Church Turn-Arounds
There have been many discussions on this blog over the need for repentance in the church (and more specifically the cggc). Darryl Dash recently wrote three blog posts dealing with church replanting or restarting: 1) Church Replanting, 2) Why Church Turn-Arounds Fail, and 3) More On Restarts And Church Turn-Arounds. I thought it was interesting the connection between much of what he was talking about, and what Bill (and others) have suggested on here in regard to the cggc - though I don't know that anyone here has really talked with "re-starts" in mind. At any rate, humility seems to be a key regardless of what we're dealing with specifically.
In the middle post Darryl gives three reasons for why he believes church turn-arounds fail. I think you could perhaps expand it to why churches in general fail or stagnate, and maybe even why denominations fail or stagnate. He says the problems are:
- Systems resist change
- Shallow change isn't enough
- Pastors in church turn-arounds often aren't given the support they need
He then shares a quote from an email he received:
Until the leaders and people of an established and dying church are truly 'broken' before God, it won't happen... we're not talking surface changes here. It goes deep. Most often we're talking about changing the kinds of things with which Jesus challenged the seven churches in Revelation 2-3. You have to be completely humble to receive that... Sadly, we don't find a lot of humble people in dying churches. What we find are people tenaciously holding on to 'their thing.' But when we do find such humility, it is amazing to watch the transformation of a whole church...
Sounds very familiar to many of the things written on this blog, doesn't it? I highly recommend you read Darryl's posts (and links), they're all pretty short.
I guess I say all this to say...
- I am encouraged by the Missional Leadership Initiative the cggc has undertaken. I know it is just starting, but I think it has the potential to set a new course for us denominationaly. I hope it continues and grows.
- I appreciate that this blog is still functioning. It's rather amazing when you think about it. I think it is a really great thing for our denomination (even though it's not a denominational blog). It's a nice place for ideas to be brought up and discussed by people regardless of position or title or access.
- What I'm wondering is... Since new life can only come about when something dies... what are perhaps some of the things that may need to die among us (or in the cggc) for new life to happen - what are we "tenaciously holding onto"? I know this question has been asked many times on this blog. I guess I think it's important that we keep asking it though. There are a variety of people with different backgrounds and ministry contexts on this blog, and I always enjoy reading the different perspectives. What are some further steps we can take to address the problems of: Systemic change, shallow changes, and pastoral support? Or do you perhaps see other problems that need addressing?
posted by dan at 7:49 AM
11 Comments:
Having recently worked with a struggling church in the ERC, I can attest to Mr. Dash's reasons for why churches die. In particular reasons 1 and 3 kept a church with a long COG history and outstanding location from becoming a church that could make an impact for the Kingdom.
I used to wonder why there appeared to be more interest in planting new churches than supporting struggling. I now realize that why it may be heartbreaking for some, it is O.K. if a church dies and a new one is planted to take it's place. That is why the ERC church planting initiative is so exciting.
I agree with also with his assessment that established churches need to be broken before they can truly be renewed and be an impact for the Kingdom Unfortunately it is hard to get some churches to see the the need for renewal.
One thing I wish we would quit holding onto is the whole 'church growth' idea that bigger needs to be the ultimate goal. Perhaps this is elementary, but it still seems that we believe something is wrong with a church when the numbers start to dwindle; and we then think the solution is to somehow get the numbers to go back up. What if we quit worrying about the size? (I hear it doesn't matter in other situations).
Suppose we let churches dwindle in number, and instead of making those who stayed in that church feel like they were failures, we instead helped them to see how they were still just as much a part of the kingdom as before, and they could still have just as much (or more) impact in the world? Suppose we emphasized planting more, but smaller, churches - where there was no need to have a certain amount of funding or a certain size to "go public"? What if our focus was just on being the people of God and learning to follow and bless in the way of Jesus?
Maybe I'm just dreaming, but wouldn't it be wonderful to someday maybe not even be able to tell what actually "made up" a local church, and we just saw groups of Christ-followers being Christ-like?
I think our ideas of what a church "looks like" need to change.
I agree, Dan.
Though LifeBridge is only a little more than a year old, for now I have stopped focusing on growth and the people we have are now invited to take a much deeper discipleship journey.
(Part 1)
Dan, I am gonna take a crack at your final question:
What are some further steps we can take to address the problems of: Systemic change, shallow changes, and pastoral support? Or do you perhaps see other problems that need addressing?
First I am going to go after systemic change. One of the major problems is that of our current hierarchical ceo method. In this method we have a committee of big wigs trying to create systems and methods to change the whole thing. It is a top down approach and it often fails us. If you watch the new show on tv called "Undercover Boss" you will see that the CEO's often find that they do not understand the reality their systems and procedures have on the people in the front lines. In the confines of a denomination such as the CGGC, I am not sure the bottom up approach works either. What may be best is to do like the early disciples did and send out some missionaries to preach the word and get some churches to spring forth. This will not lead to change that will be orderly and it may even be a little messy. Now remember, Paul went on his journeys and got churches going, but he did not run them, but he did stay in touch with them and the instructions he gave to the church in Corinth differed from the letter to the church in Ephesus. I dunno if I am making much sense in this one because I am shooting from the hip and I have something eloquent in my head like Shakespeare and it ain't coming out well. Sorry. Moving on to the next point.
