Joel Rainey is the Director of Missions at Mid-Maryland Baptist Association, an adjunct professor at Capital Bible Seminary and blogs at Themelios (Twitter – @joelrainey). This post was originally published at his site.
The following is based in experiences I’ve had with churches I’ve consulted with over more than 20 years of service in ministry. Over that time, I have become convinced that we have perfected the pathology by which we can accelerate the decline and eventual demise of a local church. I’ve seen the following happen in different orders, with different emphases, and I can guarantee that if you implement these five things, you will be pushing the nuclear button on your congregation. I’ve seen it happen enough times, and western evangelicalism has developed habits that have perfected this approach.
1. Perpetually send an unclear sound. Make sure that key leaders remain clueless, and divided, when it comes to the identity, purpose, vision, and direction of the church. Speak in spiritual euphemisms that seem holy, like “we just want to love Jesus and each other,” or “we just want to follow the Bible.” These sorts of nebulous statements, absent of any contextual application, are a way to sound thoroughly Biblical without actually being Biblical. Furthermore, they are the perfect way to stay adrift in a sea of irrelevance, and never identify who God created your local church to be, and what He wants her to do. The result, of course, is that the church will do nothing.
2. Invest More Time in Needy People than in Leaders. You know the old saying; “The squeaky wheel gets the most grease.” In many local churches, those who “squeak” the loudest seem to get all the grease! And the grand mistake of church leaders is to give inordinate attention to the loudest and most needy people in the congregation, rather than invest in those God has gifted to lead the church. This sets up an environment in which people learn that the most attention will always be paid to the loudest complainers. And this is precisely the kind of environment that will suck the life out of any real leader–or inadvertently push leaders right out the door.
3. Try to Please Everybody. Almost without exception, in every church I’ve ever consulted with that is in decline, decisions are never executed without the final question of “who will be upset by this?” Inevitably, good decisions are always sabotaged by someone suggesting that “doing this might really upset . . .[fill in the name of your preferred group.]” In fact, the one way to ensure that #1 above takes place, is to assume this posture, because you can’t make a clear decision about anything if the number one concern is always about someone not being pleased. Guess what? THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DECISION THAT WILL EVER BE MADE IN A CHURCH THAT MAKES EVERYBODY HAPPY! This means of course, that if you are trying to please everybody with decision and direction, you will never make a substantive decision, and you will never have clear direction. Atrophy is the inevitable result, because in the attempt to please everybody, you have displeased God.
4. Refuse to Confront Troublemakers. Principled dissent is one thing. Saboteurs are an entirely different matter and in too many churches, they are allowed to run free and do what they please, no matter the negative impact they have on the rest of the body. They may come in the form of the lady who “holds back” her tithe because she doesn’t like a decision that was reached. They may come in the form of the guy who presumes the right to “pull the e-brake” on anything church leaders have decided on that he doesn’t agree with. It may come in the form of those who use the phone or internet as a corridor for gossip to undermine the forward progress of the church.
Strong leadership is needed in these situations. The gossip has to be called out and confronted. The self-proclaimed “devil’s advocate” with his hand on the e-brake needs to be told that the church isn’t interested in Satan’s opinion. And the lady who steals from God needs to be reminded that she isn’t just “punishing the leadership,” she is breaking her covenant promise to those in her church family, and to her God. Without strong leaders to confront such nonsense, troublemakers will be free to throw additional anchors over the side of their drifting ship to ensure that it goes precisely nowhere.
5. Seek to Live in the Past. Churches actually do this in a number of ways, the most obvious of which is to be highly suspicious of any sort of change. Music styles, architecture, structural paradigms, and cultural engagement in general are all evolving concepts, and if the church does not reflect the culture in which it finds itself in all these areas, the result is far worse than simply an unclear Gospel. In the end, the church may lose the Gospel altogether, because they have identified its delivery with certain cultural accutrements rather than a bloody cross and an empty tomb.
But there is more than one way to live in the past. As with any social system, churches over time develop corporate patterns of behavior, and some of these patterns are not healthy. If they are not repented of and clearly dealt with, they become the growing snowball that leads the church in one direction; downhill!
One thing is for sure though. If you want to ensure that you don’t exist in the future, then just refuse to think about it.
