Is Your Church Concerned About and Measuring the Right Things?

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Last year, Caroline Inglis was on the verge of an historic feat. No high school golfer, male or female, had ever captured the Oregon state title four consecutive years. Inglis won the class 5A state tournament her freshman, sophomore, and junior years. There seemed very little doubt that she would win the title again as a senior.

On the course, Caroline dominated the rest of the field­—finishing with a 3-under 69, nine shots better than any other golfer. On the last hole, with victory assured, she scored her first bogey of the day. That would not have been an issue, except for the fact that her playing partner wrote down she had made a par. Caroline signed her scorecard and turned it in, believing she had just accomplished an Oregon first. In reality, she had just disqualified herself.

In golf, turning in an incorrect scorecard results in a disqualification. Because she had signed and submitted the wrong score, Caroline forfeited the win even though her actual score was still much better than anyone else. Having the wrong scorecard can make all the difference in the world.

Not too long ago, Bill Hybels and Willow Creek were honest enough to admit it—they had been using the wrong scorecard. An assessment demonstrated their members were not moving into maturity. “Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back, it wasn’t helping people that much,” Hybels said. “Other things that we didn’t put that much money into and didn’t put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for.”

While they were roundly criticized for their mistakes and everyone latched on to their remarks as a moment to say, “I told you so,” they are not the only church making similar mistakes. The things that Willow Creek found were problems in their congregation are problems in all kinds of churches. I believe most churches have been operating off the wrong scorecard for years.

Few churches use any system of accountability today. Many often judge their success based on anecdotes of temporary successes, with those frequently having long since lost any relevance to the current ministry taking place. Anecdotes can be great illustrations of statistical truths. They can also be misleading and hide the reality of the situation.

For those who actually use some means to analyze their ministry, most churches use the same three measuring sticks: bodies, budgets, and buildings. The old numbers-driven scorecard focuses exclusively on the number of people attending, the number of dollars being spent, and the number of square feet being used for church purposes. This is based on a brick-and-mortar mentality that reinforces an emphasis on the campus instead of encouraging people to be moved out into the field.

These three have served as the metrics for how the church is progressing. I’m not against those. I just don’t think they are enough. They don’t go far enough and don’t always capture the truth of the situation. Willow Creek was successful based on those standards, but an assessment showed they had missed the mark on discipleship.

Part of creating an assessment culture is being concerned about the right things. Builders don’t measure the nails to see if the lumber will fit them. They measure the lumber. No one measures a light switch and plans the construction around it. You have to measure the right things. In the church, when we spend our time only measuring the outlying issues we will miss the core mission of God.

I believe that measurements matter for the church. I don’t think we should eliminate them, but I do think we need a new scorecard. We need to key on factors that facilitate more people becoming Christ followers, more believers growing in their faith, and more churches making an impact on their communities. Our scorecards must include an emphasis on things like accountability, discipleship, and spiritual maturity.

That’s what Thom Rainer and I outlined in Transformational Church and what is at the center of the Transformational Church Assessment Tool. We need to find the right scorecard and begin evaluating and valuing the right things. Bodies and budgets may (and even should) be included, but they cannot be the only factors discussed. Find a tool, whether it is ours or not, that is valuing the right things and begin to implement a culture of assessment in your church.

In the final post of this series, I want to highlight two of the central issues that should be considered when a church sets about creating an assessment culture.

Part Three of a four-part series; read Part Four here.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Assessment, Ed Stetzer, New Scorecard

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Inspecting What You Expect for Greater Church Health

by: Ed Stetzer

1

Tweet

It’s common knowledge that men are far less likely to go to the doctor than women. While that may not be very shocking, one of the justifications for their reluctance to schedule a check-up is intriguing. Many men don’t go to the doctor because they don’t want to find out something is wrong. This idea of “what I don’t know can’t hurt me,” is part of the reason women’s life expectancy has long outpaced men. The average US woman lives to be 81.3, while a man’s average life span is 76.2 years.

One of the most fascinating pieces of information from that study, however, is that men are closing the gap. From 1989 to 2009, the gulf shrank from seven years to just over five. The reason? Males were living healthier lifestyles and had become more vigilant in with cardiovascular concerns. Instead of ignoring problems, men began to actively and intentionally evaluate and assess their physical health, which resulted in a 4.6 year predicted lifespan growth.

This perfectly illustrates the need for a culture of assessment in churches, since the Bible refers to the church as the body of Christ. That’s not a metaphor, but a description. Paul doesn’t say the church is like a body, but the church is a body. Just like with our bodies, it is important that we evaluate and assess the overall health of the church. Undiscovered problems under the surface can be deadly.

Some may point out that you can’t measure everything. That is obviously true. You can’t really measure enthusiasm. Clearly, you can’t analytically measure the supernatural and providential move of God. You can, however, measure effects.

When we studied transformational churches, we found commonalities between them that stretched across cultural and ecclesiological differences. For example, some had over 80% of their people in small groups and over 70% ministering to one another in, through and beyond church. These were churches that were seeing conversions and were filled with vibrancy and life.

Knowing what has actually led to making disciples can help you and your church know what steps you need to take to improve your health, which some in your church may already know. Often times when the assessment culture has been developed and implemented, it will confirm the thoughts of your involved members.

Right before I turned 40, I sent out an evaluation form to 15 people with whom I had a work relationship. I wanted them to evaluate my ministry, my leadership, and let me know what they saw as my strengths and weaknesses. I made it anonymous so they could be completely honest. Two things came back consistently (and, to me, surprisingly). They said I was too sarcastic and I didn’t listen well. When I asked my wife about those areas, she looked at me puzzled and expressed surprise that I wasn’t aware of those issues. She knew me best and knew those were areas where I could improve.

That allowed me to open a conversation about how I could work on those. The same is true for your church. We want you to have the knowledge about potential health problems that can encourage the extension of your church’s lifespan. This is not always easy to face or use as a means for improvement. Growing from an assessment requires a certain level of awareness, transparency and courage. Unfortunately, churches and denominations often have a current of denial propping up ineffective traditions and ecclesiological structures.

