Bill Easums Observations

Last week I was in Eugene Oregon at Wayne Cordeiro’s farm working with Leadership Network.  There were two other mentors like Wayne and myself along with around 20 25-35 year old pastors.  All of them were outside of the mainstream, were leading growing churches, and were multi site or were getting ready to go multi site. The conversation was stimulating and challenging.  It was also refreshing to hear stories of growth and reproduction of leaders for the multiple locations.

The event was just another road sign along the way showing how much things have been changing over the past thirty years.  We have gone from mainline to sideline; from print to digital; from local to glocal; from programs to leadership paths. All in all there isn’t much left of the old world except in the old world churches of mainline protestantism.

That begs a question – why is mainline dying and a new breed of thriving churches emerging? There were more new churches planted last year than were closed. There is such a disconnect between mainline and sideline.  All mainline wants to discuss is how to revitalize their churches whereas all sideline churches want to talk about is how to reach the next neighbor for Christ.

I’m off the end of this week to discuss this issue with a Presbyterian church in Toledo Ohio. I’m asked to talk about where the mainline church is going and what the future will look like.  It’s not a pretty picture for those who decide to live in the old world instead of doing like Paul and take the message into a strange new world. The message will never change but the delivery system will. I think multi-site is a trend not a fad because that is the way the church grew the first two centuries.

Bill Easum

www.effectivechurch.com

For years now church gurus have talked about the seating capacity of a building.  You know- if your main worship service is 80% full you need another worship service. Well, even though that’s still true, how many you have in worship and the size of your building is not enough.  The real standard for evaluating success for a church is how many people does it send out into the community and world to share their faith.

Over the last ten years I’ve noticed more and more leaders catching on to this “sending” factor.  Some churches even send people out every week to bless the community in some way and spread the Good News. It’s a real blend of social action and evangelism. It’s not just doing good, although that happens.  It’s transforming the community in multiple ways- better schools, neighborhoods, jobs, salvation- well you get the picture.

So here is my question- how many people do you intentionally send out to bless the surrounding community? Is that even on your radar? If not, there’s something missing to your ministry.

If you want to see the “sending” in action, visit one or more of the following churches who have and are leading the way

The Healing Place in Baton Rouge
Cincinnati Vineyard
Dream Center in Los Angeles
Summit Church in Raleigh-Durham

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

I just finished a book titled “Just Start.” It is a book right up my alley. I’ve long been a proponent of Ready-Fire-Aim so this book fits me like a glove.  I highly recommend it especially if your church is stuck or declining.

The premise of the book is that in an unpredictable world like we live in today you never learn what will or won’t work until you act.  The authors put it this way – You Act, Learn, and then build.  In an unpredictable future traditional learning and thinking will only get us in trouble.  What we need to is what they call “Creaction.”  Today we create by acting, not thinking.

Now apply this to the Church. Many of our churches are built around a committee structure that tries to analyze this life out of an idea or issue before acting on it.  A committee may spend months, even years, trying to decide if they should attempt a new ministry. In most cases that is all they do – think about it. Instead the authors suggest, in Nike fashion, “Just do it; see what you learn; and then build the future.”

Now I know this is counter intuitive to most clergy.  Seminary, if anything, teaches us to think. It makes thinkers out of us, not doers.  This may have made sense in a predictable world, but not in the kind of world we live in today where much of what we depend on didn’t exist 25 years ago.

So if you want to drive your committees crazy, ask them to read this book.  It just might open some eyes to the fact that if you keep thinking the way you are thinking you will keep getting what you’ve been getting.

Thanks to the dozens of you who attempted to answer the brain twister posted on Facebook. Whereas no one got all of the elements correctly many of you got part of it right. So let me share with you what I would want to tell this church. Ill summarize it for our use and I will put the brain twister at the end of this post.

The church has made one of the most basic mistakes a church can make- it built without adding staff and without adequate parking. Usually when a church moves into a new worship center worship attendance jumps 20-30 percent.  But because of not having enough staff to disciple the new people and because they under-built the parking within 18 months the attendance drops back to where it was.

