Why Didn’t Jesus Do More?

by: Geoff Surratt

1

Tweet

I am amazed at all Jesus didn’t do while he was on earth. His public ministry only lasted three years, and in those years his scope of ministry was incredibly narrow. He is God after all, it seems like he could broaden his scope a little. Think about all the things Jesus didn’t do:

• He didn’t reform the government
• He didn’t solve orphan care
• He didn’t wipe out poverty
• He didn’t improve medical care

While Jesus taught principles that applied to all of these situations, he could have had an incredible impact in any of these areas. He could have ended abuse by the Romans, he could have launched a system of compassionate care for orphans, he could have ended poverty, or he could have instituted medical practices that would save millions of lives. But he didn’t.

Though Jesus had the opportunity, resources and ability to address many needs he limited himself to a very narrow mission; “to seek and save the lost”. Everything he did pointed to that one very succinct task. He knew that in this fallen world there will always be hundreds of desperate needs screaming for attention, but only one can be most important. Although he healed people, fed crowds and occasionally raised the dead, Jesus didn’t make any of those the focal point of his time on earth. He knew the more time he spent focusing on secondary issues, no matter how desperate or urgent, the less time he had for the main thing.

As church leaders we don’t claim to be God (well most of us), but act like we can accomplish more than Jesus. We believe our ministry or our church should be effective in a dozen or more areas. We feel obligated to meet as many needs, to fill as many gaps, to respond to as many crises as possible. How can we say we love God and not feed the hungry, care for the sick, educate the children, fight for the underdog, shelter the homeless, provide for the handicapped and adopt the orphans? All of this while we promote small groups, conduct church services, perform weddings and funerals, host VBS, send kids to camp, and counsel people in crisis.

When Martha complained that her sister wasn’t doing enough Jesus shared the power of a narrow vision, “You are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary.” The authors of The Four Disciplines of Execution call the trouble of many things “the whirlwind” and the focus of the one necessary thing the “Wildly Important Goal”. Their premise is that most individuals and businesses (I’d add churches) spend so much time on the whirlwind (many things) they don’t have time for their Wildly Important Goal (one thing). What if we patterned our lives, our ministries and our churches after Jesus and really drilled down to the one thing? We will always have the whirlwind to contend with, Jesus certainly did, but imagine the power of spending at least 20% of every day on our one Wildly Important Goal? Here are the questions we could ask:

• What is the one thing our church (or ministry) absolutely must accomplish in the next year? How will we know we accomplished it?
• What measurable activities will lead to accomplishing that one thing?
• How will we keep score? How will we know we are actually accomplishing what we say?
• How will we hold each other accountable to the one thing?

In over 30 years of ministry I’ve encountered very few churches with this kind of focus and discipline. I wonder what would happen if we actually followed the pattern of Jesus and focused on the one thing.

Tags: Geoff Surratt, Vision Frame, Vision Pathway

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

5 Ways That Plug-n-Playing Another Church’s Ministry Model Will Cost You Ministry Progress

by: Will Mancini

0

Tweet

At Auxano, we believe that local churches are unmistakably unique and incomparably different. God doesn’t mass-produce His church.

When you try to “plug-n-play” another church’s ministry model, it is going to cost you ministry progress in one or more of these 5 ways:

#1 Secondary Passion Every ministry model was originally designed to bring a deeply desired result or solve an emotionally disconcerting problem.  The key dynamic here is the passion at the point of origination that “fuels” the model. If you utilize a model that you don’t develop, the enthusiasm behind it is often less. The passion is derivative and a generation removed from the model itself. Whoever is running Andy Stanley or Mike Breen’s model will not likely embody their passion.

#2 Underutilized Strengths Every ministry model has strengths and limitations. So does your congregation. If you plug-n-play another model you probably won’t optimizing the unique strengths, assets, congregational heritage, leadership learnings and Spirit-led passions of your ministry. For example Andy Stanley’s three-step strategy or Mike Breen’s ideal size for a missional community have certain alignment features with local strengths.