Several years ago, I did consulting work for a national retailer. They set up a phone survey to determine from employees how they felt about their job, coworkers and supervisors. When all of this data was compiled, we saw issues that were recurring at the bottom 10% of stores. I helped to train a team that would go to those locations and work to correct the problems.

Secular businesses put significant effort into evaluating their effectiveness, while churches frequently do nothing. I happen to think that the work of the church is much more important than any retail store. Having happier employees and increasing sales is beneficial to those businesses, but making disciples is of eternal consequence to the kingdom.

Like American men have done more in the past few years, churches need to start taking their health more seriously. You can only expect what you inspect. Churches that value and welcome assessments can expect health and growth. The facts you discover may not be friendly, but they will enable your church to become better at making disciples.

To accomplish this we need to do things right. In a future post, I’ll outline some wrong ways to implement an assessment culture. It all comes down to the measuring sticks we choose.

Part Two of a four-part series; read Part 3 here.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Assessment, Church Effectiveness, Church Health, Ed Stetzer

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Trends in Church Buildings – Why Bigger is Becoming Smaller

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

The megachurch has been a topic of interest for years. There are more every year and their growth rate is increasing. In other words, it’s not just that there are more, their rate of increase is growing.

Yet, when most people think of megachurches they not only think of mega-numbers, but also mega-facilities.

I thought it worth a moment to consider megachurch BUILDINGS—and what trends in such buildings might mean. Interestingly, some mega churches have begun to think differently about their facilities. These trends are not only fascinating, but I also find them encouraging several ways.

The last church I pastored had a 3,000 seat sanctuary. That’s a big room. But, what is interesting is that the church would not build that building if they could do it again—and that’s a theme I consistently hear.

What are the Trends in Big Church Buildings?

One of the trends I have observed in a qualitative way is that fewer churches are building large spaces specifically meant to accommodate thousands of people. In 2009 I posted a blogpost expressing our findings as we searched for gathering spaces of 5,000 seats or more. It would seem that being a megachurch does not necessarily imply having mega-facilities even if they maintain mega-numbers.

While the number of megachurches has increased, my (unscientific) observation is that sanctuaries have not grown at the same pace. At the time I wrote that post (2009) the average main sanctuary seating capacity in the typical American megachurch was 1,400 at most. This is large, but nowhere near 5,000. It seems that gathering spaces of growing mega-churches continue to get smaller. There seems to have been a substantial shift from the days of several thousand-seat sanctuaries to smaller venues. There are certainly exceptions, but I’m sensing a trend—and I’ll do more formal research on that later.

From Mega-Facilities to Multiplying Facilities

The decline of large church buildings points to a shift in ministry methodology. Many of the largest churches have begun to favor multisite expansion or church planting partnerships. While the large, larger, and largest churches continue to grow ever larger, they do not require larger spaces in the process—just more spaces (which tend to still be large!).

Simply put, implementing the multisite model compresses down the magnitude of the cavernous sanctuary. And, I do wonder if such buildings might be combined with a better multiplication strategy for a greater community impact.

At least in the American context today, the gigachurch, consisting of 10,000 or more members or attendees, often grows by adding sites and services rather than square footage to their buildings. New Spring Church in South Carolina provides a prime example. Pastored by Perry Noble, New Spring runs about 23,000 people on a given Sunday. However, their campuses do not seat 10,000 or even 5,000. Instead, there are multiple services and multiple technological means to distribute the message to other campuses.

Similar models like Saddleback implement video technology on many different sites, which allows those models to have 20,000 or more people attending their church on a weekly basis. Ultimately, the growth has shifted drastically away from continual building expansion to continual site expansion. As Rick Warren explained to me recently, their growth happens like a tree—not at the trunk, but at the branches. My guess is we will hear more thinking like that in years to come—smaller (but still very big) buildings, with more locations that are also smaller.

This trend is not only true of gigachurches, but seems to the trajectory of megachurches also. One example is Calvary Baptist Church in Winston-Salem, NC. Calvary is an older established church that has little room to expand at their central campus. Under the leadership of their former pastor Al Gilbert, Calvary voted to open a second campus in an area of town where over 30% of their existing members already lived. The attendance at Calvary’s new campus has more than doubled over the last 3 years, many of the new members having no prior connection to Calvary. That would have been unheard of a few decades ago.

The Benefits of Multisite Mega-Ministry

Part of the point is not really “new” news: more and more giga and megachurches are multiplying their ministry through multi-campus ministry. Perhaps you remember Warren Bird’s recent research that concluded;

• Multisite churches reach more people than single site churches.
• Multisite tends to spread healthy churches to more diverse communities.
• Multisite churches have more volunteers in service as a percentage than single site.
• Multisite churches baptize more people than single site.
• Multisite churches tend to activate more people into ministry than single site.

However, my additional point is that multisite may very well lead to smaller (and, I hope) recyclable buildings that does not lead to a proliferation of large, empty church caverns when neighborhoods change.

Also, part of the megachurch debate centered on whether or not the model could sustain itself in years to come. Since then, megachurches have shifted their philosophy from building bigger and bigger to spreading further and further through multisite ministry. I imagine that will improve sustainability as well.

Will the Megachurch Movement Endure?

It is quite possible that the evangelical landscape will include more megachurches than ever in the future. Why? Well, churches grow. Then they grow more…and then they grow some more.

While the evangelical landscape will include more mega-churches than ever, I would contend that the vast majority of those megachurches will be multisite churches. Whether you like the megachurch or not, the trends point to the fact that the megachurch phenomenon is not over, but it actually increasing in its growth.

Furthermore, I think it is now beginning to get its second wind through the multisite expansion model. When it comes to the megachurch the model of bigger church buildings is declining, but new campuses are springing to life all over the landscape.

