Andy Rowell | Church Leadership Conversations

Two new reports: Thumma / Bird on Megachurches and Chaves on American Congregations

Below I have highlighted two important new reports on the church by premier academic sociologists.  At the end I have listed a few things to keep in mind while interpreting statistics. 

The National Survey of Megachurch Attenders report "Not Who You Think They Are: The Real Story of People Who Attend America’s Megachurches" by Scott Thumma and Warren Bird

This 40-page PDF was just released.  It is an outstanding example of good research and clear writing. 

Thumma wrote with Dave Travis the excellent book Beyond Megachurch Myths: What We Can Learn from America's Largest Churches (J-B Leadership Network Series) (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007).  Thumma and Bird work for Hartford Institute of Religious Research and Leadership Network respectively. Thumma has done more research on megachurches than anyone else. 

Probably the biggest difference between megachurches and other churches that they highlight is that "Megachurch attenders are younger and more of them are single . . . Additionally, they are more educated and wealthier" (Not Who You Think They Are, p. 28).  There are positive and negative ways of interpreting this.  The megachurch supporter could say, "Megachurches are doing something right!  They are attracting more youth, single, educated and wealthy people."  The megachurch critic could say, "The megachurch unfortunately probably makes old, married, uneducated, and poor people feel unwelcome." 

The findings will be particularly valuable when critics and defenders of the megachurch declare their personal experiences and opinions as statistical facts. 

This played out in a series of conversations at Leadership Journal's Out of Ur blog and on lots of blogs in December 2008.  During this time, I wrote two posts at Out of Ur:

Megachurch Misinformation Mega or missional? The stats say both are doing well. by Andy Rowell

and

Out of Ur: Missional vs. Attractional: Debating the Research - a post by Andy Rowell and the editors of Leadership Journal

(I tried to chronicle all the discussions at: 
Following Dan Kimball's Missional vs. Megachurch conversation)   

I would encourage the reader of the National Survey of Megachurch Attenders report to note all of the things that megachurches and churches have in common.  There are many common problems that we all need to work on.  For example, Thumma and Bird note, "The Longer People Attend, the Less Likely They Are to Report 'Much Growth' in Their Faith" (p. 27).  Why is that?  There are a number of ways of interpreting that.  In my opinion, this report is what people hoped they might be able to learn from the Willow Creek Reveal and Follow Me reports but unfortunately without sociological expertise and in conjunction with bungled communication, the Reveal reports ended up causing more confusion than anything else.  (I like Willow Creek but think they made some missteps with the Reveal endeavor--I was frustrated because it made them look worse than they are!  See my Willow Creek REVEAL's second book Follow Me tells us very little).

This Thumma / Bird report does not however take a "and this is what we should do about this" approach.  That is up to us in church leadership.

The National Congregations Study report "American Congregations at the Beginning of the 21st Century" by Mark Chaves

This 40-page PDF also came out this week.  In my opinion, Duke sociologist Chaves is the most important sociologist of congregations in the United States.  He is author of Congregations in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), overseas the National Congregations Study, and regularly writes at the Call & Response blog at the Faith & Leadership website.

Here is the summary of findings from page 2. 

"This report highlights some of the National Congregations Study’s most important findings, including:

• Most congregations are small but most people are in large congregations.
• Worship services are becoming more informal.
• Congregational leaders are still overwhelmingly male.
• Predominantly white congregations are more ethnically diverse.
• Congregations embrace technology.
• Congregations and clergy are getting older.
• Congregations’ position in the social class structure remains unchanged.
• Congregations’ involvement in social service activities remains unchanged.
• Only a small minority of congregations describe themselves as theologically “liberal,” even within the Protestant mainline.
• Congregations are more tolerant and inclusive than we might expect them to be, even when it comes to hot-button issues.
• There has been no significant increase in congregational conflict since 1998.
• Congregations’ involvement in political activities is largely unchanged since 1998." (American Congregations at the Beginning of the 21st Century, p. 2). 

The issue that I have referred to repeatedly from Chaves's work is the finding the report begins with.  (For example, see my post How to Read Hybels: Book Review of Axiom by Bill Hybels). It is so important!

• In both 1998 and 2006-07, the average congregation had just 75 regular participants.
• In both 1998 and 2006-07, the average attendee worshiped in a congregation with about 400 regular participants. (American Congregations at the Beginning of the 21st Century, p. 2.  See p. 3 for the explanation of this statistic).

Here is only one of the fascinating implications of this concept. 

"It means that most seminarians come from large churches (since that’s where most people are), but most clergy jobs are in small churches" (American Congregations at the Beginning of the 21st Century, p. 3).

I only have one small quibble with this statistic and I will share it to show the difficulty of interpreting data.  I wish Chaves would have given us the statistics on "weekly attendance" (which the National Congregation Study has also gathered) rather than "regular participants."  It seems to me this is a more accurate way of describing the size of a church than what number the pastor deems are "regular participants."

Here are the two questions.  I like the second question better because it seems less susceptible to bias. 

• Wave II question 13. “How many persons—counting both adults and children—would you say regularly participate in the religious life of your congregation—whether or not they are officially members of your congregation?”
• Wave II question 52. “What was the total attendance, including both adults and children, at all of the worship services that took place this past weekend, including services on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?”