#3 Cultural Disconnect Every ministry model is contextualized for some group of people. Within the model are core assumptions about people, embedded language and values about how to best engage and organize and teach and train and practice the myriad of one-another commands of Scripture. If you cut-n-paste a ministry model you risk a disconnect on all kinds of levels. Some might be big and obvious. Others— and most of them—are small and nuanced. For example, when my friend Vince Antonucci planted a church on the Las Vegas strip, he could not rely on the “attractional pull” of an Andy Stanley’s worship service model or the “extended family” assumptions of Mike Breen’s model. Due to the overt sexuality on the Vegas strip and the skepticism of meeting in people’s homes, the primary environment  for Verve Church is gender-based small groups that meet in public “third spaces.”

#4 Less Satisfaction It never ceases to amaze me how much people love designing their own ministry model. (When someone can show them how.) It’s more of a job than a joy when you are running someone else’s playbook. Every time. The bottom line is that photocopying another church’s model of ministry is much less enjoyable and exciting. There is a much deeper sense of “call satisfaction” and freedom to “be who you are” when you design your own. And progress is always an immediate result when you do. You don’t work for Andy Stanley or Mike Breen. You work for the same God that called them and led them to design their own model. God will do the same for you.

#5 Faulty Measurement Every ministry model, when operating well, will have clear input and outputs (means vs. ends).  For example, Andy Stanley’s strategy has environment “inputs” and faith catalyst “outputs.” Mike Breen has ministry vehicle “inputs” and life shape “outputs.” Effective discipleship takes place when leaders are focused on the outputs in way that frees them to adjust the inputs. But when you borrow a ministry model, it is much easier to focus only on the inputs. The reason for this is twofold. First, in the desire to get the same attendance results of the ministry being copied, there is more of a preoccupation of “the how.” Second, “the how” or the methodology itself is much more “concrete” and measurable that the output of the methodology. Hence we tend to measure how many people “attend” what we are doing than the results that are coming from the attendance. Model makers are not as inclined to disconnect the means verses the ends of their model. As one famous Christian educator said, “Beware of the ends-means inversion in ministry.”

Read more from Will here.

Tags: Ministry Model, Plug n Play, Vision Frame, Will Mancini

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Church Unique Snapshot: The Inside Reveal on Willow Creek Community Church’s Return to the 5 G’s

by: Will Mancini

1

Tweet

During the booming days of Willow Creek’s influence, the church hosted conferences for thousands of church leaders across the country, teaching and spreading their model of ministry. The hallmark of these events was an inspiring and contagious use of crystal clear language and rich imagery that planted the Willow’s Vision Frame in the hearts and minds of church leaders.

What did that content include?

WILLOW’S 1990s VISION FRAME

MISSION – To turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Christ. (the term “fully devoted follower” is most photocopied mission statement of the last three decades)

VALUES- There were ten values that are still intact today, the most memorable (and photocopied) including

• Lost people matter to God and therefore matter to us
• Full devotion is normal for every believer (95% devotion is 5% short)
• Life change happens best in small groups
• Excellence honors God and inspires people

STRATEGY- Willow taught a 7-step linear strategy for years, which became de-emphasized around the year 2000

MISSION MEASURES- The definition of “full devotion” was based on 5 G-terms that were deeply integrated into the life of the church. During the late 90s there were entire sub-ministry conferences including Small Groups and Children (Promiseland) that produced tons of curriculum utilizing the 5G’s

• Grace
• Growth
• Groups
• Gifts
• Good Stewardship

Many churches also copied or modified these G-terms for use in their ministry. For example, Clear Creek Community Church in Houston utilizes a revised 7G list and Grace Point in San Antonio has 5Gs they have modified.