Roughly 3500 churches in North America close their doors for good each and every year. The vast majority of those I’ve seen close with my own eyes did so by following the strategy I’ve outlined above. Many of them were not even aware of what they were doing, and when their subconscious path was pointed out, they simply chose to deny it . . .and keep dying!
So if you are following the principles above, and refuse to repent, I can guarantee that your church will eventually be included in that number.
I have no idea why the formatting on that first paragraph is so weird. I’ve done what I can. Sorry to the good Dr. Rainey!
For now, I guess I got it fixed.
The entire article is very good and I agree with it. But I especially agree with # 4. The general attitude for many years is to leave those folks alone. I have no idea why other than usually they are significant givers and can hurt the church financially if they leave. Do things biblically and let God worry about the rest.
Often those thought to be givers have largely stopped giving. Occasionally, they never gave much. They were thought to be generous givers because they gave generously (and publically) to the projects they supported.
People who make trouble seldom give much to the organization they are making trouble for.
Even a church that’s sort of doing OK can learn from these points, too. We send 10% to the CP and quite a few of our members are involved in Mission Trips every year. Yet we have been plateaued in our attendance, for about a dozen years.
I can see almost every point you made, in some degree or another, in our church.
I’m looking for my notes from an associational training night last week. The section for pastors had a nifty bell curve on the life cycle of typical Baptist churches, and basically you’ve described all the stuff on the downward slope of the bell–
And where so many of us really are. Trying to balance the perceived need to do some of this (like 2 &4), the right level of honoring the past without living in it, and driving hard into the future that looks very different for institutional Christianity in America.
I don’t mean to surprise anyone with my typically disagreeable self, but I disagree with several of these. 🙂 In fact, I think following these items are the things which would kill a church – even if it brought in more people. Our goal is not numbers; our goal is mature believers. I know the old bit about “each number represents a soul” and that’s all well and good, but let me repeat: our goal is not numbers. Our goal is to spread faithful seed. Numbers are God’s job.
Item 1:
Where does God ever tell us to set any vision other than his? Business leadership tactics are all about visionary people at the helm of the ship directing it where they think it should go, but that’s not how church’s operate. Our vision is God’s will and that will is given to us in Scripture. This might not lead to a mass of people wanting to hop on board the ship, but it will lead to going the direction God wants rather than whatever pet vision our leader has this week.
My favorite Scripture for this is the widely abused Proverbs 29:18 which means the exact opposite of what many people use it for. This doesn’t tell us we need visionary men to lead us; it tells us we need the prophetic vision – the vision given to us by the prophets, the vision recorded in the prophetically declared Word of God. We need fewer people chasing their ideas of what the church should be doing and more people acting according to Scripture.
I’m not sure what to make of item 2. Pastors are to equip the saints to grow to maturity in Christ. Our goal is not building leaders; our goal is building Christians. Our field is all those people God puts within our realm of influence, from the most self-confident, charismatic individual to the most quarrelsome curmudgeon. We don’t get to pick and choose which sheep receive our shepherding. The advice here opens the door for pastors to smugly decide certain people in their church are just not worth their time.
Item 3 gets some degree of sympathy from me, but with a big caveat. While our ministry should not be carried out so as to please people, our ministry *should* be carried out to minister to the people God has given us. If the things I do create barriers between me and a goodly number of the people in my church, then I need to consider whether or not it’s worth it. If it’s a gospel issue, then it’s worth it. If it’s about hymns versus choruses, it’s not worth it. That is not to say we shouldn’t be working to change the attitudes of our people; if attitudes should change, we need to work to change them. But we ought not just go in and declare our vision and override the opinions of the discontent because they are just naysayers going against God. Maybe they know something I don’t. Maybe their gray hair means they should get a little more of my attention and respect as they speak from the wisdom Scripture tells me they have. Maybe there’s a good reason why they don’t want to go along the latest Christian fad that I am trying to impose on the church.
Item 4 needs a similar strong caveat to item 3: does the disagreeable person have a point? Too many people are giving pastors advice which would basically ostracize and steamroll over dissenters in their midst. I hardly see how this is good pastoral leadership, especially if the concerned individual actually has a point. And Satan’s leadership? Are you kidding? What are we, cult leaders who tell our cultists that the opposers are the minions of the devil? I have heard “visionary pastors” speak this way all too often and it certainly seems to be the favored approach of today’s Leadership Loving Pastor. One fundamental problem in all this is our pastors – and those teaching our pastors – are spending far too much time reading leadership books and not enough time reading their Bibles.