I did the calculations at the National Congregations Study website.  56% of congregations report having less than 100 "regular attendees including children."  But just 38% of congregations report having less than 100 in "Total attendance for ALL services last weekend."  Apparently, a number of pastors estimated that of the people attending last Sunday, only a smaller percentage are "regular participants" saying something like, "Yes, we had over 125 people in attendance last Sunday but I would only consider 75 to be 'regular participants.'"  It seems to me all of the other sociological research on congregations deals with attendance because this notion of "regular participants" is too subjective.  The pastor who perhaps attracts a large attendance but conscientiously reports a lower number of "regular participants" looks to be ministering to a smaller number of people than he or she really is.  (I of course may be missing something here in my statistical analysis but I think I am right about this). 

The question of what is more important "membership" (described here in NCS as "regular participants") vs. "attendance" is not new.  For example, the United Methodist Church gives "Average Worship Attendance" while The Presbyterian Church (USA) emphasizes membership statistics (though you can also find attendance statistics).  Sometimes, in the PC(USA) the membership exceeds the number who attend each week.  Other times, it is the opposite.  For example, "Your congregation's reported total membership, 548, was larger than the 2007 PC(USA) average, 205. . . . Your congregation's reported worship attendance, 456, was larger than the 2007 PC(USA) average, 114."  Like I said, I think the people who actually show up is the more important number. ( . . . and my Presbyterian friends mutter about Andy's anabaptist ecclesial instincts . . . but I digress). 

Eight Warnings for Church Leaders about Using Sociologist Data by Andy Rowell

All of this information in these reports should be used by the church leader judiciously. 

For my course for Mark Chaves last fall, I wrote my term paper on how pastors should use sociological data.  (Someday I'd like to publish it--any ideas where?) 

I will post below the outline for church leaders and consumers of statistics to keep in mind. 

Warning 1: Theological convictions should determine what gets measured.  Consider measuring both quantity and quality. 

Warning 2: Statistics are descriptive not prescriptive.

Warning 3: Correlation does not mean causation.

Warning 4: It is very difficult to determine the most important causative factor—the right hypothesis—and without it, there will be failed expectations. 

Warning 5: There are always exceptions. 

Warning 6: Good social science is very difficult and all of it needs significant peer review.

Warning 7:  Statistics should also be gathered from outsiders.

Warning 8: Businesses and other organizations are not necessarily more effective organizations than churches. 

See also
Evangelicals Behaving Badly with Statistics
Mistakes were made.
Christian Smith | posted 1/01/2007

See my categories Megachurches and Sociology for more on these topics.
Or see my topic Ecclesiology for more theological reflection on the church in which I always try to stay cognizant of the sociological data.

Update June 15, 2009.
Three stats I have been thinking about a lot so I tweeted about them.  http://twitter.com/AndyRowell

1. Chaves, "51% [of congregations], with 59% of participants, do not allow women to be full-fledged senior clergy." p. 16.  No wonder women in ministry is such a hot issue.  1/2 of congregations are egalitarian and half are complementarian/traditional!
2. Chaves, "Only 9% of congregations [in the U.S.] describe themselves as theologically liberal." p. 13.
3. Thumma, 65% of attenders of megachurches cite "senior pastor" as the most important factor that keeps them at the church. p.18.

Following Dan Kimball's Missional vs. Megachurch conversation

Dan Kimball provoked a response with his post at Christianity Today's Leadership Journal blog.  Here is some of the response in chronological order.  You can put in the comments any posts I have missed but put "reaction" comments on one of the other blogs as I intend this post just to be an index.

December 2, 2008

Dan Kimball's Missional Misgivings

Small, indigenous churches are getting lots of attention, but where's the fruit?

Dan is a pastor and author of Emerging Church and They Like Jesus, But Not the Church

Brother Maynard of Winnipeg, Manitoba responded to Dan's article at:

Missional Misgivings, or Missional Misunderstandings?

December 4, 2008

Megachurch Misinformation

Mega or missional? The stats say both are doing well.

by Andy Rowell

See also at my blog:

The research behind my Out of Ur post: Megachurch Misinformation

David Fitch, a pastor and professor at Northern Seminary, responded to Dan's original article at:

THREE QUESTIONS FOR THE ATTRACTIONAL PRACTICIONERS WHO QUESTION THE FRUIT OF MISSIONAL: A Response to Dan Kimball

Erika Haub, a Fuller Seminary grad and lives in LA, also responded:

“The church that came to me”

Julie Clawson, a Wheaton College grad and coordinator of the Emerging Women blog, also responded

Missional Effectiveness

Dan Kimball responded in the comments of the original article:

Comments 31 and 34

and Dan wrote the same comment and clarification at Brother Maynard and David Fitch's blog.

December 5, 2008

Tim Keller, pastor Church of the Redeemer in NYC with 4017 attendance according to the Hartford megachurch database and author of the #1 bestselling apologetics book at Amazon.com The Reason for God, then also commented at David Fitch's blog. 

Jonny Baker over in London, UK also noted the exchange.

when did christianity become a popularity contest?

a rant from julie clawson on missional effectiveness

The Out of Ur posted a video and noted that its most recent issue issue of Leadership Journal Fall 2008 was all about the missional conversation. 

Defining "Missional"

Michael Frost clarifies and increasingly unclear word.

Scot McKnight, professor at North Park puts in his take at his blog:

Weekly Meanderings

Len Hjalmarson - NextReformation notes the the discussion.

Missional vs Mega.. again

Brother Maynard responded again:

The Missional/Attractional Divide: Dan Kimball Unpolarized

December 6, 2008

I posted 60 Theologians on an Ecclesiological Spectrum

December 8, 2008

David Fitch and Tim Keller posted additional comments at Fitch's blog. 