LOSS OF CLARITY

At some point Willow stopped talking about the 5Gs even though they continued selling 5G based products all over the world. The loss of clarity at Willow is a complex subject. I have had the privilege of talking to many people through the journey. This list summarizes a few reasons that surfaced over the last decade. Note: I appreciate the humility of many of these leaders who have testified to these learnings in public at different times and places.

• Bill Hybels began traveling more internationally and got distracted from leading the church.
• Staff turnover hurt the church’s opportunity to stay focused. They lost three senior leaders in a two month window.
• The seeker model went out of vogue. With the beginning of a missional reorientation, lots of leaders lost interest in learning from the model. (Some of the this was the saturation of its own success.
• After launching their first multi-site initiatives, Jim Tomberlin departed; Bill Donahue, their long-term groups guru, departed.
• Randy Frazee came for 2 years with an entirely different mission measure. He was given permission to undo the 5G’s and install his 30 core competencies from Pantego Bible Church.  But the installation of a neighborhood small group strategy did not work, further unraveling their clarity.
• Greg Hawkins began the extensive research project represented by the Reveal Study and followed up by the book, Move (a must read book, by the way). After one-on-one conversation with Greg, I am convinced that his humble and passionate pursuit of learning (and brilliant findings) happened at the expense of  increased complexity of Willow’s ministry and less clarity in their language.

FIVE G’S REINSTATED

Three months ago, the senior team at Willow decided to bring back the 5Gs. When I asked Greg Hawkins why, he summarized his answer by saying,

“People need some kind of ‘handles’ to define full devotion. We had this language for years and then just stopped using it. We realized we didn’t have to reinvent the words, so we decided to bring them back.”

I was totally surprised to hear the news. Evidently much of the work represented by Reveal, and specifically the four stages of the “spiritual continuum” (Exploring Christ, Growing in Christ, Close to Christ and Christ-centered), did not create new language for guiding ministry and shaping culture.

PRIMARY TAKE-AWAYS

• We say at Auxano that “Success assaults clarity.” Clearly Willow was a victim of its own success and was not able to manage the “opportunity creep” of its most influential years.
• Be careful hiring outside talent. A shooting star in a different church culture may flame out in yours.
• Don’t take your “eye off the ball” when it comes to language. Hybel’s first Axiom in his leadership book of 72 leadership principles  is “Language Matters.” Given the number of Axioms in the book we will cut Bill some slack on forgetting this one for the last decade.
• Don’t communicate vision or create new language without process. In this case at Willow, it applies several ways. First, new language was brought in without due process, including Randy Frazee’s 30 core competencies and perhaps the Reveal language introduced by Greg Hawkins.  Now with a decade gap, I am wondering if they moved too quickly to return the the 5G’s. I talked with one relatively high-level staff member who was struggling with the language. There was no vehicle for his interaction and input.

Please don’t mistake the critique in this post for a lack of appreciation for the role of the seeker model. Also, I am personally grateful to Bill Hybels for his giant kingdom contribution and thought leadership on leadership.  Thousands of us are better leaders, whether we drive seeker models or not, because of Willow’s influence.

TOOLS

Read Bill Hybels excerpt on  Language Matters

Read Church Unique Tool on Measures as the Portrait of Discipleship (includes the 5Gs and 30 Core Competencies)

Read more from Will here.

Tags: Bill Hybels, Church Unique Snapshot, Vision Frame, Will Mancini, Willow Creek

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Do You Have a Church of Abercrombie People?

by: Matt Appling

2

Tweet

I’ve been watching the controversy surrounding Abercrombie and Fitch the last couple of weeks.

First, CEO Mike Jeffries made some comments which confirmed what everyone knows: that they don’t actually want most of us wearing their clothes.  That backfired.

Then, Greg Karber tried to make a clever statement by giving used A&F clothes to homeless people.  A lot of us (including me, I admit) thought at first glance that it was a cool idea, until we looked closer and realized it wasn’t.  That backfired too.

No one appreciated Jeffries’ bold honesty about his company’s vision.  So, what does a clothing store for the coolest kids in school have to say to churches?  Maybe more than we might think.