Finally, item 5. Ah yes, the cult of the new. Maybe we are cultists after all. What C. S. Lewis called chronological snobbery is alive in well in churches that should know better. “If you want to live, you have to be hip and modern and cool! If you’re stuck in the past, it just shows you hate Jesus and hate the lost and only love an idealized world that is long since gone!” We have become an age that worships methodology. Our approach will be our savior. If we only present ourselves with certain contextual trappings, then the masses will come flocking to us. Old clothing will only drive people away.
There is one sense which I am sympathetic to this. I agree that we really should consider the context in which we serve. But at the end of the day it is not our method that will change lives; it is our message. People may want what is hip and cool, but that is not what they need. They need Jesus. The primary means the Bible tells us to tell them about Jesus is not through the Sunday morning gathering (which is supposed to be a time for equipping the saints) but through believers going out into the world and evangelizing. We do not evangelize when we invite people to church, we evangelize when we tell people the gospel. In this scenario, it does not matter a whit what methodology your church employs. On the other hand, if you are seeking to have your services be oriented to reaching the lost, you have lost sight of what God wants his people to do when they gather. Come together to equip and edify and worship; go out to change the world.
Another point. It should not surprise us that a day comes when churches are shrinking. Too many of us are acting shocked that such a thing could ever happen. “I do not believe God ever wants his churches to close their doors or go into decline!” is a refrain I’ve heard far too often. That’s all well and good, but it’s beside the point – God has told us of growing days of darkness when people increasingly turn from the truth. This does not mean the church is doing something wrong; it means the world is the world and it has gone the direction God has said it would go.
My concern is that in these dark days of ours, people see the decline of the church and are determined to stop it by any means necessary. We must find the method that makes our church grow! If a method does not make a church grow, it falls short of God’s plan. If a method makes a church grow, that proves God approves of it. But making a church grow isn’t really all that difficult, as so many churches today are showing; just mix a little worldliness with a little watered down gospel and a little compromised theology and people will love you. Remain faithful, and the world will hate you (does that really surprise people?).
Our job as Christians is not to find the method that works. Our job is obedience to Christ. We should constantly examine ourselves and our churches to see if we are being faithfully obedient to the best of our ability. This means we may have to make course changes and adjustments from time to time, but it does not mean we must adopt the latest fad in order to be faithful churches.
Those who pastor churches and those who lead associations need to stop buying the lie that a dying church is an unfaithful church while a thriving church is a God-blessed church. Just look at the thriving churches today that are at the center of pushing out ideas of how our methodology should change: Joel Osteen. Andy Stanley. Steven Furtick. The list goes on. None of these are men whose lives we should emulate. None of their churches are those we should want to become. They have all capitulated and compromised and the world loves them for it.
I’ve got to agree with Chris to a large degree. This post, and Mr. Rainey’s preceding post, all point to visionary, strong, BUSINESS (apologize for the caps, but can’t do the other cool stuff), leadership. Years ago I attended a leadership conference for my job and these same basic principles were what they taught. The next week my boss called me into his office and wanted my __ step plan for ridding myself of the “dead weight” employees.
My answer; they’re my employees, I’m keeping all of them: The guy who is chronically late – he dropped everything to help me when my wife was in an accident and will do it for anyone else who works here. The girl who has to have every weekend off (a no, no, in our business) – well, she comes in hours early throughout the week to prepare for the weekend. They guy who just lost his license and is having trouble making it to work – my wife and I went and bought him a bicycle because now more than ever he needs a friend.
None of this is representative of what Jesus did. Yes, he spent special time with Peter, James, and John but he did not mock Thomas. By the way, those guys slept on him, while he was praying. As a pastor I believe my responsibility is to people; the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Chris,
I don’t think you are reading Joel’s post fairly. As he himself indicated below. Sounds to me like you’re picking a fight with what you assume this brother is saying rather than actually what he is saying.
On the first point I don’t read him as saying that the Bible isn’t what creates/shapes/informs our vision. Nor is he dismissing pastors who claim their Bible as their vision. He’s saying that we had better be clear about what the Scriptures teach rather than just saying, “oh, I believe the Bible”. That statement doesn’t help anybody.