Out of Ur posted: Tim Keller Weighs in on Missional Debate

Fitch posted a new post: The Attractional/Missional Debate Won't Stop: Three Take-Aways

Bill Kinnon: Keller on Fitch on Kimball on Missional Growth?

Meanwhile, Len Hjalmarson reviewed ReJesus by Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost.  Hirsch responded in the comments a dialogue commenced. 

Jamie Arpin-Ricci: Interview With Michael Frost about ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church

December 11

Alan Hirsch Responds to Kimball's "Missional Misgivings"

David Fitch, Scot McKnight, Alan Hirsch and Dan Kimball all left comments

December 12

Defining Missional
The word is everywhere, but where did it come from and what does it really mean?
Alan Hirsch | posted 12/12/2008

From the fall issue of Leadership Journal

Brian Russell

and Jonny Baker

note the article.

Andrew Jones adds his comments at:

Missional and Alan Hirsch

Neil Cole series with lots of comments by Dan Kimball

Misguided Misgivings 1: A Response to Dan Kimball’s Editorial comments

Misguided Misgivings 2: The Walmart Effect

Misguided Misgivings 3: Bigger isn’t Better

Misguided Misgivings 4: Do the math

Misguided Misgivings 5: A cost too high

Misguided Misgivings 6: Here is some fruit...

December 16

Out of Ur: Missional vs. Attractional: Debating the Research - a post by Andy Rowell and the editors of Leadership Journal

See also my post:

The research behind my post at Out of Ur: Missional vs. Attractional: Debating the Research

Here I clarify some of the research that gets discussed in the Out of Ur post.  

December 17

Brad Brisco at the Missional Church Network

Lesslie Newbigin and the GOCN

-- how Darrell Guder and Lesslie Newbigin differ.

The research behind my Out of Ur post: Megachurch Misinformation

See my post today at Leadership Journal's Out of Ur blog:

Megachurch Misinformation: Mega or missional? The stats say both are doing well.

Here are few page numbers in the article that got edited out:

Mark Chaves, "All Creatures Great and Small: Megachurches in Context," Review of Religious Research (2006) 47:329.

Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion (2000), 155. 

David Olson, The American Church in Crisis, (2008),146, 149, 150. 

Update: See my index to follow the whole discussion:

Following Dan Kimball's Missional vs. Megachurch conversation

A wider target: Deconstructing and redeploying the Seeker Sensitive Service planning of The Purpose Driven Church

In 1995, Rick Warren published The Purpose Driven Church.  It was perhaps the most influential book in church circles in the decade.  It was the definitive "how-to" manual of how grow a megachurch.  In it, he presented Donald McGavran's "Church Growth" principles from the 1970's to a new generation.  Younger leaders in their 30's like Leadership Journal managing editor Skye Jethani and myself continue to feel like these ideas need further theological reflection.   In his post in January 2008 entitled Sense & Sensitivity: Why It’s Time to Abandon the Seeker-Sensitive Model, Skye reflects on biblical and monastic hospitality and urges churches to embrace people first rather than focusing on which people our church is targeting.  Although I largely agree with Skye, I want to affirm in the seeker sensitive approach the principle of intentionality.  I think it makes sense to be intentional about how we are communicating in our worship services but I agree with Skye that a narrow target is theologically problematic. 

What we need I believe is a wider target.  The educational and missional and liturgical task demand that we attempt to communicate as clearly as we can with as many people in attendance as possible.  For those not involved in this ideological argument between seeker-senstive vs. not seeker-sensitive, this should be quite obvious.  In plain English, the pastor and worship leaders should attempt to draw in and engage as many people who may attend the church from the surrounding community as possible.  This is the wide target.  This involves speaking clearly, using music that has broad appeal, and using images that are accessible to a large range of people.  This is why the tasks of preaching and leading worship are so difficult.  However, this seemingly obvious insight does have some edge to it, some "bite," because it means that congregational worship and preaching that only appeals to the most entrenched insiders needs to be given greater accessibility.  The pastor can address very complex Christian concepts and stories but they need to use vocabulary that people readily understand (or they need to define those theological words).  Rituals need to explained.  Music needs to be singable or otherwise accessible or it needs to be carefully taught.  What Warren and other seeker-sensitive people get is that the person who visits the church for the first time needs to be given tips and help on making sense of what is going on.  This, as I argue below, however does not mean that churches need to only have one target audience.  They need to be intentional about communicating with the wider target of their surrounding community.   

Here then is my comment on Skye's blog in response to his post. 

I think this theological probing into hospitality is important work.  I agree with you that the biggest problem with seeker-sensitive approaches is that they seek to capitalize on people's social prejudices by giving them an environment, communication and music that makes them feel comfortable.  This can tend to reinforce social barriers.  If the worship service is designed to appeal to "Saddleback Sam . . . in his late thirties or early forties . . . among the most affluent of Americans" (Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995, p. 169-170), then one wonders whether people who do not fit this profile will feel that they do not belong. 

