Thirteen Issues for Churches in 2013, Part One

by: Thom Rainer

0

Tweet

As the new year unfolds, it is always a healthy exercise to look ahead to key opportunities and key challenges. Certainly such an effort is in order for congregations in North America. I plan to look at thirteen of those issues in this blog and my blog on Wednesday.

This extrapolation is not an exercise in keen foresight or extraordinary mental acumen. I am simply looking at current issues that seem to be gaining momentum. These issues will present themselves unevenly to different churches. But I foresee that tens of thousands of American congregations will be impacted by each of them.

I am grateful to Sam Rainer for his recent post, “Looking Ahead to 2013: What Should the Church Expect.” Many of his seminal ideas are captured in these articles. Though I list the issues in numerical order, I am not attempting to assign any degree of importance of one over another.

1. The impact of the “nones.” The 2012 study by Pew Research rightfully garnered much attention. The percentage of the adult U. S. population that claims no religious affiliation increased from 15 percent in 2007 to 20 percent in 2012. That is an amazing 33 percent increase in that one category in a relatively short period. One implication for local congregation is the decrease of marginal church attendees, often called “CEO” (Christmas Easter Only) Christians. There is no longer much societal pressure to attend church. Those on the margins are thus falling off completely. There will continue to be a financial impact since these infrequent attendees typically provided some level of giving to their churches.
2. Migration back to small groups. For three decades, the key emphasis in American church life has been the corporate worship experience. Though that emphasis is not going away, there is an increasing emphasis on moving people to small groups of all kinds: Sunday schools; home groups; life groups; etc. There is an increasing awareness that those who are in groups have a higher level of commitment in almost all areas of church life. As the Sunday school movement swept the nation for a half-century through the 1970s, a similar groups movement is already underway and should gain even more momentum.
3. Accelerated closing of churches. The institutional church stubbornly resists formal closing. Even if only six or seven people attend each week, those few fight for the survival of their church. Those who were attending these very small churches are either moving to the “nones” category, or they are moving to larger churches. The primary stalwarts to keep the doors open are members of the builder generation, those born before 1946.  As that generation decreases at an increasing rate, more churches will close. Any guess to the number of closings in 2013 is speculation on my part. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if the numbers reach the 8,000 to 10,000 level.
4. More churches moving to multiple venues. Membership in Mensa is not a requisite to have an insight on this issue. Just from an anecdotal perspective, the number of congregations moving to multiple venues is staggering. Indeed that issue may be the single greatest distinguishing factor in growing churches. The variety of the venues is increasing as well. Some churches have different venues on the same campus. Others move to multiple campus models. Some have an onsite preacher/teacher; others offer video streaming. Some churches have venues on Sunday only. Other churches have venues up to seven days a week. In the 1960s American congregations moved to multiple worship services in sweeping numbers. That same trend in multiple venues is taking place today. It should accelerate.
5. The growth of prayer emphases in local congregations. Though prayer is foundational in the life of New Testament congregations, it frankly has not garnered much attention in recent years in American churches. There was a subtle but noticeable shift in 2012. More and more church leaders and members realized that the power and strength of health in their congregations is not human-centered but God-dependent. I am reticent to predict a true prayer revival in our nation, but I am confident in saying that more local congregations will focus on prayer. It will be interesting to see how such an emphasis manifests itself in each local body.
6. Fickle commitment. In his post, Sam Rainer noted an overall decline in institutional loyalty. It is certainly pervasive in many American congregations. Indeed, the culture of the vast majority of American churches has been one of low commitment. That lower level of commitment is evident, paradoxically, in even the more committed members. Those members who once were present “every time the doors were open” may now be present, for example, 75 percent of the time. It is likely that decreased frequency of active attendees may be the single largest contributor to church decline in the past five years.

Read Part Two tomorrow.

Read more from Thom here.

Tags: Leadership Engine, Planning, Thom Rainer

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

7 Characteristics of an Effective Critic

by: Thom Rainer

0

Tweet

A few days ago I had a long conversation with a critic of me. Actually, it would be better to say that he is a critic of a decision I made. He would not want to describe himself as a critic of me in the general sense.