Secondly, you are assuming that by training leaders that Joel isn’t encouraging us to shepherd well. It’s simply fact that I cannot individually minister to all of the needs of our congregation. At least not the way that they need. I see Joel advocating something similar to Trellis and the Vine here. That’s not advocating neglecting members and just hanging out with our awesome leaders. It’s advocating being honest about our limitations.
Lastly, I don’t see Joel advocating a cult of the new. That’s not a fair reading of him. Nor is bringing in your beef with Osteen, Stanley, Furtick, etc. You are reading their ministries into Joel’s point. And it’s simply not giving him a fair reading.
Well said, Mike.
Very Wonderfully stated Chris! I totally agree!
Chris,
It would take took long to dissect each rebuttal you made, so let’s just start with #1. Joel said nothing in that paragraph about not following Scripture. What he was implying (at least my take) is that pastors/leaders who don’t emphasize where the congregation needs to be going and give sound methods for that (dicipleship, evangelism, etc) will become a place where the “family” is not all pointing in the same direction. Like the old saying goes, “If you aim at nothing you will hit it every time.” I believe that is what Joel is referring to in #1 and truthfully can’t see why you would have a problem with a pastor/leader clearly pointing the fellowship in the way they should go.
I would assume you do that with you children (if you have any).
Nate,
I am very familiar with this concept of visionary leadership and the push to have pastors cast their vision upon the church. This is what Joel was talking about. It is not about having Scripture as your vision but having some other something as a vision, a goal, a direction for the church. This takes the form of what the pastor thinks the church should be doing, typically dressed up in spiritual terms such as “here is what God has led me to see our church should be doing.” But where in Scripture do we ever see church leadership of this sort. The vision for pastors in the Bible is to build people in Christ. This is what we are about. We are not businessmen, not entrepreneurs, not visionary leaders, we are pastors. Our tool is the Bible, our work is equipping the saints, our goal is to help believers grow to maturity in Christ. The vision we have for our lives is provided by that word which is a lamp for our feet and a light to our path – and this is the same vision we should seek to instill in our people. But this is just what Joel derided. Sure, he would utter accolades for the teaching and preaching of Scripture, but let a pastor say his vision for his people is the word of God and Joel would accuse the pastor of not “actually being biblical” (though it’s striking that not one of his points receives biblical support – these are the concepts of the latest leadership journal, not of the unchanging Scripture).
The whole notion of vision casting that is so popular today is one of those Christian fads I mentioned. Where do we hear of such a thing in church history or in Scripture? May all of us as pastors say with Luther that our conscience is captive to the Word of God and we can do no other, not even when directors of associations or pastors of megachurches seek to lead us otherwise.
Many churches do not even grasp that as clear vision, Chris. There is a strong inertia toward self-preservation and happiness.
You yourself just articulated a ‘vision’ for a church. It is completely Scripturally based–and that is good. But I would be surprised if you are unaware of churches that do not have a clarity of seeking even those basics, much less how they will do it around their local body.
For example, what does it look like to build disciples in a heavily churched area? In a completely unchurched area? Do you preach differently in Athens than in Antioch? Which one describes where you are? If your church does not know clearly, then what happens?
True, if a pastor’s vision is some nonsense about building size or broadcast times or even nickels, noses, and ‘influence’ then there is something wrong. But if the pastor and church catch a vision of a multi-ethnic congregation of God-honoring, growing, saved by grace through faith disciples of Jesus instead of a tradition-bound, all-white, good old Southern Baptist Church, that would be a good thing. And it would take clearly communicating that vision throughout the church.
“There is a strong inertia toward self-preservation and happiness.”
Understood and agreed. One of my more disappointed moments at a previous church was when a man told me that he wanted to get back to the days of church picnics when everyone had hot dogs and had a good time together. That’s not exactly the purpose of the church but is along the lines of what many have in mind.
The problem is, a lot of our language today doesn’t deal with the problem – but we think ourselves spiritual when we move the problem to a newer generation. In other words, while one generation wants to preserve its happiness, another generation is struggling to impose *its* form of happiness. Do the methodology that works best for me, that makes me the happiest. That’s what many of our struggles boil down to.
As for a “vision” for how to reach a particular area – that’s the wrong word to use. All churches have (or ought to have) the same vision, meaning we have the same mission, we’re moving in the same direction, we’re seeking the same things. Our methods will have variations depending on our locale (we don’t speak German in my church) but that has nothing to do with our vision.
