You Can’t Love a City if You Don’t Know a City, Part 3

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

This is part 3 of a series on city research entitled, “You Can’t Love a City if You Don’t Know a City.”

When working in city research, you have to consider what to include. Many important things can and should be studied: language and immigration, poverty, church plants, church closures, parachurch presence, crime, etc. All of these are helpful, but I will try to share what a very basic project could involve. (Tomorrow, I will look again at an example of a church planting study. And, thanks to several comments in the last post as well as a few emails, I will also give you examples of other things that groups study.)

But, let me say at first that such research tends to be a multidenominational, regional effort. In most cases, no one denomination is well-suited to undertake the task. (Unless you are the Assemblies of God in Springfield, MO, where they have their headquarters and two, count ’em, TWO Bible colleges.)

It is not just that doing this research needs multiple denominations, it can actually help build unity and help churches focus on a common mission. Research is an area where churches can naturally partner without many theological concerns (like in church planting, for example).

We have found this works best when a city has a coalition or roundtable of pastors and churches working together, developing a plan, and implementing that research plan. The importance of this group is seen in:

1. Praying together for your city.
2. Working together to utilize the data and to share it with the rest of the churches in the city.
3. Mobilizing individual believers, small groups, individual churches and churches working together to meet needs and share Jesus Christ is a task that is bigger than just a few churches.
4. Determining how to fund the research – this is the equivalent of doing two national studies, only they are being focused on your city. Examples of ways to fund the research:

• Shared equally by the coalition of churches
• Shared by an expanded group of churches
• Donors passionate about the city

As we look at doing city research, we want to have a good look at the churches and the people. For us, we want to create a benchmark survey of residents and a survey of churches. A benchmark study enables us to see if we really are making progress as we reach and serve our community.

For example, many city strategies are filled with enthusiasm about what they think they are doing, but often it is just enthusiasm without impact. They see people doing things, but they have no way to tell if they are making a difference. By tracking things every few years, we can see if we are making progress.

There are many ways to do this, but I will share two: the resident survey and the church survey.

One way to do a resident survey is through a “random digit dial” (RDD) phone survey of residents asking about their interests/affinities, their attitudes about local Christian churches, their religious preference and church attendance, their religious beliefs and specifically if they their about and relationship with Christ.

This provides a reading on the vitality of the churches in that metro area, the receptivity of people to the Gospel, and their affinities. The affinity groups provide tangible entry points that individual believers, small groups, or churches could seek to reach (more on that later). Since around 100 affinities are identified there are many avenues to motivate and mobilize believers to reach the lost right around them.

The church survey can be mailed to all Christian churches in the metro area and asks questions about who the church is reaching (number of new commitments to Jesus Christ and the age, education, ethnicity, and income of attendees), involvement of attendees in ministry, and how the church is seeking to reach people in their community. This helps the local city churches to know who is working in their community.

The end result is to get Christians, pastors, and churches thinking about their context more discerningly. We have found that the research PROCESS actually helps motivate churches for mission. And, to do it together.

It is fascinating to me to see how seldom churches communicate with each other. By surveying the churches, you learn more about who is already at work.

Studies like this enable them to learn who their co-laborers are in the harvest AND what that harvest field looks like.

Read previous parts of this series here: Part 1; Part 2; read Part 4.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Kingdom Concept, Local Pre

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

You Can’t Love a City if You Don’t Know a City, Part 2

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Last week, I started a new series on city research and analysis. I will be taking several approaches, with examples and case studies along the way. And, feel free to suggest resources in the comments that would be helpful to include.

Part of knowing a city is knowing its churches. I will share more on that later from three separate studies, but knowing a cities church plants generally requires a different approach. Recently, Todd Wilson shared what I think is one of the best studies of its kinds– looking at church planting in a region.

The study, Church Planting in the Washington DC and Baltimore Corridor area, was put together by by Ron Johnson, Director of Accelerate. Accelerate is an alliance of church planting churches, networks, and denominations for the purpose of accelerating church planting in the Washington/Baltimore corridor.

I will be sharing it in several parts. First is an introduction to the report. See my comments at the end.

The State of Church Planting in the Washington DC / Baltimore Corridor 2005-2010
Why this Research?

A group of like-minded church planting leaders and ministries in the Washington – Baltimore metro area is seeking to collaboratively support church planting. The group seeks to champion the cause of church planting while minimizing organizational structures and overhead. These leaders are seeking to continue the work God is already doing through each of them while also looking for ways to work collaboratively to enhance the effectiveness of church planting in the geographic area.

The group is coming together as the Accelerate Alliance. The Accelerate mission is to:

• Attract, inspire and equip Kingdom-minded leaders and
• Connect them so they can
• Collaborate with their time, talent and treasure to
• Accelerate the creation of healthy, reproducing faith communities resulting in transformed lives and transformed communities

The first step in discerning the approach and strategy of Accelerate was to research and discover what God is already doing in church planting in the Washington DC / Baltimore metropolitan areas. A primary goal of the initial research was to discover how best to accelerate church planting in the area.

