How Motivation and Implementation Strategies Define the Multisite Church: 3 Concerns

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

McChurch. Franchised Jesus. Theological clones. Incubator congregations. Ecclesiological buffets. From the devil.

If there is a classification of church that gets put down more than megachurches, it would have to be multisite churches. Is the critique fair? Sometimes. But not always.

As we found with megachurches recently, there is plenty of good that comes with the stereotypical bad. In the megachurch research we saw that they don’t really draw away members from other local churches as much as people think they do, they are healthier financially, and they are growing at a faster pace than smaller churches.

But what about multisite churches? Let me say that I know some really bad ones… they fit all the stereotypes. But, I know some good ones, too. I’ve preached at several that were on mission, raising up leaders, and doing great ministry.

Warren Bird and Leadership Network– the same group that did much of the megachurch research discussed here on the blog– released some research on multisite churches last fall. And wouldn’t you know that it showed several positives regarding multisite churches.

From the research:

– 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.

Yep– facts are our friends. And, people who hate multi-site churches will probably not like these facts. (They did not like the megachurch facts either!) The fact is there are some good statistical indicators backing up the approach.

And the number of multisite churches is exploding. In fact, 62 of the 100 fastest growing churches in America are multisite. And there are now more than 5,000 multisite churches in North America:

But is this multisite explosion a good thing for churches in North America? Often yes…and sometimes no.

As I see it, the answer is rooted in the motivation and implementation of the strategy. If a church is using a multisite strategy as an alternative to spending $20 million on a centralized campus, most of us would agree that is a wise decision. If they are using it to spread only their “brand of church” or to provide the pastoral team with a “vacation campus” halfway across the country in a tropical destination, it’s probably not a wise decision.

But if a pastoral team is faithful to reaching the communities in which their campuses are located and to ministering to the campuses in an equitable fashion, I wish them all the success. Using a multisite strategy to engage a community through mission and to multiply disciples in the body is a win-win, and it’s happening all over the country.

Unfortunately, multisite churches still face their fair share of issues. The best ones overcome them, but many struggle with similar issues.

In a past article for Outreach Magazine, I discussed three concerns facing multisite churches that I see still apply today.

Pastoral Responsibility

Despite a church’s best intentions at new sites, sometimes certain pastoral duties get lost: scriptural assignments such as praying over the sick (James 5:14); watching over those placed in your care (1 Peter 5:1); discipline (1 Cor. 5); and breaking bread with the beloved (Acts 2:42). I know that those duties are supposed to be the job of the campus pastor, but we also know it sometimes does not happen. The focus is easily placed on the event more than the community. And sometimes that results in people come for the show without connecting to the community.

Christian Community

Connected to pastoral ministry is the community of faith itself. The church is not merely a gathering, but a united people who work together for the glory of God and the good of their neighbors. One of the weaknesses of event-driven multisite churches is that some tend encourage (unintentionally at times) a come-and-get mentality over a come-and-give ethos. Of course this is not only a problem for multisite churches, but the potential for the problem is significant. Don’t misunderstand me; I get that it can work, but it’s not easy. If you are going multisite, I hope it keeps you up at night, wrestling with ways to build community in a system that can easily discourage it.

Reproducing New Teachers

Perhaps my biggest concern with the multisite paradigm is that, without intentionality, it will limit reproduction. Let’s face it– it’s easier to create another extension site than it is to create another faithful pastor who is a great communicator. Our Great Commission strategy should include the reproduction of biblical communicators, not just big campuses.

Where Now?

So am I anti-multisite? Not at all.

I am not anti-multisite or anti-megachurch. I am thankful for both of them. However, I am anti-consumerism. Church is not about being the best purveyor of religious “goods and services.” And if a megachurch or a multisite thrives by appealing solely to the “come and see” mentality that is so prevalent, we will all regret it.

No matter the number of campuses your church has, reproduction is the goal–reproducing believers, ministries, groups and churches. That can be in a megachurch, multi-site church or, for that matter, in a house church.

So, if you are going multisite, make sure you stay focused on multiplying the mission of God– not just your brand of church or the reach of one person. Let’s make it more than projecting the image of a pastor on another screen.

The best churches know and do that– so learn from them.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Multisite, Vision Clarity

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Understanding Megachurches Part 3: Myths

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

So this week inadvertently turned into Megachurch Week on the blog. In the event you missed it, everything started  with some data on the continued growth of megachurches. Then, I shared a new infographic from Leadership Network on the financial health of megachurches.

Throughout the week, I’ve received blog comments, Facebook messages, tweets, and emails challenging the positive influence of several megachurches– some by name, some not. I get it. Some megachurches are not healthy environments. As I said Tuesday, I think some are quite terrible and fulfill every stereotype out there. Yet, there are also some great ones, and for that I am thankful. I want to understand them more and, when possible, to encourage them on their journey.

