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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

On top of being a transformational church consultant and involved in spiritual leadership development and training, I also wear a hat called the New Church Department Chair. In that role, I lead a small group of Christian leaders in the NE Area of Missouri who are committed to developing church planting. We’re currently seeking indigenous church planters and developing the assessment tools for selecting appropriate candidates. We could, of course, leave our denomination to do the assessing for us … but several of us on the New Church Department have had first-hand experience with their work and we’ve become committed to doing our own assessment. Not because we want to reinvent the wheel or because the denomination doesn’t have a good heart. But, like most mainline denominations, there’s suddenly a push to plant a bunch of churches and it’s very, very difficult to raise up highly qualified leaders. And so, rather than start fewer churches that might experience success, there’s a move to approve even marginally qualified people to start churches. I suspect the rationale is that by starting a lot of churches, that at least some will succeed. Those that don’t are simply acceptable losses.

The problem is, those “acceptable” losses are bankrupting middle judicatories as well as those churches and organizations who are funding failure after failure. And that doesn’t even take into account the carnage being wrought in the lives of the failed church planters and those few that they managed to gather to start a new church. I’ve repeatedly seen failed marriages, moral failures, and much stress-related disease ransack these poorly assessed “acceptable” church planters.

An effective assessment process is all about behaviors, not willing canon fodder. When we assess a candidate, we’re less interested in getting the candidate accepted and a lot more concerned with whether or not they have the behavior patterns not only to start a church, but to stay the course. The premise of the assessment process is that the best indicator of future performance is past behavior (Charles Ridley).

For instance, one of the questions that we ask is for the candidate to tell us about a time when they were responsible for gathering a crowd (of almost any size) for an event. If they’ve never done that, there’s a good chance it’s because they can’t do it. Most of us have had opportunities to gather a crowd for some sort of an event … birthday party, dinner party, backyard barbeque, etc. But doing it just once isn’t enough. We’re looking for patterns of behaviors. Do they gather crowds as a matter of course, or did they only do it once or twice. Patterns. Lifestyles. That’s the key to whether or not a candidate can do a church plant.

Other questions include asking them to recount times when they intentionally started a conversation with a stranger. If they don’t do that as a pattern, they can’t plant a church. We ask them about sharing their faith with others. If they aren’t doing that they can’t start a church. If they don’t behave as an entrepreneurial, crowd gathering, faith sharing, not-afraid-of-strangers kind of person, they’re not going to make it as a church planter I don’t care if you put them in a room with 1,000 spiritually starving seekers.

The reason so many mainline church plants are struggling is because their assessments appear to be based on education, desire, and whether or not the person is breathing and has a pulse. We’re so desperate for people willing to endure the difficulties of church planting that we’ll approve almost any candidate who is willing and “qualified,” typically meaning seminary educated. Of course all bets are off when it comes to ethnic minority candidates … apparently we don’t think that a seminary education is all that important for ethnic starts (hmmm, there may be a reason ethnic starts are significantly more successful and less expensive than Anglo starts in the Mainline).

What we’ve learned and experienced is that there are a number of church planter wannabes who “think” they could start a church. “How hard can it be? If I didn’t have to deal with the board, the deacons, and all the politics, it would be so easy to ‘run’ a church.” What they don’t realize is that if they can’t work through difficult people or if they can’t “sell” their vision to an existing church board, they probably don’t have the skills that will carry them forward in church planting. It’s just not that easy. If they can’t grow a church, if they’re not doing adult baptisms, if they spend more time behind their computer than with people, give them a miss. They just can’t do it.

I had a conversation recently with a small group of mainline pastors and the conversation naturally turned to church transformation and church growth. When I asked how they measured whether their churches were growing, plateauing, or declining I started getting the typical excuses and defensive posturing I so often hear.

“Numbers aren’t important.”
“Numbers don’t really tell the story.”
“You can’t measure what’s really important.”