The vision for Accelerate was conceived and birthed by New Life Christian Church who has funded the initial work on Accelerate via Ron Johnson’s (the Director) time. Accelerate is a pilot initiative closely aligned with New Life and with Exponential (a non-profit national ministry that exists to champion church planting and who runs the Exponential Conference).

Healthy church plants start with spiritually, physically, and emotionally healthy church planters. We anticipate that the best path to accelerating planting in our area is through serving church planters. These findings will help guide us to determine how we best fulfill our mission and therefore advance the Kingdom.

Survey / Research Approach

Research was conducted to identify as many of the new churches planted in the last 5 years in the Washington DC / Baltimore metro area as possible. Denominational and network leaders were called, searches on the internet were conducted, school systems were asked for names of churches meeting in schools, and church planters were asked what other church planters they knew. 81 phone interviews were conducted with church planters, pastors of church planting churches and denominational leaders. There were 25 appointments with church planters. 15 church services were also attended to get a feel for the ministries of the new churches.

As part of the research questions were asked to discern the tensions and needs of church planters.

A team of church planting influencers from denominations, networks, church planting churches, and church planters met to review what was being learned and offer input toward meeting the needs of church planters.

Acknowledgments

This was an exhaustive search involving nearly 1/2 year of a person’s effort. However some limitations were recognized:

• It is difficult finding and connecting with many churches under five years old. For example, over half of the churches meeting in schools in one county did not have an EIN number with the government, a web site, a yellow pages listing, or a white pages listing
• It is difficult identifying non-English language / nationality churches because of the language barrier and they often do not use traditional advertising. Some of the non-English / nationality churches are use to maintaining a low profile in their own countries, so they take the same posture in the US
• Many new churches remain under the care and financial oversight of a sponsoring church so records of them are more difficult to find
• New independent churches with bi-vocational pastors are often hard to identify
• The scope of the survey does not identify smaller faith communities like house churches that are not meeting in public places or can’t be found publically
• These numbers represent surviving churches and don’t reflect others that did not make it to five years.

Observations of Demographic Populations that are Growing the Most

The diversity of the population continues to grow as people move here from all over the country and the world. Although different populations are often concentrated in areas, the population of the Washington DC / Baltimore corridor is one of the most integrated of cities in the country. The “church” often lags behind the culture in its response to demographic shifts.

These points are made by observation and talking to other church/denominational leaders. The 2010 census data detail is not yet published and the 2000 census would not reflect a lot of this change.

These demographic populations are growing the most.

• Outer suburbs – although the economy slowdown greatly slowed down this trend
• Hispanic population both in inner cities and older suburbs
• Suburban African America population in Maryland
• One denominational leader pointed to a growing African population in the city replacing the African Americans moving to the suburbs (this does not show up in a census study)
• First generation immigrants in older suburbs and inner city whose first language is not English
• 1.5 and 2nd generation children of immigrants everywhere who straddle culture but who experience life primarily in English
• Urban centers with many high rise apartments especially near subway stops that are filled with young adults who are predominantly Caucasian, but also Asian and African American
• Although the inner city poor population is not growing, it is becoming increasingly isolated from the church as thriving inner-city African American churches move to the suburbs to follow their constituents who are becoming middle class

This type of study is not intended to give you percents like a poll does, but it is an important and helpful approach in research. They have given their methodology (and you should be skeptical when research has no methodology). They have told you their limitations (and if they know those, it is a better project). The end result is a helpful look at planing in this area… more soon on that this week.

The next post on this case study will focus on the Executive Summary, who is planting churches, and the role of denominations and networks in church planting.

Interested in this series? Read Part 1 here; go to Part 3 here.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Kingdom Concept, Local Predicament

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Cultural & Religious Cheat Sheet

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

For the past week, I’ve blogged quite a bit on statistics and their use. I’ve discussed the misuse of stats, how to discern which stats are good and which are not, and even presented some new research on pastors’ views of the election and the use of stats.

You’ve responded with good questions and robust discussion (especially on my Facebook page). Through it all, I found a common theme in your tweets and comments: Where do I find accurate stats? While I can’t vouch for every research study conducted at every research firm under the sun, there are many trustworthy sources out there. You know their names, and I consider many of their leaders personal friends.

Since many of you use stats (as the research I presented yesterday showed) and want trustworthy ones to use, I thought I would share these stats I compiled for the Exponential Conference held this past April. These are as up-to-date as I could make them. But like any stat, they could be updated and changed. So before you use them, be discerning and verify them from the source listed in parentheses.