Not My Style

I’ll be honest.  Abercrombie and Fitch is not marketing to me.

I don’t feel comfortable entering the Abercrombie store at our local mall.  I don’t feel comfortable walking past the Abercrombie store.  Something about the oversized photos of half naked models in the entrance clues me in that I don’t belong there.  I never was part of the crowd that they are going after, and I never will be.

But I also get the feeling that I’m not the target market of Hollister.  Or Hot Topic.  Or Gantos.  Or Forever 21.

I think I’m part of Kohl’s target market.

Think about it.  Every store has a target market, a specific niche of people who they want to buy their products.  There’s nothing special about Abercrombie’s strategy.  It’s just that when their CEO admits what is usually implied in such a crass and cavalier fashion, it offends our desire for inclusiveness.  It’s hurtful to people like me (and I’m guessing perhaps you) who aren’t “cool” enough to be included.

Homogenized, Pasteurized Friends

Now, let’s ask a tough question, and get ready to be honest.

Who is in your target market?  Like, as the CEO of your life, what niche of people are you generally spending your time with?

I’d like to think that my target market is pretty diverse and inclusive, but the results show otherwise.

I’ll go first and admit that my friend-group is pretty darn homogenous.  My close friends come from generally the same socio-economic level, have about the same amount of education, and behave in a way that I find, in general, socially acceptable.

At times, I have tried to be inclusive.  But there are many more times when I have not.  I have taken a step back.  I have withheld myself from people because they are a little too different from me in one way or another.

As embarrassing as it is to admit, I realize that my target audience is people who are sort of like me.  Maybe that makes me a horrible person.  If that’s the case, then maybe my target audience is horrible people.

The _________ Church

Now, let’s ask another tough question.

Who is our churches’ target audiences?  Can we really say “everyone?”  Why do so many of our churches looks so homogenous then?  Even if your church bucks the trend and looks pretty diverse, is there someone who would have a hard time fitting in at your church?

Is it that homeless man who hasn’t had a shower or clean clothes in months?  Is it the mentally ill woman?  The guy with the left-field theology?  The family with the special needs child?  The teen mom?  The alcoholic?  The guy with the “alternate” lifestyle?

It’s a struggle that churches have had since the New Testament was still being written – how do we help people belong who don’t usually belong?  The alternative is to admit that, on some level, we are running Abercrombie churches:

where of course everyone is equally welcome…

…but some people are more equally welcome than others.

So what do you say?  How diverse is your friend-group?  How diverse is your church?  Who do you think is your church’s target audience?

Read more from Matt here.

Tags: Kingdom Concept, Local Predicament, Matt Appling, Vision Frame

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

The Critical Importance of Vision Alignment in Your Church

by: Annette Franz

0

Tweet

Does culture trump strategy?

Annette Franz, a Customer Experience executive, recently weighed in on the discussion with an interesting answer. Read on…

First, what is culture? I think Herb Kelleher, a man who knows a thing or two about culture, defines it best: “Culture is what people do when no one is looking.” Culture is the set of values and norms that guides how the business operates.

And, what is strategy? Basically, it’s a plan or direction. It outlines how you are going to achieve the goals of the business. From BusinessDictionary.com: “The overall scope and direction of a corporation and the way in which its various business operations work together to achieve particular goals.”

I tend to view strategy and culture as two sides of the same coin. I think they need to go hand in hand; why should they compete?

Does one trump the other? No. Why? Because I think vision and purpose are more important and are the ones that do the trumping!

What is vision? According to BusinessDictionary.com: “An aspirational description of what an organization would like to achieve or accomplish in the mid-term or long-term future. It is intended to serves as a clear guide for choosing current and future courses of action.” I would add that it is not only aspirational but also inspirational.

What is purpose? It’s your Why. It’s the reason for being, the reason for doing.

