Consulting, Coaching & Chatter

When I get called in as a consultant to work with stuck, plateaued, or declining churches I have a couple of things I look for right off the bat. In the vast majority of the cases I discover that their inability to grow, let alone sustain, their membership is caused by one of six issues. And yes, I know this post is called the top FIVE reasons churches don’t grow, but I have to throw in the one stopper for church growth, no matter what else is happening. Indeed, you can major on “fixing” the top five for the rest of eternity, but if you don’t take care of this one single issue, it will be for naught. I’ve said it before, and I suspect I’ll say it again, and again, and again. The most heinous church growth killer is unresolved conflict. Period. It’s the sarin* or the VX* of the church, let alone growth efforts. I’ve written several posts and articles on dealing with conflict (see Net Results magazine, and the 21st Century Strategies, Inc. web sites).

So, what are the top five reasons churches don’t grow (outside of conflict)? Here they are in reverse order with only a brief explanation of each. Each of these will be dealt with in more depth in the upcoming The Complete Worship Audit, available though our e-commerce store.

Number 5: Ineffective Attendance Tracking. Very few churches do this well. On the other hand, growing churches tend to do this exceptionally well. If you want your church to grow, you have to know who’s there and who’s not. There are a couple reasons for this. First, if you don’t get contact information from your guests, how can you follow up? You can’t. More churches suffer from this sin than almost any other. Second, if you don’t know who’s not there, you can’t do effective member care. I’ve debriefs literally hundreds of church dropouts and one of the top reasons they quit and didn’t go back is because they missed a service of two (sometimes from illness, sometimes from crisis, sometimes for laziness) and no one in the church bothered to inquire. They felt slighted … believing that the church really should care whether they lived or died … and so stopped attending altogether. A word to the wise: develop an effective system for tracking attendance.

Number 4: Lack of Guest Follow-up. Even those churches that use “friendship” pew pads or guest books get lucky sometimes and they’ll get the contact information of a visitor. And let me tell you something - typically if a guest signs a pew pad or a guest book, they’re not just membership prospects, they’re hot membership prospects. And yet, it appears that few churches know what to do when they get these names. I had a conversation with a pastor recently who told me, “We don’t follow up with a visitor until they’ve come twice. We want to make sure they’re really interested.” Here’s your sign: If they came once and gave you their contact information they’re interested. The statistic still stands: follow up within 24 hours and your guest is 86 percent more likely to return. Leave it until the end of the week and the percentage drops to less than 25 percent.

Number 3: Lack of Hospitality. It never fails to amaze me just how inhospitable most churches are. And yes, I chose the word “most” carefully. My writing instructors and my dissertation editors would have told me that I should use the word many, since most implies a quantifiable variable. Well, after twenty-six years of ministry and five years of consulting and coaching, I can confidently say that I can quantify it. MOST churches score less than 5 (out of 10) overall on my hospitality scale. I’ve never been in a church where the majority of the members haven’t told me how “friendly” they were. But friendly towards first time guests? Not often. Mortal sins include poor nursery facilities; unsanitary washrooms; and absent or inattentive greeters/ushers. Venial sins include coded language in bulletins, programs, and worship; publicly identifying visitors in any way (different name badges at best or having them introduced in worship at worst); lack of signage; and lack of attention by members and staff. I could go on, but you probably get the idea. And if you don’t, consider having a trained “Secret Shopper” evaluate your services.

Number 2: Ineffective Assimilation/’Discipleship. It’s great to get new members. Even churches that sin mightily in the previous three categories manage to get a new member or two now and again. However, it never ceases to amaze me how few churches are able to keep these new members in the long run. Typically, the new members are “gone” within a year, and fewer still make it through year two. I’ve worked with a number of “big” churches that have been stuck at the same attendance level for a decade, even though they’re receiving new members almost weekly. Indeed, I recently worked with a church that had an average attendance of 500 for the last twelve years or so. Together, we did some research and we discovered they’d taken in over 800 new members in that period … but apparently they’d managed to loose over 800 members as well. What was the problem? New members hung out between six months and a year, but they never seemed to connect in the church. Assimilation and discipleship doesn’t happen on its own volition. Churches that grow have developed and successfully implemented a system for escorting first time guests from pew to small group to friendship to ministry involvement. And they have a system for escorting first time guests from seeker to believer to disciple. Churches that don’t do this well are churches that may receive members, but their attendance figures are flat-lined.

And the number one reason churches don’t grow?

Number 1: Worship Services that aren’t Worth Shouting About. Your church can be “sinless” in each of the previous categories and still discover it can’t grow. If that’s the case, and conflict is not an issue, the almost certain cause for not growing is because the worship services do not move, touch, or inspire. Churches can grow even in declining populated towns and counties. They can grow in economically impoverished communities. They can even grow in hostile environments. But if worship is uninspiring, especially to its guests, the chances of growth is almost zero. It’s not about contemporary or alternative worship styles. It’s not about technology. It’s not even about dueling piano and organ musicians. It’s about the totality of the worship service. Blended services, as a rule, disappoint almost everyone in the worship space. But even blended worship services can grow a church if they move, touch, and inspire. That means the music connects with the participant’s inner spirit. That means the presentation of the gospel in word, note, and deed is clear and concise. That means the sermon is so motivating that people don’t leave with a bunch of “gee whiz” facts, but with a heart-wrenching commitment to live their lives specifically differently in the ensuing days. That means that nothing gets in the way of the presence of the Holy Spirit - that in spite of our contrived and theologically incorrect invocations, God shows up with the power that breaks the rocks of the heart and with the gentleness of a whisper in the stillness.