Rare is the person who actually enjoys criticisms. I certainly would not be among that unique group. But this man made the criticism tolerable. And he certainly gained my respect by the way he handled it.

Immediately after the conversation, I began to think through how he had approached me. I thought about his words, his body language, and even his preparation for criticizing me. I realized I had a case study on effective criticism. I also was able to note seven of the characteristics of this conversation where he criticized me.

1. He had no pattern of having a critical spirit. Some people are perpetually critical. Their negativity is known and often avoided. Such people have little credibility. Even if they have something worthy to say, it is often ignored because of their patterns in the past. That was not the case with this man. He was not known as a negative person. He did not speak or write in a critical way on an ongoing basis. Because of this pattern, I was inclined to listen to him.
2. He prayed before he criticized. In fact, this man prayed every day for two weeks before he ever approached me. He asked God to stop him if his mission was not meant to be. He did not take the moment lightly. To the contrary, he treated it with utmost seriousness.
3. He communicated concern without anger. This critic did not once raise his voice. His body language did not communicate anger. He was passionate in his position while maintaining his composure.
4. He avoided any ad hominem attacks. My critic wanted to be certain that I knew he was not attacking me personally. He affirmed me in many ways. He voiced respect for my character. But he did not waver in his expressed concern. Never once did I feel like I was under attack personally.
5. He asked for my perspective. Frankly, most of my critics through the years have not expressed any desire to hear my side of the story. They are so intent to communicate their position that they leave no room for me to speak. Such was not the case with this critic. He asked a surprising question early in the conversation: “Thom, why did you make this decision? I really want to hear your thoughts straight from you.”
6. He listened to me. Undoubtedly you’ve been in those conversations where the other person really does not indicate any desire to listen to you. Even while you are speaking, it is evident that he or she is formulating the next response rather than hearing your words. This critic not only asked for my perspective, he really listened as I spoke. The only time he interjected was to ask clarifying questions.
7. He was humble. One of the primary reasons we get defensive when we are criticized is the attitude of the critic. They often seem to have an all-knowing and condescending spirit. To the contrary, my critic was genuinely humble. He was not a know-it-all. He did not act like the smartest man in the room. Frankly his humility was humbling to me.

You can’t be a leader without being criticized. Leaders have to make decisions, and it’s rare that everyone will agree with your decisions. While dealing with critics is not the most pleasant part of leadership, it is a necessary part. Sometimes leaders must discount the message because of the lack of credibility of the messenger. But, in my case, I heard from a critic who truly made me pause and consider his position. Not only did I hear his position, though, I learned even more about being an effective critic and recipient of criticism.

For those reasons, this fallible leader is very grateful.

Read more from Thom here.

Tags: Authentic Leadership, Staff, Structure, Thom Rainer

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Three New Trends in an Outward-Focused Church

by: Thom Rainer

0

Tweet

In a previous post, I recalled the decline of traditional outreach ministries in many churches. I further noted that most churches no longer try to connect with people through “cold call” visits in their homes. These churches, more often than not, begin to see declines in their attendance if they did not replace the traditional approach with something else.

In simple terms, churches without any ongoing outreach approach were likely to decline. The ethos of the church changed from other-focused to self-centered.

Churches That Made Positive Changes

A relatively small number of churches, however, did not leave the void of outwardly focused ministries unfilled. They, like the declining churches, stopped doing traditional outreach ministries. But, unlike the declining churches, they replaced the traditional approach with something new.

Though my research is more anecdotal at this point, I did review several dozens churches that have transitioned well. Thus far I have noted three major new approaches toward an outward focus.

Three Successful and Relevant Outreach Approaches

My research to this point is by no means exhaustive, so I will likely have more approaches in the future. For now, here are three outwardly focused ministries that have filled the void left by the abandonment of more traditional approaches.