There are lots of implications here—some good and some bad. But, it appears that bigger churches are having smaller buildings—and more locations.

I’m not sure I know all the implications of this yet—and I’d like to hear your input in the comments, but a new reality is emerging and—with all such shifts—it promises both challenges and opportunities.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Church Buildings, Ed Stetzer, Mega-church, Multisite, Physical space

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Environments >

Leading Change: Painful, But Worth It

by: Ed Stetzer

1

Tweet

Can there be change without pain?

The answer, of course, is, “No.”

(Ok, so this may be the shortest blog post ever.)

Actually, I think it’s an important question, so I want to address it in a more serious manner.

When Pain Is Worth It

When I was a seminary professor, a church called me to be their pastor. Actually, they asked me, “Can you come help us reach the young people?” That is what church tend to call the neighborhood around their building—the young people.

The median age of the church was 68 years old. In a church building that sat 250 people, 35 (mostly) senior citizens sat huddled together at the front left corner of the sanctuary. At the end of every row, it seemed like there were oxygen tanks and walkers.

As a former church planter, recently called seminary professor, I didn’t have a lot of contact with senior adults. They are not the most commonly responsive demographic in church planting. But, I learned to love these people and we loved one another.

They wanted to reach the community, so I had them go out to door-to-door to meet “the young people.” After it was over, I asked them what they thought about it. Here’s what they said: “The people aren’t like us.” Indeed.

The church that had been founded in the 1950s had stayed there, while the area around them changed. I worked with them to address the question they faced now, “What are we going to do about it?”

We went through a process of evaluation and change that took six months– a lot faster than normal. (Do not expect to go into a church and say one Sunday morning, “We’re going to change our worship style.” You had better have a U-haul truck ready and running behind the church because more than likely you won’t last long.)

But for this church, their desperation (and probably their perception of me as some sort of expert) made it possible to move quickly. There were still bumps along the way. When we decided to cancel Sunday night services, a lady I’ll call “Alice” told me, “Preacher, the devil’s gonna be runnin’ loose in our church because you cancelled Sunday night services.” I was a bit shocked that the Prince of Darkness had been held back this whole time because of the Sunday night service and the four people who attended it, but we moved on with the proposed changes anyway (and no Lucifer sightings were reported).

We reconsidered who we were as a church in light of who we were as a community. On top of ending Sunday night services, we changed our worship and made other adjustments to be more contextual to their neighborhood. And being an older church, we voted on EV-ER-Y-thing. The final vote for the changes was 34 to 1. (“Alice” voted no and left mad that day.) But everyone else in the church was on board. I led them through this process, but they wanted to make the change.

Two years later, the church had grown from 35 to about 175 in weekly attendance. The median age had dropped to the mid-thirties. On my last day, before I left to take a job in another state, all of the original members who were still living were there (except “Alice”).

On that final day, the wise, old chairman of the deacons (akin to elders in most churches), came up to me, poked me in the chest and said, “Preacher, I still don’t like the music. And the kids are breaking everything in this church.” He was right; the kids were breaking everything. That’s the difference between a church full of senior adults and a church full of kids with senior adults—vases.

If you’re a church with senior adults every little classroom at the church has a corner table that’s sliced off kind of at an angle, has a white doily and a vase with fake, dusty plastic flowers that have been there since 1972. Once you get the kids, the doily and the table are still there, but there’s a dust ring where the now-broken vase used to be.

So, I knew this older leader was right; I just wasn’t sure what it was he wanted to say. But with his finger in my chest, I looked into his eyes and I could see he was starting to tear up. This was not a man who cries easily– think the World War II generation. But as the tears formed in the corner of his eyes, he leaned in and said, “But preacher, it was worth it all.”

Changing Our Hurts

People hurt for their preferences when there’s change. But part of the role of pastors and church leaders is to help people hurt for the right things. When people don’t get things their way, it hurts them. That shouldn’t surprise you. But, instead, leaders have to help them hurt for the things that break the heart of God.

Change can come, but it will come by the way of pain.

I often use my shoes as an example. I hate buying new shoes. My feet are shaped weird and it takes awhile to break in a new pair. Bones on the side of my feet rub against the new shoe, giving me blisters for three weeks until it has worn down in the right areas. So, I just don’t buy new shoes unless things become unbearable.

I wear my shoes until the soles have holes in them. I’ll keep ignoring the ever-growing hole because it’s not bad enough for me to endure the way my feet hurt in new shoes. Then winter comes and everything changes. Walking around Nashville on a day that’s colder than a legalist’s heart, I’ll step into a barely above freezing puddle of water. It will shoot up between my toes, into my sock, and sit there. Now, I’m finally thinking, “I’ve got to change!”

Here’s the principle: people never change until the pain of staying the same becomes greater than the pain of change.

That’s why there can’t be change without pain.

Now, with this church, their pain grew because they were desperate.

Early on, I showed them the statistical trends in their neighborhood. In one of the key meetings, that older key leader I mentioned stood up and said, “People, in 10 years, we’re all going to be dead and gone, and this church is going to be closed.” See, they had the pain already. It was helping them direct it to where it needed to be.

Leaders have to help their churches hurt for the things that Scripture tells us God hurts for. The body of Christ has to ache for those things that the Spirit of God leads them to, not the things they are told to hurt over by American culture and personal preference.

Change will require pain, but pain directed properly will bring results that are worth it.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Change, Change Principle, Ed Stetzer

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

4 Steps to Community Engagement

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

I’ve said many times before that if the 1950s were to make a comeback, there would be all too many churches who could go on without missing a beat. The good news is that they found a ministry strategy that works. The bad news is that the people they reach are now seventy years old.

Many of these churches have succumbed to this tendency: when something works, people work it. This backfires because the more they “work it,” the more they get trapped in it. Before long, the ministry strategy is sixty years old and the church that once thrived with innovative ways to reach their community has now shriveled to a handful of people that has completely lost touch with the surrounding neighborhood. In their well-intentioned but often insular focus on strategies and programs within their own walls, they have stopped knowing the people around them in their neighborhood.