And while I encourage them, I’d also encourage those of you not pastoring or attending megachurches to do the same. Yes, there are some terrible megachurches. Just like there are some terrible churches that run 125 every week. But my job, and yours, is not to indiscriminately cast stones at every church that happens to be, or not to be, a certain size.

Wednesday evening I got an email from my friend Scott Thumma, one of the authors of the research I had quoted and one of the top megachurch researchers in the country, and I got an idea. Scott actually authored the book that debunks megachurch myths, appropriately titled Beyond Megachurch Myths. If you routinely deal with, work at, or attend a megachurch, I would encourage you to buy the book. It’s full of research, anecdotes, and stats and is written in a very accessible way.

Without further ado, here are the nine megachurch myths from Scott Thumma and Dave Travis and a little of my commentary about each of them. Keep in mind that these are their myths and I am commenting on them.

1 – All Megachurches Are Alike

Scott and Dave identified (and listed examples of: p. 31-38) at least four different streams of megachurches: Old Line/Program-Based (large FBC’s and other historic churches); Seeker (Saddleback, Willow Creek, etc.); Charismatic/Pastor-Focused (Church without Walls, Lakewood, Potter’s House); and New Wave/Re-Envisioned (NewSpring, Mars Hill Seattle, The Village).

If you are at all familiar with the church names or pastors of those churches, you know they are nothing alike. The same could be said of the church I pastor and any other church plant that meets in a movie theater like we do. Our size and surroundings may be similar, but our churches would likely be very different.

2 – Megachurches Are Just Too Big

“Of the 320,000 Christian churches, 60% of them have fewer than 100 participating adults and children (p. 45). And when surveyed, 64% of megachurch attendees knew as many or more people in the megachurch than they did at smaller churches (p. 46). 80% of attendees felt satisfied with the level of pastoral care they received (p. 47).”

Any church can “be too big.” But as our culture becomes increasingly urbanized and less rural, large churches become less intimidating– just as large cities became less intimidating for farmers in generations past. Simply put, obviously many people do not think they are too big.

3 – Megachurches Are Cults of Personality

Thumma writes “Pastors are often the center of attention whether the church is large or small…It is not surprising that megachurches are often identified by the names of their senior pastors. Any successful enterprise can come to be characterized by its leader. But it is unfortunate that this reality has led critics to suggest that megachurches are more about a pastor’s ego than about God’s kingdom (p. 55-56).”

We are often quick to criticize churches that grow under a certain pastor’s leadership, but good leaders will attract teams to work with them. Those teams will grow and, at times, the churches will become larger and larger– perhaps even a megachurch. That does not make it a cult of personality.

4 – Megachurches Are Only Concerned About Themselves and the Needs of Their Attendees

“72% of megachurches have partnered with other congregations to do international missions (p. 80). Because membership is spread across an expansive region and over multiple communities, megachurch social ministry may also be dispersed over a large area (p. 82).”

I ran an entire series last year on how megachurches can be– and often times are– missional in their practice and theology. From counseling ministries to food banks to substance abuse programs to thrift stores, megachurches can make dramatic impact in both their social and spiritual communities.

5 – Megachurches Water Down the Faith

“It is abundantly clear that some churches preach a prosperity gospel of kingdom theology or the acceptance of lifestyles and political positions with which many critics from different theological positions would find fault. However, the vast majority of megachurches have belief statements on paper and in practice that are clearly in line with orthodox Christian doctrines. Even more important, these churches’ organized programs and the values instilled into committed attendees show that this theology is promoted and lived out. (p. 98-99)”

I know big churches and small churches that water down the faith. However, stats show that large churches tend to have more orthodox beliefs and practices than any other size. When Scott and Dave researched what was emphasized in the religious practices of megachurches they found higher percentages of personal prayer, meditations, or devotions (51-42); personal Scripture study (54-47); and tithing or sacrificial giving (47-39).

6 – These Churches are Bad for Other Local Churches

“Individuals will always have disagreements with the actions and theology of certain megachurches and their pastors, but do smaller churches have reason to fear a megachurch the way a mom-and-pop general store might when rumors of Wal-Mart arise? Some of their concern might be justified, but we suggest that the benefits these congregations bring to other churches can outweigh the challenging situations they create.” (p. 119)

This is THE complaint/criticism that I receive more than any other when I write about megachurches. Several of you wrote in that the only reason they were growing was because they were “swapping sheep” from other local churches. Some even claimed stats that local church transfers accounted for anywhere from 60-95% of new members at megachurches. So I went digging for an accurate stat, and Scott has the only one I can find. In their 2009 report Not Who You Think They Are: A Profile of the People Who Attend America’s Megachurches, Scott, David Travis, and Warren Bird provide this breakdown:

Breakdown: 4% Organic; 6% Unchurched; 18% Dechurched; 28% Distant Transfer; 44% Local Transfer

So there it is– about 44% of new members at megachurches are from other local churches– not 60%, not 70%, and definitely not 95%. I hear people saying 90% and I agree that’s a myth. (But it is still way too high… just like so many other churches.)

