Bill Easums Observations

Today, I’m going to address two more of the top six tactical mistakes churches make. Keep in mind these aren’t criticisms. They are, like the blog says, observations. I’ve worked in almost 1,000 churches in the past twenty years. I know that doesn’t make me an expert but it does give some credibility to my observations.
When I see a dying church they are most likely making these mistakes. So I think they are worth noting.

Mistake Number Two -putting a long section of announcements at the beginning of the worship service.  One of my practices in many on-site consultations is to be present for the Sunday worship service. Ninty-Nine out of a hundred dying churches will begin the service with announcements, following a long boring organ prelude (by the way I seldom hear an organ in a thriving church unless it is a black church). Often these announcements take up to five or ten minutes. In some of the worst cases (I ran into a bunch of these in the early years of consulting), in addition to the pastor making announcements, other member of the congregation are called forward to make additional announcements. I was at one church where after more than ten minutes of announcements the pastor asked if there were any other announcements from the congregation. Needless to say that church was in a free fall.

Why are announcements at the beginning of a worship service so deadly- because they violate every media tenet as well slap as our culture in the face.  Most younger people today do whatever they can to avoid watching a commercial on TV. Imagine what a media savvy twenty-something feels when subjected to five or ten minutes of commercials up front before they have the chance to decide if they like what’s happening in your worship.

And if you say, “That’s tough. We don’t bow to the culture,” you’re missing the point. The way to be counter-cultural is not by intentionally turning people away with your methodology. The way to be counter-cultural is to make the worship so appealing that the Holy Spirit has time to speak into their lives and transform their hearts into followers of Christ. You can’t do that if you run them off at the beginning of the service.

If you want to be able to speak to this culture, begin worship with your best piece of music for the morning, something that says “Something great is going to happen here today.” If you have to do announcements, don’t lead off with them. Please.

You say where do we put them – anywhere but the beginning. Put them at the middle or the end. Put them on the screen as people arrive. Or better yet don’t do announcements. Worship isn’t about selling your wares. Worship is about thanking God for what God has already done in your life. Keep it that way as much as you can.

Mistake Number Three – making the first staff hire a Youth Director instead of a Worship Leader. 

There is an old saying that “the youth are the future of the church.” This saying is both true and false. Youth are the future of some one’s church, but not your church. Most youth move on when they graduate from High School. Depending on how grounded they are in the faith they may wind up at someone else’s church in the future, so discipling them is extremely important. However, it has little to do with the future of your church.

In addition, most churches don’t have enough youth to make their first hire a part time Youth Director much less a full time person. Unless you have 100 or more youth in regular attendance on Sunday, or one day in the week, you don’t need a full time Youth Director. Until you have 50 or more youth in attendance, the pastor or someone trained by the pastor should lead the group.

Most church leaders still haven’t gotten the message – the world we live in has one universal language – Rock n Roll music. People around the world can lip-synch the music even if they don’t speak English.

If you look at the church plants that do well from the beginning the vast majority of them have either paid part time or full time worship leader. Today, music is an essential part of the message people hear. Make your first hire a Worship Leader who loves Jesus and understands today’s culture.

It seems my article “Six Tactical Mistakes Churches Make” hit a cord. Several commnents have been made both on and off my Blog.  One of the most important comments came from Matthew:  “How would you “combine evangelism and social justice into the fabric of the church?” Help me understand what that would look like.”

Here’s my response:

Matthew, this is an excellent question that goes to the heart of much of one of modern day Christianity’s most deadly heresies. I’m glad you asked the question because it shows you care about the issue.

The Dream Center in Los Angeles is one of the best examples I know of embedding social justice into the fabric of the church. The pastor, Matthew Barnett, used to be Assembly of God and is now a Four Square Gospel pastor, which means personal evangelism is high on his priority list. However, every week hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of food and medical supplies is sent out by the church and its hundreds of volunteers from all over the world.