Those that are leading local church bodies today know that there is more to pastoral care than simply caring for the needs of the local congregation. While that is certainly a part of it, the church also needs to have an effective connection with the community outside the church. There should be a difference in the community because the church exists, and if it left for some reason, there should be a void that’s felt. Unfortunately, that’s not often the case. We become more about church preservation than community transformation.

When we took on the comprehensive study at LifeWay Research known as the Transformational Church Initiative, we surveyed over 7,000 churches and conducted hundreds of on-site interviews with pastors. We wanted to change the scorecard from strictly looking at numbers to one that really asks if churches and people are being changed. We found that the churches that could be known as “transformational” had a number of characteristics in common. One of those traits was that transformational churches engaged their respective communities on mission.

We found that the common thread was that these churches were willing to invest deeper in the mission than other churches. They wanted to move the mission forward. The priorities were engaging the lost, winning the lost, and maturing believers to repeat the process. What does that process look like? Four steps are clear.

The first step to engaging in God’s mission is to define success.

The standard church scorecard of bodies, budgets, and buildings is too weak. High attendance goals must be a secondary measurement. We must look to seeing that number meeting Christ, and advancing the gospel into the lives of unbelievers. Changed lives are the obsession. The goal is to see lives being transformed by the power of Christ.

The second step to engaging God’s mission is to prepare.

Churches that reach their communities will always be training their people, in a wide variety of ways, to reach out to those around them with the gospel. Modeling how to engage people far from God in relationships is a key strategy. Too many churches rely on surface-level orientation when we need training to be on mission.

The third step is providing personal leadership to believers.

The activity of community converged with the value of vibrant leadership provides the right environment to help believers move out into the mission of the church. The most valuable resource for the missional journey is real-life examples and real-time conversations. In order for churches to reach their communities, they must break the clergy caste system and place the mission in the hands of all believers. Believers will respond to the task of being on mission, because God has made us all to be on mission. The clergification of ministry confused this greatly. When we as pastors do for people what God has called them to do, everyone gets hurt and the mission is hindered.

The fourth step for engaging in God’s mission is moving into the community.

Many churches seem to struggle with building a good reputation in their neighborhood. But churches that are transformational are not waiting for the neighbors to come to them. Instead, they go out and meet the neighbors. They have abandoned the “come and see” model for the “go and tell” model.

The “come and see” mentality results in pastors who consider themselves “religious professionals who can put on a show” instead of people transformed and sent on a mission. Instead, pastors and church members should have a desire to engage their neighborhood with great passion, and a vision to change the fabric of the community around them. In Transformational Churches, 53% agree with the statement: “Our church celebrates when members serve the local city or community.” And 44% agree with “People regularly become Christians as a result of our church serving.”

The picture here is of a body of believers that celebrates not just ministry that builds up the local church, but also when the community is blessed and transformed. The opposite effect happens when the vast majority of celebration is over internal ministry engagement. One church feels like a movement into the city. The other feels like an institution seeking self-preservation.

Also, we always want to be intentionally looking for ways to engage their community at large. The mission is “out there” and not “in here.” We must go beyond evangelistic presentations in favor of a missional lifestyle. Training in evangelism is part of preparing for God’s mission, but not living it. Service is a portion of God’s mission, but not all of it. The mission of God should be so apparently active among the people of a church that the city misses them when they are not around.

This is not an abandonment of sharing the gospel in favor of acts of service only. In fact, most members of churches that engage their community are quite comfortable sharing their faith. The mission of God does not progress unless people are talking about God’s mission to save. Transformation of individuals and communities happens at the same pace that the gospel is proclaimed.

Churches that are making a difference engage people in ministry within the church and mission outside the church. The church has made a conscious decision that their existence is directly related to God’s mission of seeing people reconciled to God through Christ. A Cross-centered and resurrection-powered life no longer lives for itself. It dies daily for the kingdom mission.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Local Predicament, community engagement, misson

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

2 Wrong Ways to Think About Church Buildings

by: Ed Stetzer

2

Tweet

I am often invited to speak to a lot of different churches in a lot of different buildings. Some churches obviously put great care and thought into their building. It clearly reflects portions of their theology and serves to further their ministry goals. Others? Not so much.

So, with that in mind, what are some of the most common mistakes pastors make in church design and the building of facilities? In other words, what things should churches avoid when considering church construction?

It seems to me that leaders can go in two different wrong directions with their church building in a society like ours—they can think too trendy or they can think too permanent.

Thinking Trendy

Most of us have probably driven by a church with green windows and roof that looked like it was from The Brady Bunch. These churches built trendy in the 1970s and now they’re regretting that. A photo slideshow of “The Ugliest Churches in the World” finds most of them went for a modern look that’s not so modern anymore.

But, even more than the aesthetic appeal of a church building, I think many churches are going to wish they had not built gigantic multi-thousand seat auditoriums, and many others will regret the quaint columns and brick building on the edge of town.

For example, before planting my current church, I served as an interim pastor for a church in Nashville with a 3,000-seat auditorium. Meeting with the staff before I left, we all agreed that if the church were started today, we would not build in the same way. However, the same can be true for several of the churches I’ve served through a church revitalization process. The building is no longer a help and they wish they had done it differently.

Think about a church like LifeChurch. They are one of the largest churches in the nation, and yet their buildings do not generally seat thousands. There is a definite “technologification” of gathering and the facilities are utilitarian. Now, I think that there are some unintended side effects to this, but is has undoubtedly opened up new possibilities to churches today.

I’ve written before about what I believe the future of multisite will look like—forgoing a large building at the beginning in order to intentionally plant churches and venues across a single region. This method enables churches like Seacoast and others to overcome some of the problems that can be problematic for other multisite methods.