As one attempts to speak the language of the people; (I like this terminology because it makes one think of the missionary task or educational task); we must be careful to include the whole surrounding community--a wider target.  Warren and others are wrong I think for championing the targeting of one demographic (Saddleback Sam), but they are right in wanting to clearly communicate the gospel of Jesus to those present in language those people understand.  "Why do we got to all this trouble defining the typical person we're trying to reach?  Because the more you understand someone the easier it is to communicate with him" (Warren, Purpose Driven Church, 171).  Yes, that we can agree with.  Warren contradicts his own emphasis on Saddleback Sam when he notes in passing that his church has not rigidly followed the single-demographic targeting!   He notes, "One of the advantages of being a large church is that you have the resources to go after multiple targets . . . we've been able to add additional ministries and outreach programs to reach young adults, single adults, prisoners, the elderly, parents with ADD children, and Spanish-, Vietnamese-, and Korean-speaking people, as well as many other targets" (Warren, Purpose Driven Church, 159-160).  Warren's conscience, even in 1995 before his awakening to the needs to the world, would not allow him to strictly only target one group's needs.  But he is wrong that only large churches have the luxury of reaching a variety of people.  No, every church needs to intentionally communicate with (and minister to) the broad range of people who live within their community.         

Therefore, I do not think that it is mutually exclusive to "welcome strangers indiscriminately into our tent/monastery/church" and "determine our target audience’s desires in advance."  Preparing for people to come over is precisely what hospitable people do.  The monastery has clean beds and food in the cupboards so that when the stranger shows up, they can be hosted appropriately.  Similarly, it is appropriate for churches to prepare well to communicate with the people who will come through the doors.

Furthermore, negligence by worship leaders and preachers in preparing well to communicate in language that guests understand will not necessarily lead to congregation members stepping up and being more hospitable.  I have seen friendly and distant congregation members at both seeker megachurches and traditional small churches but my sense is that the pastor and worship leaders have a significant role in shaping congregational practice by their own example and practice.       

See also my posts

Strengths of the Purpose Driven Church and Sober Advice For Those Considering the Megachurch

Why pastors should be both goal-setting fanatics and cynics

Willow Creek's Discipleship Problem: How to Fix the Seeker-driven Church

Update, December 10, 2007

As I suspected, the interpretation and methodology of the Reveal study are deeply flawed.  I like Willow Creek's ministry model but they have really bungled this survey. 

See the Review of Reveal by Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut. 

Here’s a selection from Wright’s conclusions:

The conclusion draw by the study’s authors, and loudly echoed by critics of Willow Creek, is that the Willow model is flawed. The data presented here are sufficiently ambiguous to make such strong claims. Given the weaknesses of the study design and analytic strategy, it’s possible that the results indicate strong support for the Willow Creek model . . . Simply repeating the Reveal study with hundreds more churches potentially adds very little knowledge.

Though Willow does not need to repent for its ministry strategy (though we could all repent for our ministry strategies to some extent - whose is perfect?), those who published this sociologically unsophisticated research probably need to apologize to seeker-sensitive church proponents everywhere. It is hard to say if Willow’s reputation will ever recover from the tidal wave of publicity saying that the Reveal quantitative data discredits Willow’s approach.

Still, all is not lost. The idea of doing quantitative research is a good one. But next time Reveal needs to do it right. Those who are part of Reveal need to do a serious crash course in American religious sociology: Christian Smith, Mark Chaves, Robert Wuthnow, Scott Thumma, and Nancy Ammerman.

For an example of a more a more sociologically sophisticated study see the U.S. Congregations Study which surveyed 300,000 congregations in 2001.

U.S. Congregations Survey

U.S. Congregational Life Survey, 2001, Random Attenders

Or see the:

National Congregations Study

See also the excellent summary of different recent postings about this at Leadership Networks Leanings blog "Reveal Squeal gets louder on the web" by DJ Chuang.

Original Post October 19, 2007

Though Willow Creek continues to reach "people far from God" they admit that they are not doing as good a job at helping those people become "fully devoted followers of Jesus" as they thought they were.  Of course a lot of critics are saying "We told you so" but it is good Bill Hybels and friends are broadcasting their "mistake." (Leadership's Out of Ur blog post "Willow Creek Repents?" brought this to my attention.  There are 120 comments there now on that post).  They also have an updated post with a response from Willow Creek: Willow Creek Repents? (Part 2): Greg Hawkins responds with the truth about REVEAL.  They are not giving up their seeker approach.

Below I have summarize what Willow Creek has realized in the last few years in five quick statements.  Then I have described Willow Creek for those who are unfamiliar with it.  Finally, I have tried to put in perspective their five realizations. 

"Willow Creek's Five Realizations."
1. They want to be good stewards.  They want to use the financial resources they are given in the offering plate wisely. 
2. Research helps. They did a survey. 
3. They are still effective with seekers. They find that people who are exploring Christianity or are new Christians still rate what Wilow is offering very highly. 
4.  Consumer discipleship is not working.  There are many people who are highly involved in activities (i.e. consuming the religious goods they are offering) but are not growing in Christ that much. 
5.  Many mature Christians are unsatisfied with the church. There are a number of people who are strong Christians but are dissatisfied with their church.  But, Willow has concluded, the issue is not just offering people more meaty options, rather people need to learn to feed themselves.

All of this is available on their new website (August 2007) "Reveal."  You can hear executive pastor Greg Hawkins and founding pastor Bill Hybels describe the findings in their own words in 13 minute video presentations.  (I had to use Internet Explorer rather than Firefox to make them work).   Or you can buy the book which is only available from Willow Creek Resources.  (Why not have Amazon distribute it too?)

Who is Willow Creek?
If you don't know who Willow Creek Community Church is, it is the "second most influential church in the nation" according to a survey commissioned by Leadership Network. 

Still, many mainline church leaders (Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran) have never heard of Willow Creek, which is something I have become increasingly sensitive to.  Those people have other churches they admire.  They wouldn't admire Willow even if they knew about it because they place much more value on continuity with the the great tradition of Christianity as passed down through church history and denominations. 