WORLD STATISTICS

• World population is over 7 billion people and growing at over 80 million per year (Population Media Center)
• Facebook has 1 billion monthly active users (Facebook)
• If the world were 100 people (100people.org)

• 33 Christians, 22 Muslims, 14 Hindus, 7 Buddhists
• 77 people would have a place to shelter them from the wind and the rain, but 23 would not
• 1 would be dying of starvation, 15 would be undernourished, 21 would be overweight
• 48 would live on less than $2 USD per day
• 87 would have access to safe drinking water, 13 would use unimproved water

UNITED STATES STATISTICS

• 827,609 abortions in 2007 (most recent data) (CDC)

• Finance (endoftheamericandream.com)

• Average household debt in the United States has now reached a level of 136% of average household income
• Over the last decade, the number of Americans without health insurance has risen from about 38 million to about 52 million
• Total U.S. credit card debt is more than 8 times larger o than it was just 30 years ago
• Americans now owe more than $904 billion on student loans, which is a new all-time record high
• 1.5 million Americans filed for bankruptcy in 2010. That represented the fourth yearly increase in bankruptcy filings in a row

• Medication (endoftheamericandream.com)

• 11% of women take antidepressants (highest in the world)
• Children are three times more likely to be prescribed antidepressants than Europe.

• Sexually Transmitted Disease (SimplexLove.com)

• One in five people in the United States has an STD.
• Two-thirds of all STDs occur in people 25 years of age or younger.
• One in four new STD infections occurs in teenagers.

• We’re Number 1! or USA! USA! (endoftheamericandream.com)

• Highest incarceration rate and the largest total prison population
• Highest divorce rate in the world
• Highest teen pregnancy rate
• Most obese
• More school shootings
• Highest child abuse death rate
• Produces more pornography
• Gets more plastic surgery

PEOPLE ARE LOOKING (LifeWay Research)

• 88% of Americans agree “There is more to life than the physical world and society”
• 76% of Americans agree “There is an ultimate purpose and plan for every person’s life”
• 67% of Americans agree “A major priority in my life is finding my deeper purpose”
• 78% of Americans agree “It is important that I pursue a higher purpose and meaning for my life”

PEOPLE ARE BELIEVING (Pew Research Forum)

• 88% of American believe in God or a universal spirit
• 75% of Americans pray at least one a week

PEOPLE ARE WAITING

• 41% of the formerly churched said they would return to the local church if a friend or acquaintance invited them (LifeWay Research)
• 63% of Americans are willing to receive information about a local church from a family member (LifeWay Research)
• 56% are willing to receive it from friend or neighbor (LifeWay Research)

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Kingdom Concept, Local Predicament

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Culture >

Why Plant Churches in the South?

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

As someone who speaks and writes quite often about church planting, there are a few specific questions I’m asked more frequently. One that always seems to arise is “Why plant churches in the South?” It’s a good question.

First, let me say that if you are not sure where to plant a church, I’d encourage you to consider international planting first. In other words, think about planting a church in the 10/40 window. If God does not want you there, think about planting in one of the megacities in North America. If not there, what about reaching the lost in rural (and unchurched) Maine or Montana (or lost of other similar areas)? If still not there, then at that point– maybe– you should consider the South.

It’s not that I don’t love the South– I just don’t think that everyone needs to plant there, and a disproportionate number of people say that God has called them to the South, forcing me to choose between the idea that God is not good at math or that church planters are going where there are already a lot of believers.

So, why plant churches in the South? And, obviously, why am I not taking my own advice?

Well, the short (and probably snarky) answer is simply “Why not?” But that obviously doesn’t begin to cover the multiple intricacies of the question. So let me attempt to cover a few of those.

First, on a personal note, what I described above is what I did. First, we considered planting internationally, but the Lord did not call us there (though we are involved and seek to send others). So, we went to a city (Buffalo). Then later we went to Erie, PA. Then, my life got a little crazy and I started being a seminary professor, researcher, whatever. So, now, I am planting a church in the South because that is where I live, I love my neighbors, they need Jesus, and I am a pastor. So, we planted Grace Church.

But, I also encourage others to plant churches in the South– and I’d like lots more (as long as you go through the process I mentioned above!). The fact is, God is calling many people to plant churches in the South. Here’s why:

1. There are still lost people in the South. Yes, we have more churches per capita in the southern states than in other regions of the country. And yes, the South is known as the Bible Belt. But that doesn’t mean everyone understands the gospel here or knows Christ as their savior. I assure you, that is not the case. The church our team planted here in the Nashville area is located in Hendersonville. That city alone has 61,000 residents in the area. But only 13,000 attend a Christian church on a given Sunday (which, by the way, does not mean we are 80% unchurched; it means that, on a given Sunday, about 20% of people go to church). However, if more than half of the people in my community are not in a church, I think there is plenty of room to plant another one. There are some other great churches in Hendersonville, but 48,000 people are still out there on a given Sunday– that’s just in my area! So the harvest is still white– in Nashville, Birmingham, Atlanta, Charlotte, Baton Rouge, Little Rock, Louisville, and everywhere in between.

2. It’s easier to birth a baby than to raise the (unwilling) dead. I’m a strong believer in church revitalization, so don’t take my comments out of context. I think (and could be wrong) that I have done more research on church revitalization and written more books on the subject than any active researcher in North America. Every denomination needs both a planting and a revitalization strategy. But many times the churches who need revitalization don’t want it. They want their community to change while they remain the same. But the community is always changing. New church plants are needed to match the changing landscape and composition of every neighborhood, whether that is in Augusta, Maine or Augusta, Georgia. So, we need to birth new babies if dying churches don’t want to be revitalized, and we need to help revitalize the churches that are willing..