1. Additional worship venue. In the 1960s and 1970s many congregations moved to multiple worship services on Sunday mornings. Such transitions were not without their critics and detractors. Today a number of churches are adding a worship service on a different day; or adding a new campus in close proximity to the church; or adding a different venue in the same facility; or moving to video venues. These new starts tend to grow faster and reach unchurched persons more effectively than existing services. While churches above 500 in attendance were more likely to add a venue, many smaller churches are moving in this direction as well.
2.  Ongoing community ministries. Some churches regularly send their members into the community to minister to those who live and work there. Typically they find the greatest needs and seek to fill two or three of those needs. This approach is not to be confused with the community ministries that require people to come to the church facilities. While those ministries are vitally needed, the members must be going into the community on a regular basis for the church as a whole to become outwardly focused.
3. Inviting with accountability. Still other churches have developed ministries that encourage and equip members to invite persons to church on an ongoing basis. Those that have proved successful have some type of accountability built into the process. It is not a simple exhortation from the pastor to invite someone to church. It is rather an organized system that can account for the number of people invited to church each week.

The Research Continues

It appears that many churches began to decline when they abandoned traditional outreach programs but did not replace them with anything else. And it appears that the churches that continued to grow made certain that such a void was filled. For that reason, I will continue to research the different approaches of congregations toward keeping an outward focus.

I could use your help in this process. If your church is growing, I would love to hear what outreach methodologies you are using. I have already heard from several church members and their contributions are invaluable. I have even heard from some church leaders where they have continued with the more traditional approaches with great success.

This one thing is clear: If your church does not have some ongoing approach to reach those outside the walls of the congregation, it is likely to be in decline.

I look forward to interacting with many of you on this vital issue. And thanks for the way you love the bride of Christ.

Read more from Thom here.

Tags: Evangelism, Outward Focused Church, Thom Rainer

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Process >

4 Mindset Shifts to Transformational Leadership

by: Thom Rainer

0

Tweet

Leadership might be the most confused term that we use in the body of Christ. We all assume a picture of leadership when we hear the word. Normally, what we really mean when we say “leader” is a strong, no-compromise, CEO who is not afraid of anybody but God.

That leader is charging forward with a tribe of crazed followers. That leader has game show-host public charisma and a personality that makes even casual contact inspirational. That leader has a strong belief in personal leadership skills. He is always courageous and sometimes reckless.

Before we go too far, understand that some of the above qualities are positive and important to the kingdom. But the subject here is not leadership. The subject is transformational leadership.

How is it different from other approaches to leadership?

Transformational leadership is focused outside of the leader’s world. Leaders may be charismatic and inspirational, but a centrifugal (outward) influence defines their leadership. A natural leader draws people in and sends people out. A natural leader attracts and gathers other leaders. Instead of promoting self, transformational church leaders promote the mission of the church. Does a transformational church leader want more people to attend the local church? Absolutely! Leaders want more people because they want to send more people back into the community and the world. The focus of passion for a transformational church leader is for lost people not bigger churches.

So how does this transition in leadership thinking take place? The old model of leadership was to hoard and retain control. Transformational leaders seek to empower and multiply. They think in terms of movements of God versus seasons of high attendance. Patience is critical. Courage to release and trust God is indispensable. To get moving in the right direction four mindset shifts are needed.

No More Superman Leaders

The first mindset shift toward transformational leadership is from one to many leaders. The CEO “Superman” model must be replaced by assigning a higher value on every man and woman. One reason churches implode is because of the overpromise suggested by our “Superman” view of pastoral leadership. Our professional Superman pastor will be trained in exclusive places called seminaries to gain expertise in business, family therapy, communication, marketing, leadership, and theology. The pastor will be taught how to lead local teams to spectacular church growth. A congregation has incredibly high expectations of their Superman. Superman returns the favor by having incredibly high expectations of the congregation.

But when the dream is not accomplished, finger pointing begins. Both the pastor and the members contribute to the finger pointing. Angry pastors bemoan the terrible people in their congregations. The pastor demands unilateral command and control. Then the church demands a high level of customer satisfaction, fiscal stability, and numerical success. And no one gets what they want.