As for a vision for a multi-ethnic church – that’s sort of an odd one, though I know behind it is a problem. It is odd because it should not need to be singled out. All our churches should seek to reach out to all people. It is a problem that we don’t all seek to reach out to all people (though I think many of our churches do seek that). It is already the “vision of Scripture” that all our churches and all our people be getting the gospel to the Jew and the Greek, etc, etc. Articulating that as a specific “vision” is not necessary. What might be necessary is preaching to a church about the sin of exclusion and preaching about the universality of the gospel. In other words, preach the Bible.
I need to get away but hopping back on to retract/restate part of my argument here.
I do agree that something like building a multi-ethnic congregation could likely take specific focus and emphasis – a specific work within the church and outside the church to reach out to those who might not be quite like the predominant membership of the church. But my point is that having this particular emphasis does not make it a distinct vision for the church. It is already part of the church’s vision if the Bible is the source of the church’s vision. It is already something that should be at the forefront of all churches: reaching all people regardless of ethnicity or socioeconomic status. If we find ourselves failing to obey the Bible then we ought to focus on fixing the failing because we are falling short of the vision God has cast for all his people.
Hey Chris, Thanks for the comment. It may surprise you that I actually agree with most of what you have written, which makes me wonder if you understood my post. 🙂
Item 1: I made no mention of “business principles,” but I do allude strongly to contextualized ministry that brings the church to understand its own unique identity, as well as that of the community in which it finds itself.
Item 2: I also never said you should ignore needs or needy people. I said it was a huge mistake to spend MORE time with those people, than to build up leaders who can help you with them. Exodus 18 was what I had in mind, not “Good to Great.”
Item 3: We you have “some sympathy” with me, here, I would guess we are closer than you think. But I have said over and over that there is a marked difference between Biblical congregationalism and western democracy. Similarly, there is a huge difference between consensus and unanimity. Churches who practice and wait for the latter will never execute the very mission that is the reason they exist.
Item 4: I think I was pretty clear that principled dissent is welcome. I was speaking specifically about saboteurs. Too often we confuse the two, and because we are overly gracious, we allow people to spread organizational chaos and malcontent over the body of Christ.
Item 5: Just to clarify, I’m not referring to the “window dressing” that is worship style, et al. I’m speaking of unhealthy corporate patterns of behavior–some of which have eaten multiple consecutive pastors for lunch, or that have overly-empowered other leaders (including pastors) to run roughshod over their people. Sometimes the church is totally unaware that they are repeating unhealthy history. Sometimes, when made aware of it, they choose to ignore it and keep dying. Either way, I stand by this one too. 🙂
We may still disagree, but hopefully this at least clarifies where I’m coming from. Thanks for the pushback. 🙂
This does help to clarify some, but I think most of my original criticism still stands. Focusing on #1, which is where I think most of the other items also hinge, a church understanding its context and identity and a church casting its own vision are not the same thing. Churches should understand who they are, where they are, etc, which can impact which ministries they are able to undertake but does not change the overall vision and mission of the church (vision and mission: terms I think are essentially interchangeable). My church is primarily composed of senior adults, so the way we do things is not going to be the same as a church composed primarily of young adults or a wider generational mix. Our compositions are different, our methodologies are different, our vision ought to be the same. We work and walk with the same goal, the same purpose – the same vision for who we ought to be (like Christ) and what we ought to be doing (carrying out the commands of Scripture). Everything else flows from this one vision which ought to captivate all of God’s Scripture. This is not pious language; this is an essential of the faith. If we want to talk about contextualized ministry then let’s talk about contextualized ministry. Those aspects change. But the vision remains the same for all.
I agree with Joel’s agreement with Chris’s disagreement with Joel’s original post.
Does this mean I am sending an unclear sound?
Sorry, on Item 5 I meant to say “I’m not referring ONLY to the “window dressing…..”
I think Joel just concurred with my statement. I don’t disagree with your comment either Chris, but you are assuming that any notion of casting vision is immediately a “business world” model. Even as you said, “the vision for pastors in the bible is to build people in Christ.” So, how would it be wrong to cast that vision before the congregation and create ways to do just that.
All of your statements are accurate but unless you allow the church to see that with you and understand how you will lead them there, you will fail and be guilty of Joel’s point #1.
New believers don’t know inherently how to grow, you have to lead and guide. That is what Joel was saying in his #1.
Except in Joel’s #1 he dismissed pastors who claim the Bible as their vision.