Those who are adapting and planning for the future avoid the pitfalls of trendiness and often build buildings that can be turned into something else. They can be used as a liturgical, contemporary, or traditional facility, but if the church outgrows, they can repurpose. If it declines, they can take appropriate action.

Churches who merely try to stay trendy are in a never-ending pursuit. Styles change. They always have. Those churches whose thinking is driven by current popularity will have buildings that no longer suit their needs and will fade out of style.

Thinking Permanent

Every year, LifeWay Research and Outreach Magazine release a list of the 100 largest churches. Of those, many weren’t in existence 20 years ago, while most of the rest have built a new facility or moved to a new location since then. Some of the biggest churches 20 years ago are now empty shells—either closed or relocated. And, might I add, often great new churches exist where they once were.

The problem is that most churches thought their building was a permanent representation of their congregation.

We may need a better way. Even those who want to build impressive liturgical structures may need to consider whether or not this makes sense, particularly if we do not live in a French village that will be the same in 500 years.

For example, just this week in Minneapolis, a Lutheran church closed. The story explained,

Part of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Bethlehem thrived into the 1950s when as many as 1,800 people filled its pews. But it has struggled, like many urban churches, to hold onto its members. What began with the white flight of the 1960s was only exacerbated by the collapse of manufacturing in the central city, the recession and a growing trend in society away from organized religion, especially mainline Christian churches. In recent years, membership has dwindled to about 150 people, many of them elderly and shut-ins, according to Pastor Micah Wildauer, who split his time between Bethlehem and nearby Hope Lutheran Church. Most Sundays, attendance hovered around 50.

This church is not a mainline church, but an LCMS church, but either way the trend of relocation is clear. I don’t know if this church declined—I do know that it has relocated. Yet its building did not. Now it is closing.

Perhaps churches should consider what business people call the “mall cycle.” A new mall—or lifestyle centers, as they call them now—gets built in an area full of people. In 15 to 20 years, the people have moved farther out, so a new mall is built in that area, leaving the old mall vacant. It recently happened where I live in Tennessee. A large retail store moved 10 miles to be with the growth in the newer development.

Businesses recognize this (at least the smart ones do) and build accordingly. They understand that their building is temporary and will be replaced one day. The business wants to be where the people are, not necessarily where they have been for decades. They know the mall cycle is a reality for them. They know those buildings won’t last forever.

That’s not how a lot of pastors and leaders build churches, though. They build church facilities as if they’ll be there for hundreds of years. They sink the majority of their budget into an enormous building that removes all flexibility from the church.

After population has shifted from their area, they are left unable to go where the people are. Instead, many feel trapped in an attractional ministry model because they are trying to draw in people who do not live near their building.

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, Methodists and Baptists planted thousands of churches in areas like Tennessee and North Carolina. How did it happen? Churches, entire congregations, would move down from Pennsylvania and other northern areas to start new churches on the frontier. They had a mobility and flexibility that many churches lack today. Those modern churches cannot move because they planned as if building would be a permanent fixture.

I’ve written extensively (though, at times, begrudgingly) on how churches should respond to neighborhood transition. Yet, at the end of the day, you have to ask—what do you do when the church (which is a who) and the building (which is a where) are no longer in the same place?

Some will say that the answer is house churches– and I am an advocate of such churches. Yet, the facts just don’t demonstrate that house churches are making much of an impact, at least proportionally. So, for now, most will build buildings and they need to do so discerningly.

The Impact of Wrong Thinking

There are some long-term theological consequences from failing to think biblically when it comes to a church facility. When we glorify trendiness, we unite the message of Christ with faddish architecture, giving the impression that the unchanging gospel will one day become irrelevant.

When we view our building as our legacy—as the thing that will last—we tie the church, which Jesus founded and against which the gates of hell will not prevail, to a building, which will crumble and collapse in a matter of time.

Now, I mentioned several kinds of churches in the article– big and small– and some might say I am being critical of the big church or the more traditional/liturgical church. In both cases, that misses the point. These observations partly come from the pastors of those churches who wished they had built differently (and probably will next time). And, for that matter, trends show that there will be more, not less, megachurches in years to come. I just think many will reconsider their building strategy (as will churches of all sizes).

I’ll address more of the transcendent issues related to church architecture later, but for now: when church leaders allow a misplaced desire for trendiness or a mistaken view of their permanence to drive their conversations and decisions, they are likely making a mistake that will hinder their work well into the future.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Buildings, Ed Stetzer, Physical space

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Environments >

What Does a Real Movement Look Like?

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Actual movements are tricky things, but the word has never been more popular.

People keep referring to themselves as “a movement for global change” or “a church planting movement.” If we’re honest, however, that’s usually not the case.

You shouldn’t even be the one declaring yourself a movement. That’s like saying you’re smart or good-looking. As the Bible explains, “Let another praise you and not your own mouth – a stranger, and not your own lips” (Proverbs 27:2).

So, why do so many people classify themselves as a movement? People want to be a part of one. I recognize that desire because I share it. I am a seeker of movements. I want one. We need one.

Yet, only God can create a movement – it takes His divine and sovereign work. But, based on my observations in history and around the world today, there do seem to be some patterns related to such movements.

In Viral Churches, we talk a lot about “Church Multiplication Movements,” and some of this is reflected there, but today I’d like to talk about movements in general.

The obvious question is, “What will it take for one to start now?” Here are three things that I believe we need to spark a movement.

1. We need unreasonable men and women.

The comfortable do not create movements. Instead, they originate with those who are desperate, demanding something different. Movements come from those who become more committed than they are now.

George Bernard Shaw, Irish dramatist and socialist, once said, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” He’s right—in a way.

I’d say that when women and men allow their faith to be tamed by the world, they end up with a “nice religion” uninterested in the big issues like global evangelization, world poverty, and injustice. That’s why I love passionate people. We need more, not less of them.

Christianity needs unreasonable people who are uncomfortable with the status quo and unwilling to be content with the current mode of life and church. We all need a cause bigger than ourselves, which can drive us to action with a holy dissatisfaction.