I wish it were 0%, and every person that joined a megachurch was formerly without Christ, but the fact is that people do transfer between churches. Yet, I don’t know of any research or real evidence (beyond “but I KNOW it is true, Ed”) that megachurches transfer more out of local churches, destroying them while benefiting their own growth.

Actually, my friend (and church expert) George Hunter says that based on his lifelong observation, 80% of church growth (in churches of all sizes) is transfer from other churches. (If you add local and distant transfer, you don’t quite get to 80%, but it is close.) In other words, megachurches transfer like everyone else– but since they are bigger, perhaps we notice it more.

In 2009, our LifeWay Research study of Protestant church pastors revealed “49 percent of new attendees during the last five years have transferred from other congregations, while 32 percent were unchurched and 19 percent were children born to adults attending the church.”

Now these are self-reported numbers from pastors, who I would assume report a higher percentage of unchurched and a lower percentage of church transfers than would be true if we surveyed the actual attendees (as was done in the megachurch study cited above). But the picture here shows us what is true in all churches.

Way too many people transfer from between churches. But it also shows what is not provable– that megachurches are draining and destroying local churches on a widespread basis. Most churches grow by transfer, regardless of size.

There are some differences in how we classified the information and how Scott, David, and Warren did, but it is safe to say that on average, less than half of new church members– regardless of church size– come from other local churches. My guess is that megachurches attract more distant (new in town) transfers from other churches, but that is just a guess. Regardless, at this point, we just don’t have evidence that megachurches transfer people out of local churches at a higher rate than other churches.

Now, I understand that some have a very emotionally-vested perception that megachurches steal all the sheep from local churches. And maybe it was true at your church. But by and large, there is no statistical evidence that shows that megachurches are having a disproportionate impact on other local churches through transfer.

I want more unchurched being reached, but by and large with the information we have now, there is not evidence that megachurches transfer in more than other local churches– and in certain instances may do a little less.

For what it is worth, I’d love to see more research here to definitively answer the question, but at this point, someone’s hunch or angst does not make a trend or reality.

7 – Megachurches Are Full of People of the Same Race, Class, and Political Preference

“Many megachurches have intentionally adopted an inclusive vision that the church is for all people no matter what race or socioeconomic group. The leadership of these churches has a strong desire to cultivate an atmosphere of inclusion and embrace a wide diversity of people. This message is translated to the people in the pews.” (p. 138)

I honestly can’t imagine anyone believing this myth is true. When I look back at all of the megachurches I’ve been in over the years, many of them are most diverse than smaller churches– socially, economically, and ethnically. Maybe the splits aren’t even, but even still, they are much more diverse than most smaller churches. Most smaller churches are catching up, and I’m glad for it.

8 – Megachurches Grow Because of the Show

Thumma shows that while the worship service elements are important to the growth of megachurches, the greatest influence was the pastor and members’ active involvement in– and passion for– evangelism and integrating newcomers (p. 160).

In the circles in which I run, we call this closing the back door. A church can’t grow if someone walks out the back door every time you have someone walk in the front door. Assimilation is one of the major components of growing churches regardless of its size. An effective assimilation plan will help any church. When you have members– not just staff– who are committed to bringing people in the front door while closing the back door, churches grow quickly.

9 – The Megachurch Movement is Dying

Nope.

See this post.

So, long story short, there is a reason there is a book called Beyond Megachurch Myths. I hope you won’t spread them.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Megachurch, Vision Frame

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Understanding Megachurches Part 2: Finances

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Recently, Leadership Network released a new study entitled The Economic Outlook of Very Large Churches: Trends Driving the Budgets and Staffing Activities of North America’s Biggest Congregations. The infographic below was part of that release. Considering the discussion yesterday here on the blog about the growth of the number of megachurches, I thought this was worth sharing today.

Again, the number of megachurches is not declining. And based on these statistics, they are financially healthier than non-megas.

According to our most recent LifeWay Research economic impact survey, 22% of all churches reported giving below budget. Only 17% of megachurches expect giving to be below budget this year. Also, 70% of megachurches showed an increase in giving as compared to just 40% of all churches.

Despite 50% of large churches being slowed by the Great Recession that has marked North America since 2008, a majority of large congregations met or exceeded their budgets in 2012, and most have seen offerings increase over that same time period.

You can find those and other findings in Leadership Network’s most recent report, The Economic Outlook of Very Large Churches: Trends Driving the Budgets and Staffing Activities of North America’s Biggest Congregations (free download).