Shallow changes. Eek! This is a tough one. As progressive as I claim to be I still fall into the "model trap". I think many planting coaches and renewal consultants fall into this trap as well. Changing worship style, strategic placing of greeters, candles or no candles, more small groups, less small groups, etc. We often put the cart before the horse on change and we tend to clean the outside of the cup and not look at the inside of the cup. The heart and praxis of the leader and the core people surrounding the leader(s) needs to be in place before we worry about the expression and the veneer. My next door neighbor and landlord is a UCC church and they are part of a major ad campaign and they spent a small fortune in renovating their sanctuary in the hopes that this will draw people in...the problem is that nothing has changed with the people. But I get why we reach for these things and get caught in the model trap. They are measurable and the things we need to reach for in real change are not as easily measurable. Tell me how you guage if a community is:
1. Identifying with Jesus
2. overcoming the secular/sacred split)
3. Living as community as opposed to strangers in proximity at a church service)
4. Welcoming the stranger with radical and gentle hospitality.
5. Serving with generosity.
(Yes I used 5 of the 9 characteristics of the emerging church...sorry). The things we are trying to reach for, like God, cannot be confined to models and programs and are matters of the heart and the Holy Spirit and this road to real change is MUCH harder than shallow change.
Part 2
Pastoral support-this is tough. Support from the congregation will be hard because as you already pointed out...not only systems, but people resist change. I think Fran could speak to this better than I could. When he radically changed LiseSpring some years back, there was a mass exodus. Real change will come from a few and it is dreamland to think the many will follow. This change will result in criticism, loneliness, and frustration for the leader embracing the change. He or she needs to cling to those on the journey with them in the community. As far as pastoral support from the regional and national powers that be, I do not know enough about the shortcomings to speak to that. I would say that from looking at different planting orgs and their 1,3, and 5 year benchmarks, they are looking at the wrong things to offer support. They seem to dangle carrots as rewards for jumping through the right hoops that look at numbers, financial viability and other things. Those benchmarks need to be removed and replaced with relationships and frequent visits and truly having the finger on the pulse of the change going on in this little church several hundred miles away from you. Paul did it, I do not see why regional or national directors cannot pull that off.
I am not sure I see other problems, but I have a suggestion I wish I would see more of. Churches planting communities in their area that are connected to, but separate from the church. In England, many Anglican Churches have emerging churches using their space at night with a separate "staff" of leaders. Some churches in the West Coast are taking small group leaders and elders who they used to hang onto tightly and letting them go to start house churches in their homes (yeah this leads to losing leaders and a few congregants, but you get to bring in more and raise them up), some are helping birth new monastic movements in the area. This concept can take many expressions of raising up "bi vocational" leaders to reach people in the community that your established church may not be able to reach the same way.
That's all.
One last thing. In reference to the Undercover Boss. It would be so interesting to see Ed or someone close ti him since he is well recognized to be a little scruffy, adopt a fake name, stay in a cheap motel, and see the communities from an undercover angle.
Patrick,
Good thoughts.
I can't remember where I saw it, but several years ago I saw somewhere that they actually had a questionnaire you could use, and they suggested paying an unchurched person to visit a service at your church and give their feedback. They needed to agree to show up for like 3 or 4 times, and they suggested paying something like $50-$100 for their time.
I actually tried this with several people, and never had any luck with it. But I still like the idea.
I think the undercover boss thing sounds great. But I wonder if any of us could really see things from the perspective of an unchurched person? Maybe it depends on what we're looking for.
Anyway, thanks for the input.
Your welcome. I have heard of the pay for pray thing too. I actually know of a pastor who used to pay a batch of pretty women to come to his church and sit right up front every Sunday to increase attendance. It is how he met his wife who now runs his church since his death and you can see her every night on the religious channel (Pastor Melissa Scott).
The Undercover Boss would never get you a glimpse to the non believer, but it would give you a glimpse to how the church welcomes the stranger and meets the least of these.
Ha! Well, I was just talking about getting some feedback. THAT is another thing entirely. I've actually seen that woman on tv (though never listened to her), and definitely never knew her story - until I just now googled her name.
You want real entertainment? Google her deceased husband. As one who cut my teen in the Assemblies of God, the antics and misadventures of Dr Scott were the stuff of legend. He was just under the radar that they never did to him what they did to Jim Bakker, James Swaggart, or Gary Zaleski...but my pastor definitely wanted him out.
I have seen her show a few times. She does not preach so much as she exegetes. It is actually interesting. I do not know if it is her findings or a team of writers, but the exegetical process ain't half bad.
here's one thing i'm a big advocate of, and i think it relates to all three issues: having a plurality of elders lead the church.
i very much agree that we need a variety of models for church gatherings, and i think the NT is written in such a way as to fit and work in a variety of cultural contexts. however, it seems that from pentecost onward, each NT church was led by a group of men, not one. the "every parish it's priest" model seems to arise only by worldly influence and the prideful ambition of men.
on the one hand, this helps keep leaders in check. by God's provision and our discernment, there should be a variety of callings among the elders, which balance each other out. the prophetic elder would press forward into change, spread vision, etc., while a shepherd would temper him from needlessly leaving people behind because the prophet's pace of change is faster than the congregation can bear. at the same time, the prophet tempers the shepherd, so that he does not stick with the status quo and ignore where the Lord is leading.
on the other hand, a plurality of elders is also a support base. if, after seeking the Lord through prayer, fasting, looking into the Word, etc., the eldership agrees on needed changes, they can support each other through the rocky road ahead, through the abuse of angry congregants, through unforeseen consequences, etc.
and if the whole group of these leaders of the church is convicted of the Spirit's call to move in a certain direction, i think you'll find people a lot more willing to trust and follow them, instead one man whose motives are more easily questioned.
how many of you operate in a church where leadership is not singular? have you seen what i'm talking about?
Post a Comment
<< Home