And what about Saddleback’s war on Aids or Ginghamsburg’s fight to aid the suffering people of the Sudan. The list of churches the combine evangelism and social justice is long so I will l list only one more  church- the church I was pastor of for 24 years. 

We had a strong outreach ministry both in evangelism and social justice. We never did a social project without introducing Jesus in some way. We were part of the first churches to begin Project Free which became Meals on Wheels (we included a pamphlet with the meals). We were the first church in the U.S. to raise all of the money and build a house for Habitat (we had a bible study during lunch and invited the neighborhood). As a result of our efforts in community organizing in San Antonio 500 million dollars was invested to insure West side homes didn’t flood every time it rained. 

Matthew, I believe the Scriptures teach us  you can’t feed the soul if you don’t feed the body; and it doesn’t do any good to feed the body if you don’t feed the soul.

The separation of social justice and evangelism is one of the worst forms of reductionism in the history of Christianity. The long-standing fight between liberal and conservative Christianity is one of the major blights on Christianity.  It has simply truncated the church to the point that in many cases the church is a useless piece of junk that should be discarded. To say one is more important than the other is to discredit the words of Jesus found in the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. Social justice and evangelism are simply two sides of the same coin. One without the other is vain, stupid, and downright useless.

Over the years I’ve heard many conversations about which one is most important, evangelism or social justice. As if one could choose? Such stupidity! Such lack of understanding of the Gospel! You can’t choose one over the other and be a follower of Jesus. Not possible! Both are required for a whole Gospel.
Reductionism has hurt our witness over and over through the centuries. It’s time we quit truncating the Gospel.

I’ve also heard this argument “Evangelism isn’t always social justice but social justice is always evangelism (if you want to know more click here).” I don’t buy this argument either. I’ve seen too many people use such an argument as an excuse not to verbalize the Gospel when the time is right. I’ve dealt with a lot of church people who want to “do good” but have no interest in people coming to faith. And you know what Jesus said about being “good.”

So you see evangelism and social justice go hand in hand. When they don’t, you really don’t have a biblical church.

Over twenty years of consulting with more than 40 denominations has allowed me to see some common tactical mistakes made by church leaders. Although I have seen many mistakes, six stand out as the most common tactical mistakes made by church leaders (I have ranked them according to the damage they can do to a church’s ministry).  Usually these mistakes are hallmarks of declining congregations. So if your church is declining, and you are doing any of the following, it will be in your best interest to change your tactics.

Mistake Number One -failure to combine evangelism and social justice into the fabric of the church. The entire debate between traditional and emergent churches stems from this failure. Any form of reductionism truncates the Gospel.

Mistake Number Two -putting a long section of announcements at the beginning of the worship service.  It’s like tuning into the beginning of a sitcom only to find all of the commercials loaded up front before anything else happens. Instead, begin worship with a rousing piece of music that says “Something great is going to happen here today.” If you have to do announcements, don’t lead off with them. Please.

Mistake Number Three – making the first staff hire a Youth Director instead of a Worship Leader.  Most church leaders still have not gotten the message – the world we live in has one universal language – Music, and mostly Rock n Roll.

Mistake Number Four – the lead pastor in a church under five hundred in worship does not personally contact first time guests within 48 hours. I know much of the prevailing wisdom is people are  more likely to return to your church if the laity visits them.  It’s just not so.  Pastor, if your church is under five hundred in worship, visit your first time guests within 48 hours.

Mistake Number Five -hiring Associate Pastors who are generalist rather than specialists. The day of generalists is coming to an end.

Mistake Number Six -asking a paid, retired Associate Pastor to be responsible for visiting the guests.  Our experience is that people under the age of 40 respond better to someone either their age or younger than they are.

Bill Easum
www.churchconsultations.com
easum@aol.com

It marked the beginning of a profound cultural shift and the gradual end of five hundred years of modern history known as “Modernity.” It caused polite society to blush in anger and teenagers to dance with joy. It went virtually unnoticed by church leaders even  though it was to have a profound effect on Christianity.