3. Planting promotes revitalization. This may seem counterintuitive, but it is not. When churches are planted, other churches nearby often see what they are doing, learn from them, and engage their community with new enthusiasm. For example, I remember (way back in the day) when I planted a new church in a suburb of Erie, PA, we were the only contemporary church in town. Within a year of our launch, two other churches had started contemporary services and were reaching the young adults who, prior to that, were not engaged in their churches. Within a few more years, others followed– and, today, some of those services have exploded as new families have been reached.

4. Church planting not only encourages evangelism, but discipleship as well. While evangelism and reaching the lost is obviously a goal of church planting, many times discipleship of believers also increases. In most church plants, members are called to take on more than in more established churches. Involvement typically leads to a deepening of faith. Spiritual “muscles” are “worked out” in church planting and the result is usually a deeper, stronger faith. Not only does the church grow, but the people grow as well.

5. New churches reach people that established churches do not. A couple of months ago, I made a joke and asked if there were any yankees (or maybe non-Southerners) in the crowd (don’t remember the exact words). But, I do remember that more than half of the attendees raised their hands, much to my surprise. When I asked several, they explained why. As new people in the community, they found it hard to connect in established churches, but here they found relationships in the church plant and are now growing in their faith (or taking steps toward faith).

6. The work is not finished. This ties into point one, but deserves its own point. We are called to go and make disciples. The word “go” means to keep going. There is no end to our mission on this side of eternity. If the work is not finished– and it won’t be until the return of Christ– then we should be working.

We all have a context of ministry in which God has placed us. Because of my job I live in Nashville. Because I live in Nashville, I meet people without Christ– and they need a new church. So, mine happens to be in Middle Tennessee. Maybe yours is in the Midwest. If you’re called to plant, plant where you can bring glory to God no matter where that is. Whether your are in Jackson, MS, or Jackson Hole, WY, there are still people who need the gospel.

Tags: Church Planting, Ed Stetzer, Multiplication

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Process >

What’s the Deal with the Church Growth Movement, Part 3

by: Ed Stetzer

2

Tweet

In my last post I highlighted three negative unintentional outcomes of the Church Growth Movement. I champion missiologists like Donald McGavran, Win Arn, and others who wanted a missiological focus. I don’t blame them for all of the negative outcomes of Church Growth thinking. Our American consumer-driven culture, as well as an unhealthy obsession with success, has resulted in a formula-based approach to God’s mission. The movement became less missiological and more Americanized, particularly under the leadership of Peter Wagner.

The obsession with formulas and numerical results pre-dates McGavran and Arn, but it might help to see the history. A Mississippi clothing salesman, Arthur Flake, designed an approach to reaching people in the early 1920’s. His five principles became known as “Flake’s Formula.” The short version of the formula was enlarge, enlist, train, provide space, and go after people. Many denominations experienced incredible results through Sunday School, much of which is credited to Flake’s influence. He taught, among other things, that is you get __ leaders, you will get __ new attendees– and he was right. New leaders tend to gather new folks– that’s why we start new small groups.

So, if I think Flake was right, why bring him up? Well, the questions about Flake’s Formula are not questions about Arthur Flake. Neither are my questions about his lasting impact on adult Sunday School work in countless churches since the 1920’s. The danger is when we misappropriate ideas and the successful practices of others to become driven primarily by formulas. Often our desire to be successful can overshadow the mission of God in our community. Our obsession… our scorecard must always must be shaped by a desire to see lives transformed by the power of Christ, not just to run certain mathematical formulas to grow.

So, it’s hardly new in the Church Growth Movement (launched in the 50s, after Flake’s ideas). However, then soon the Church Growth Movement expanded and the formulas flourished. As I see it, the focus of many in the Church Growth Movement was more on formulas than on faithfulness.

Yet, formulas themselves are not the problem, nor are methods, but methodological mania is. When formulas ruled the day, soon everyone had a new formula to sell. Formulas became the focus and experts flew the country focusing on steps, formulas, and guaranteed results.

Two things happened. First, the formulas over-promised and under-delivered. In a sense, the movement lost much of its credibility because many tried the formulas and did not have the fruit– I would say because they did not have the evangelistic passion seen in the movement’s founders. In other words, Church Growth formulas without evangelistic passion leads to frustration and failure– as it should.

Second, the formulas became too much of a focus. You see, ultimately, I think that many in the Church Growth Movement lost their way because they confused tools with goals. The formulas became the goals, which is why the Church Growth Movement was embraced by people and movements that no longer believed in, for example, conversions (so central in McGarvan’s thinking). You did not need to believe in conversions, you just needed to implement these formulas, and your religious organization would grow.

So, where do we go today? Why do I believe that you should still value the movement?

Well, for one example, formulas still matter. You should shoot for 80% involvement of your church in small groups, for example, and 60% of your church serving, etc. That’s part of the reason why I am thankful for the Church Growth Movement (and you should be as well). Actually, I will explain next time why you are greatly influenced by it without knowing it– and you should be glad.