2. We need churches that are willing to sacrifice.

Seeing the Kingdom as more important than an individual church will take sacrifice, but that’s what a movement is about. For so many churches that are simply trying to get by, however, that is an odd thing. Instead of a vision for the Kingdom, they have a vision for survival.

A movement takes churches that so believe in their mission and cause that they are willing to sacrifice for it – financially, congregationally and corporately. They are willing to give and go. Movement churches will sacrifice people to send out missionaries around the world and church planters across the nation.

Everyone wants to be a part of a movement, as long as someone else is paying the price.

Everyone loves a movement, as long as it looks great, but costs them little. A true movement will have a steep price, but those who are a part of it will recognize the immeasurable value.

3. We need multiplying disciples.

That’s so basic it is easy to miss, but it cannot be more essential. The fact is, no disciples are willing to be unreasonable and no churches are willing to sacrifice unless deeply committed disciples are involved.

Discipleship is the DNA of “movemental Christianity.” It is the basic building block of anything Jesus calls us to do, which is why it is central to the mission of God.

Disciples are unreasonable because they want the world to know of Jesus and to live as those who are changed by the gospel’s power. Disciples demand their churches sacrifice for greater gospel good.

When we studied discipleship for our Transformational Discipleship initiative, we were struck by the fact that so many pastors assumed they were making progress in their discipleship without evaluating it. Despite the fact that we have so few driven disciples and sacrificing churches, the vast majority felt good about their disciple-making progress. Something is wrong with that picture.

No Christian movement can be birthed without discipleship. It is impossible.

Conclusion

So, what needs to happen and what needs to change? Well, there are many things, but let me suggest one big idea for now.

Get dissatisfied.

Start with an unreasonable and sacrificial passion for discipleship that leads people to “no longer live for themselves, but for the one who died for them and was raised” (2 Corinthians 5:15).

That’s the spark of a movement everyone will talk about.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Discipleship, Ed Stetzer, Movement

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Process >

4 Ways That Missional Feet are Made Beautiful

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

I’ve written extensively about the missional nature of the church and the theological background that undergirds that nature. God is, by His nature, a sender. There are rich theological implications to that reality.

But, sometimes I want it simple.

I just want missional feet.

In the Bible we read about “beautiful feet” (Romans 10:15). My feet are not beautiful, I assure you, in their human form. However, they are made more beautiful when they move—they go on mission—and are missional feet.

Here are four ways missional feet are made beautiful.

1. Missional feet go to proclaim the gospel.

That’s the point of the verse above. The beautiful feet in Romans are beautiful because they belong to those who preach the gospel to a lost world. These are feet that carry the messengers to their destinations on mission with God. Missional can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but if it does not include Jesus mission (who came, he said, “to seek and save the lost,”) we are not missional as Jesus was (Luke 19:10).

2. Missional feet go to serve the hurting.

When Jesus announced his public ministry, he did so by speaking on the hurting and the marginalized (see Luke 4:18-19). Then, later, he says, “As the father has sent me, so send I you” (John 20:21). The Bible is filled with admonitions toward serving the hurting and missional feet are feet in motion to the hurting.

3. Missional feet go to love the “other.”

The Bible is filled with themes about welcoming the outsider and stranger (Leviticus 19:33-34). Not only does God desire for us to welcome the stranger, we are also called to go to and love them– to love others. This requires intentional movement towards those that we would not regularly cross paths with (John 4:3-42). This also means that we intentionally love others when we receive no immediate return (James 1:17).

4. Missional feet go to others– together.

Mission is intricately tied to community. Actually, much of what I’ve already mentioned is made possible as we go with others. The writer of Hebrews explains that we are to “provoke one another to love and good deeds” (Hebrews 10:24). The language says a lot, we need some provocation to missional activation. And, that takes others.

At the end of the day, missional means we join Jesus on mission.

We go to them– the lost, the hurting, and the others– and we do it in Christian community. In doing this we not only love the world, but encourage one another.

In the Gospel of John we see the most moving passage concerning a theology of feet (13:1-17). In the loving act of washing his disciples’ feet Jesus proves his love for them, signifying the washing away of sins through his death. Moreover, Jesus sets an example of humility and servanthood. Don’t miss the sheer power of this image. In a culture where people walked long distances on dusty roads in sandals, the washing of people’s feet was considered to be a task reserved for slaves. It wasn’t the most appetizing of tasks.

As I said earlier, I do not have naturally beautiful feet. However, in Christ they are made beautiful. And the beauty of cleansed feet are put on display as we go on mission with God together. There are people all around us who are weary and broken, people who have endured hard paths in life. Following our Savior, let us serve them and point to the only one who can give them pure cleansing and true rest.

So while we are here, wandering in our temporary dwelling, let us use our feet to bring glory to Jesus. We know that one day we will fall at His feet in awe-inspiring worship. In light of our destination, let’s bring others with us as we journey that way.

Let’s have missional feet.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Connect, Ed Stetzer, Missional, Serve

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Process >

Church Music Conflicts, Part 2: 7 Biblical Principles for Testing Your Music

by: Ed Stetzer

1

Tweet

Oh so many moons ago, I wrote a book with Elmer Towns called Perimeters of Light. In that book, we talked about how to choose your music. In light of my comments yesterday about, “Church Music Conflicts,” I thought you might find this helpful.

The ideas are a bit of me and a bit of Dr. Towns. Here is the excerpt:

We must test everything by the Word of God. All of us are responsible to interpret the Bible and apply it to our life but this is where disagreement comes because we interpret differently. Music is a form that is used to convey meaning. It may be the most challenging of all forms because it involves preference, emotions, vocalization, etc.

The following seven test statements each relate to biblical principles that we should apply to our music to determine if it is Christian. Examine these seven test statements to determine if the music you prefer is Christian.