May 10, 1954, New York City became the fault line between Modernity and what would later be referred to by many as postmodernism.  That was the year and the place in which Bill Haley and His Comets un-leased upon the world what would in time become the most important song in rock and roll history and the first to reach number one on the charts – Rock Around the Clock. And most of the world was in for the ride of its life! And yet most of mainline protestant leaders either shrugged it off as a non-event or spoke out against it.

That same year, in Benton Arkansas, Modernity was given another fatal blow. Sam Walton began experimenting with ways to outsell his competitors by offering lower prices. Over the next four decades what has become known as Wall Mart replaced the neighborhood grocery store as well as any other store that carried what Wall Mart carries and the landscape of much of the U.S. was changed. Small was no longer so beautiful. Big was becoming better. Surely this had nothing to do with the fact that during the same period of time the rise of the Mega church got underway. Or did it?

That same year mainline denominations were enjoying the zenith of their prime.  The Seven Sisters of American Protestantism, as they were referred to then, were thriving, without a hint of what was to happen to them in less than ten years.   After all, most of them were too big to fail.  Sound familiar?

1954 was also the year I was introduced to Christ for the first time and my life was turned upside down and set on a totally different direction than I had previously chosen.

Fifteen years later, I was introduced to what was about to become The United Methodist Church. At the time the denomination boasted some eleven million members, second in size only to the loosely associated Southern Baptist Church, and not one of the Seven Sisters mentioned earlier. All I knew about Methodists was what I had learned by reading John Wesley. I fell in love with his form ministry. Little did I know at the time Wesley was little more than a vague memory for most Methodists.

Still, this once behemoth of a denomination gave me a place to live out my call and became my spiritual home for some forty years and counting. Many of my life-long friends were found in its midst. It also became the springboard for my consulting ministry which has brought me into contact with more than forty different Christian denominations.

Over these last twenty years of consulting ministry, I’ve come to love and respect a variety of denominational expressions of faith.  So it saddens me to see what is happening to them. Every one of the Seven Sisters, in spite of merger after merger, is only a shadow of what they were when Bill Haley ushered in the rock and roll era. My own denomination has plummeted from eleven million members to slightly under nine million members since 1962. 

Why is it that established Christianity always seems to be the last group to adapt to major change? It’s been over 50 years since Rock Around the Clock and the vast majority of established congregations in the U.S. still cling to a Lawerence Welk type of culture? It reminds me to the difference between the church at Jerusalem and the church at Antioch. One hunkered down in the past and had to be subsidized and the other forged a new path to the future.

Makes one wonder if the two huge movements underway today, church planting churches and multi-site churches, in time will become so established they too will miss the next great cultural revolution, say like the virtual church?

Just some food for thought from one who cares deeply about Christians who languish in the past while missing all God is doing in the present.

Bill Easum
www.churchconsultations.com

I’ve found the fourth great book during my summer reading.

Simchurch is the first book I’ve read on the virtual church that makes theological sense. Although the theology isn’t deep it’s deep enough to sway even the most die-hard skeptic of the virtual church – if they keep an open mind (something hard for many church goers to do these days).

Most people in the west have trouble swallowing the fact that virtual churches can provide the same depth of community as do non-virtual churches.  When westerners think of “church,” try as hard as we may, we subconsciously think of a place- and for some people a particular building rather than a gathering of Christians.  This taints our understanding of presence and community. We equate place with a building.  But if church isn’t a place but a gathering then there is no reason the virtual church can’t be thought of as a real church.

If we can think of the church, not as place, but as a gathering of Christians for the task of building the Kingdom then presence and community are understood in a different light and the virtual church becomes a possibility. A church is more about “who”, “what”, and “why” the people have gathered. “Where” a church gathers has never been important theologically.  Thus when a group of Christians gather in one place to worship under the Lordship of Jesus they are the church in community- even if the place is in virtual space.