Before the Church Growth Movement, many people did not care if they church was growing, if it was reaching converts, and if people were involved and serving. It may sound strong to say that many did not care, but it was often accurate. Before the Church Growth Movement, things like the “remnant mentality” kept many thinking that they should just pray and preach and leave strategic thinking up to God. Thankfully, most don’t think that way today (though, regrettably, I still find it in some places, particularly among the most theologically minded, who are turned off by pragmatism.)

However, formulas are our servants and not our masters. We do research (and create formulas) from a theological grid with a missiological focus. That’s something that many of the early thinkers of the movement did, and some have tried to keep that focus throughout. For example, Gary McIntosh has both worked in the field, but also brought critical thinking about how to see the Church Growth Movement in his book Evaluating the Church Growth Movement.

So, feel free to share your comments, criticism, and disagreements in the comments. I will post one more installment in this series that will focus on the things we have learned from the movement and why it still matters.

Read previous parts of this series here: Part 1; Part 2.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Church Growth, Ed Stetzer, Vision Frame

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

What’s the Deal with the Church Growth Movement, Part 2

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

As I continue my series about the Church Growth Movement I want to look at three ways the Church Growth Movement evolved. As I said previously, it is easy to take issue with something that was birthed in the 60’s (Volkswagen vans and the Beatles were not all bad). But the misapplication of the principles always happens when you get beyond the headwaters of a movement. Although the Church Growth Movement was well intended, all the results have not been good. Here are three ways the Church Growth Movement evolved that was not helpful to mission of God in North America.

1) Americanization of the Movement – When the movement became americanized, there were consequences. Some Church Growth leaders sounded like sales consultants. Some reminded me of greatest pitchman in history, the late Billy Mayes. I see him swinging his arms passionately, in his blue denim shirt, pitching the power of Oxiclean. A money back guarantee was included, of course. Some (certainly not all) Church Growth leaders, as with good pitchmen, address a pain point. The pain point that birthed the Church Growth Movement was “Are you tired of the lack of results at growing your church in spite of your best efforts?” The answer, it appears, was better plans.

To be honest, we Americans are guilty of turning anything good into a business. The Church Growth movement is no exception. In The Church Between Gospel and Culture, Richard Halverson wrote, “When the Greeks got the gospel they turned it into a philosophy, when the Romans got it they turned it into a government, when the Europeans got it they turned it into a culture; when the Americans got it they turned it into an enterprise.” An unfortunate by-product of the Church Growth Movement is that growing God’s church can be as simple as 1-2-3 with guaranteed results. I call it methodological mania. Some in the Church Growth Movement lost their way when they became more driven by methodological mania than by a central focus on mission.

2) A New Kind of Mission Station Mentality – I have heard the church called a mission outpost in a positive sense. I agree the church is a mission outpost if you are describing a place from which missionaries are sent across the street and around the world. But McGavran took issue with an approach to the mission of God that resulted in missionary isolationism. Another unintended dark side of Church Growth is that it produced another mission station mentality. Our best hopes focused on making the church so attractive that even a lost person would want to come inside to discover Jesus. What happened however, for the most part, is that we made the church become a great place to be for Christians or a “warehousing effect.” With all our best intentions we must guard against, yes, that’s right, guard against making our church “the place to be.” We must avoid “come and see” mentality that tempts our people to “do life” at church 24/7.

The church can never become the place where I live, work, and play. My neighborhood is where real people live. I am not sent by God to a church facility, ever how convenient and impressive it may be. I am sent away from the church gathered to my tribe and household with the Good News of the Gospel. That is where transformational movements take place that engage every man, woman, and child with the Gospel. So, too many in church growth focused on the barn, rather than how we might live on mission among the white fields. When focusing too much on the barn, we sometimes forget that the wheat will not harvest itself.

3) A Sociological Phenomenon – Much of Church Growth theory was based on sociology– and sociology is not a bad thing. We use sociology in missiology because we can understand social structures. For example, in missiology, we understand the sociological realities of the people are are trying to reach. We know, for example, that some cultures see family in a certain way and we take that into account.

Thus, the focus became (at times) focused on using sociological tools and realities to reach people. As such, evangelism was mistakenly depersonalized by making it the responsibility of the institutional church as it engaged its society rather than individuals who were reaching and serving others. Bricks, mortar, and programs do not take away my responsibility to be a living epistle in my neighborhood through word and deed. The end result was, as I see it, too much sociology and not enough focus on the mission itself.

Now, it is important to note that all three of these problems were caused, in some ways, by reactions to the issues before them. For example, I believe that the missio dei movement (1950-1970) gave birth to the Church Growth Movement (1960-1990) which gave birth a the missional church movement (1990-today). Though I do not have the space here to unpack that all here, I think it is important to note that most of the Church Growth proponents, were asking questions about how best to reach more people for Jesus when many in the mainline traditions had lost that focus (when the missio dei became so overwhelmingly focused on societal transformation– see an earlier blog post here).

In my next post I will conclude my series by telling you how the Kingdom of God has gained because of the Church Growth Movement.