Transformational churches have strong leaders. Their leaders understand the importance of every man and every woman. Superman is for comic books, not for the body of Christ. I fear church leadership has devolved to a counterproductive, bishop-driven system. The result is a disengaged, underchallenged, and underutilized missionary workforce.

“We” Not “Me”

The second mindset shift toward transformational leadership is from “me” to “we.” Transformational leaders know that every person can be used to fulfill God’s mission. Leadership is the stewardship to help others exercise their gifts, not just an opportunity for me to exercise my gifts. Clearly stated in Ephesians 4, the pastor’s role is to equip. The pastor must have a vision to help others align with God’s mission.

The transformational leader thinks team first. Everybody has a purpose. No one person’s personal purpose is more important than the biblical purpose of the team. The pastor may be the coach of the team. Coaches recognize the need for people to get into the game. A football team cannot survive with a quarterback and a running back only. Linebackers, kickers, and linemen are needed. A football team cannot win with a hall of fame coaching staff but no players. Transformational churches have found a way to “win” by engaging every believer into the work God has assigned to them.

While there is significant variety in the leadership assignments I have experienced, I have seen four common themes emerge from building leadership teams: a compelling purpose, the right leader, the right team, and a conducive culture. The four characteristics I have experienced are simple but not simplistic. To the contrary, team building is certainly not an easy process. It takes significant planning, buy-in, and old-fashioned work.

Don’t Hoard Power. Empower Others.

The third mindset shift toward transformational leadership is from personal power to people empowerment. Pastors and leaders traditionally measure leadership by power. But power is overrated, particularly when it comes to deploying missionaries through a local church. Power must hold people close. When a leader has all the power, the people are demotivated to act. Powerful leaders make people skittish about making decisions.

Transformational churches decentralize decision making. Permission is given to act and to lead. This feeds a new scorecard. Service moves beyond the time block on Sunday mornings to the rest of the week. The church becomes an army of leaders advancing the gospel into the community. A transformational leader will celebrate community service as much or more than service in their local church.

Think Outside of Your Church

The fourth mindset shift toward transformational leadership is from church to the kingdom of God. While God loves and values the local assembly of people called “church,” leaders in transformational churches are as concerned with the wider work of God’s kingdom as they are with the localized work of their individual congregation. They know that the kingdom of God births the church.

In recent days much has been written about the problems with the church. We see people with chronic angst about the institutional church. Certainly, the church organized has its faults. But problems in the church began in cities like Corinth and Ephesus in the first generation of its existence, not during the twenty-first century. Buildings and programs help the mission but can also become the unnecessary focus of a congregation.

Competition, denominational worship, and sentimentality obstruct the view of the greater kingdom even further. The real significance of the assembly (people of God) is found in its place in the larger kingdom of God no matter the building or generation. People are moved toward God because of the vision for a higher purpose than mere assembly. When church is reduced to that place on the corner where we go on Sundays, we reduce the church and kingdom to something smaller than God intended.

Transformational leaders have learned to trade in the small and trivial for substantive and eternal. Are you a transformational leader?

Tags: Leadership Engine, Thom Rainer, Transformational Leadership

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Understanding the Change Process in Your Church

by: Thom Rainer

0

Tweet

Ron Johnson is not off to a good beginning; the former Apple retail leader is now CEO of JC Penney and the most recent quarterly results are not encouraging. After making wide, sweeping changes, same store sales have dropped 26 percent and stock prices are at a three-year low.

Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, is attempting a turnaround at Hewlett-Packard. The challenge is daunting. Though she has a long-term strategy in place, many people believe she is moving too slowly.

A pastor of a large church recently resigned after leading the congregation in several major changes. Attendance at the church dropped precipitously as many members voted against the changes with their feet.

At another large church just twenty miles away, the pastor is moving so slowly that people are also moving out. They are waiting on this leader to provide visionary leadership, but he is simply too reticent to move forward.