Yada yada. Excuses, every one of them. It’s clear that numbers are important enough to God that there’s even a biblical book named after them. And they’re important enough to Jesus and the apostles that they knew there were 12 apostles, 70 sent forth to preach, 4,000 fed, 5,000 more fed, 120 in the first Church meeting and 3,000 men baptized after the first public altar call. Oh, and just in case there’s any question about that was then … there are 144,000 marked and sealed saints in the Revelation.

Numbers count. Not because the size of the church is important. Jesus said that he shows up whenever two or three are gathered together (oh wait, those are numbers too). But numbers are important because each one of those numbers is a person who desperately needs the living God.

So, numbers are important. The question is which numbers? Well, IMHO the most important number of all is the number of the unchurched (define “unchurched” however you’d like - they’re all important). In most communities that number is about 83 percent of the population (if you thought the figures were more like 60 percent, make sure you take a gander at Olson’s The American Church in Crisis). So, if you live in a community with 100,000, as I do, then figure there are about 83,000 people outside the church. Now that’s an important number.

But let’s talk about numbers of the church. How can we faithfully and honestly measure growth or decline? What should we be measuring? I attend a church regularly that does a large number of baptisms and it’s membership rolls are swelling … but it hasn’t actually seen any growth in worship for almost a decade. They’re growing, but are they? And then I’ve worked with a number of churches that are quite large and have a growing worship attendance, but when the leadership has significant conversations with the attendees, they discover that the worshippers aren’t growing spiritually. So what can we measure?

Well there are any number of measurements that we could take, but there are seven key indicators that are the most helpful in measuring the growth or decline of a church. These indicators include (1) Average Worship Attendance; (2) Adult Baptisms (3) Small Group/Faith Development Participation; (4) Per Capita Giving; (5) Mission Involvement; (6) Personal Discipleship Practices; and (7) Reputation (I’m indebted to the Rev. Dr. Kris Tenny-Brittian of middle judicatory fame for quantifying this last measurement).

If there’s interest, we can talk about these more fully later, but let me conclude this post with a brief description of each of the Seven Key Indicators of Growth.

• Average Worship Attendance: How many people show up for worship services. Count ‘em all or just count adults - just be consistent.
• Adult Baptisms: Yes, officially any baptism counts, but adult baptisms measure conversion growth … or how many of that 83 percent you’re actually reaching. Biological growth is important, but as church leaders we don’t have much control over this one.
• Small Group/Faith Development Participation: How many adults regularly attend a small group or faith development group. Taking one course in Christianity doesn’t indicate mastery of the subject. The key is ongoing participation and attendance.
• Per Capita Giving: To find this number, divide your offering plate receipts by the average worship attendance. There’s an old saying that the last part of a person to be converted is their checkbook. If this number is increasing, that’s a good thing.
• Mission Involvement: How many in the congregation are involved in some hands-on mission work outside the church. It doesn’t matter if that involvement is with Habitat for Humanity or the local food bank. The question is … is the average person attending your church getting more involved in mission because of their faith or not.
• Personal Discipleship Practices: This measures whether the congregants are engaging in developing their personal spiritual practices such as Bible reading, dedicated prayer time, faith sharing, faith encouragement, and so on.
• Reputation: What is your church’s reputation in the community? The only way to find out is to ask - if you guess, you’ll be wrong. Most churches might be surprised to discover that if they suddenly closed and locked their doors, almost nobody in the community would even notice. Is your church’s reputation getting better or worse?

Well, that’s the seven measurements of a growing, plateaued, or declining church. Any one of those indicators doesn’t really tell you much … but taken in specific combinations, it will tell you plenty.

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.

This post started off as a response to a comment left by Frank in the Churches That Don’t Want To Grow post. He attends a fifty year old church in a fifty year old neighborhood that’s suffering from decline. He wanted to know a bit more about visitor follow up and so on.