Read Part 1 of this series here; read Part 3 here.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Church Growth, Ed Stetzer, Vision Frame

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

What’s the Deal with the Church Growth Movement, Part 1

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Today, I begin a blog series that takes a closer look at the Church Growth Movement. Our approach to church today has been shaped by this movement whether we are conscious of it or not. Good and bad have evolved from the early days. By taking a closer look at the movement I hope we can learn and become more focused on lostness issues in America. So where were the thoughts and dreams of the early voices in the Church Growth Movement?

Now, church growth (as attendance) is not the same as Church Growth (as a movement). Most people would be in favor of growing a church, but Church Growth has become controversial (see the Google search on the movement to see how many links are to critiques).

So, what is Church Growth (when using capital letters). The American Society of Church Growth (now the Great Commission Research Network) defines it as:

Church growth is that discipline which investigates the nature, function, and health of Christian churches, as they relate to the effective implementation of the Lord’s Great Commission to make disciples of all peoples (Mt. 28:19-20). It is a spiritual conviction, yet it is practical, combining the eternal principles of God’s Word with the practical insights of social and behavioral sciences.
Over the next few weeks, I want to talk a look at the movement, starting with the person widely seen as the founder of the movement.

Donald McGavran, was a missiologist and third generation missionary born in India. He is universally considered the father of the Church Growth Movement. He was, interestingly, a missiologist and that was related to his emphasis.

As a missiolgist, when he suggested the need to transition our strategy from “people” to “peoples” in his work Bridges of God in 1954, it impacted his views (and the Church Growth Movement) in big ways. His study of groups (or peoples) on how they respond, undergirded the movement’s emphasis on statistics, sociology, analysis, and more.

Let me say that I am a fan of Donald McGavran. We may learn more by understanding what McGavran was not saying, particularly from the beginning. For example, McGavran took on the most popular, long standing approach to international missions and evangelism. He declared the “mission station approach,” that had existed for over 150 years, was ineffective for reaching the masses. He determined that by measurement– he analyzed and came to statistical conclusions that undergirded his missiological decisions that led to the Church Growth Movement.

For background, the mission station approach encouraged new converts to leave their tribe and isolate themselves. They took advantage of Western churches, hospitals, and schools (goods and services) established on international mission fields. He did not deny the positive outcomes through this approach but called for a “new pattern” when it comes to results (peoples being converted to Christ):

A new pattern is at hand, which, while new, is as old as the Church itself. It is a God-designed pattern by which not ones but thousands will acknowledge Christ as Lord, and grow into full discipleship as people after people, clan after clan, tribe after tribe and community after community are claimed for and nurtured in the Christian faith.(Bridges of God 331,332). Other names that shaped the early thinking of the church growth movement included Win Arn and C. Peter Wagner. (More on them, particularly Wagner, later and how they altered the direction of the movement.)

But, before discussing these leaders and the movement, it’s important to understand the heart of what they were thinking. In moving the Church Growth lens to the West, they wrestled with the question: “How do we reach peoples (as opposed to a few random individuals) with the gospel in the U.S.?” Church growth thinkers, simply put, were trying to answer the question a different way in light of the struggles of churches in the West.

Some people I know would respond to the question of our missionary ineffectiveness with “Well, you don’t need to worry about that. Just read the Bible and preach the gospel, and leave the results up to God.” But that response is, in my view, not the best.

What if you were to take two missionaries and send them to the Pokot in Africa? Then you told one of them, “Preach the gospel, love people, but learn the culture. Learn how the people work, think, live, and speak.” Then you say to the other missionary, “Listen, just preach the gospel and love people.” You would find very different results between the two missionaries don’t you think? Both of them preached the gospel and loved people, but they engaged their culture on different levels.

McGavran’s challenge was to dig into existing relational networks. Do not encourage believers to isolate themselves from their greatest place of Gospel influence– their family and neighbors. That was a missiology question and it assumes that missiology (with its research, sociology, and cultural understanding) has some value.

Obviously, I think there is much we can learn from the Church Growth Movement. However, in my next post I will talk about three unfortunate outcomes of Church Growth thinking.

Read Part 2 of this series here.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Church Growth, Ed Stetzer, Vision Frame

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Laypeople and the Mission of God, Part 4

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Today I continue my series on laypeople and the mission of God. If you have been following this series you know how I don’t like the word “laypeople.” At the end of the series, I am officially declaring it off limits for a while. A few of you may have a moist eye, and I may have a sniffle or two, but we must move to the future with a different and higher view about what God wants done. Simply put, all God’s people are called to the ministry (1 Peter 4:10), and all God’s people are sent on mission (John 20:21).

One of God’s greatest resources to fulfill His mission is people who are currently doing little to nothing– and they have been taught that is what they are supposed to be doing. Churches are filled with passive spectators rather than active participants in the mission of God.

As I explained in an article for Q Ideas, millions of people live in the shadow of churches that have become consumer Christian centers. The mission of God is being cheated while consumer Christians enjoy the programming. In their book, God is Back, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge described the state of the American church as the “Disneyfication of God” or “Christianity Lite – a bland and sanitized faith that is about as dramatic as the average shopping mall” (p. 189).