Anyway, Willow Creek Community Church (i.e "Willow") is led by Bill Hybels who founded it 30 years ago in South Barrington, IL which is about 45 minutes from Chicago in the suburbs.  It is a non-denominational church with weekly attendance of about 23,500 according to Hartford Seminary's database of megachurches.  It was designed specifically for "seekers" or what they now call "people far from God."  As the story goes Hybels, walked around the area going to door to door asking people why they didn't go to church and they reported things like "they are always asking us for money," "boring," "irrelevant," "nothing for the kids." So Hybels and friends started a church in a movie theater that had upbeat music, relevant sermons, and no offering plates.  As the church grew exponentially, they formed a consulting branch in 1992 called Willow Creek Association which sells resources to churches like bible study materials, sermon tapes, etc. and also holds conferences.  Churches can become a member of the Willow Creek Association but all this really means is that the pastor subscribes to their resources for about $249 a year. 

Perspective and Context on Willow Creek's Five Realizations.

1. They want to be good stewards. My comment: Amen.  May they continue to wrestle with the problem.  When you see Willow Creek's facility, you are either envious or disgusted.  There is a 7400 seat auditorium complete with state of the art lights and audio.  The building includes a bookstore, coffee shop, and expansive facilities for children.  Most people say, "It feels like a mall."  These facilities were intended to make Willow a comfortable place for people who were turned off to church and needed to hear about Jesus in a place that was more familiar than a gothic cathedral.  I think this makes sense given their philosophy of ministry.  Still, it is very good to hear them saying, "We want to welcome people well but we don't want to spend a penny more than we have to.  Are we spending God's resources appropriately?  Are there other ways that God might be calling the wealthy North American church to use its resources?"  Additional note: Willow Creek has never had a major financial scandal and their books, salaries, etc. are public.

2. Research helps. My comment: Make sure this research is done well.  Randy Frazee, author of The Connecting Church, has been a pastor at Willow for a few years now.  He is one of the preeminent people in the evangelical world insisting that we need to measure and assess the development of people's discipleship.  As pastor of Pantego Bible Church in Texas, he came to see the need for assessing whether small groups actually help people become better disciples.  He even made up a tool to measure discipleship called The Christian Life Profile. 

I was glad to see Willow hire Randy because I knew he would encourage them to evaluate how they are doing beyond the kneejerk way it is often done, i.e. the ABC's (Attendence, Buildings and Cash) or the three B's (Bodies, Buildings and Bucks). 

I would simply urge them to continue to get good advice about how to do sociological research well.  There are many people out there doing research on the American church and for this I'm thrilled.  Here are some that I'm familiar with: Barna Group, Gallup Poll, Baylor Surveys of Religion, Natural Church Development, Pulpit & Pew: The Duke Center for Excellence in Ministry, National Study of Youth & Religion, the Louisville Institute, Hartford Institute for Religious Research, the new book After the Baby Boomers: How Twenty- and Thirty-Somethings Are Shaping the Future of American Religion
by Robert Wuthnow (chair of the sociology department at Princeton University), Church Innovations, the Alban Institute.  But the devil is in the details.  Numbers can be manipulated to say most anything.  We, as church leaders, have got to pay more attention to appropriate use of statistics.  I am not saying we need to use statistics less.  Actually, I think we need to do so more but we need to deal with those statistics and studies in a better way.  We need people who know statistics and who understand sociological research so that our numbers mean something.  (Are there any sociology majors and professors at Christian colleges out there listening to this?)  We need people who can sort through all of these statistics in such a way that it makes sense and in a way that is meaningful for congregations.  It drives me crazy when I hear stats like, "You know you need to add another service when 80% of seating is filled up" and "You know children who sit in the worship service with their parents continue to attend church after they have left home better than those who just go to youth group."  Sure, these have a glimmer of truth but they are more conventional wisdom (i.e urban legend) than solid analysis.  People build entire ministries on statistics like this.  For more outrage at evangelical misuse of statistics, see Christian Smith's "Evangelicals Behaving Badly with Statistics: Mistakes were made" from Books & Culture February 2007 and "What Scandal? Whose Conscience? Some reflections on Ronald Sider's Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience." by John G. Stackhouse, Jr. from Books & Culture August 2007 .   

3.  They are still effective with seekers. My comment: Willow Creek's gift to the wider church has been its passion to see unchurched people become followers of Jesus. Willow Creek, along with Andy Stanley's North Point Community Church, is still one of the best examples of an effective seeker model.  They see many people who were not Christians become Christians.  In this way, they are a model of contextualizing the gospel so that nonChristians can learn about it and begin to follow Jesus.  Though there are other ways of doing evangelism by the church, the seeker model is still one to be reckoned with because most the other approaches are so ineffective.  (Are lots of adults becoming Christians at the churches you know?) 

One of the principle problems with the seeker approach is that they replace Sunday worship with Sunday evangelism services.  Willow though still does have a worship service on Wednesday nights called "New Community."  Though some would see Sunday seeker services as a tragic terrible flaw, I think it is a valid move because of the lack of evangelism happening through other methods and because I place less value on the traditional-handed-down-for-centuries liturgy. 

Other resources on this topic: I recently wrote a reflection on this: Download The Seeker Model Paper.doc.  See Andy Stanley's Seven Practices of Effective Ministry for the most persuasive compelling case for the seeker-driven approach.  See my category Andy Stanley for more that I've written about him.  For a critique of the seeker approach, see The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies by David E. Fitch. 