Chris, I really think you are reading way too much into his statement. He’s insinuating that churches simply say they follow the bible without clearly identifying how to do that. You’re nitpicking…
As to your number 1 Joel I would concur with Chris. While you purport that “Sending an unclear sound” is the road to perdition (further saying “we want to just follow the Bible” is an euphemism that can lead to inaction) – the message itself is unclear without specifics and examples. And since our task as Christians and leaders is to follow the dictates of Scripture, I would say you task in number 1 is incomplete and unclear. While it may become clearer with a follow up post (how can the church be relevant and healthy in a five point plan vs-a-vis this list of guaranteed killers of churches), at this point a fair interpretation could very well be hearing you saying “following the bible” is a congregation killer – something I don’t think you mean, but a fair interpretation nevertheless.
Rob
Rob, Thanks for your post, and also for assuming the best about my statements.
I think the issue is that Chris (and possibly you?) see specific vision casting and “following Scripture” as mutually exclusive enterprises. I simply reject that contention. I believe we should follow Scripture. I believe we should make disciples. I believe we should love people. But I also believe that the outcome of doing those things looks a certain way, and is often contextually defined.
For example, Chris in his post above mentions that most of his congregants are senior adults. I happen to believe that senior adults are our greatest yet most untapped resource for accomplishing God’s mission. So, if we are following Scripture and making disciples of people in that age group, what will that look like in a context where a baby boomer will retire every 22 minutes on average for the next 14 years? What will that look like in the plethora of 55+ multihousing communities popping up all over the country, and in which 98% of the residents are unchurched? Once you start verbally painting that picture, you are casting a vision for your people that they can personally identify with and “own” with you (as opposed to earlier assumptions that the Senior Pastor simply “dispenses” vision and people follow. I don’t believe in that model at all! And honestly, I’m not sure who does.)
So yes, I would contend that in an environment where the contextual effect of the power of the Gospel can be described and give people a “Clear target,” simply saying “we will follow the Bible” is a cop-out, and may result in NOT “following the Bible.
Please my friend don’t assume – just ask. My concern was with your unclear writing and not about your ideas much. Honestly I think we are arguing semantics. “Vision Casting” is to you what “Seeing the Need” or “See where God is working” is to me. Frankly I prefer my verbiage – people understand me better and don’t need a Contextual dictionary to get my meaning. The term “vision” is confusing = Scripturally speaking visions are always cast by God and not humanity. As you say, your term is confusing because of those “spiritual messiahs” who call things “visions” hoping that people will follow them. The fact that you are familiar with that model leads me to suspect you know of some examples where it has been used. I could name a plethora of examples – most not Southern Baptists (but there are a few 🙁 ).
I think most people know what exactly is going on in their neighborhood. Most of the problem is getting them out from their close circle of family and friends to see the need. They see the need – they often don’t want to get beyond their comfort zone. They don’t use “we just to follow the Bible” with me because then I tell them what the Bible says to do – an ineffectual cop-out.
I think both Rob and Chris are missing the point here. Joel did not say “don’t follow the Bible.” He is saying that we need to be more specific and clear about what it means to follow the Bible. Define that to your people.
When I say to 200+ people on Sunday, “Our church is just going to follow the Bible,” that means 200 different things.
Chris falsely represented Joel as saying “he dismissed pastors who claim the Bible as their vision.” That is not what Joel said. We all believe in and want to be biblical.. But it’s not enough to say those words. Too nebulous. We need to define what we mean by a biblical church.
At our church, we developed a document with a mission statement (basically the Great Commission simplified) and 7 mandates we saw from Scripture for a church. From those we wrote our Bylaws and developed our structure.
Joel is (I believe) talking about being nebulous and undefined in vision. He is not advocating (I hope & believe) developing extra-biblical vision.