1. Within the next 12 months add the equivalent of two full time program/pastoral staff.

The rule of thumb in a mainline church is the equivalent of one full time staff person per 100-125 people in worship.  If the church has a true small group system in place that ratio can go as high as one to five hundred. But this church did not have a small group system.  So that means the church is short one and a half to two full time program/pastoral staff.

A church this size really doesn’t need an associate. Associates are too expensive and laypeople can be trained to do the visitation with the exception of the new visitors which in this case should either be the pastor or someone paid part time who is under the age of 45.  The Worship Leader should be made full time and the choir director should be reduced to ¼ time.  It is also doubtful if a church this size needs a full time Youth Director- only if the church runs 150 different youth in average attendance during a full week. So ideally what you should do is reduce the Youth Director to part time.

There are also too many people in the office.  A church this size doesn’t need two full time secretaries and someone in finance.  So I would let one secretary go and have the one secretary cover all the staff as well as train volunteers to answer the phone and other odds and ends.

When all is done here is what I would recommend for this church – Lead Pastor, full time worship leader, part time choir director and youth director, full time children’s director.  This equals four full time people.  Then I would add two people to oversee three ministries at the moment which as the church grow would be hived off into three full time staff people- outreach to attract new people, small groups, and servant evangelism (how this would be divided up depends on each one’s gifts.  Now the four core processes are in covered.  By eliminating and reducing some staff the additional two staff people will not be prohibitive.

1. Within six months add 200 parking spaces.  They can do this because they own 20 acres.  The rule of thumb here is one parking space for every two people on the property at the peak hours.
2. Move the 8:00 service to 8:30 and the 10:30 service to 10:00 and move Sunday School to 10:00 with worship for children and youth.  10:00 is now the number one time for worship in the U.S.  and their new worship center will seat 800 people so they don’t need a third service at the moment.  There will be some push back about on this because some families want their children with them in worship.

Now this would be the goal I would shoot for when I arrived at the church. However, nothing is ever perfect so I would have to evaluate how much of the above I can recommend.  I would have one bottom line – add the parking and ad at least one staff person for outreach, small groups, and servant evangelism or continue to decline.

Here is the Brain Twister

“Here’s a brain twister for pastor’s who want to grow their church. I will have to give this church a response next week. What would you tell them to do?

1. They are at 499 in worship including adults, youth, and children.
2. They have 100 parking spaces and people come to church with 2.0 people per car.
3. They have two services, one at 8:00 with 100 (Traditional) and the other at 10:30 with 399 people (contemporary).
4. Sunday School is at 9:15 in the morning.
5. They have four fulltime pastoral/program staff people – Lead Pastor, Associate Pastor responsible for picking up after the pastor and doing visitation to shut-inns, new visitors and hospitals, Director of Children’s ministry and Youth director.  They have two full time Secretaries, a half time choir director, a quarter-time Worship Leader, and a half-time person in finances.

The church just moved into its first permanent location and grew from 400 to 558 in the first three months and a year later is back down to 510 in worship.

What’s wrong with this picture and what you tell them they need to do?”

I had to vacate my house for the night due to some remodeling being done.  So I checked in to a Holiday Inn.  While I was out walking my dogs one the biggest mainline churches began to ring out old hymn tunes.  I was a block away and it hurt my ears.  I went into my room and I could still hear the bills ringing.

If the bells bothered me, what do you think they do to an unchurched person who is already turned off by churches?  I know what it does- it tries a further wedge between them and Churches.

Now the problem is 50 years ago when the bells were put into this church people were appreciative of the church ringing out.  It was a sign the community was in good shape and surrounded with God’s love.  Well, it’s no longer 1950 and those bells are offensive to most unchurched people and for those who aren’t bothered by the chimes, I need to ask you, Is your church growing?

Just thinking out loud.

Welcome to 2013.

How are you going to measure the success of your church this year, and every other year for that matter- Worship attendance, Finances, Sunday School and or small group attendance, the number of baptisms, the number of new leaders raised up?