Many mainline denomination (Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran) people who have a heart for evangelism put forward the Alpha course as the best evangelism program going right now.  It, like the seeker approach, allows people to learn about Jesus in a non-threatening way, with informational talks about the basics of Christianity by the winsome Nicky Gumbel, a meal, non-directed conversation in a non-churchy atmosphere.  The Alpha course comes from Holy Trinity Brompton in London, England.  They do this on a Tuesday night and then have regular worship services on Sundays.  Thus, you keep the tradition on Sundays but have effective evangelism program during the week.  For many people, this is the ideal approach. 

Interestingly though there are some mainline people who want to imitate seeker driven approaches (e.g. United Methodist Bill Easum and  Episcopalian Tom Ehrich).   

  4.  Consumer discipleship is not working.  My comment: Programs have limited usefulness.  It sounds good to put a system in place as Rick Warren suggests in The Purpose Driven Church (p.130) where people move from 101 (first base - discovering membership) to 201 (second base - discovering spiritual maturity), to 301 (third base - discovering my ministry) to 401 (home - discovering my life mission).  But discipleship is not an assembly line and it just doesn't work (for long) like that.  After working at seeker-driven megachurch, my friend wrote me: "I think discipling people may only be able to be done a few at a time."

Another friend wrote me about his experience working in a megachurch, "The megachurch approach can truly breed an unhealthy consumerism mentality. Specializing in everything to cater to our every need (affinity groups, a cafe in the lobby, Sunday school programs for children that are incredible, etc) isn't always bad, but can foster a 'it's all about me' mentality."  This is the concern of basically all of the critics of the megachurch approach. 

5.  Many mature Christians are unsatisfied with the church. Their conclusion is that people need to learn to feed themselves.  My comment: I think probably people want tradition and depth not just a personalized spiritual growth program. John Ortberg, now pastor at Menlo Park Presbyterian (PCUSA), was a pastor at Willow Creek for many years.  He has written one of the very best books on "feeding yourself" called The Life You've Always Wanted: Spiritual Disciplines for Ordinary People.  These were originally sermons at Willow.  It is not new to Willow to feed yourself.  Thus, I think they probably need to dig deeper in order to find out what the path forward should really be. 

Hybels says that one thing they want to do is help people design a personal spiritual growth plan.  On the one hand, this still sounds consumeristic.  But on the other hand, my experience in theological education does lead me to believe that when mature Christians want to dig deep intellectually in order to further grow in their faith, they have very different interests as is evident in any list of course offerings at a seminary.  (See Fuller Seminary's School of Theology courses or Duke Divinity School's list of courses). 

This leads to my other point.  I think some of the mature Christians who are dissatisfied with what they are receiving at Willow, want a better connection to Christian history.  You find this in spades here at Duke Divinity School.  People want to connect to Augustine, Aquinas, Barth - someone with more worldwide and historical importance.  Traditional liturgical churches have a taste of those resources in the music and liturgy of every worship service.  The most extreme form of being unsatisfied with the nondenominational church is converting to Catholicism which a few of my friends have done.  Because church tradition is the one thing Willow decided to systematically expunge during its founding, its people miss it.  Like most churches, its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. 

If Willow's mature believers long for history, there is no quick fix.  But here are some suggestions. 

• Give each of the staff a subscription to Christian History. 
• Encourage mature Christians to take seminary correspondence courses. 
• Foster connections with local Roman Catholic priests and nuns to do spiritual direction. 
• Attempt to introduce a modified Anglican eucharist to the mid-week service (Invitation, Confession, Gloria, Word, Eucharist, Benediction). 
• Use Robert Webber's outstanding eight volume Complete Library of Christian Worship which gives us an easy to use reference for deepening worship through the insights of the centuries. 
• Have the staff and congregation work through some of Richard Foster's Renovare resources like Devotional Classics and Spiritual Classics. 
• Have learning sessions with mainline people who have confessional (orthodox) theology and are pro-evangelism who are positive about things like the Alpha course (described above).
  
• Listen to North Park New Testament professor, amazing blogger, and Willow Creek attender Scot McKnight.
• Ask Mark Noll, preeminent historian and former Wheaton College professor, now at Notre Dame and author of Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. 

 
If those solutions seem too far removed from the Bible-centered non-denominational tradition, then at least read the very best Biblical Studies people that you can find (which I am told Randy Frazee is now doing).  I recommend An Annotated Guide to Biblical Resources for Ministry by David R. Bauer or Commentary and Reference Survey: A Comprehensive Guide to Biblical and Theological Resources by John Glynn as a way of sorting through the vast array of commentaries out there.   When you are preaching, you should always (if possible - I have always been near a theological library), consult commentaries.  Use these resources to find some good ones.  When you begin a series, invited your congregation members to buy a commentary and read through it with you.

Update.  Here are a couple of "I told you so" articles:

"Willow Creek Repents?
by Diana Butler Bass, author of Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church Is Transforming the Faith.  Book description: "A detailed survey of progressive church growth in recent decades reveals how non-evangelical, neighborhood churches are flourishing without emulating the tactics of mega-churches, in an analysis that counsels Protestant readers on how to remain authentic to denominational traditions while promoting one's spiritual community."

A Shocking “Confession” from Willow Creek Community Church
by Bob Burney, a Christian radio host in Columbus, Ohio

FAQ about Worship: Seekers, Emotions, and Me-Songs

Some students at Taylor University, where I taught the last two years, have asked me eight questions about worship.  Their questions touch on a number of issues related to contemporary worship but also worship in general.  Here are my responses. 