Since the issue – “can a virtual church provide real community” – is at the heart of most people’s objections to the virtual church, the author gives us three different examples of the virtual church.  The author suggests that watching a streaming worship service on a computer doesn’t provide community since you are watching the service alone. Many churches provide such a service but it isn’t the kind of worship that provides the possibility of community or presence. You are an observer and nothing more.

Then he gives two examples of virtual churches where participation, community, and presence are possible on different levels because you are not alone and you can actually participate in the experience.  Lifechurch.tv   provides a minimal level of participation, but not much community because you can shout in the lobby but you can’t actually disrupt the worship service. It’s more than mere observation because you are not alone and you can interact on a minimal level, but it’s short of real community.   But at the Anglican Cathedral in Second Life you could actually disrupt the worship service and you could be asked to leave, because you are really present, and others are really present, and the pastor is really present (avatars of course). Thus, participation, community and presence are possible.

He then says something that blew me away – he says that the vast majority of people today have at least one if not more Avatars (hope I don’t have to explain that one to you but if so hit the link). Email is the basic avatar. If you have email, you have an avatar.

If we can agree that some form of authentic community and presence is possible in the virtual church, the real question becomes “Are we ready for the day when we can walk into virtual space without our Avatars?” Shades of the Matrix Reloaded. I wrote about the beginnings of this in my book Growing Spiritual Redwoods when I wrote about the Virtual Church of the Resurrection.  I guess it boils down to this – is virtual space a fed or a trend? And if a trend what are the implications for Christian ministry?

I haven’t finished the book yet, but if the second half is anything like the first half I may have to create an Avatar.

My parting thought -Is it possible that some Christians may find more community in a solid virtual church than many Christians are finding today in the non-virtual church? Chew on that one for a while. I know I’m going to.

Bill Easum
www.churchconsultations.com

I don’t know about you but I’m tired of all the crazy book titles that attach adjectives to the word “church”.  I get dozens of review copies every year and lately it dawned on me that many of them the last couple of years have had “church” in the title.  So I did a search of Amazon and found hundreds of books with the word “church” described by an adjective.

Now don’t get me wrong. Some of these books are excellent and my reviews on them have been extremely positive. But, isn’t there just one real type of church- the one we see in the New Testament? So why do we need to attach all of these adjectives to the word “church”?  Can’t we just talk about the Church as God intended it to be? Why can’t we just speak of the “biblical church”? If we’re going to use an adjective to describe “church” shouldn’t that adjective be “biblical?”Or would that offend someone when their type of church, which really isn’t a church by biblical description, is left out of the description?

Take a look at this short list that includes some of the better know titles that include the word “church”.  

The first list is contains descriptions that all biblical churches should embody.

Whole Church, Simple Church, Externally Focused Church, Incarnational Church, Emergent, Missional Church, Organic Church, Engaged Church, Total Church, Essential Church,  Sticky Church, Purpose Driven Church,  Vintage Church , Church Unique, Emotionally Healthy Churches, The Multiplying Church, Healthy Churches Real Church, Disciple Making Church, The Prayer-Saturated Church, The Connecting Church, The Deliberate Church, Churches that make a difference, Cross-Shattered Church , The Church of the Irresistible Influence.

This second list is shorter and the adjective seems necessary because it describes a different model of the biblical church.

The Multi-Site Church, The SimChurch.

The last list is simply ridiculous descriptions of churches.

The Domestic Church, The Family-Friendly Church.

So again I ask you, why can’t we just use the phrase, “the biblical church,” and drop most of the other adjectives?

Okay, you won’t let me. So here are the only three adjectives I think can legitimately be used with the word “Church” – faithful, biblical, and missional. All of the other adjectives are tied up in these three adjectives.

So, here is how I define a biblical church.

• They are biblically grounded and culturally relevant.
• Jesus Christ is Lord.
• They exist to make disciples.
• Everyone is considered to be a minister and missionary for Christ.
• They are a trusting community.