Church staffing trends, giving patterns of worship attenders and the role of e-giving are also part of this year’s findings, which draw from two Leadership Network surveys of more than 700 large churches.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Financial, Leadership Network, Local Predicament

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Understanding Megachurches, Part 1: Growth

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

One of the more popular series last year on the blog dealt with the question “Can Megachurches be Missional?” It was part of a continuing– and important– dialogue within the Christian world.

Several people have written and researched at length the trends found in megachurches. Whether it is our LifeWay Research/Outreach Magazine list of the 100 Largest Churches in America or John Vaughan’s helpful research, Elmer Towns’ articles for Christian Life, or what Warren Bird and Scott Thumma are researching, megachurches are of interest to many.

The fact is that many practices found in smaller churches trickle down from larger ones, but also because we are a numbers-oriented culture– we want our church to grow, so we try to copy what the growing churches are doing.

While imitation is often the greatest form of flattery and many copy their methods, their terminology, and their programs, megachurches tend to face scrutiny– some fair and some unfair. In the process, several unhelpful things are said about them either out of jealousy or ignorance. One piece of misinformation spread about megachurches is that they are a dying breed.

I have heard this over and over again– that the megachurch is dying out. That people are wising up and getting into organic churches. That the mindless robots who blindly follow a the charlatan megachurch pastor have seen the light. The day of the megachurch is done.

One problem: the claims are just not true (and some of it is quite insulting to many passionate believers who attend megachurches who actually have higher levels of involvement and service according to the best research).

Facts are our friends– and we need some here. And the fact that Christians are choosing megachurches– and megachurches are thriving– is not a matter of debate, it is simply a matter of math. (This is not to say that there are issues to consider, but it is helpful to get this fact straight.)

So, the number of megachurches is not declining. Recent analysis from Scott Thumma and Warren Bird show the opposite, actually. There are more megachurches every year, not less. And, they have exploded in number in the last few decades.

You are entitled to your opinion about megachurches, but not to your own facts. The fact is, they are not going away. Instead, they keep coming.

The graphic might show a slowdown in the last two years from the explosive growth (from explosive to electric?) we saw over the past decade, but Warren and I don’t think so (yet). Two years does not make a trend, and the trend is quite remarkable when it comes of the number of megachurches.

For example:

• The number of megachurches in America has nearly doubled during every decade over the last half century.
• In 1960, there was 1 megachurch for every 7.5 million Americans. In 2010, there was one for every 200,000 Americans.
• There are as many megachurches today in the greater Nashville area as there were in the entire country in 1960.

Now, I don’t think that every megachurch is good– I assure you, I think some are quite terrible and fulfill every stereotype out there. Yet, there are also some great ones, and for that I am thankful. I want to understand them more and, when possible, to encourage them on their journey.

We are actually considering some learning communities (with D.Min. credit available) for megachurch pastors who want a peer group to considering that question. More soon on that, but for now… you have the facts.

For more information on megachurches and many of the stats cited in this article, visit Leadership Network’s megachurch resource page.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Church Growth, Ed Stetzer, Local Predicament, Megachurch

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

5 Reasons Some Leaders Finish Poorly

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

I was recently in a meeting discussing the future of an evangelical movement. The person I was with shared a great challenge– one of the most prominent leaders of their movement was not finishing well, making it hard for the movement to envision a successful future.

That conversation soon turned to why this happened– and why so often. Within a few minutes, we had identified similar patterns with other leaders. They were all older leaders, were immensely respected, yet who are finishing poorly, often undercutting those who will likely become their successors.

My guess is that you would not be surprised with some of the names, and you could probably quickly identify others in your own movement who have done the same, but that is not really the point. It happens all the time in churches, ministries, and movements. I was just struck by how often this occurred. It is a real and problematic pattern.

After that meeting, I continued to ponder the situation. Why do some leaders end so well while others go out not in a blaze of glory, but in a blaze of gory? They finish poorly and leave a mess in their wake. In some cases they even undo some of the tremendous progress God used them to create in the years prior.

They have all been key leaders– and some still are– though many of those who have followed in their stead are ready for the former leaders to move on. That grieves me, for them and for their movements.

I think there are some common factors shared by those who don’t end well. Here are my five observations:

1. They did not trust the very people they developed for succession.

In all the cases (there were no exceptions in the leaders considered), they had obvious successors with whom they were disappointed. In some cases the outgoing leader actively tried to get yet another successor to replace their original successor (without, it appears, considering they might also be disappointed in the replacement successor). Those who are not finishing well seem to always be dissatisfied with who succeeds them, almost as if they are looking for, but unable to find, a clone of themselves.