The first test is the message test. This test examines the words of the song to consider its message. Does this song express the Word of God? Does the message lift us, i.e., appeal to our higher nature, or do the words appeal to our lower nature? If we seek to glorify God, it is important that the message of the songs be consistent with the known and revealed will of God.

The second test to apply to our music is the purpose test. All music was written with a purpose in mind or heart. Determine whether the music is sad, joyful, uplifting or soothing. And again some music is designed to tempt you to sin, because it stirs your lust. Some “protest songs” of the “Hippies” were designed to get you to rebel against your government. Music that may be appropriate at one time, may not be appropriate at another time. When we apply the purpose test to our music, we choose songs that reflect our emotions or are likely to produce the emotion we wish to feel.

Third, we need to apply the association test. No music exists in a vacuum. The association test asks the question, “Does the song unnecessarily identify with things, actions, or people that are contrary to Christianity?” An otherwise good song may be rejected because of its associations with ungodly people, or worldliness, etc.

The churches that I (Ed) have pastored have generally used contemporary music. I remember coming into the worship team’s rehearsal. They were rehearsing “Amazing Grace.” This was not a song we sang frequently– and they were putting it to a new tune. That was the problem. Nothing was wrong with the song. However, the tune they chose was from another song: “The Rising Sun” or “There is a House in New Orleans.” Various artists have recorded it. If you know the tune, you will see that it fits nicely.

I explained to them that the association of the song would be unavoidable– the original song would impact the meaning today. The original song was from the drug culture.

I (Ed) was reminded of this when speaking to a group of pastors, some of whom were Jamaican. I was challenging them to consider that there is no such thing as Christian music, only Christian lyrics. I asked if God could use jazz; they said yes. I asked if God could use country/western, they said yes. I asked a few others; then I asked if God could use reggae. They were shocked and clearly expressed that it was not appropriate. Reggae music was about drugs and there would be no reason to sing about drugs in church. They had a point.

I then asked if it would be OK to use reggae music in my church where we have no concept of the drug connection. They agreed. The music was not the problem, the association was. The key question for the association test is this, “What does the music bring to mind in the heart of the worshipper?” Note, not what does it inspire in my heart– but what does it inspire in the heart of the worshipper.

For example, for me and for many others, rap music is about violence and misogyny (women hating). However, to some, it is about raging against something. Therefore, if the worshipper finds that the music helps him or her to rage against sin and the world, such a music can be associated with angst and struggle, but against something that matters. For example, one group sings:

Man is nothing, but you think that you’re bad

Fool if it wasn’t for my God, I would have already had you

Deny His name are you willing to admit it

And if so, are you willing to die for it

Cuz I am, He is my life and I don’t fear death

Cuz he already paid the Price.

What P.O.D. has done in their song “Preach” is to take a form and to use it for a different meaning. The form of rap is no less godly that the form of 4/4 time in most of our hymns. It is a canvas waiting for a picture. It does convey and associate–angst against something. P.O.D. has followed the pattern mentioned earlier.

The fourth test is the memory test. We tend to associate our memories and experiences with significant songs in our past. This can be positive or negative. The memory test asks, “Does the music bring back things in your past that you have left?” Remember, repentance is a significant step in conversion. If you have left the darkness, don’t sing those songs that make you want to return to the darkness. A song that may be enjoyed by some Christians should not be used by others who struggle with past memories.

This does not mean that we need to abuse the notion of “offending our brother.” It seems that many churches have adopted a “don’t-offend-anyone policy.” That is not what the scripture teaches. Scripture teaches that if what we do causes people to sin, we ought not to undertake a particular practice. Listening to contemporary music does not cause the senior adult to sin though it does offend–there is a distinct difference. The association test says, “Don’t use music that will lead people to sin.” It does not say, “Don’t use music that some will find distasteful.”

The next test is the emotions test. Music stirs our emotions. Both negative and positive emotions can be stirred by music. The emotions test asks, “Does the music stir our negative or lustful feelings?” Christian music should stir our passion for godliness, prayer and righteous living. If music stirs your lust and makes you idolize or crave sin, it is wrong; no matter how innocent it may appear. This test causes us to evaluate how music affects us emotionally.

The understanding test seeks to determine the meaning of the song. Should we use music that we don’t understand or have a difficult time finding the melody? Some people enjoy and understand classical music. Other people can’t tolerate it or hate it. Others enjoy and understand country/western. Again, other people can’t tolerate it or hate it. Applying the understanding test, those who appreciate classical music would find it easier to worship God listening to a recording of Handel’s Messiah than a southern gospel quartet.

The final test may be described as the music test. This, like many of the others, is a “cultural” test that will differ from place to place. It asks, is there a “song within the song?” The music test looks at the song to determine its merits based on hymnology. It seeks to determine if the song is singable, if it flows comfortable from one line to another. Does it make your heart join in the song? A song may have Christian words and is sung by a dedicated follower of Jesus Christ, but the music is flat and leaves the audience empty. That particular song will probably pass out of existence because it fails the music test.

The history of church music suggests that every generation has its own music. Today, many older Christians reject the contemporary music of the younger believers, while the younger don’t understand or use the music of past generations.

These tests lead us to one simple conclusion: God can use ANY form of music. God has no musical style or preference. Therefore, with the exception of the message and purpose test, the only tests that we have provided are cultural. The question is asked, “What impact does this music have on the culture via association, memory, emotions, understanding, and music?” These are not easy questions–but they are essential.

When a worship team is choosing music, it needs to think through some important issues. They may have the freedom to choose, but discernment calls them to choose wisely.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Church Music, Ed Stetzer, Worship

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Environments >

Church Music Conflicts, Part 1: Have We Really Always Done It That Way?

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Music can be one of the most controversial issues in the body of Christ. Each person has his or her own unique taste in music. Christians listen to, enjoy, and are edified by all of these kinds of music. But should they?