#1: What is your definition of worship?

• It is not really a definition but I like 1 Corinthians 14:15 (TNIV) "So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding." Paul here is arguing that there should be an affective (emotional, hearty, tongues) part of worship but also a part that is cognitive (intellectual, heady, prophecy).  He actually thinks that tongues are a good thing but if you do focus too much on emotional stuff in worship that only resonates with you (uninterrupted tongues) than a lot of other people will be annoyed and not edified (built up). 
• I think Communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist is probably the best example of what worship is.  It is centered on Christ, communal, symbolic, looks forward to him coming again, tangible (you eat and drink something), involves prayer, and singing (in the gospel accounts), remembers back, and builds on the Old Testament (Passover).  You can't go wrong with this as a starting point. Catholics and Anglicans/Episcopalians center their worship around the Eucharist for this reason.  Jesus told people to celebrate it in the gospels and then we see people doing it (Paul in 1 Cor 11). 
• With regard to definition: one Hebrew word means work/worship; a Greek word means bow. 
• Declaring to God what he's worth (worth-ship = worship). 
• The chief end of human beings is to worship God and enjoy him forever (Westminster Catechism). 
• People often look at Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4-5 as other paradigm examples on which to build your theology of worship.   

    #2: How do you wrestle with the "me" focus and making a meaningful response to God?

• Some people go crazy turning "me" songs into "we" songs but I think this is too simplistic.  Even if we are a community, we are still a community of individuals, right?  Also, the Psalms have lots of first person singular language (me, I) and they were used in the temple and then in the church (John Calvin especially) as the corporate prayerbook.  Monks have prayed the whole Psalter (all 150) every week.   However, those who think that they would be better off worshipping by themselves on a mountain top rather than joining a community, have missed Christianity.  But again, there is a place for personal retreats.  The thing to emphasize is that we become part of the people of God when we become Christians.  Becoming a Christian is not just fire insurance for when you die someday, then you can go to heaven.  Yes, it is that but it is about being part of a community of disciples of Jesus who God has called to be his ambassadors here on earth and that we embody the kingdom of God already but not yet fully.

    #3: How do you choose worship music? Are there certain themes that you look for? Does that change depending on environment?

• By the way, these are excellent questions.  Yes, choosing worship music. I have a blog post about some of the practical ways we tried to plan worship at the church.  I would recommend reading that.  It is very practical. 
  

  How to plan and lead worship

• Does it change depending on the environment?  Yes.  I think as worship leaders we should think of ourselves as missionaries or educators. (Here is where your Christian Educational Ministries classes might help.  We need to know our audience / students, etc. and help them to praise the Lord.  We need to speak their language and begin where they are at.  As Thomas Groome, in Shared Christian Praxis would say, we need to bring people from where they are at (their "present action" = Movement 1) to reflecting on that (Movement 2 = Confession) to God (Movement 3) to action (Movements 4-5).  In order to do that, we need to know the people.  For many years before Vatican II in the 1950's, all Roman Catholic worship services or "mass" as they call it, were in Latin. But most people couldn't understand it.  They decided at Vatican II (a big conference of Catholics) to let the mass be done in people's everyday languages!  Similarly, I think we should lead worship in a way that "speaks the language" of teenage African American kids (hip-hop) or whatever language the group understands.  This is what a good missionary does and what a good educator does.   

   #4: How do you react to the statement "One cannot sing praise songs without noticing how first person pronouns tend to eclipse every other subject?"

• I think the person who is saying it (I don't know who but I know the type) wants to beware of narcissistic (self-centered) tendencies.  They want to correct the excesses of consumer culture which says everything only has value in what it can do for me.   But I think they are reacting in the wrong sort of way.  Like I said above, the Psalms are often first person singular.  We/us songs can be just as vacuous (shallow) as I/me songs.   I would be sympathetic to the person's concerns in that we want people to focus on God, not themselves, but the pronouns I and me are just part of the way we speak and are not inherently bad.  Again, I would want to sympathize with the person making the criticism that Christianity is more than just praying a prayer to go to heaven. It is not just individualistic one-time thing that excludes ethical commitments, commitments to Christian friendships/community/church/accountability/critique. Again, the danger of the individualistic thing (me and my Bible on a mountaintop  - I don't need anyone else ever in my life) is not generally the problem with people who are passionate about contemporary worship in my opinion.  But there may be exceptions.  I see the Vineyard, Matt Redman, Chris Tomlin worship folks as quite committed to Christian community despite some of their I/me songs. 

   #5: How does the corporate worship that occurs on Sunday morning differ from the corporate worship of chapel or other Christian formation experiences throughout the week?

• Again, excellent question.  I think it makes sense to worship with those who are your primary community.  I think it makes sense that those who hold you accountable (those who would call you on sin in your life) that those people are the people you worship with.  Thus, I think there is some rationale for chapel at a Christian college or even worship in a small group. 
• There is some reason by Christian tradition to worship on Sunday (the Lord's day) but I don't think this is crucial.  I think Sat night services (or any other day) is fine!  Additionally, I think that Sunday worship in a church may offer some things you don't get in chapel and dorm floor prayer and praise.  For example, intergenerational relationships (we can learn from older people and from kids); stability (it is not an entirely new group of people every four years); and locality (ministry to people locally).   Again, I think there is great value in extended evenings of singing (it teaches musicians new music, people learn to sing better, it is good to refocus, etc.) but just a worship night and never being part of a community would be a deficient Christianity (need discipleship, evangelism, ministry to the poor, and community care). 