2. They fought over things which were just not that important.

These leaders were not arguing over big things like the virgin birth or nature of the Godhead. Instead they entangled themselves in perceived offenses, worship styles, minor theological nuances, and more. They majored on the minors and those who were the objects of that constant attention knew another “concern” was just around the corner.

3. Their identities were too connected to their movement.

These “faltering-at-the-finish” leaders could not perceive a time when other leaders would be in place, or that they might do things differently. As a result they continued to try and control everything until they marginalized themselves. Ironically, they now have less influence in movements that sees them as heroes.

4. They grew angrier as they grew older.

In every case, their tone became louder, angrier, and more belligerent. Openly blurting complaints was common. The people who loved them opined of the many angry voicemails or emails they had received. In all the cases, the next generation of leaders would “take one for the team.” But, after a while, even the most well-conditioned team will get tired.

5. They could not pass on what they helped create.

Perhaps this was the clearest of all. All of these leaders were used of God to create great things, movements, ministries, and change. In the end, they just couldn’t trust the movement’s members– even the ones they had personally trained– to continue what they started.

Yet, there is a better way.

I remember watching Jack Hayford at a meeting conducted with the Foursquare national cabinet– about 70 of their key national leaders. I facilitated the meeting from the stage, helping them to find a new president and look to the future. Pastor Jack (that’s what we all call him) was retiring and they needed (and had) an honest conversation about where things were, are, and needed to go. A minor portion of that conversation included criticism of some of Jack’s decisions– as he sat on the front row!

After the discussion was done he asked to speak, and I gulped. He got up, thanked me, and then praised the forthright conversation that had just taken place. The humility it took to do that is only one quality that made him one who is finishing well.

I want to be careful here: this post is not intended to incite gossip or bitterness toward those who have gone before us. If we aren’t careful, our conversation can spiral into unguarded accusations and frustrations. That’s not helpful, nor is it biblical. I won’t post any derogatory comments or attempts to guess identities, but I think this moment is worth considering– particularly since there seems to be a pattern. And, this is a clear and repeated pattern in many movements– and that is worth considering and avoiding.

If we don’t examine unhealthy patterns, we– and by that I mean ME– can fall prey to repeating the same mistakes. To be honest, I do find some of those tendencies in my own heart at times– and I don’t want that to grow and take root in me (or you).

We ought to be sharpening one another as iron sharpens iron. We ought to look at the examples of those who have gone on before us (1 Cor. 10:1-13), both the good and the bad. Then we need to take a look in the mirror and examine ourselves.

I want to ask two questions for your consideration: How should we handle it when those we respect are in the position of not finishing well? And how should we prepare ourselves for our own eventual transitions from leadership?

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Leadership Engine, Staff, Staff Development

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

New Research: Maturing Believers Exercise Faith, Trust

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

LifeWay Research has released a new research brief on maturing believers. Here are the details:

Believers who are progressing in spiritual maturity are more likely to exercise their faith by trusting God even in difficult circumstances, according to a survey by LifeWay Research.

“Exercising Faith” is one of eight attributes of discipleship that consistently show up in the lives of maturing Christians. The attributes are part of the Transformational Discipleship study conducted by LifeWay Research.

Among the eight attributes of discipleship tested, churchgoers have higher scores for Exercising Faith than any of the other attributes, said Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research. Yet, he pointed out, only 13 percent of attendees were able to give the best response to all of the questions in this attribute.

“It is easy to say God has a purpose for everything in life, but it requires faith to enjoy seeing His plan unfold in difficult times,” Stetzer said.

Additionally, 86 percent agree they “express praise and gratitude to God even in difficult circumstances.”

Seventy-eight percent disagree that, in the midst of difficult circumstances, they “sometimes doubt that God loves me and will provide for my life.” Fifteen percent agree they sometimes doubt the love of God and His provision.

The survey shows the longer someone has trusted Christ as their Savior, the better their responses are for exercising faith. Being involved in a Bible study group, praying for Christians and non-Christians, and witnessing to nonbelievers also make a positive impact…

The survey also reveals those stronger in their faith are less prone to doubt God’s involvement, even in unexplainable circumstances. Just 9 percent agree with the statement: “When things happen in my life I can’t explain, I typically doubt God is involved.” Eighty percent disagree with the statement.

To help pastors, churches and individuals measure spiritual development, LifeWay Research used the study’s data to develop a questionnaire for believers, called the Transformational Discipleship Assessment (TDA), an online evaluation that delivers individual and group reports on spiritual maturity using the eight attributes of biblical discipleship. The TDA also provides helpful and practical suggestions for churches and individuals on appropriate next steps for spiritual development.

To learn more about the transformational discipleship research visit LifeWayResearch.com. The TDA is available at TDA.LifeWay.com.