Vision is where. Purpose is the why. Strategy is the how. And culture is the who and what. They’re all important. Vision and strategy are set by the executives, but culture tends to be driven by the employees. Sure, executives need to support it, but this is where employees get to take over. Strategy is top-down, while culture tends to be bottom-up. Culture can’t be shoved down your throat, where I think strategy can be. For better or worse.

Vision without execution is hallucination. -Thomas Edison

But…

If you don’t know where you are going, you’ll end up someplace else. -Yogi Berra

I think both purpose and vision trump culture and strategy. They are the north star. They guide you when you’re lost. They point you in the right direction when competing ideas are spreading you too thin. Strategy comes out of the vision and the purpose. Culture ultimately does, too, because you’re going to hire the right people and set the right stage to deliver on your vision and your purpose. And when you’ve hired the right people – those who are aligned with your vision and your purpose -to do that, then they’ll give their hearts and souls to make sure you succeed.

Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality. -Warren Bennis

Read more from Annette here.

Tags: Annette Franz, Culture, Strategy, Vision Frame

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

5 Stages of Capturing a Vision

by: Tim Elmore

0

Tweet

As far as I’m concerned, leadership cannot be separated from vision.  All leaders take their teams to a better place; they don’t merely manage their current territory. Sadly, many leaders assume positions, but only maintain the status quo. There is no original idea, no fresh motivation and no new vision that captures the imagination and energy of their team. When this happens, the person in charge is merely managing, not leading. Managing is necessary, but leaders possess a vision for their team.

The Birth of a Vision

Let’s examine how vision works and how it can work for you, as a leader. It might surprise you to know that the birth of a vision works much like the birth of a baby. Just as parents experience various stages during the ninth months of preparation before their baby enters the world, so teams and leaders experience these same stages as they give birth to a vision.

1. STAGE ONE: SOLITUDE

As a rule, leaders must not only stay busy with the functions of their organization, they must get away in quietness to gain perspective on what must happen to take it forward. In the same way that a husband and wife experience solitude before conception, so leaders must invest time—away from the noise—to think, listen, create, ponder options and dream. For leaders, this time of solitude must follow a season of observing and identifying problems. Their vision must be a picture of a better future that answers a specific problem.

2. STAGE TWO: CONCEPTION

In this stage, a leader conceives an idea. A vision begins inside. The leader may even have an epiphany or a “eureka” moment. Their dreaming pays off in the form of an internal picture that, if executed, could take their team forward. It may not be fully formed at first, just as an embryo isn’t mature in the beginning. But, it is inside and begins to grow. The leader believes this vision not only should be done, but could be done. At this stage, leaders are “pregnant” with a vision.

3. STAGE THREE: GESTATION

This is the longest stage of the process. For a human, it lasts nine months. For a vision to be born in an organization, it may take years, depending on its size and scope. During this time, some team members may walk away. It isn’t glamorous or fun. Sometimes, it’s painful as the team “stretches” as they work to embrace the vision. Leaders must communicate it clearly and tweak it as it forms.

4. STAGE FOUR: LABOR

Just as a mother endures an increased frequency and intensity of pain as she nears the birth of her child, so leaders and teams usually experience an increased volume and intensity of “labor pains” just before they realize their vision. Sometimes team members wonder if all the trouble is worth it. But this labor pain is a sign that the birth of their great goal is near and they must persist.

5. STAGE FIVE: BIRTH

Finally, the vision is born. All the struggle becomes worth it as leaders and teams get to see the results of their hard work. Interestingly, at this point others flock to celebrate the birth of the vision, like they do in a maternity ward. Leaders may wonder where they were during all the hard work. However, good leaders understand it’s time to celebrate and prepare to parent the new vision.

Think it Over…

1. Have you been on a team when you experienced these stages? What happened?

2. What have you learned about the power of a vision inside of people?

What Voice Inspires Your Vision?