Volumes have been written on change, the pace of change, and the consequences of change. In simplest terms, leaders move at a perfect pace, too slowly, or too rapidly. In this brief article, I address what fast-paced leaders should consider. I offer five basic issues these leaders should grasp.

Understand the Change Tolerance of Those Directly Impacted

Some fast-paced leaders look at the organization only from their perspective. They fail to put themselves in others’  shoes to consider what this change might feel like to those directly impacted. These aggressive leaders need to ask more questions and listen more carefully. They may be surprised to hear how those directly impacted will respond to the proposed changes.

Understand That Change Tolerance Is Contextually Driven

I have seen too many leaders move to a new area and assume that change tolerance would be very close to their previous place of leadership. If they came from an organization that dealt well with change, they might assume that the same leadership pace would work at the new organization. Unfortunately, many leaders have been burned when they discover their assumptions to be wrong. Many contextual factors affect the tolerance level of change. Again, it is incumbent upon leaders to know their contexts and how to lead in those contexts. Listening to the stories of those in the organization is vital to this process.

Understand That Most Change Resistance Is Emotional, Not Rational

Such is the reason that well-thought, calmly-presented, rationally-explained reasons for change might not be well received. The leader must understand the hearts of those impacted, not only the heads. Why are they so emotionally attached to the status quo? What stories can the leader share that would address the hearts of those feeling the changes?

Understand That Leaders Must Have Sufficient Tenure to Deal with the Change

Too many leaders initiate change but fail to see the obstacles before them. As a consequence, they often leave before the changes are fully implemented. The organization is thus left with frustrated people and a void of leadership. If a leader is seeking to lead change, he or she must be willing to stay at the organization a sufficient time to see the change accomplished, and to deal with any aftermath caused by the change.

Understand That Leaders Must Understand Themselves in Leading Change

Self-awareness is vital here. If you are a slow-change leader in a fast-paced organization, you will likely encounter frustration and impatience. If you are a fast-paced leader in a slowly-moving organization, you will likely encounter resistance and resentment. A good simple exercise is to rank yourself on your comfort with the pace of change on a scale of one to ten. Then do the same for the organization you lead. If you have a gap greater than two, you have major work to do before you even begin to lead change. Sometimes the work must be done on yourself. At other times, there is greater work to do in the organization. The gap must be closed or the leader will find himself in a position of frustration and, ultimately, failed leadership.

Tags: Change, Leadership, Thom Rainer

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >

Organizations Lose $1.3 Trillion by Not Engaging in Social Media

by: Thom Rainer

0

Tweet

I was shocked. Two presidents of organizations began using Twitter in the past two months. These are presidents I know well, leaders who for years saw no value in Twitter or other social media. As one told me, he had moved over to the dark side.

These leaders are not alone. Only 20 of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies engage in Twitter. But my guess is that many of them will be moving to “the dark side” as well. The evidence is building rapidly. Your organization is at a distinct disadvantage if it does not embrace social media with enthusiasm.

A new study by the highly regarded McKinsey and Company should move even some of the deepest skeptics. Their research found that, while 72 percent of organizations use some form of social media, very few embrace it strategically. As a consequence, the productivity lost in these companies could be as high as $1.3 trillion. That’s a lot of zeros. In fact, if those dollars were the gross domestic product (GDP) of a country, its economy would be the 14^thlargest in the world.

The McKinsey study notes that organizations lose both interaction within the company and connection outside the company if they do not engage social media with enthusiasm. Collaboration opportunities are lost and intimate customer connections are forfeited.

While I’m sure the organization I lead could improve greatly, we strategically embraced social media several years ago. Allow me to share four principles I have learned to this point.

1. Embracing social media begins at the top. While social media is a great equalizer, an organization will not embrace it corporately unless the leader of the organization gives his or her tacit permission. My enthusiastic involvement in social media sent a clear message that it was important for the entire organization.

2. An open attitude for the organization is worth the risk. When a large number of employees are active in social media speaking on behalf of the organization, the risks are obvious. We still encourage blogs, tweets, Facebook posts, and other social media interaction. The rewards are greater than the risks.