You can read the full release with methodology here.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Discipleship, Ed Stetzer, Multiplication, Transformational Discipleship, Transformational Discipleship Assesment

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Process >

Your Church and the Art of Neighboring

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

I met Jay Pathak in some consultation work I’ve done with the Vineyard. I was immediately struck by his passion for the community and the mission.

So, when he published The Art of Neighboring, I was excited to endorse it. The book is getting strong reviews on the web, and I wanted you to hear more about it through this interview. There are also some related free resources at their website for the book.

I recently asked Jay and his coauthor Dave a few questions about the book.

You discuss how your assistant city manager talked about how Christians and non-Christians neighbored in the community. What did she say and how did you guys respond?

We invited our assistant city manager to speak with us as a group of pastors, and one of the things she said stopped us in our tracks:

“From the cities perspective there’s not a notciable difference in how Christians and non-Christians relate to their actual neighbors.”

We had been looking for an initiative to take on as pastors, and that’s when we knew we had it. We needed to take the Great Commandment seriously and literally. Starting with our actual geographic neighbors, and then we needed to encourage the people in our churches to do the same.

What if Jesus was asking us to love our actual neighbors?

When Jesus says that all the law and the prophets are summed up in this:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul. And love your neighbor as yourself.

It’s easy to be busy doing ministry, but not engaging your literal neighbors. By the time you come home you can be too tired to even notice your neighbors, let alone love and serve them. But that’s when it hit us: Jesus is a genius. He gave us a strategy that could touch every household in our city, the only problem is that hardly any Christians are actually trying it.

What’s the main reason Christians fail to take the Great Commandment seriously?

We have turned the Great Commandment into a metaphor. We try to take Jesus seriously when he tells us that anyone in need is our neighbor, that even our enemy is our neighbor. We make bumper stickers, t-shirts and posters about loving our neighbor, but don’t even know those that live 30 feet away from our house.

When everyone is our neighbor, no one is our neighbor. We love a metaphoric neighbor with metaphoric love and the metaphoric gospel changes our city… metaphorically of course.

We need to start somewhere, and why not just start with our actual geographic neighbors?

Explain to the readers what the “Chart of Shame” is.

We prefer to call it a “Block Map” (download the map here) This has been a tool we’ve used with many people to help them identify where they stand right now with their neighbors.

We ask people to write out the names of those that live in the closest proximity to them. Most struggle to do this.

We aren’t theologians or poets, so we probably aren’t qualified to talk about love… but we’re pretty sure that loving someone might begin with knowing their name. Or at least making an attempt to know their name.

This is a starting point for being a good neighbor, knowing and retaining the names of your neighbors.

Every homeowner/buyer wants a big backyard. Why might that be counterintuitive for being a good neighbor?

Many of us use our backyards as our primary outdoor space. We have six foot security fences and only venture into our front yards in order to get to and from our cars. Houses used to have front porches so that you could see everyone walking by. In most neighborhoods we moved our interactions to the backyard and as a result we have less interaction with our neighbors.

If we want to be a great neighbor we can start by moving to the front yard so we can be visible to those that surround us. This is a small step we can take to begin to get to know our neighbors.

What are some of the obstacles to overcome when moving from stranger to an acquaintance to a relationship?

One obstacle is learning and retaining the names of our neighbors. It makes a big difference if you can say “Hey Joe” instead of “Hey Bro.” Instead of our neighbors being invisible, we actually begin to see them as real people with real names.

In what way are my motives in neighboring important?

No one wants to be a project. Too often Christians are nice to people in order to get someone to believe what they do. Many of us have been trained to serve others in order to get an opportunity to give a tract, or share our faith. This often comes off as fake, salesy and cheap. Many people around us are wary of the “bait and switch” tactics of evangelical Christians. Not only are they wary, but many believers themselves are tired of feeling guilty and pressured about sharing their faith.

To truly love people we need to stop believing we’re to only be kind to people in order to share our faith. We’re called to be kind to people because we are converted, not in order to convert them.

This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t share our faith, or that we should be nervous to do so. When it comes to neighboring, you will find yourself in a number of deep conversations and if you love Jesus it would only be natural to talk about Him.

We’re still naïve enough to believe that people will share what they love. If you truly love Jesus and you seek to love your neighbors, you will end up talking about Jesus. If you don’t talk about Jesus, you might want to ask yourself why that is the case. Either you don’t have a relationship with Jesus that naturally flows out into your life, or you don’t love those around you enough to share the deepest parts of your life.

Let’s be clear: The Art of Neighboring isn’t an evangelism strategy. However, when Christians do this people begin to follow Jesus all around them.

What’s the importance of setting boundaries as neighbors?

When you start to love your neighbors, it will be messy. Most of the time we choose those that we want to love, and we choose people that are like us and won’t be too much of a strain on our lives. When we begin to love and serve our neighbors we eventually come across someone who is in real need. Usually they haven’t had someone who truly loves them and they are unsure of how to react to the relationship.