I think most people would say I was a good leader while pastoring. All three of my churches grew while I was there. Still, twice I needed to bring in a consultant.

Lyle Schaller was the first consultant.  I had been at the church for eleven or twelve years after restarting the church and some of my peers were saying it was time to leave while the leaving was good.  However, I didn’t feel as if my ministry was over at that church. So I asked Lyle to come in and evaluate the church, my ministry, and whether he felt I should move on or stay. I’ll never forget, after three days of interviewing, he sat down with my wife and me and said, “Bill, you can stay here as long as you wish.” That was music to my ears. I stayed another ten or eleven years for a total of twenty-four years.

The second time I needed a consultant I asked Kennon Callahan to help push an issue over the edge.  I had been trying for a few months to get the church to purchase four acres adjacent to the church property for extra parking. They wanted one million for the four acres. That was a lot of money in 1986, but we needed it to continue growing.  Ken came in and within two hours convinced the church to purchase the land.

Those were two of the best decisions I ever made. In both instances I knew what needed to be done but sometimes  it’s a wise investment to have an expert from more than fifty miles away confirm what you’ve been saying.  It was also the beginning of two great friendships. Both men had a hand in helping me get started in consulting.

So the next time you need confirmation in order to move forward or you need someone to give your leaders that tiny extra push to make the right decision don’t hesitate to call in a consultant.  Of course, I’m a bit prejudice about the subject since I’m on the board of Society for Church Consulting.

Bill Easum
www.churchconsultations.com

I’m working with a church established in the 1990s that grew up to 200 the year it moved into its permanent building in the late 90’s. Then it began to decline and has been declining every year since and is now down in the low 100’s.

We see this kind of decline often in new church plants when they finally get a permanent home. Prior to having a place of permanence much of the focus of the church is on reaching more people and increasing attendance.  That is the only way a church planter achieves his or her goal of planting a church. It takes people to plant and grow a new church. Then a new set of pastors come along and the focus shifts from reaching more people to taking care of who we’ve got.

On key to reversing the decline then is clear – you have to return your focus to reaching more people for Christ rather than taking the people you have deeper in their faith. There is a fine line between just gathering a crowd for the sake of survival and gathering a crowd for the sake of discipling them.

Every strong church always has two primary thrusts- one outward to reach more people and one inward to disciple those who show up.  Many of the ministries listed in the audit lean more toward the inward thrust.  To reverse the decline you must place more emphasis on outreach to the community for the sole purpose of them participating in worship..

When a person plants a church that person has one all consuming passion – to get more people in the seats so that a viable community of faith is established. Increasing the numbers is everything and when it isn’t the church plant fails.  Over time there is a slight shift of emphasis toward discipling those who have been gathered, but even then the discipling is done in the context of growing the Kingdom more than growing individuals.  In other words individuals grow more like Christ when they are focused not on themselves but on those who have not yet heard. So most of the discipling takes place on the mission field more than in the class room.

A second key to reversing the decline often around 125 in worship is the either the congregation begins to demand the pastor focus on them and/or one or two controllers try to wrestle leadership away from the pastor and control what the pastor does. From here the church become conflicted and triangulated. Conflicted churches simply don’t grow.

Bill Easum
www.churchconsultations.com

Earlier I blogged about what it takes to grow a church from 0-500. Now here are my thoughts about why churches fail to break the 200 in worship barrier.

• The church loses its focus on evangelism and turns inward on itself
• The laity starts running the church instead of inviting their networks.
• The pastor does not respond personally to every signed in visitor with 24-48 hours.
• Either the pastor fails to hand-off most ministries or the church expects the pastor to do the ministry and to care for all the people.
• The pastor either doesn’t learn how to hire, grow, and fire staff or a church committee does the hiring and firing of all staff.
• The church doesn’t see the need to hire more staff, especially a solid worship leader.
• The church members expect the pastor to focus on them now that there are enough people to sustain the budget.