1.  The Inner Voice:  Does your vision come from life goals, mission statements or from your personal passion? The best ones do originate from within, or if not, at some point touch the heart of a leader. You will not accomplish something that you do not believe in.

2.The Unhappy Voice:  Does your vision come from spotting a certain injustice or problem? Do you get irritated at present inefficiencies or wrongs? Do you notice problems and find yourself ting to solve them? Challenge yourself to light a candle rather than curse the darkness.

3.The Successful Voice: Do you find your vision from people who have already gone through the same situation?  Many visions are adopted or adapted by new leaders. Find someone who can be a mentor figure in your life. Explore the ideas of others and learn from them. Some idea may just match your situation.

4.The Higher Voice:  A truly valuable vision is about something larger than merely increasing the profits of a company. It is noble and benefits others. It feels divine, like a gift from God.  Look at the past to guide your present and future. Are you a big picture person or do you live life looking through a knothole?

Questions for Reflection

1. What are your current compelling ideas that could become a vision for the team?

2. Do your core team members agree on what top problems need to be solved?

3. What are some common dreams you and your core team members possess?

4. What are the next steps you should take?

Tags: Recapturing Vision, Tim Elmore, Vision Frame

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

3 Kinds of Weak Vision That Entice Church Leaders

by: Will Mancini

0

Tweet

Warning: This post will challenge some of your assumptions about vision in the church.

Across the North American church landscape this year, many pastors will articulate a vision and compel people toward a preferred future that is weak. It’s very nature will be lacking in biblically rugged, God-saturated, deeply compelling content. Note that I said the vision will be weak; not bad and not wrong. What do I mean by this comment? The three kinds of weak vision I want to clarify are lacking potency because they are more of a means to an end that we often realize. Therefore they are missing the end-game, the bigger deal, the ultimate move. “Means” is not the meat of vision casting. For example, if General Electric wants to “Bring Good Things to Life,” they don’t show you the blueprint of the dishwasher.

Now a pastor may quickly assent to the fact that that the three kinds of vision are indeed means to a greater end. But afterwards he will practically and experientially guide his people with a lower aim. I have seen it hundreds of times. So what are the three kinds of weak vision?

• A building is a weak vision. We intuitively get this. We know the building is a “tool” to accomplish the “bigger mission.” Yet, in the daily grind of raising money in our capital campaigns, its easy to appeal only to the consumeristic impulse of the congregation. A building is a means to something.

• Going multisite is a weak vision. The move to multisite is the most relevant kind of weak vision today. The number of multisite churches is accelerating, and the average size of a multisite church is decreasing. It is safe to say that multisite is the new normal. And for good reasons. But ask a pastor about the vision driving the multisite, and you might be surprised how little they have to say. Multisite is a means to something.

• More people in worship is a weak vision. The third one is connected to the first two. Indeed you may think it is the substance of the first two. We are building a building to what end? More people of course! We are going multi-site to what end? More people of course. Now don’t get me wrong. I think every church should be reaching more people and multiplying disciples. And more people, more building and more campuses are all important features of the vision. But by themselves they are weak. More people is a means to something.

Allow me to illustrate  a strong vision with my home church, Clear Creek Community Church in Houston. Our vision is what I call a “gospel saturation” vision. We have adopted a 500,000 population area that we refer to as the “4B” area. (From the beltway to the beach; from Brazoria county to the bay.) One of two people in this area are “nones;” that is they have no faith affiliation whatsoever. In the next 15 years, our vision is for each of the these 500,000 people to be one degree away, relationally speaking, from an invitation into a gospel-centered, missional community. With this summarized substance of the vision, we can now see how buildings, multisite campuses and more people are means to a full picture, high-definition vision.  We see the need for ten campuses and know that three campuses will anchor the ten with more significant buildings. But those pieces aren’t the purpose themselves. Why is it critical important to show buildings, multi-site and more people as means and not ends?

• First, focusing on means unintentionally amplifies the self-promoting motives of church leadership. An ends-based vision, in contrast, connects the idea of “bigger” to the broader redemptive motives of God.