What if I told you none of these is the absolute measure of success even though they are all important.  Would you believe me? Well only one of them is even close – baptisms.

So what is the measure of success for a church? I think it is how much difference a church is making in the community and the world. So the key question is, Would your community miss you if you left? Or maybe, Does your community even know you exist?

The church is suppose to be the sign and example of the coming Kingdom of God. It was put here to make the world a difference place.  I doubt if God counts how many noses are in worship or what the take was.  But I know God is thrilled when the community and world is different because of your church.

So how to you measure the sending factor of your church? Let me suggest that you do the following:

1. Make a list of all the programs you have and then use a yellow marked to highlight those that are for your members and a red marker to highlight those that are geared to make a difference in your community and world.  We are how we spend our money.
2. Next, count the number of people working within your church each week for any reason and then count the number of people who went out from your church to make a difference in the community or world by actually doing an overt act of some kind.

Do you like what you see? If  not, start working toward changing the picture. It will make 2013 a much more productive year and will be a better sign of the coming Kingdom of God.

Happy New Year
Bill Easum
www.effectivechurch.com
easum@aol.com

Well, now I realize I didn’t publish my thoughts of the Conversations You Cant Ignore in the right order. So here is Part IV

All three of the movements we’ve examined the past three days (Emergents, Incarnationals, and Organics) are clearly reactions against the traditional Attractional church that waits for the public to come to it instead of going out to it. Some 80-85% of Attractional churches is either on a plateau or is dying because their primary function is on the care and feeding of the members and the institution. They are more like hospices or hospitals than churches. So it might be in the best interest of most churches in the West to listen to these voices since they clearly show up the fallacies of the institutionally focused church. But do we really need to throw the baby out with the bath water? I think not.

However, over the past decade too much time and energy has been taken up by these conversations. I have no problem with the Incarnational, Organic, and Emergent movements being part of the ongoing conversation as long as we realize they are just one of the many voices in the midst of much larger and important conversation that is coming to the forefront. We will examine this movement in a moment.

But first. We should all be indebted to these folks for bringing to our attention so elegantly the fact that Western Christianity is nowhere near what Jesus had in mind when he sent his disciples out into the world to build his church.  We should be willing to concede that most churches in the West are spiritually dead and are beyond revitalization or turn around.  Their only hope is resurrection. That is why I wrote A Second Resurrection. They are in need of resurrection. However, these movements are not the primary conversation in which we should be engaged.

So, let’s turn to two other major players in this ongoing conversation that have the potential to eclipse all three of these movements, as important as they are.

The Reproductive Movement

The Reproductive movement focuses primarily on advancing the Kingdom of God by multiplying itself and its people in any way possible. Their primary focus is on transforming the world by reproducing disciples rather than building large institutional churches (even though their efforts are more likely to result in large churches). Most of these churches are heavy into planting churches that plant other churches and multiple-site forms of ministry because they believe this is still the best way to make disciples. Mission shapes everything they do and believe including the purpose and meaning of “ecclesia.” Reproductives believe Christians are called and blessed only to be “sent” into the world to be a blessing to it. Mission is the totality of what the church is.

The most prominent leaders of this movement include folks like Bob Roberts, Dave Ferguson, and all the people involved in church planting movements like Exponential.

The Reproductives realize reaching the world will take the combined effort of all forms of Christianity. Therefore the movement embodies the best of the Incarnational, the Organic, and the Emergent values without throwing the baby (institutional church) out with the bath water. They believe we must plant as many churches as possible in as short a period of time as possible. Rather than the institutional church, their emphasis is on planting churches that will plant other churches in order to transform the world. Their emphasis is on the process of reproduction of Christians and the transformation of societies rather than building buildings. These leaders also realize that in today’s world big may not always best, so they embrace the multi site route as well.

There is one thing the Reproductives need to do. They need to get together and bring about one huge movement that will change the course of the world. So I have to ask – “What’s keeping you from forming a Reproduction Bank where people of all persuasions can donate to the cause of planting church planting churches?”