3. Guidelines are good, but they must not be too restrictive. We do have social medial guidelines, but we understand that too many rules go counter to the openness of social media. We feel that our balance is pretty good. We have many employees engaged in social media; and we have spoken to unwise engagement only four or five times in the past five years.

4. We often make heroes of those who engage in social media well. On many occasions, an employee has engaged in social media in such a way that we think it’s worth telling the story about what he or she did. Those stories eventually become part of the organization’s culture and, consequently, encourage others to do so as well.

Leaders and organizations will ignore social media to their own peril. Ryan Holmes, author of the article about McKinsey’s research, notes: “It seems noteworthy that the report’s conclusions have been echoed of late from the most authoritative of places: Wall Street. In the last year, the world’s largest enterprise software companies–Google, Microsoft, Salesforce, Adobe, and even Ellison’s own Oracle–have spent upward of $2.5 billion snatching up social media tools to add to their enterprise suites. Even Twitter-phobic CEOs may have a hard time ignoring that business case.”

Large corporations, small businesses, nonprofits, churches, and a plethora of other organizations are increasingly realizing the critical need for social media. Ultimately, it gets those in the organization closer to each other, as well as connecting to those whom the organization wants to reach.

The case for organizations embracing social media has been anecdotally powerful for years. But now McKinsey presents overwhelming objective data that cannot be ignored. I can only presume that many will still ignore this clear and powerful evidence. And their organizations will likely suffer as a result.

Read more from Thom here.

Tags: Attention, Awareness, Communication, Social Media, Thom Rainer

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Communication >

Leadership Matters, but So Does Preaching

by: Thom Rainer

0

Tweet

God uses pastors in many diferent ways. He uses them to cast vision. He works through pastors to set the tone in churches and to be examples for others to follow. Unfortunately some churches won’t follow good leaders no matter what. They would rather die than change. And they usually get the former for forsaking the latter.

Still, leadership matters. Leadership is critical. And the most visible aspect of leadership for the pastor takes place in the pulpit. For better or worse, the people in the church are watching and listening. Most of them do not expect the pastor to have the oratory skills of a well-known pastor. They do not expect him to have the exegetical insights of some of the most brilliant preachers in the land.

But they do have expectations.

They expect pastors to be prepared in the pulpit. They know, for the most part, who’s winging it and who has prepared. They expect the pastor to teach them about God’s Word. In many ways the preaching event is sacred. The people want to hear from God and His Word. They expect the pastor to open the Bible and teach them what God says.

And they expect him to make the Bible relevant to their lives. While they may be fascinated by some esoteric doctrine, they ultimately want to know how God would have them apply His truths to their lives.

One of the most common complaints I hear about the beleaguered pastors from church members is, “I’m just not getting fed.” Now I realize that some of those complaints are self-centered. I also realize that some people will complain about everything and anything. And some people would find fault if the apostle Paul himself were preaching.

But the comment is telling.

“I’m just not getting fed.” That means they are hungry. They are hungry for God’s Word for their lives today.

That’s what I’ve seen in my research of the dechurched. They were hungry, and they were not being fed. Sure, they could have and should have found a church where they could be fed, but the reality is that they are dropouts. And it is clear how important the role of the pastor is in stemming the tide of church dropouts.

In the research for Essential Church, we found one out of every seven dropouts said the sermons did not capture their attention, and about the same number say that the church was not helping them to develop spiritually. Of the dropouts 8 percent stated bluntly that the pastor was not a good preacher and 7 percent said that the sermons were not relevant to their lives.

Taken individually, none of the responses was overwhelming; but taken in the aggregate, they are saying something powerfully. Preaching matters. The content of the sermons matters. And the life application of the sermons matters.

Any church or pastor who does not take seriously the role of preaching in his church is missing it. Just look at the dropouts as at least part of the evidence.

Adapted from Essential Church (B&H Publishing Group, 2008).

Read more from Thom here.