• Second, highlighting the means only incurs emotional connection indirectly through the personal contact to and relationship with a church leader. In other words, I don’t get excited about a mean-based vision unless I am friends with he pastor who is casting it. Ends-based vision, on the other hand, accelerates emotional connection directly with the picture of the future, not the person talking about it.

• Third, means-based vision is ultimately a church-centric idea. Therefore people let the “pastor and staff” be the owners of it. Ends-based vision, however, distributes the accomplishment of the vision to each one, every day in the congregation. The real vision must be a life-centric idea, not a church-centric one.

I know all this talk of “means” and “ends” sounds a little nerdy. (The engineer in me!) But I hope it connects you back to the simple leadership model of Jesus.

Want to read more about strong vision: Check out “The Church List for the Rest of Us.” It’s called the Unique 19 and it is 19 amazing stories of vision that are not based on church size.

Read more from Will here.

Tags: Recapturing Vision, Vision Frame, Will Mancini

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Don’t Let Your Ministries Get Lost in Meaningless Noise: Play from the Same Page

by: Steven Furtick

0

Tweet

I recently took my youngest son Graham to a music store to let him bang on the instruments. I decided that even though I love music, I would hate to work in there because all you hear all day is noise. Not music.

Multiple people were playing multiple instruments around the store and it sounded horrible. No one was coordinated. It was just an annoying cacophony of sound.

But I also noticed that if you isolated it out, a lot of the individuals who were playing were actually pretty good. You had one guy playing great R&B on a keyboard. Another guy playing a strong version of Stairway to Heaven on guitar. Another playing great jazz on drums.

It’s not that any of these players were particularly bad. They just weren’t playing from the same page. It wasn’t their individual skill levels that were lacking. It was the unity of all their skills going after the same purpose.

That’s what a lot of churches are like: A room full of talented people playing their own music. What could be really beautiful like a symphony has gone wrong because there is no unity. And the result is purposeless noise.

Many of you have the people in your church right now to begin playing some amazing music. A better staff person or better volunteers isn’t going to fix your problem. It will just add to the noise you already have. What you really need to do is get everyone to start playing the same song.

If you’re a pastor, it’s your job to pick the song. Cast your God-given vision. You could have some of the greatest people in their respective positions you’re ever going to work with. But if you don’t give them a common song to unite around, you’re wasting their talent. And your church is just going to make a lot of noise that’s going to repel people.

If you’re on staff, volunteering, or simply attending, it’s your responsibility to be united under your visionary. If God wanted everyone playing your song, He would have elevated you to a place where you could make it happen. But He hasn’t. He may one day, but in the meantime you need to faithfully contribute to the song your pastor has chosen with your unique contribution. And do it with excellence.

We have too great of a message and too great a mission to let them get lost in a sea of meaningless noise. So whatever part you play in your church:

Unite under a common song. Play from the same page. And play your part flawlessly.

Read more from Steven here.

Tags: Steven Furtick, Vision Frame

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

The Power of Clarity in Your Church’s Vision

by: Matt Steen

0

Tweet

Tears were streaming down his face as he silently wept:

“I can see it so clearly… I just haven’t had the ability to put it into words… which makes people think I don’t know where we are going.”

Clarity is powerful.

One of my most favorite things to do through my work with Church Simple is to help church leaders clearly communicate what it is that they are called to… and then helping them do it.  In this case, the process was incredibly moving.

I am becoming convinced that the church in this country is not lacking of vision… it is the rare church leader that does not have a vision for where God is taking them.  What I think is missing in many churches is a sense of clarity when it comes to that vision: a way to express it clearly, concisely, and with authority.