Here’s the deal. If your worship services aren’t moving your members enough to invite their friends and relatives, let alone their acquaintances, neighbors, co-workers, and everyone else, then your worship services are clearly not worth shouting about. In that case, it’s time to do a complete worship makeover. That doesn’t mean you’re going to wheel in a drum kit or a big screen TV. But it does mean you’re going to get some professional help - because you probably need it - to take your worship to a new level.

And here’s my prognostication for your church in 2009: Nail down these five areas of church growth and you’ll not only grow, you’ll explode. In a good way.

*Sarin and VX are known as two of the most toxic nerve gasses.

Every time I pick up a mainline hymnal that was printed anytime after 1990 I get just a little bit disgusted. In an effort to save our sensibilities and to be as politically/theologically “correct” as possible, many of the old hyms were lyrically changed. Now, I’m all for inclusive language and all that, but I find myself bemused as I flip through the hymns and see the ones that were “tampered” with and the ones that were somehow seen as too “holy” or something to mess with. I’m not going into the specifics here, but I say all that to say this …

On Sunday, I was at a church where we sang out of one of those “mainline” hymnals. It’s Advent time, so churches all across the world are singing Christmas carols. We sang some of the good ol’ ones like “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” that suffered only a modest molestation in the transition to the “new” hymnal. But then we sang “What Child is This.” Now, one would think that the hymnal committee would at least be moderately interested in transitioning ancient lyrics not only for the sake of political correctness, but for understanding’s sake as well. I mean, with less than 17 percent of the USAmerican public in church last week - and that number is shrinking as each year goes by - one would think that communicating the gospel would be a critical decision.

One would be wrong. Really, really wrong. Which, of course, is just another reflection of why the mainline is losing members and attendees faster than any other block of churches. As a rule, we’re less concerned about being relevant and more concerned about maintaining tradition (Matthew 15:3 comes immediately to mind).

And so, the “offending” lyrics? For a moment, put away your churchese and try and put yourself in the shoes of an unconnected first-time guest who will be showing up on your doorstep for his/her annual pilgrimage to the church. They’re hoping to find hope in the church, though only sort of, because they’ve made this trek many years in the past and have gone away with “nice” and “sweet” and “cute” and sometimes even “moving” year, after year - but hope and life giving? Not so much.

And so the service starts with the typical carols. “O Come All Ye Faithful” and “The First Noel” go by without incident. And then “What Child is This” gets going, and there, on the Big Screen - projected for all to see are these magical, mystical, moving lyrics:

“Why lies he in such mean estate where ox and ass are feeding?”

What do you think when you read those words? My wife’s first thoughts were, “Sounds like a lot of churches I know.” I didn’t want to admit it, but that’s what went through my mind too. Of course, that’s not necessarily what an unchurched person might think, but I suspect confusion and maybe even bewilderment might be their first reaction if they were cognizant enough to be following the lyrics.

This year, as you finalize plans for your Christmas Eve service, keep in mind that what passes as tradition for you and me, may well pass for a “Huh?” moment in the minds of your unconnected guests. Plan and read and produce carefully. Remember, you may only get one shot at sharing the gospel with a lot of unconnected people this year. Choose even your hymns with that in mind.

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

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

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

“… and you will likely squander the opportunity.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I was involved in a conversation earlier today about hiring a staff member at a church. Hiring staff can be a real sticky situation. In some churches, the denomination does the hiring. That can be a huge issue that I don’t personally “get.” What happens if the Lead Pastor (or in a larger multi-staff church the ministry leader) doesn’t get along with the new staff member … or vice versa? In a healthy church, the immediate supervisor does the hiring (the HR or Staff Parish may have veto power) and they do the firing (period). This curtails a lot of staff problems from the git-go, if the Lead Pastor chooses wisely.

The rule of thumb that should be used for all hires is found in the following maxim I learned from my colleague Bill Easum:

1. Hire for passion.
2. Train for skills.

However, there are a number of other criteria I used whenever I went looking for a team member. I looked for a couple of significant qualities. These qualities are in order of most important to least important.

1. Passion. When I shared the mission and vision (and the rest of the DNA) of the church, if their eyes weren’t on fire, they were a miss.
2. Loyalty. I never hired anyone I didn’t think was going to be 100% loyal to me. They didn’t have to agree with me all the time, but if they disagreed they did so in my office one-on-one and NO where else. This was one of two areas where I had a no-tolerance policy (the other was breaches of ministerial ethics).
3. Teachability. I only hired those who knew they didn’t know it all and were hungry to learn more and were flexible enough to suspend their judgment long enough to give something new an honest try.
4. Chemistry. If we didn’t click, it was an immediate nix.
5. Teamwork. Did they have a history of playing nice on the playground and could they gather enough friends for a good game of kickball? If not, they weren’t going to do well on our team.
6. Intuition. Mine. If I had any nagging doubts or red flags, I’d keep looking. I would reconsider if the “right” person didn’t come along, but if my intuition hiccuped, I’d take note.
7. Intuition. My wife’s. If her spirit said, “No” that was good enough for me without questioning it. I’ve been burned too many times not listening to her heart … she’s has an incredible gift of discernment and I pay heed. Find someone who has that kind of intuition, if yours isn’t incredible.
8. Ability. Notice this is dead last. If everything else checked out, but they didn’t have all the skills they were going to need, I considered them anyway and if they were hired they were trained at our expense.

One last caveat. If the Lead Pastor is saddled with hiring everyone and there are more than four employees, I always want to know why. In ministry, overseeing more than four team members is untenable. The fifth and beyond staff members should be supervised by one of the pastor’s team members. If you need to know more about this, be sure to check out the Fractaling information on Easum, Bandy & Tenny-Brittian website.

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?