Their needs can begin to overwhelm our capacity. And we need to have a clear sense of the difference between being responsible for others and responsible to others. (We are borrowing this language from the great book Boundaries by Cloud and Townsend.)

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Kingdom Concept, Local Predicament

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Neighborhood Transitions and the Local Church, Part 4

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

So far we’ve looked at two options churches typically consider when the neighborhood in which they are located goes through change. The first was to to create a true multicultural church. Those options are often the most common, especially relocating, but they also leave out a third scenario which is becoming more common in large metropolitan culture: multilingual neighborhood churches.

I should add that these are broad categories. You could start another campus, relocate part of the congregation, and be a multilingual multisite. Or, you should move to multicultural ministry AND have language congregations as well. You get the point– these are broad categories.

However, if the community transition is dealing with more distant cultures that speak different languages, an important third response is to create a multilingual church or different congregations meeting in the same buidling (and, better yet, part of the same church).

I once preached at a church in Boston that had five languages represented in the church. They had a multilingual church with different language congregations. In the midst of this, however, they were clearly one, unified church They shared an elder board containing people from each of the congregations who prayed together, worked together, and led together along the way.

I think that the best scenario is not relocation (option 1), though I understand there are times and situations when that it the best thing to do– and congregations need to listen to the leadership of the Lord. The church is not a building and, if the church has moved far from its building, something has to be done with the building. So, if you relocate, start another church and ministry in the building the Lord gave you.

However, I think multicultural transition is a better choice, either in one multicultural congregation (option 2) or in multiple congregations in one facility or (even better) one church (option 3). With that in mind, let me conclude with some thoughts that are applicable to both options 2 and 3.

Practically speaking, how can this pursuit for a genuine multicultural community in a transitional neighborhood be accomplished? Based on my own limited experience, and more broad experience researching and consulting with churches, I see five foundational steps:

1. Begin to build leadership reflective of the community. When we were planting our church in Buffalo, our neighborhood was about 40 percent African-American, 30 percent Anglo, and the rest was a mix of other races. We tried to model those percentages in our leadership from the very beginning. The community responded.
2. Intentionally engage ethnicities present. Multicultural engagement will not happen by accident. A strategic plan should be created. Intentionally seek sufficient knowledge and background about the culture from someone who knows this information.
3. Move beyond tokenism and give actual representative leadership.Disingenuity will be spotted a mile away. Multicultural leadership must be present across the church: in worship, administration, and teaching to name a few areas.
4. Consider calling a pastor that is reflective of the predominant ethnicity of the community. Ultimately, it is God’s call who to place as pastor, but be intentional, however, to broaden the search to include candidates from a number of different backgrounds.
5. Reflect the values of the Kingdom of God. Above all else, our church, and the people that make it up, needs to be a picture of Heaven on Earth. Only through God’s grace, love, and guidance can this kind of miracle happen. I can’t think of too many other images that can better illustrate what Jesus Christ can do in the hearts and minds of people who love Him first and each other second.

Since pursuing a multicultural setting goes against individuals’ natural tendencies toward homogeneity, church growth WILL be slower. Nevertheless, when God gives the opportunity to move to multiculturalism, take the risk and make the commitment. When changed lives are the fruit, it’s worth it.

This is the final post in a series of 4; read the rest here: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Local Predicament, Multicultural, Recasting Vision

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Dealing with Neighborhood Transitions in Your Church, Part 3

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been discussing neighborhood transitions and what to do when a church and its community no longer share a socio-economic or ethnic makeup. Last week we looked at relocation as an option. While I do not think this is the best answer, it’s quite possibly the most frequent for churches. If you are going to do it, I suggested a few things to consider.

This week, we turn our attention to the hard work and commitment required to create a multicultural church. That, I think, is a better course of action.

While a neighborhood transition is a fantastic opportunity to create a multicultural church, most people who call for this have never actually been in, much less have successfully built, a multicultural church. Juan Sanchez has written a pair of blog posts about multicultural worship and multi-ethnic congregations here on the blog in the past few months. While his church didn’t face these exact circumstances, he provides some helpful suggestions.

First, we must understand that a multicultural church is a lot more than simply getting someone who is African-American by background, Latino by background and Asian by background and proudly saying, “We’re multicultural.”

If all those people live in the same geographic area, listen to the same music, and go to the same movie theaters and restaurants, they do not reflect true multiculturalism– where there is intentional embrace of cultures, not just the presence of people who come from certain ethnic backgrounds. More accurately, such churches reflect a mono-culture with different racial and ethnic backgrounds represented. This is not to belittle this development. I praise God for the development of churches containing multiple races and ethnicities.