Believers who think like customers contribute to the underachieving church in America (and the West in general). But hold on. I believe the mentality in the pew (or cushioned chair) may have another contributing factor: pastoral codependency.

First, let me define a term codependent. I got this from Wikipedia–because you can trust everything there. “A codependent’ is loosely defined as someone who exhibits too much, and often inappropriate, caring for persons who depend on him or her… A ‘codependent’ is one side of a relationship between mutually needy people.
A codependent pastor needs a needy congregation. And we have too many of both. But relishing the applause that comes from being the local church superstar often results in performance anxiety and utter disappointment in an underachieving church. It is a vicious cycle where everyone ends up disappointed–including God.

So who started all of this dysfunction? Was it the needy, consumer-driven congregation? Or was it the pastor, hungry for significance? The pastor who insists on being the focus of local ministry trains the body of Christ to sin. Believers who demand all ministry to be done by “professionals” lead the pastor to sin. To break the cycle, the enablers must stop enabling. God cannot receive glory in the church when pastors are always up front receiving the credit.

I am a pastor and I love pastors. I don’t think they caused the problem and I am so thankful for the sacrifice they make. Actually, that willingness to sacrifice, to DO for others what God has called them to DO, is from the right heart but with a bad result. It hurts the church and it hurts the pastor.

We need to understand everyone’s role. When pastors do for people what God has called them to do, everyone gets hurt and the mission of God is hindered. God designed the church to act as the body of Christ. Here is what it should look like: “Based on the gift they have received, everyone should use it to serve others” (1 Peter 4:10). “A manifestation of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial” (1 Corinthians 12:7). The church is most alive when every believer serves in the mission of God where assigned by the Spirit.

Wherever we live, it is a mission field. However, too often, we say we live in a mission field but don’t engage the mission force– the people of God.

Now, I am a believer in pastors– and see that there is a pastoral office. I am not looking to undermine that. However, we have swung way too far the other way in most churches– with rooms of spectators rather than servants, customers rather than co-laborers.

The average person sitting in the pew (or, more likely today, the padded chair) on Sunday is bored, unengaged, and under challenged. If he/she is not absolutely jazzed by babysitting preschoolers or helping park cars on Sundays, many churches have few other options.

Thus, I think it is essential to change the culture from passivity to activity and to break the consumer Christian / co-dependent pastor cycle.

Starting in my next post, I will walk through four essentials to changing the culture of your church to engage all God’s people in mission.

Read prior posts from this series here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3.

Read Part 5.

Read more from Ed here.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Serve, Staff Leadership Roles

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Environments >

The Future of Christianity in the USA

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Last week, I gave some reflections here on the recent Pew Forum data, most specifically about the rise of the “Nones.” I was glad to write more about the issue for USA Today. They put in on the front of the webpage yesterday and you can see it in your morning paper (page 10a) today.

In a news column, you have to keep you word count to a certain level, but I did write a longer version and thought I would share it here:

You’ve heard it suggested that the United States is simply Europe on a 50-year delay. Most churches will be museums before your grandchildren reach adulthood.
Though new numbers from Pew Research released this month point to a decline in American Protestants, no serious scholar believes that Christianity in America is on a trajectory of extinction. And, as a Ph.D. researcher and practicing evangelical Christian, I say to those who’ve read recent reports and come to that conclusion, “Not so fast.”

You see, many in the USA who identify as Christian do so only superficially. These “cultural Christians” use the term “Christian” but do not practice the faith.

Now it seems that many of them are even giving up the label, and those cultural (or nominal) Christians are becoming “nones” (people with no religious label).

Christian nominalism is nothing new. As soon as any belief system is broadly held in a culture, people are motivated to adopt it, even with a low level of connection. Yet, much of the change in our religious identification is in nominal Christians no longer using the term and, instead, not identifying with any religion.

In other words, the nominals are becoming the Nones.

I’ve seen this in my own family, growing up in an Irish Catholic community outside New York City. Yet, really, the Catholic Church was the church we didn’t go to. Today, I am an evangelical Christian and I attend church like one, but most of my extended family do not attend church– and don’t bother to call themselves Catholics any longer. The nominals became “the nones.”

Furthermore, the cultural value of identifying as a Christian is decreasing. When that happens, those whose connection to Christianity was more an identifying mark than a deeply held belief find that they don’t need that identity anymore. The label does not matter.

When we consider why someone does (or does not) label themselves as a Christian, we see three broad ways people identify as Christian.

“Cultural Christians” mark “Christian” on a survey rather than another world religion because they know they are not Hindu, Jewish, etc., or because their family always has. “Churchgoing Christians” identify as such because they occasionally attend worship services.

On the other hand, “conversion Christians” claim to have had a faith experience in which they were transformed, resulting in a deeply held belief.

The recent growth in “nones,” I believe, comes primarily from cultural and churchgoing Christians shifting to the category no longer using a religious identification.

The obvious question is, why the decline at all and what does the future hold? Some may say this sounds exactly like what has happened in Europe.

Well, yes and no.

Europe’s religious decline happened for different reasons than what we are seeing here– bloody religious wars and a church/state alliance leading to mandated religions led to distaste and rejection of religion. That’s not the case in the United States and I don’t think we will go that path.