For my review of Robert’s book, The Multiplying Church and Fergusons book, The Big Idea,click here.

To learn about Exponential go to http://www.exponentialconference.org

So far we have examined the Emergent and Incarnational Movements. Today we examine the Organic Movement.

The Organic Movement

The Organic Movement is a kissing cousin to the Incarnational movement and a distant cousin to the Emergent movement. Compared to the other two movements it sees little to no need for the institutional church. But unlike the Emergent movement, and more like the Incarnationals, the Organics are more literal in their interpretation of Scripture and truth.

Although there are several voices for the Organic movement the most prominent voice is Frank Viola and his two books (with Barna), Pagan Christianity and Reimaging Church. His third book in the series, Finding Organic Church, isn’t on the same plane as his first two books). The first two books are meticulous, interesting, and disturbing looks at the New Testament understanding of the early church and how it compares to Western Christianity.

Although Viola is also a reaction against all forms of the institutional church, he stands in direct opposition to the Emergent folks because he takes a literal approach to the Scripture. His book documents the problems with the institutional church that functions more like a business than the living organism it was created to be.  His major criticism of today’s church, other than it being totally non-biblical, is the passivity and the elitism of today’s Church. I should stress here  that if Viola’s work does nothing more than awaken the church to these two sins his books have done their job.

Viola feels that most of the practices of modern day Christianity are totally foreign to Scripture and are lethal to the development of the kingdom of God. Every church leader ought to read this book and respond to its criticism of modern day Christianity. I agree with most of his argument. It’s his conclusion I disagree with. Whereas I agree the present form of Christianity isn’t biblical and needs to be trashed, I question whether what he suggests can survive much less thrive within our institutional context. So I’m not ready to give up on the institutional church even though I’ve been a constructive critic of it for more than three decades.

For my extensive review of Viola’s book Reimaging the Church and Pagan Christianity click here.

Over the next few days I will be exploring some of the key conversations occurring within Western Christianity.

The Morphing Protestant Scene

We all know our world has radically changed over the past few decades. I first wrote about this change in 1993 in my book dancing with Dinosaurs[i] where I described the change as a “crack in history” into which everything was disappearing, never to be seen again. Since then our world has morphed from a rather bland, simple, play-by-the-rules world to a wild and wooly no-holds-barred world. Nowhere was this wild ride made any more evident than on 9/11 and the 2008 financial world crises.

In the midst of this wild, unruly ride, several conversations are taking place that Christian leaders can’t afford to ignore because each one challenges the fabric of Western Christianity as we know it today. So we better pay attention. My goal in sharing them with you is not to criticize but to report what’s at stake.

The Primary Players in These Conversations

The primary players in this conversation are multiplying like rabbits and some of them have the possibility of becoming full-fledged movements. Each of these groups has a different spin on what type of church is needed to address the unfolding 21^st century culture and has the potential to play an important part in the shaping of the 21^st Century church. Over the next few days I will examine one or more of these players. For now, let me list them- The Emergents, Incarnationals, the Organics, The Reproductives, The Missionals, and The Sim Cards.

The Emergent Movement

Emergents are a growing group of disenfranchised pastors who are beginning non-traditional churches in protest to what they found in mostly evangelical traditional churches. They are hard to pin down because they practice a “both/and” approach to most issues. They prefer shades of gray instead of absolutes.

The best way to describe this movement is to start with their basic message: Emergents believe that it is no longer possible to hold on to the tenets and practices of modern-day Christianity for two reasons: one, they are flawed, and they don’t relate to today’s world; and two, the postmodern world requires a new view of faith and new kind of Christian—a postmodern faith and a postmodern Christian.

Emergents believe the more conversations they have the closer they come to truth. To them truth is more beauty than absolute fact. Truth is messy and beautiful but never objective or eternally certain. Emergents speak with passion and urgency but never with certainty.

The primary leader of Emergents is Brian McLaren although Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt are also strong voices for the movement.