In seeking to determine what is the right music for a church, it is important that we apply biblical principles to evaluate our music. That is not always easy, as the Bible contains no music notes and God indicates no musical preferences. Though, as I’ve written before, I do believe there are seven tests based on biblical principles that can help determine the suitability of music.

Music has always been a struggle within the church.

This evaluation is not a new thing. Music has always been a struggle within the church. It seems odd to hear Christians today insist that a certain style of music is best or act as if the recent “Worship Wars” were an anomaly in church history. Any Christian who knows our past would know that neither of those is the case.

Take a look at the patterns throughout the centuries, which Elmer Towns and I detailed in the book, Perimeters of Light:

“Get rid of that flute at church. Trash that trumpet, too. What do you think we are, pagans?”

200s: Instrumental music was almost universally shunned because of its association with debauchery and immorality. Lyre playing, for example, was associated with prostitution.

“Hymns to God with rhythm and marching? How worldly can we get?”

300s: Ambrose of Milan (339-397), an influential bishop often called the father of hymnody in the Western church, was the first to introduce community hymn-singing in the church. These hymns were composed in metrical stanzas, quite unlike biblical poetry. They did not rhyme but they were sometimes sung while marching. Many of these hymns took songs written by heretics, using the same meter but rewriting the words.

“The congregation sings too much. Soon the cantor will be out of a job!”

500s: Congregations often sang psalms in a way that “everyone responds.” This probably involved the traditional Jewish practice of cantor and congregation singing alternate verses.

“Musical solos by ordinary people? I come to worship God, not man!”

600s: The monasteries, referencing “Seven times a day I praise you” (Ps. 119:164), developed a seven-times-daily order of prayer. The services varied in content, but included a certain amount of singing, mainly by a solo singer, with the congregation repeating a refrain at intervals. The services were linked together by their common basis in the biblical psalms in such a way that the whole cycle of 150 psalms was sung every week.

“Boring, you say? Someday the whole world will be listening to monks sing these chants.”

800s: Almost all singing was done in chant, based on scales that used only the white keys on today’s piano. The monastery was the setting above all others where Christian music was sustained and developed through the Dark Ages.

“How arrogant for musicians to think their new songs are better than what we’ve sung for generations.”

900s: Music began to be widely notated for the first time, enabling choirs to sing from music. Thus new types of music could be created which would have been quite out of the reach of traditions where music was passed on by ear.

“Hymns that use rhyme and accent? Surely worship should sound different than a schoolyard ditty!”

1100s: The perfection of new forms of Latin verse using rhyme and accent led to new mystical meditations on the joys of heaven, the vanity of life, and the suffering of Christ.

“This complicated, chaotic confusion is ruining the church!”

1200s: Starting in France, musicians began to discover the idea of harmony. The startling effect of the choir suddenly changing from the lone and sinuous melody of the chant to two-, three-, or even four-part music did not please everyone. One critic commented how harmony sullied worship by introducing “lewdness” into church.

“Don’t try to sing that hymn at home; leave it to the professionals at church.”

1300s: Worship in the great Gothic-era cathedrals and abbeys used choirs of paid professionals, “a church within a church,” sealed off by screens from the greater building. Ordinary people generally had no place in the spiritual life of these great buildings, except perhaps in the giving of their finances.

“It’s too loud, and the music drowns out the words.”

1400s: Music became increasingly complex (Gothic sounds for Gothic buildings), prompting criticisms that only the choir was allowed to sing. As reformer John Wycliffe had complained, “No one can hear the words, and all the others are dumb and watch them like fools.”

“They want us to sing in today’s language. Shouldn’t God-talk be more special than that?”

1500s: The new prayerbook, pushed by King Henry VIII of England decreed that all services would be in English, with only one syllable to each note.

“Now they’re putting spiritual words to theater songs that everyone knows.”

1500s: Martin Luther set about reforming public worship by freeing the mass from what he believed to be rigid forms. One way he did this was by putting stress on congregational singing. He used hymns and music already familiar to the majority of people in Germany.

“Okay, men on verse 2, ladies on verse 3, and the organ on verse 4.”

1600s: The organ played an important part in Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism, while in the Reformed churches there was much opposition to it. Initially the organ was not used to accompany congregational singing, but had its own voice. As a result, the organist would often play a verse on the congregation’s behalf.

“Our children will grow up confused, not respecting the Bible as an inspired book.”

1700s: Isaac Watts gave a great boost to the controversial idea of a congregation singing “man-made” hymns, which he created by freely paraphrasing Scripture. Charles Wesley paraphrased the Prayer Book, and versified Christian doctrine and experience. Wesley’s songs were said to have had at least a great as influence as his sermons.

“Their leader is just asking for trouble when he says, ‘Why should the devil have all the best music?'”

1800s: William Booth, founder of The Salvation Army, used rousing melodies with a martial flavor to set the tone for his Army. He is credited with popularizing the “why should the devil” question referenced above.

“These Christian radio quartets are on a slippery slope. Don’t they realize that the airwaves are the domain of Satan, ‘prince of the power of the air’?” (Eph. 2:2).

1900s: When radio was in its infancy, a handful of Christian pioneers such as Donald Grey Barnhouse and Charles E. Fuller began featuring gospel music and evangelistic teaching over the airwaves. Many Christians initially showed skepticism.

“Christian Rock is an oxymoron. The music of the world must not invade the church.”

1970s: Larry Norman sang, “I want the people to know, That He saved my soul, But I still like to listen to the radio…They say that rock and roll is wrong…I know what’s right, I know what’s wrong and I don’t confuse it: Why should the devil have all the good music…’Cause Jesus is the Rock and He rolled my blues away.” He founded what became known as Contemporary Christian Music… and it is still controversial today.

As you can see, music has played a central, but contentious role through out church history. There is no reason to believe the disagreements will stop any time soon. Being aware of the changes and movements of the past, however, should encourage us to be more humble about our own preferences and more open to other styles of music used to worship God and point people to Christ.

Tags: Church Music, Ed Stetzer, Worship

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Environments >