So, let me offer a couple of observations. Churches that find themselves in this kind of dither would generally benefit from either an on site consultation or a one day training event. It’s really very difficult to offer specifics about what a church needs to do without knowing the church fairly intimately. If you’re interested in something like that, let me invite you first to visit the EBT site and get some information … or contact me directly.

With that said,I’ll make some general observations.

First, before you do anything, you have to check your hospitality level. Are you really as friendly as you think you are? Few churches are. The easiest way to discern your hospitality level is to get an unchurched person to visit the congregation (you might have to pay them), don’t tell anyone in advance that they’re coming, and then have them check out the congregation’s worship. Have them keep their eyes open for relevance, friendliness, cleanliness - in short, all the things they’d most likely be looking for anyway. Then meet them for lunch about a half hour after they’ve left and record the conversation. You’ll need to record it because nobody else will believe you when you tell them what they report.

Second, you have to determine whether what your worship is experiential for those who might visit. Imagine going to a worship service where the style of music was totally foreign, the words spoken were difficult to follow, and the customs were unfamiliar - for most people, even well churched people, the opportunity to experience a touch from the Holy would be slight. Same goes for an unchurched person. Our songs are often from two, three, or four hundred years ago, played on instruments that were last popular with the Doors (a mighty long time ago for many of us), and the style of communication and the traditions we practice can be difficult to follow (ask a thoroughly unchurched person to define “invocation” or “doxology” or if you really want to get an odd look, ask whether they can quote the Lord’s Prayer and whether they say sins, debts, or trespasses.

If your worship is meaningful to your community; if your hospitality is excellent, then follow-up is critical.

There are a number of ways to get contact information in worship, but in my experience, the most effective is a three-pronged approach. (1) Have a prominent, well staffed, attractive, relevant, up-to-date, Information Kiosk. There should always be two people at the kiosk who are more interested in being available to visitors than they are in each other. They should be so well briefed, that if a guest asks “What’s important to the members of this church” that they could recite from their heart the core values of the congregation. Those staffing this kiosk need to be the sharp pencils in the box and they should be trained not only to be founts of information, but have the wherewithal to get visitor’s contact information.

(2) Get rid of your pew pads … they’re only more effective than doing nothing, and that only just - UNLESS everyone in the congregation fills them out completely every single week. And I don’t mean they just put their name in the book and check the “I’m a member” box. Completely. And since that’s not going to happen, find a nice dark file box for them and tuck them away in the attic. The most effective way to get guest information is to have a registration and prayer request card (one card, two sides) that is included as a tear off in the weekly program. Then, during the service, a moment is taken for EVERYONE to fill out the registration cards (it won’t matter how much info the members put, so long as they are writing on the cards when everyone else is) and to add any prayer requests to the card. After a few moments, the cards are collected … preferably separately from the offering plates, but you can combine the registration with offering if needed.

(3) The third part of the trifecta is to raise up and train floaters. Your congregation will need a couple of these gregarious, charismatic folks (if they’re currently singing in the choir, kick them out - gently - so they can do what they really do best … connect with people) to float around the worship space to connect specifically and foremostly with visitors and guests. When they spot on of us, they go and introduce themselves and strike up a conversation. By the time they’re through, if they’re good (good does not include pushy), they’ll know which small group or ministry the visitor might enjoy or benefit from, has their contact information (which is collected at the Information Kiosk), and maybe even has a coffee date for later in the week.

One last thing about the floaters. If you do the standard “Greeting Time” where the majority of people somehow think there’s a contest on how many hands they shake during the two-minute period, then it’s critically important for the floaters to keep their eyes open for guests who came late and to get into their space to welcome them, find out if there are any questions they may have, and in general to be friendly.

Put the three of these together, you’ll find you get more contact information than perhaps you’re ready for. As for what to do with that information … if your church has less than 400 in attendance, the pastor visits first time guests within 24 hours. If there are more than 500, a visiting team will need to be developed, though if you can get a team of up-fronters to do the deed, all the better. Again … 24 hours.