Yet, there is movement in religious identification.

This shift should cause us to consider three ramifications:

• First, Christians continue to lose what some have called a home-field advantage. Christianity is no longer the first choice of many seeking spiritual meaning, and identifying as Christian is not necessary to be an accepted part of society.
• Second, the squishy middle is collapsing. It makes less sense to be a cultural Christian today. Better to be spiritual than religious, unless your religion matters to you, as it does to devout Roman Catholics, Protestants and many others.
• Third, Christianity is not collapsing, but it is being clarified.

If you cut through the recent hype, and look to studies such as the General Social Survey, you’ll find that the United States is filled with vibrant believers.

The survey shows that the evangelical movement has remained generally steady from 1972 to 2010 (and, contrary to what you might have heard, the data include young adults), that church attendance has declined among mainline Protestants, and that the “nones” have increased.

But no collapse.

Other examples of resiliency abound.

Each year, Gallup asks Americans whether they consider themselves a born-again or evangelical Christian. Since 1992, the percentage has fluctuated from a low of 36% in 1992 to a high of 47% in 1998.

The 2011 yearly aggregate is 42%, very similar to the percentages over the past eight years.

So, Christianity has hardly been replaced by the “nones.”

So, if not extinction, what does the future look like? If trends continue, I believe that the future will look more like the present-day Pacific Northwest. There, we find a majority of the population is spiritual but not religious, yet vibrant churches and devout Christians abound.

For example, in the Foursquare Church (a mid-size Pentecostal denomination), the Northwest District oversees 150 churches. Fifteen years ago, 66 of those churches did not exist. Those 66 churches alone report 40,000 new believers. Similar examples of such vibrant growth, there and elsewhere, demonstrate the point.

So, in an increasingly secular environment we have vibrant congregations. That’s the future.

It’s true that many mainline churches in America, like their European counterparts, have closed down and converted into concert halls and museums. But I find it telling that churches like Sojourn Community church in Louisville are buying back former cathedrals, and filling them anew with vibrant young congregations.

Even in the shadow of the decline of cultural and nominal religion, the future of vibrant Christianity in America is all around us.

The future of Christianity in America is not extinction but clarification that a devout faith is what will last.

Christianity in America isn’t dying, cultural Christianity is. I am glad to see it go.

Tags: Culture, Ed Stetzer, Kingdom Concept

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Obedience is Not an Easy Decision for Believers

by: Ed Stetzer

0

Tweet

Throughout 2012, we have been releasing groundbreaking new research from LifeWay Research’s Transformational Discipleship study. In the study, we were able to identify eight attributes which consistently show up in the lives of believers who are progressing in spiritual maturity.

The latest data released focuses on the need to make personal, sacrificial decisions in order to better obey Christ, or as we have titled it “Obeying God and Denying Self”. The study found that less than one-third of churchgoers strongly agree they are following through in specific aspects of obedience.

From the release:

The survey reveals 64 percent of churchgoers agree with the statement: “A Christian must learn to deny himself/herself in order to serve Christ.” Nineteen percent disagree with the statement.

The survey measures confession of sins and asking God for forgiveness as one component of ‘Obeying God and Denying Self.’ When asked how often, if at all, they personally “confess…sins and wrongdoings to God and ask for forgiveness,” 39 percent indicate every day and 27 percent say at least a few times a week. Eight percent of respondents say they rarely or never confess sins and wrongdoings to God and ask forgiveness.

Sin was not only addressed after the fact – the survey also asked individual churchgoers how proactive they are in avoiding sin with the statement: “I try to avoid situations in which I might be tempted to think or do immoral things.” Three-fourths agree with the statement, but only 32 percent strongly agree. Ten percent disagree, and 16 percent responded indifferently.

The survey also examines an individual’s inclination to adjust their attitude through the statement: “When I realize my attitude does not please God, I take steps to try to fix it.” More than 80 percent agree with the statement, but only 32 percent strongly agree. Fifteen percent neither agree nor disagree, and four percent disagree.

Actions that can positively impact the scores of individuals on the Obeying God and Denying Self attribute were identified as:

• Attending a worship service;
• Making a decision to obey or follow God with an awareness that choosing His way may in some way be costly;
• Being discipled or mentored one-on-one by a more spiritually mature Christian;
• Reading the Bible or a book about what is in the Bible;
• Praying for the spiritual status of unbelieving acquaintances;
• Setting aside time for prayer of any kind.

Obeying God and Denying Self is also the only one of the eight attributes of discipleship that was predicted by more frequent worship attendance.

These findings on obeying God and denying self are part of the largest discipleship study of its kind. Results from each of the eight attributes of spiritual maturity will continue to be released over the coming months.

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). This online evaluation delivers both individual and group reports on spiritual maturity using the eight factors of biblical discipleship. The TDA also provides helpful and practical suggestions on appropriate next steps for spiritual development.

Tags: Ed Stetzer, Spiritual Maturity, Transformational Discipleship, Transformational Discipleship Assesment

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Process >