Tags: Awareness, Communication, Thom Rainer

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Communication >

10 Questions to Diagnose the Evangelistic Health of Your Church

by: Thom Rainer

0

Tweet

Any good physician will make certain your physical exam includes at least three components. First, the doctor will want you to have thorough lab work. Second, all exams include a comprehensive look at your physical body. Third, the physician will ask you a series of questions that would lead him or her to know more about your overall physical and emotional health.

In my work with churches across America, I often ask a series of questions that help me assist the church to become more evangelistically focused. Recently, I took time to write down the questions I ask most often. Look at these ten questions to get at least some hints of the evangelistic health of your own church.

1. Are members more concerned about the lost than their own preferences and comfort? Listen to how church members talk to understand what their true priorities are.
2. Is the church led to pray for lost persons? Most churches are pretty good about praying for those who have physical needs. But do they pray for those who have the greatest spiritual need, a relationship with Jesus Christ?
3. Are the members of the church open to reaching people who don’t look or act like them? The gospel breaks all racial, ethnic, and language barriers. Do the members seek to reach others? Do they rejoice when these people become a part of the church?
4. Do conflicts and critics zap the evangelistic energy of the church? An evangelistic church is a united church. A divided church is rarely evangelistic.
5. Do small groups and Sunday school classes seek to reach lost persons within their groups? Sunday school was once one of the most effective evangelistic tools in the church. Are the groups in your church evangelistic?
6. Is the leadership of the church evangelistic? The congregation will follow and emulate the priorities of the church leadership.
7. Do the sermons regularly communicate the gospel? They may not be evangelistic sermons in the classic sense, but all sermons should point people to Jesus.
8. Are there ministries in the church that encourage members to be involved in evangelistic outreach and lifestyle? You may be surprised to find how many members become evangelistic with a modest amount of training and equipping.
9. Have programs become ends in themselves rather than means to reach people?Perhaps a total ministry and program audit is in order.
10. Is there any process of accountability for members to be more evangelistic? That which is rewarded and expected becomes the priority of the congregation.

After their imprisonment for sharing the gospel with others, Peter and John appeared before the Sanhedrin who demanded their silence. Listen to how the two Apostles, with their lives on the line, responded to their accusers: “But Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it’s right in the sight of God for us to listen to you rather than to God, you decide; for we are unable to stop speaking about what we have seen and heard’” (Acts 4:19-20, HCSB).

I pray that more and more of our church members have the heart and attitude exemplified by Peter and John. May we be so motivated to share the gospel that we are unable to stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.

How would you assess the evangelistic health of your church? What questions would you ask for a good diagnosis?

Read more from Thom here.

Tags: Evangelism, Gospel, Thom Rainer

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Process >

Four Ways to Create an Evangelistic Culture in Your Church

by: Thom Rainer

0

Tweet

I recently wrote an article that offered ten questions to help you diagnose the evangelistic health of your church. A couple of the readers asked insightful questions related to the culture of a church. Specifically, they wanted to know how a church could create a culture to become more evangelistic.

While the creation of an evangelistic culture cannot be reduced to a simple formulaic approach, I can offer four suggestions of a more practical nature.

Church Culture Shift #1: Leadership Must Model a Passion for Evangelism. The first church I served as pastor had not seen one person become a Christian in 26 years. Rather than complain to the congregation about their evangelistic ineptness, I began praying for opportunities for me to be a gospel witness in the community. I was amazed how many doors God opened. I was amazed to see how many people responded positively to the gospel. And I was amazed to see how others began to follow my leadership example. Within one year the church that had seen no baptisms in 26 years had, ironically, 26 baptisms in one year.

Church Culture Shift #2: Ask one Sunday school class or small group to become an evangelistic group for one year. This approach creates a system of accountability on a small scale. That one small group understands that it has been selected to be an example for the rest of the church. Watch what will happen within that one group. Watch how the group members become more intentionally evangelistic. Watch how they will become more prayerfully creative and excited to reach people with the gospel.