Vision statements can be incredibly powerful tools to rally your congregation around your calling… or they can be incredibly obtuse statements that make people yawn in powerful new ways.  The difference is how you approach crafting your vision statement, and whether you are making a statement, or calling to action.  I fully believe that we have been called to action by the great commission and great commandment… and should be calling our people to action as well.  With this in mind, here are four qualities of a great vision statement:

• Vivid.  Paint a picture.  Be clear about where you are going and what it will look like.  If your people do not fully understand what your vision statement is calling them to, you will never achieve it.
• Inspiring.  I am sick of boring vision statements.  If you want me to fully invest myself in the vision and mission of your church you need to call me to something bigger than myself, something worthy of the time, talents, and treasure that I will be sacrificing in order to make it happen.  Don’t tell me what we are, tell me where we are going… and make it a big deal.
• Memorable.  The school that I worked with in Baltimore had a vision statement that took up a full sheet of paper (actually they had two, posted on opposite walls… but that is a bigger problem for another time).  If you were to ask teachers, administrators, or anyone involved in the school to recite, or paraphrase, either of those statements you would have gotten a blank stare.  Your vision statement needs to be clear and concise in order for it to be memorable.  Vision statements that aren’t memorable are worse than having no vision statement at all.
• Preachable.  If you can not point back to your church’s vision statement during your sermon on a regular basis it is useless.  The power of a vision statement is its ability to clearly define who you are as a church and where you are going.  If you are not referring back to it regularly, it may be time to ask yourself whether you, and your vision, are headed in the same direction.

What makes YOUR church’s vision statement great?

If you are looking for more thoughts on church vision, you need to check out what Will Mancini is up to, or buy his book.  Either way, this is too important to not do well.

Read more from Matt here.

Tags: Matt Steen, Recapturing Vision, Vision Clarity, Vision Frame, Will Mancini

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >

Are You Helping or Hurting Your Mission?

by: Charles Arn

0

Tweet

One of the keys to a church’s missional success is how its members are deployed. There are two approaches—one facilitates the church’s mission; the other often frustrates it.  Few in the church ever clarify this choice, but every church makes it, and every church lives with the consequences of its choice.

The institutional approach to lay ministry begins with the needs of the institution.  Every church needs Sunday school teachers, committee members, musicians, ushers.  In the institutional approach, when a job opens up, the response is to search for a person who seems most suitable to fill it and/or is most likely to say yes.  Success, in such churches, is when a member says, “Okay, I’ll do it.”  Hopefully the person is qualified, gifted, and motivated for that ministry; but there are no guarantees.  If it turns out there is a mismatch between member and task, the result is a job poorly done and a member mostly frustrated.  “Plugging warm bodies into ministry slots in a congregation,” says Pam Heaton, “tends to increase volunteer burnout, dissatisfaction, and departure.”[i]  With the institutional approach to lay ministry, church members exist to serve the needs of the institution.

The individual approach is far less widely practiced, but significantly more effective for missional success.  Here the goal is not to fill a vacancy but to find or create a place where members can joyfully and productively participate in the mission.  Rather than beginning with the needs of the institution, the individual approach begins with the strengths of the person.  Church members are encouraged to try a position related to their interest and see how it fits.  If it does, the member may choose to spend more time in that ministry and/or receive additional training.  If the task is not comfortable, or the person does not feel a sense of calling, he or she is guided to explore other ministries that might be a better fit.  If a match cannot be found, creating a new ministry is explored.  In the individual approach to lay ministry the institution exists for the benefit of the people rather than the people for the benefit of the institution.

Consider the difference in results of these two approaches to lay ministry…

Take a Lay Ministry Check-Up…

The chart below can help you discern whether your present approach to lay ministry is increasing or decreasing the liklihood of missional success. First, write in line 1 the number that represents your total church constituency—all church members, plus regular attenders who are not officially members (above age thirteen).  Next, determine in which column your church falls on rows 2-18.  All the numbers in the chart are percentages.  Calculate your percentages based on your total church constituency (line 1), unless otherwise noted.

Tags: Charles Arn, Mission, Vision Frame

| What is MyVisionRoom? > | Back to Vision >