My point Dave is that paragraph one (in my contention) is unclear. It is unclear even to you especially since you have to put in parenthetical (I believe). As a writer I never assume that people know what I am talking about – that is why I often go to great lengths to explain. I am still not clear what Joel is trying to say with paragraph one. I certainly do not understand the term “vision casting” in terms of New Testament practice – certainly it is not a term or practice of the Apostle’s church since their visions were from above and not from within. Just saying…
Rob
For those of you interested in being trained as church consultants, the Society for Church Consulting provides it through live events or DVDs. The annual meeting for the Society for Church Consulting and the Great Commission Research Network will be at the LifeWay building in Nashville next month (October 14, 15, 16). Speakers will include Ed Stetzer, Gary Anderson (South Carolina Baptist Convention), Don Hicks (Liberty University), and Gary McIntosh (Talbot Seminary). Here’s a link for the Society for Church Consulting where you can find information about training and the annual meeting:
http://www.churchconsultation.org
P.S.: There will be a church revitalization conference sponsored by NAMB and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention on November 14th at North Richland Hills Baptist Church near Fort Worth. Here’s a link:
http://sbtexas.com/church-ministries/church-growth-and-health/ezekiel-project/church-growth-and-revitalization-conference/
I mean no disrespect but sometimes I feel like praying, “Lord, deliver us from church consultants.”
I find points where I agree with most everyone here.
I’d like to consult with you about that comment.
Dave,
Something is wrong with my SBCVoices browser. Many of the comments don’t seem to be matching the post that Joel made. I think many of the critiques belong on a different blog altogether. I’m not sure which one but it’s not Joel’s. Is it my browser or what? Is anybody else having this problem?
Or is this somehow part of your little conspiracy to keep me out of the loop at SBCVoices?
Yes, it is part of the conspiracy to drive you crazy.
Since it sounds too personal towards Joel, let me apologize to him and amend it to say “…church consultants, church marketing consultants and strategists, church social media consultants, ministerial career coaches, etc.
We have a convention full of such experts. The pastor who is doing his best is left to feel hopelessly inadequate.
Hey, if this is a response to my comment above, mine was a joke – an attempted play on words. You mentioned consultants. I said we should consult. But, if I have to explain my joke, it probably isn’t that funny.
All those agreeing that Dave’s jokes aren’t that funny, say “Aye”
Would it not be easier to count those who think they are? I only have 10 fingers, and need to keep my shoes on since it’s a church day.
You are both liberals, heretics, and perhaps even Democrats.
I’d like to reply, Dave, but first I need you to let me know whether you considered that to be a joke.
Why I oughta….
Wait, who’s a hairy tick? I’ll have you know I shaved this morning.
Let me slink in here with another comment, since this piece has already pulled one of my contrarian triggers.
Pastors attend various conferences where listen to experts, to other pastors who are the numerical superstars of the convention, to denominational employees with the latest church growth studies, church life cycle studies and analysis of the characteristics of growing churches.
These pastors listen, lament, and go home depressed.
It is not intended, but the conclusion is that if you get the formula right as a pastor (leadership, vision, physical plant, etc.) you will be a successful pastor like the superstars.
I’m guessing that most pastors would like to hear a word of encouragement rather than a formulaic guarantee of success or prediction of failure.
Hear Hear! Amen.
Rob
1. We don’t want to send an unclear sound, and don’t want to get caught up in too much modern mumbo-jumbo either. Where I work every time we get a change at the helm, we get a new vision, a new mission statement, new slogans, and so on — and things continue on much as they were. In our church we do just want to follow the Bible, but hopefully we also flesh this out with real application.
2. We probably would have more leaders than needy people in our church, except that all our leaders are needy people too.
3. We are not trying to please everybody, but we are trying to bring about church consensus in which all the body walk “joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” We are not interested in 50.1% pushing their will on 49.9% to drag them along or run them off.
4. We don’t refuse to confront troublemakers, and real cases of church discipline means action will have to be taken. But we also want to listen to the concerns of every member and address them in a spiritual and scriptural manner.
5. We are mostly “living in the past”. We believe that church progress is becoming more like the churches of the New Testament rather than seeing what new things we can come up with. Yet in two years our church attendance has doubled. It’s no great accomplishment. We’re still quite small. No consultants will care what we are doing to achieve such “success”. No leaders will be invited to share their vision. It’s nothing we are doing differently. We preach the word, share the gospel and try to be good neighbors. Almost zero credit for any growth can go to this pastor.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Joel referring to leadership principles, specifically Barna’s idea of vision casting? If my memory serves me correct, every church should have the mission to evangelize and then make disciples while worshipping the Triune God. What that looks like in every specific local church is what the vision is. For example, an inner city church still has the same mission as the local church here in rural Vermont, yet how they go about pursuing the mission will look differently based on specific needs, abilities, etc. That was my understanding of what Joel was getting at in point 1. With both the mission and vision leaders need to be focused and paddling in the same direction.