Brian’s writings today are quite different from what he was saying when I first met him for coffee over a decade ago. Later we crossed paths at the church where he was pastor before pursuing his Emergent agenda. The worship and ministry of his church was much like what I would see all over the country in a thriving non-denominational church.  Today, his writings ask the questions many of us have been afraid to ask and in doing so he pushes orthodox Christianity to its limits. I doubt if what he writes today would be acceptable at the church where he was once the pastor.

I first met Doug Pagitt when he was working with Leadership Network.  I remember sitting next to him in a workshop on equipping leaders for ministry. Midway through the workshop (which I thought was excellent) Doug leaned over to me and whispered, “This is bull#@#,” and he left the room not to return. Normally I wouldn’t think much about it but he was on the staff of the group putting on the workshop. Not long after that left Leadership Network and birthed Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis, a church squarely in the Emergent camp.

During the month of September, I had a month long-fruitful, online conversation with Tony Jones, who was at the time the Executive Director of Emergent Village, and author of The New Christians.  I recommend his book, especially Appendix B “A Response to our Critics.” During our conversation Jones made it clear that Emergents believe that no one comes to God except through Jesus. For the most part my conversation with Tony settled some, but not all, of my concerns about the movement.

However, the Emergent movement has provided a marvelous conversation for all of us because they have revealed the ugly truth – the established Christian church in the West is basically apostate and dead. And they offer a way forward for many disenfranchised church members. For that we should be grateful and enjoy the conversation.

However, some recent events have occurred that don’t bode well for the Emergents: the defection of key players such as Dan Kimball and Scot McKnight; the release of Tony Jones from the position of Executive Director; and the dropping of the name “Emergent” by many of the leaders because of its negative baggage.

Nevertheless, Emergents will play a part in shaping the 21^st century church but a much smaller part than most people think (see Phyllis Tickle’s book, The Great Emergence[ii]) because; their approach to truth appeals mostly to the intelligentsia; they are too unorganized to grow sustainable, reproducing congregations (most Emergent churches are relatively small congregations) ; and a modern movement as decentralized as their leadership is becoming will find it hard to sustain itself (no movement has succeeded without a central figure leading the movement).

For my review of A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren go to http://bit.ly/NxfndZ. You can also see reviews of five more of McLaren’s books by going to our website at www.churchconsultations.com.

For two negative views of Emergents see the following
D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, Zondervan, 2005.
R. Scott Smith, Truth and the New Kind of Christian, Crossway, 2005.

We all know Western Christianity is in deep trouble. I wont dwell on that. Instead I want to share the secret to our future.  It’s simple.  The secret to our future lies in our ability to unlearn and rethink the possibilities.

The primary unlearning is that people no longer automatically come to church or think about the church.  The church is no longer at the center of society and that changes everything.

The primary rethinking is we must think like missionaries and apostles rather than pastoral care specialists or church growers.  Pastoral care of members is no longer the goal of the church or the clergy (if it ever should have been). Now the goal must be what it should have always been – reaching out to a broken world with the Gospel.  In other words we must become a sent church.  Mission must define who we are and what we do.  We must become mavericks who help our people learn how to share their faith in the marketplace and home.

The mainline camp will have the hardest time adjusting to the new reality.  But adjust they must.  Here are some quick puns toward several mainline groups.

• United Methodists- Our Board of Ministry need to quite eliminating mavericks and evangelicals from the ranks of ordained ministry.
• Presbyterians – You must give up your passion for order and adopt a chaordic view of ministry and the world.
• Lutherans – You must realize that the boats no longer come from Europe.
• Baptists -  It’s okay to drink wine, Jesus did, and it was fermented.
• Episcopalians -You must realize that people do not have three hands.
• Disciples – You must accept that Jesus was the Son of God.

I could go on with these puns but you get the picture – that which means so much to each of us means totally nothing to God or to the spread of the Gospel.  So let’s dump them in favor of becoming apostles, missionaries, and mavericks who think and act differently from how we thought and acted in the past.

So why are so many of us refusing to admit we can no longer sit around and wait for people to come to us? The answer is simple. Let me sum it up in the words of Upton Sinclair – “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”