However, to be truly multicultural, however, takes a lot more work. Now, I should not say that I am the expert on the subject– others have written more articulately on the subject. However, what I’ve learned personally was from a planting a multicultural church among the urban poor in the inner city of Buffalo, New York.

We learned a few things there, but a subsequent study illustrated more.

Here are a few things to consider (which I will flesh out later) on the transition:

1. A church needs a vision for a multicultural future— a passion to reflect the Kingdom in this way.
2. Leadership needs to embrace and model the change— including creating a multicultural leadership team.
3. Churches need to prepare for the challenges, conflicts, and opportunities that such transitions provide.

A multicultural church is more work than you think– everyone likes the hypothetical idea and complains about the lack of multiculturalism in the church, but are often not willing to make the transitions and pay the price needed.

We’ll talk more about them in the next post.

Read Part 2 of the series here; read Part 4 here.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Local Predicament, Multicultural, Recasting Vision

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Dealing with Neighborhood Transitions in Your Church, Part 2

by: Ed Stetzer

1

Tweet

We began a series last week dealing with the transitions churches go through in their life cycle as the community around them begins to change. As I stated last week, I see three primary options:

• congregational relocation to a context more in line with their congregation,
• intentional multicultural integration in one congregation, or
• multi-congregational partnership in one building.

When faced with neighborhood transition, a change in which some people have transitioned in and some people have transitioned out, one response often attempted is to relocate the building. Though this model sounds offensive to some, if the church body primarily consists of the people who have transitioned out of the community, why not start a new church that reflects the community where they once were? Since we believe theologically that people comprise the church, then, in all actuality, the church relocated long before.

In other words, when you move a church building, you often are simply moving the location where the church gathers (its new building location) to where the church lives (the people of the church live in a new place).

Other than church death, this may be the most common response to a transitioning neighborhood– especially when the neighborhood transition occurs in urban areas. I know of many congregations (and you likely do as well) who have relocated from historic urban settings to suburban ones within the last decade or two. I can think of several “Main Street Methodist” or “Elm Street Baptist” churches which are no longer on Main Street or Elm Street. They have kept their name, but not their location.

Sometimes these moves are for logistical reasons: both land and parking in urban centers are at a premium. Often congregations simply outgrow their space and moving is the logical response. However, more often than not, it is because the make-up of neighborhood no longer reflects that of the congregation. That requires a look at motivation and mission.

This is typically the genesis of the “should we really relocate the church?” discussion, and leads to the real question of “What are we going to do with the fact that the church has already relocated and yet its building remains in another community?” The real issue here is that we have tied our churches (gathered people) with buildings (sacred places), so when our people move and our buildings don’t, there is trouble.

I wish I had a hard and fast answer to those questions, but I don’t. Every church has a different set of circumstances and every church has a different type of people. I’d like to think most churches would embrace their local community and reach those around them. As such, relocation is not my first choice, but rather intentional multiculural transition is– which I will address soon. However, relocation is the most common choice (for surviving churches), and it can be done well.

My recommendation to churches contemplating a relocation is to consider five steps.

First, check your motives for relocation. When relocating a church, if your desire if simply to get away from the “undesirable,” you need to reconsider. Actually, you need to repent. God may have you there for a reason. Relocation to get away from people simply because they are different from you (culture, ethnicity, color, customs, etc.) is wrong. (I’ll have more to say on that later.)

Second, a relocating church must decide that their building is a tool for the gospel. (It’s a tool, not the goal, so make sure someone else gets use of the tool God gave you for awhile.) If a congregation is going to relocate its meeting space, it can (and should) ask, “How can we help another congregation start or thrive in our former space?” That might be an intentional church plant that is reaching, for example, a Korean population that has moved into the community.

Third, if some of the church members are not relocating, you might consider leaving behind a church plant that reflects its emerging context and community. This is particularly helpful when some of the members did not move to the new area and they want to be a part of a church where they live. They become core members along with your local leaders who are more reflective of the ethnicity there.

Fourth, you might also consider another location– going multisite-– and working through the wonderful opportunity to learn from other cultures and customs.

Fifth, a relocating church needs to engage its new community from the start– evangelizing, serving, engaging, etc. This will be a test– a church fleeing from one community often simply is looking for a place where they can remain customers of the religious goods and services they formerly received at their own location. The motives for moving were wrong, and that becomes evident when they don’t engage where they are going.

Relocation is always difficult. It is often (though not always) a retreat from a mission opportunity in a changed culture and context, engaging new ethnicities and peoples. However, there are times when it is simply acknowledgement that the church has ALREADY moved, and the meeting place needs to be near the living place.

What about you? Have you seen good relocations? What are you thoughts about relocations in general?

Read Part 1 of the series here; read part 3 of the series here.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Local Predicament, Recasting Vision

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >