other would-be controllers notice … and when they act out (and they will), you’ll seldom have to get past the one-on-one confrontation. They know the congregation means business - and that they’re not afraid to be faithful to Jesus and his conflict instructions.

Once upon a time, I used to teach. It was a one room schoolhouse with up to twelve kids ages preschool through seniors in high school. I taught the ABCs, 123s, algebra, trig, chemistry, history, social sciences, and pretty much everything else. In order to make this gig work, I was trained in what we called Foxfire. Foxfire was outcome-based-education before anyone had ever heard of OBE. But it was more than that. Lots more. And when I got my certification I had been schooled in many things, but most of all, I was educated in how people get educated.

I’m a visual learner first and an auditory learner second. These are followed by the other learning tools. My understanding of how I learn has served me well over the years. Despite being ADHD, I made good grades in school, muddled my way through three degrees with a GPA ranging from 3.5 to 4.0, and I’ve got six books (so far) that I’ve written under my belt. In all of my classes throughout my life, I’ve managed to make the best of whatever teaching style the professor used. Most were lecturers, but others knew enough about learning styles that they offered a variety of experiences for the rest of us to truly enjoy learning. The best teachers are those who understand that people learn in a variety of ways and that by using a variety of learning styles, even those who match the primary teaching style of the teacher will have a richer experience.

With all we know about learning styles, and with as highly educated as our clergy are in North America, one might be tempted to believe that when it comes to worship in general, and the “message” in particular, the church would be a multi-learning style experience. One would think. However, given that the Church on this continent continues to lose both members and attendees, it might be time for both pastors and worship teams to seriously reconsider how they’re teaching.

I’ve had the joy of being in a variety of different churches over the past several weeks - being on the road has a number of advantages. In my travels, I’ve attended a couple of twenty-something worship services … services filled with young faces. One of these churches in particular has a service called Odyssey. The worship is led by Justin Mackey and they have a tech team for creating a multi-sensory service that connects with most (not all … there’s no perfection out there yet) of the learning styles. There was video support for music and for the sermon (not just words on a slide - but video clips), preaching (by the lead pastor Chip Freed), and intentional conversation. The opportunity to write and to have an additional tactile learning opportunity would be nice, but as far as providing multiple learning experiences, it was heads and shoulders above anything I’ve experienced in the past couple of months. My partner in church consulting, Bill Easum, commented that he thought that Odyssey might be the best service offered by any church in Cleveland. High praise from Bill.

Contrast that with what I typically experience in church services - even in most twenty-something churches. If there’s video at all, it’s little better than an overhead projector. Static. Words and a graphic (if you’re lucky). Nothing that couldn’t be done with a color printer and a sheet of acetate. The sermon is presented in pure auditory style, so those of us who are visual, conversational, or tactile learners are … well … out of luck. Although the preachers tend to be fine looking young men and women and their faces are animated, they really don’t add much to the teaching presentation. No fill-in sheets or notes pages for those who learn best tactically with a pencil in their hand. No invitation to turn to those next to us to bounce ideas around for those who are conversational learners. No video clips to illustrate the sermon points and to drive the point home for visual learners. Nope. If radio or podcast listening isn’t your primary learning style, you can expect to go home with about a third of what you might have learned otherwise had the worship team understood the dire need to present the Gospel and it’s application in a multi-media format.

So, to all the Justin Mackey’s in the world who really do “get it,” thanks. And the rest of us would do well to seek out those churches to experience multple learning style presentations. With the state of the church these days, we just can’t afford to keep on doing church the same old way and expecting or even hoping for something different.

Another one bites the dust. If I had a dollar for every pastor who started the transformation process and ended up leaving the church and/or ministry, I could have retired long ago. But here we go again. Earlier in the month I wrote about a church that was embroiled in battle over transformation and the ethics charges rained down. Charges about monetary mishandling (dismissed), charges about using a bully-pulpit (dismissed), and charges of clergy misconduct (also dismissed). With all those dismissals, you’d think that everything was rosy. That’s not the case.

Before I work with a church that’s about to embark on the transformation process, I counsel both the pastor and the congregation that 80 percent of transformations fail … and honestly, I think that number is charitable. The primary reason these efforts come to naught is because either those who are pulling for the change surrender and leave when the distractors get wound up or because the pastor leaves (voluntarily or not). When I offer this counsel, the response is almost always like the Israelites who repeatedly recounted their vow to remain faithful. “Oh, we’re stronger than that! We’re in it for the long haul.” Turns out the long haul can be effectively translated “Until the going gets uncomfortable for us.” Sadly, in many, if not most, church transformation efforts, there will be a couple of individuals or families who have a small following who will not just speak against the necessary changes for transformation, they’ll build factions, threaten, and get ugly … sometime really ugly … in order to get their way. Like in the church I’ve written about earlier. You read about the ugliness there. Ugly.

All the charges got dismissed. That’s the good news. You’d think that the pastor and the faithful would raise a cheer that the battle was over. But it wasn’t. It isn’t. The ugliness continued and I’ve received word that the pastor has resigned and isn’t sure whether to remain in minstry or not. Too young to retire, but frankly too theologically educated to find a decent paying job in this economy. The costs of transformation are high.

So, here’s my final thoughts on this … at least for awhile. Why would anyone in their right mind want to take on a transformation? Aubrey Malphurs once wrote that there’s no one young enough in ministry to effectively turn around a church. I’d add, there are very few who have the stomach and the commitment to see a transformation through. So why do so many men and women try? What’s in it for them? It’s not glory. It’s not big money. It’s not a multi-book deal with Doubleday.

I can’t think of a single thing that’s “in it” for them. Except for that quiet voice and not-so gentle urgings from the Spirit that calls them to the task. So, if you’re one called to the task … or you’re one trying to support your pastor who’s called to the transformation path … don’t quit on them. Don’t give up. Remember that Jesus faced this exact issue and look what it cost him for facing down those who would not engage the transformation. Following Jesus in the path of transformation isn’t easy … but in the end, if you can endure the pain, it will be worth it. He promised.

Today I’ve spent all day … well, from 10:30 AM until 4:20 … training fifty-two participants the first half of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to Evangelism seminar. I’m exhausted (that’s a lot of time up in front doing a lot of the talking) and yet I’m too wound up to sleep. There’s something about watching folks “get it” when it comes to good-newsing the world. What’s most gratifying, is the number of the under-thirties who shared how much they got out of it and that what they heard are tips and tools that they realize will work in their contexts.

One of the hot topics of conversation at this event has been the discussion of the “church’s” role in evangelism. When I use the word “church” here, I’m meaning the cultural understanding of the church as a local expression, that is, a typical North American congregation that meets in some sort of dedicated building. What happens, several were asking, when we share our faith stories and invite our friends to come with us to church and when they get there the welcome and the love and the acceptance just isn’t there. In other words, is our evangelism efforts for naught if all we have to invite them to is church-as-usual?

That’s the rub, isn’t it? I’ve been on staff at churches in the past wheren I was hesitant to invite the unchurched and the irrelgious to visit. I figure that I get ONE chance with someone who’s authentically seeking and if I, or the church, blows it, the seeker may never give the church another chance. Rather than risking the loss to the kingdom, I’d invite them to other churches in the area where I knew they had a pretty good chance to meet Jesus rather than to a church where I knew they had a better chance of meeting ho-hum church-as-usual. I’m afraid there are some things that I’m just not willing to risk.

Which is a real dilemma for some in this evangelism seminar. Just what DO you do when the church you attend is “stuck” or in the midst of its own transformation? How can we prepare the serious seeker for their encounter with “the church” when it’s more of an insider’s club than a well-functioning rescue station? When is taking the risk the “right” thing to do?

It’s a dilemma and I’d be interested to hear your answers. My response is, instead of inviting a serious seeker to the “church” (i.e., the Sunday worship service in The Building), I invite them to an effective small group that I’m a part of. Hopefully that small group would be attached to the “church,” but I’m less concerned about that than I am in creating an incubator for love, warmth, hospitality, and discipleship.

What do you do when your friend, relative, associate, neighbor, or co-worker is seriously seeking spiritual answers? We live in a time where the economic crisis may be helping people get “ripe” for asking those questions. When they do, will you “risk” taking them to church? If not, what will you do?

It’s a rainy and stormy Saturday morning here in Columbia, Missouri. It’s Hurricane Ike weekend, so I have nothing to complain about. I’m relatively cool (though humidity sux), I have power, and my home is dry. As I write this, it’s too early to gauge the devastation of Galveston and Houston, but it isn’t going to be pretty.

As I watch the winds whip through the trees and the birds and squirrels hanging on to the feeders (or hiding inside a feeder, as this squirrel did), I pondered and prayed “What’s worth saying in these days?” What’s worth reading? What’s worth writing?

That’s a question I have to help churches and church leaders deal with all the time. I’ve been invited into many conversations and heard a lot of monologues (sometimes called sermons) that communicated little and prompted me to ponder why I’d invested any of the limited time I have for such palaver. Just what is worth saying?

There’s a huge difference between what people “want” to hear and what they “need” to hear. However, that difference is ameliorated by the ability of one to communicate to another. In other words, if I try to tell someone what they desperately “need” to hear, but they’re not at a place where they can hear me, I’m wasting my breath and their time … and I might even be creating impermeable walls that thwart future conversations. If I’m going to have a meaningful conversation with someone, I’d better be cognizant of our relationship level and the “right” that I have, or have not, developed that might enable me to speak truth into their life.

So, what’s worth saying? If you’re a faithful disciples of Jesus, then you have a story to tell. You may be surprised to hear this, though. It’s not the historical story of Jesus your friends or your congregants are most interested in hearing. As important as that is - and it is important - that’s not what most people want or need to hear. The story you have to share is a much more personal and intimate one. What people want to hear about your faith, more than anything else, is how this Jesus guy turned your life upside down. They want to know that he’s for real in your life and that he’s made a real difference. They want to know there’s authentic hope in this God - not because some ancient book says there is (there are LOTS of sacred books that claim their god is powerful and great), but because you have the goods on this particular god. You know him personally and this God is awesome enough that it’s worth getting up in the morning and facing whatever storms that life tosses at you.

It comes down to what I call the ultimate question: “What is it about your relationship with Jesus that your neighbor can’t live without?” If you have the answer to that, you have something worth saying. If not … well, there’s always the weather, sports scores, and recent sitcom plots to fill in the time.

Glenn Kelley at www.churchmedic.com found a great 60 second video on how to train fleas in three days. It’s a great video and I’ve embedded it here as well. Take a look and then scroll down for more.

I’ve often quipped that if a church tries something new in worship it’s called innovation. If it does it the next week it’s viewed with suspicion. If it does the third week, it’s called tradition. Weeks, days, same difference. The church, by and large, has been stuck within the lid for over fifty years. In the 1950s the church shifted gears from a wartime church to a family church lodged inextricably in Modernity. “Everyone” went to church, and anyone who missed this week knew they were “supposed” to be in church. This way of doing and being church seemed to “work” for a couple of decades - long enough for it to become well intrenched as tradition. The problem is, these traditions became indistinguishable from our cherished beliefs. Preaching to the converted was the norm (the New Testament models “preaching” as something done for the non-believers … the church’s mode of teaching came from “dialogue”). Songs from the Reformation era, with a few Fanny Crosby songs aded to the mix became the “sacred” and all other music types were deemed secular and out of sorts with the church.

Leap … boink. Leap … boink. Leap … boink. And when the lid came off beginning in the mid-sixties, there was no escaping it. In the words of Stephen King in The Dark Tower, the world had “moved on” but the church at large did not.

What wil it take for the church to figure out how to communicate the Gospel with the Culture it has alienated? The evangelism course I’m teaching for the Missouri School of Religion is dealing with that very topic tonight. And Tom Bandy and I are dealing with a related topic (Worship Wars) on our call-in radio show Church Talk on Wednesday. I think one of the keys is listening and respect. We don’t have to like the culture we find ourselves in (though most “Christians” have accomodated themselves within it pretty thoroughly), but we’d better understand it and be able to relate to it … like Paul did on Mars Hill (Acts 17) … and not spend a lot of energy bad mouthing it … again, check out Paul’s response to the idolatry of the Athenians - oh wait, he didn’t respond to their “heathen” ways. Instead, he related and respected the culture well enough to be able to converse about it … and he didn’t say one negative word about the “idols” (input your own word in the quotes … tattoos, piercings, alternative lifestyles, etc.). But the folks in Athens wanted to “hear more.” When was the last time people in our culture asked to “hear more” from the church?

Leap … boink? Or will we jump just a little higher to reach our neighbors?

In December, my new book on Evangelism will be released by Chalice Press. Hitchhiker’s Guide to Evangelism takes a peek at the “new” evangelism needed for reaching today’s world. Let’s face it, if the ways we do evangelism were really working, our churches would be filling up. But that’s clearly not the case. Indeed, in North America we’re not just losing the battle of the church, we’re losing the war. Less than 15% of North Americans will find their way to a church this weekend … and the numbers are dropping sharply.

What’s not working is trying to cajole our church members into doing evangelism like it was done “back then.” Back then you could knock at a door, do a quasi-real survey about checking the religion practices of the neighborhood, and then dropping “the” question towards the end: “If you died tonight, do you know for sure you’d go to heaven?”

It’s not that this method never works anymore. It still does in some communities and with some people. The question to ask is this: Is it worth alienating 98 people, people who will have had their worst fears about the church realized when you show up at their door, in order to share the Gospel effectively with 2 people?

The main problem with this kind of evangelism is that in some circles, this is the only “method” of conversion. I call this the Paul method … conversion happens at a specific moment in time. Paul’s version of conversion has become the model, and yet it is the most invasive, most intrusive, and most aggressive of almost all other evangelism models. And, I’d add, that if Jesus was the one who’s knocking you off your horse, that’s one thing … but I’m not Jesus - and neither are the many “evangelists” who press for a conversion “experience.”

The second problem with this kind of evangelism is that it bolsters the notion that being a Christian is mostly a matter about what you believe. The problem with “believing” Christianity is that this is what’s gotten us into this black hole. Seventy-eight percent of USAmericans “claim” to be Christian. And by the definition that a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus, they are Christians. So praying the “sinner’s prayer,” walking an aisle, or even being baptized doesn’t necessarily mean much. I won’t argue about the salvific value of these actions … I’ll even surmise that they may be all that is “necessary” (but I’m not the one doing the judging - see Matthew 25). However, the “conversion” model of evangelism puts so much emphasis on the act of conversion that too often living a Christian life becomes of secondary importance and emphasis.

Now, I’m not advocating that we stop … there are times and places for conversion invitations (see Glenn Kelley’s recent blog entry on Youth Evangelism). But I am suggesting that there’s a better way for the rest of us.

The “New” evangelism is really a very old evangelism. Instead of it being about conversion, it’s about having spiritual conversations. It’s about first being a part of something, such as a friendship, a small group, a work group, a service group, a cause, etc. It’s about exploring the faith by watching it modeled, by associating with it, by practicing it before deciding it’s about believing and accepting and converting. This “new” evangelism is what the twelve apostles experienced. There is no discernable moment when Peter or Andrew of John or James or Matthew or Thadeus or any of the others “became” a Christian. Was it when they left their professions? When they made the great confession? When they walked on water (or not)? When they denied or fled at Jesus’ arrest? When they ate breakfast after the resurrection? When they were on the road and Jesus ascended, even though some doubted? After Pentecost? The fact is, we don’t know. We can guess. We can speculate. But we simply cannot be sure.

Conversations. Modeling. Living such a radically different life that someone actually does ask us about the reason for our hope … people are asking you, aren’t they? Living in community. All this is part of the “new” evangelism.

Back at home and trying to get back in the groove of things. As I reflect on my time at the World Convention of the Christian Church, one of the things that niggles me is that ostensibly the purpose of our meeting was to help instill unity amongst the three strands of the Campbelite movement (the Church of Christ (non-instrumentalist/a capella), the Disciples of Christ, and the independent Christian Church). There was some good talk about unity, but I didn’t notice a lot of progress in that vein as I attended a variety of seminars. For instance, Gailyn Van Rheenan of MissionAlive, a church planting support ministry, presented his church planting process. His methods are much like what I recommend when working with an individual who is going into church planting with minimal funding … start with small groups, develop committed disciples of Jesus, and then move into the public launch when you have a core of 60 or more.

It’s a good model. Not the only good model, but a good one nonetheless. But there were those there who were from a different strand and were narrow-minded enough to be dismissive of this model because it didn’t start with a large team, didn’t emphasize public worship from the beginning, and didn’t depend on marketing to create a launch. I’m okay with folks disagreeing with what’s best for a particular setting, but not only to dismiss, but to be dismissive, of a model that is working (Van Rheenan helped start 150 churches in Africa and has several church planting teams in the US now) … well, that’s not alright. Rather, it’s clearly the workings of a very teeny tiny mind.

Teeny Tiny Thinking is a real issue in North America. As a church, we don’t believe big enough. We struggle to raise $5000 for a worth ministry project and forget that it’s nearly as easy to raise $1 million. Really it is … but you have to have a BHAG, a Big Hairy Audacious Goal … and you have to believe in it enough that your heart and mind and soul sing. BHAGs are God-Sized visions, not little teeny tiny thinking visions.

Unity? That’s a nice goal, but the last time i checked, that seems to be a minimum expectation in the New Testament, as a quick read through John 17 and Ephesians quickly reveals. So, let’s get over our teeny tiny thinking and ponder on what God might have in mind. Like getting serious about multiplying disciples of Jesus regardless of which denomination gets the credit … or even gets the “member” for their rolls.

I’m curious, what kind of BHAGs do you carry around with you? What’s propelling you to the next level?

I’m at the World Convention of the Christian Churches and attended the Bader Lecture. This year, Ashley and Anji Barker of Urban Neighbors of Hope. Ashley and John Hayes wrote the book Submerge several years back, based on the commitment they have made to urban ministry. The main difference between their ministry and other urban ministry programs is that they actually walk the walk - they moved into the urban center (Springvale, an inner-urban slum in Australia) and not only lives there, they lived on the same subsistence income as their neighbors. It’s a ministry of peer-to-peer that demonstrates the commitment of the mission. Today, Ashley, Anji, and their two children have relocated to a slum in Bangkok and are working and living in a similar manner (their describe their flat as approximately the size of four double beds pushed together).

Their lecture was particularly instructive, especially in terms of the urbanization of our world and the typical Christian response. First, a word about the slums. Approximately 1 billion people currently reside in slums and that number is expected to double by 2030. Why are the number of people living in slums rising so quickly? Perhaps because we’ve reached the urbanized tipping point. According to the UN, sometime between January and July of this year the number people living in urban areas grew to the point that there are now more people living in urban centers than in rural areas. The migration to urban centers will continue to rapidly increase in the foreseeable future and the church needs to be thinking seriously about this issue.

One last thought about Ashley and Anji’s lecture. He asked us a question:

“Did Jesus spend time with the poor?”

We all affirmed that indeed he had. Significant time with the poor. Then he asked:

“Does Jesus expect the church to spend time with the poor?”

We all nodded emphatically. Yes indeedy, the church is called to come alongside the poor, and the goal remains Acts 4:34. So then he asked, “How many of you are spending significant time during your week in the presence of the poor?”

Silence. According to Ash, this is far from uncommon, especially as the downtown churches flee from the urban centers to relocate in the “safe” and more “convenient” suburbs. Indeed, only 2% of Christians spend any time with the poor.

Two Percent. 2%. Two out of one hundred.

And there are over a billion living in slums and over half of our global population has emigrated to urban centers. How will we faithfully reach these people at this rate? The answer: We won’t. What are we going to do about it? Well, that’s the real question, isn’t it? We’re not going to do it by continuing to do what we’ve been doing. Something’s going to have to change and I suspect that change will have to begin with us … and by us I mean you and me. Personal commitment. Us. Together.

What happens when you leave your journal at home? You end up journaling on your blog instead. So, this post is a bit different than the norm. Still, it’s another side of who I am.

Reading in Luke 12 this morning, following the Moravian Daily Texts (my ethnicity is traced back to the Moravians, which explains a lot about why I love house church, evangelism, and Christmas). One particular passage jumped out at me:

47“That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

What intrigued me was verse 47: Those who know what Jesus demands and doesn’t do it … well, let’s just say that things aren’t going to go well for them. As I reflected on that verse my mind cast back to two things. First, all the things I know I’m called to do and don’t. I don’t pray as much as I’m called to. I don’t always respond to the Spirit’s nudgings when I feel them.

But as my mind casts around, I was struck by an image that haunts me. I work with literally dozens of Christian leaders across USAmerica who are “stuck” in churches that won’t budge an inch. Churches that have left their first love; that have turned their back on their community; and that are more focused on personal comfort and maintaining the status quo than they are about anything else. The haunting part is of the leaders of these churches … many of these, yea most of these, know exactly what needs to be done. They know what they’re called to do, whether that’s to confront the controllers or to leave the church to its own destruction and plant in better prepared soil. The thing is … they know. They know what Jesus has to say about those who won’t receive the word, and yet they don’t move for a variety of reasons, almost all of which have more to do with career than call, pensions rather than productivity, and funding instead of faithfulness.

If we’re going to transform churches, we have to spend the time doing the things we’re called to do, not the things that are convenient to do. We have to march forward with faithfulness in the face of fruitless foolishness by the bullies and the terrorists. We have to risk our pensions for the sake of being productive in the Kingdom’s work. No more babysitting, changing spiritual dirty diapers, burping badly behaved “believers,” or bottle feeding indolent adolescent “Christians.” Plant your flag. Draw your line in the sand. Take the first step. Be like one born of the Spirit … blowing wherever Jesus beckons … and he never beckons us to stay. We’re always on the go. If no one follows, then move on.