Church Culture Shift #3: Begin a small-scale evangelistic mentoring approach. Again, asking a person to mentor another person engenders accountability. In my first church, I mentored a new Christian named Steve. I taught him how to begin a conversation about Jesus. We worked together on the essential elements of a gospel presentation. At first we went together to talk with those who weren’t Christians. Steve eventually became more comfortable sharing Christ on his own, and he soon began mentoring someone as I had mentored him.

Church Culture Shift #4: Make certain corporate prayers include praying for the lost.Most church members are not hesitant to pray for the physical needs of people. But rare is the church that prays together for those who are not Christians. A few churches, though, pray for lost people by name. Others are more comfortable praying in general for the non-Christians in the community. As the church begins to pray for the lostness of her community, God often begins to demonstrate clear answers to those prayers. And the culture of the church becomes decidedly more evangelistic in its culture as the prayers are infused with a burden for those who are not followers of Jesus Christ.

Of course, these four suggested church culture shifts are far from exhaustive. In many ways, they are but a starting point.

What would you add to this list? What is your church doing to create a more evangelistic culture?

Tags: Culture, Evangelism, Leadership Development, Thom Rainer

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Process >

5 Thoughts on Innovation in Organizations

by: Thom Rainer

0

Tweet

Every organization must deal with change. The crux of the matter is not if change will take place, but if the organization can lead change rather than just react to it. The most common type of proactive change is innovation.

Innovation is simply an attempt to do something new or differently in order to achieve better results. It sounds simple, doesn’t it? But any leader knows well that introducing innovation in an organization is easier said than done. Volumes have been written on change, change agents, and organizational response to change. My purpose in this brief article is to discuss just one facet of change: introducing innovation to the organization.

Five Thoughts

Most organizations do not naturally embrace innovation. Those who therefore attempt to introduce it to the organization often meet both active and passive resistance. We must be astute students of innovation to understand how we can best move new ideas forward. Allow me to suggest five thoughts on the matter.

1. Leaders must lead and model innovation. New ideas and initiatives cannot just be theoretical rhetoric. Leaders must hold themselves accountable for introducing innovation on an ongoing basis. The leader must persistently push the organization to embrace innovation as a value and priority.

2. Innovation must be embraced by the organization as a whole. This thought is naturally corollary of the first. Innovation cannot be autocratically dictated. Without ownership at all levels, innovation is likely to fail. Passive aggressive behavior is common unless people truly believe that innovation is critical for their own success as well as the success of the organization.

3. Leaders and others throughout the organization must resist the common objections to innovation. The challenge is that the objections are often valid. So it’s easier to yield to the objections rather than to find ways around them. Some of the more common words of resistance are: “We don’t have the capacity to do something new”; “We tried that before and it didn’t work”; “It costs too much and the payback is too long term”; and “We just need to focus on that which is already core to our organization.”

4. Innovation is a step of faith. Introducing innovation to the organization would never be problematic if we knew we had guaranteed success. So many organizations get involved in analysis paralysis to demonstrate why something won’t work.

5. Some innovation failure should be normative in organizations. It is unlikely that there will be any tolerance for innovation if there is little tolerance for failure. If the members of an organization expect that innovation failures will be punished, you can be sure that few, if any, will ever be innovators themselves. It is easy to fall back on the comfort of pain avoidance.

A Time for Change

The writer of Ecclesiastes reminds us “there is an occasion for everything, and a time for every activity under heaven” (3:1, HCSB). Never have I witnessed such a time of change. Sure, change has always been a reality. And certainly we have clear evidence that the rate of change is ever increasing.

But what our world and our organizations are experiencing today is seismic change. It is the type of change that will permanently alter the landscape of our reality. Those organizations that fail to grasp that reality and fail to respond to that reality are already on the path of failure.

Never before have organizations needed to change and innovate like they must do so today. Certainly the infusion of innovation must be measured and introduced with great discernment.

But the failure to innovate is a huge barrier for entering the future.

And it may be the beginning of a certain path to death.

Read more from Thom here.

Tags: Change, Innovation, Structure, Thom Rainer

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Leadership >