Radical Change Requires Radical Change
Wayne Boyer, the General Conference Director (and proposer of this emergent conversation), posted a link in his "Friday" newsletter (which btw featured some of the conversations on this blog) to the DRIVE conference hosted by Andy Stanley.
Reggie Joiner was the first speaker. Here was his big point, then lesser points.
"The best way to radically change your organization is to radically change your organization."
1. Sometimes it takes a radical change to remind the leaders the importance of the mission.Whenever I hear a story of radical change, the attendance goes down before it goes up
2. It takes a radical change before those on the inside take you seriously about reaching people on the outside."The logic around making changes slowly is so that people won't realize we made the change. Don't we want people to recognize we made the change?"
"Don't fill up your seats with 'that kind of Christian.'"
Three churches in Canada -- all over 100 years old and pastored by one young pastor -- sold all three of their buildings and started meeting in a high school. They immediately doubled in attendance, raised a million dollars, and built a new church with a new name.
3. Sometimes it takes a radical change before those on the outside really believe they are important to those on the inside.There is an image problem with our churches.
4. Sometimes it takes a radical change before you can know what it means to completely trust God with your life and your ministry."Aren't we asking non-Christians to radically change and to trust God with everything in their life? What gives us the right to ask them to do it if we won't?"
That last quote was worth the watching the video clip.
I'm wondering about the content of this lecture. There are some problems. One is the idea that if you should only pattern yourself after growing churches. Perhaps a healthy church is a growing church, but then do we have to judge how fast or how big? There are many measurements of health.
Are Christians who refuse to change really in need of being pushed out of our churches? I'll admit. Maybe. Are we willing to say it? Does a denomination that wants to radically change need to radically change the way it does business?
Some questions for you:
1. What is the last radical change you made in your church?
2. What is one radical change you would really like to make in your church?
3. What is the last radical change the denomination had made?
4. What is one radical change the denomination should make?
5. How are we supporting pastors that go to the Drive Conference, come back and try to change their church, start a fight with people unwilling to change, and drop their attendance by half?
posted by Brian at 8:42 PM
7 Comments:
Brain,
Thanks for the great material! I have not seen anything by Reggie yet but this is where renewing the church takes place!
I have heard it said over and over agian take it slow, very slow, but I'm not sure that ths is always the bets prescription. Jesus, (Yes I know he was also God) did it in three yeaers. he used teh ordinary everyday people of his time and brought such a dramatic change in three years that in acts several thousand people were added to their numbers!
How is this slow? what I think we sometimes are concerned with is offending the people that need to be offended. Yes we need to be careful and concerned that our motives are true and right but do we go slow in order to allow the people of God to stay with us or do we go slow because we don't want to offend someone and hope that we can slowly win them over, while the rest of the world is dying to know Christ?
I don't knwo but I think that it does take radical change to get a fire under teh people of God to move. It sems that it always has and maybe it always will.
what does everyone else think?
Okay, here's a radical change I've been wondering about: CHURCH MEMBERSHIP.(Please forgive my ignorance of cggc & church history)
I don’t know what it’s like in your church, but trying to get people to formally join mine is like pulling teeth. And I probably don’t have near as much of a problem with that as I do with the other end of it… How to deal with people who have joined the church, but no longer honor their commitment. I seem to find more people offended by this than offended by being asked to join. And in many cases, that’s the reason they give for not joining – because it’s meaningless, and even the leaders of the church don’t take it seriously.
So my question is: is church membership still necessary? And how does it fit in the emergent church? I don’t mean any disrespect, it just doesn't seem that important to me, and maybe it's something we need to look at. Or, maybe someone could be kind enough to straighten me out. What do you think, and how do all of you deal with the membership issue?
Dan,
I'm in the same boat. We have never had membership in our church's 6+ years (don't tell anyone! Ha!). I struggle with why and how. The best approach I have found is at Mosaic, Los Angeles. Erwin McManus describes his "staff" in his book "An Unstoppable Force." We are likely to borrow somewhat from that, essentially allowing anyone who wants to be a member to be a member by virtue of saying so, yet creating an opportunity for those who are committed to our mission, vision, and values to join our "staff."
I don't think "staff" is the ideal word, but I have yet to discover a better term. I have spoken with Alex McManus (who actually designed their "staff") and he hasn't found anything better yet, either. If you haven't read "Unstoppable Force," I would highly recommend it. While I greatly respect Dan Kimball, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and others that have been quoted in this blog, the McManus brothers have probably influenced me more than anyone in recent years.
Kirk,
Thanks for the reminder about "An Unstoppable Force." Another one i need to re-read. It is a good book.
I guess it's always bugged me that we are supposed to love people, and reach out and be accepting... but it seems there are degrees to that. Like, we accept you this far until you learn this; then we'll accept you this far until you've mastered this; then...
Maybe I'm too simple-minded, but that just doesn't seem very loving or accepting. It seems more like protecting, doesn't it?
I like the "staff" idea, but agree that it would be more acceptable if we could find a different word.
Dan,
I hate what membership has become in the church today. I struggle with the people that have an "American Express" mentality of membership (Membership has its benifits). I do not promote membership, but in the last few months we have had 10 people come to me and ask if we had membership and wanted to join the church, (go figure?)
I have had to address a few people here that membership is NOT about benifits and special privilages (I have even had to go so far with some of the fundalmentalist to ask them which benifit they wished to receive as a member of the church of Christ, sword, spear, burning at the stake, lion pit, or how about hanging on a cross for a benefit?) but is rather a way of saying "I am committed to this church and I want to show my support and commitment by joining "the team" (I like team better than staff).
When I do the membership classes I teach our core values, doctrinal beliefs, mission statement and goals as a church and emphasize that becoming a member is not about receiving but about giving, it is not about taking but about doing.
I think that membership can be very useful and helpful IF it is presented in a way that sends a message that membership is a commitment and an accountability offer from the memeber to the leadership of the church and from the leadership to the member. It is not a way to gain control but a way to contribute to the spreading of the Good News.
Is it important? yes and no. Yes , because it helps those that need to feel like they belong to fit in. No, because I don't think that membership is a key to heaven like it has been made to look like in some places. But once again this is just my opion.
We have membership, but we have only about 15 members. And even with that, about 5 have moved away. We don't have an official leadership structure, but I don't pay any attention to whether leaders are members are not. The question for me is commitment to the vision of the church, and as you have said, membership hasn't been a reliable measure for that.
For me, membership isn't a "qualifier," it is an outward statement of commitment to the journey and mission of The Crossover.
As for McManus, I heard him speak at a Willow Creek conference. He was by far my favorite speaker.
Membership has always been a problem in my mind.
There is no question in my mind that there is no basis in the New Testament for membership in a congregation.
But, here in the Eastern Conference, church health is judged, in part, on increase or decrease in membership.
And, there's the problem of people new to the church asking to become members, defining loyalty to the ministry of the church by 'joining' it. I have several people waiting for me to give them a chance to join.
Post a Comment
<< Home