    #6: What can seekers gain from worshiping?

• See 1 Corinthians 14:23-25 (TNIV).  23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"
• What Paul is saying here is that worship should be comprehensible to non-Christians.  That does not mean it should be watered down.  Paul is simply saying that new people will probably attend every worship service and the basics of the service should be fairly understandable to them.  If everyone in the room is speaking in tongues, than the new person would understandably be confused.  Paul thinks that it is possible that the observer will be moved by what he or she sees when they observe Christians in worship when the service is intelligible. Now there is a wide range of applications of this that I think are legitimate.  A Roman Catholic feels they have made it understandable enough by having the liturgy in the hymnal and in the common language. Andy Stanley / Willow Creek / and Granger Community Church (Granger, IN) would say these verses are their primary purpose.  Their primary goal is to inspire and intrigue seekers to come back and to say, "God is really among you!"  In order to do that, they meticulously plan their worship services to praise God and tell about his truth but doing so in a way that the average non-Christian in their community would understand.  They try to rid their services of extraneous theological jargon while still conveying accurately the truths about God.   Some would say that this is putting the cart before the horse or having the tail wag the dog, "Why would you let non-Christians decide what Christian worship is?  Worship is for Christians!"  But the seeker driven people would respond, "But aren't we supposed to be 'the one organization that exists for non-members' (William Temple)?  Isn't the point to 'make disciples' (Matt 28:18-20 Great Commission)?"  I would urge the seeker-driven church proponent people to make sure they are not just reaching people where they are at but also helping them develop into sacrificial close imitators of Jesus.  I would urge the worship purists to make sure they have other ways of reaching non-Christians for Christ (such as the Alpha course or vibrant personal evangelism).  I think either approach can be legitimate. 

    #7: What kind of music we should sing, particularly in regards to worship music?

• There was a time that drums were seen as the music of the devil.  But people responded by saying, "Martin Luther put hymns to bar tunes" and redeemed that musical genre.  (I'm not sure if that Luther thing is actually true.  Perhaps it is.  People repeat it a lot though).  I think it is conceivable that some music in itself is incompatible with Christian worship.  I think of shrieking heavy metal where the words are incomprehensible.  I think this is comparable to the discussion by Paul in 1 Cor 12-14 about tongues.  That just because it moves you emotionally and it is done with a Christian motivation, doesn't mean it is appropriate for Christian worship.  But maybe those people who shriek the 23rd Psalm can do it by themselves or with a small group of people who appreciate that in a setting outside of corporate worship. They should still be going to a church service where there is in Paul's words "intelligible" content to the worship services.   

    #8: What part do you think that traditional worship should play in corporate worship?

• Again, as an educator or missionary, you are trying to help the whole audience understand the message.  Thus, I think if you have lots of older people who have difficulty comprehending the words and singing contemporary worship, then it is your job to help them do so or to incorporate aspects of worship that they do understand (like hymns).  This is what we did in our church as you can see from the worship guidelines I mention above in number 3.   However, I would also try to make the case to the older people that "the church is an organization that exists for the purpose of its non-members" and thus we need to continue to pursue methods that make it more likely that when "inquirers or unbelievers come in" (1 Cor 14:23) and young people come in, "they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, 'God is really among you!'" (1 Cor 14:25) because the service is designed to be intelligible (1 Cor 12-14) to them. 

Small church vs. large church

On Out of Ur, the Leadership journal blog, the latest post is about two nonChristians who have been attending churches in Toronto.  The post is called: "Razzmatazz or Ragamuffins? Two non-Christians paid to visit churches are impressed with charity not facilities."

They were turned off by the megachurches they visited but were moved by the devotion to Jesus by a small church that served the homeless.  I posted the following comment. 

This post is exactly right to point out that churches without flash and pizzazz can still definitely show people who Jesus is.  Small churches do not have the resources to put on a fancy Sunday morning show.  They should be who they are - equipping their people to serve and showing the community Jesus by serving them.  Many, who are not attracted to the slick production, will be attracted by them. 

But I do question the implication that the majority of young people and unchristian people are not attracted to quality Sunday morning programming.  I do not think we can make that conclusion based on the opinions of these 2 college students.       

My experience is that more young adults and nonchristians are attracted to megachurches and cool emerging churches than poor social justice churches.  But I would be thrilled to be wrong.

The sample size of two is inconclusive.  Are there statistics about how many people are coming to Christ in megachurches vs. small-churches that are more oriented toward social justice?  There are many sociologists people out there doing research on this kind of thing: Gallup, Barna, Christian Smith, Christian Schwarz (Natural Church Development), Lilly Endowment, Baylor survey, denominational stats, and the Alban Institute.

There is still a place I think for quality Sunday morning programming (welcoming, music,  and preaching) for the purpose of drawing in new people and equipping the Christians.  And yet it is easy to spend all of a church's resources on the Sunday morning show.

May the Spirit of God give us eyes to see what he is doing through the variety of church forms.

 
Further thoughts:

I want to affirm small churches and churches that care for the poor.  I also want large churches to appreciate these small churches.  Posts like this one on Out of Ur serve to do that.  That is good. 

But it also bothers me when churches don't at least try to have quality Sunday morning programming.  (The end results will vary depending on the size of the church.  A church of 500 can do more than a church of 30 in terms of quality programming). 

This probably bothers me because this is one of my strengths - organizing people into a team to improve Sunday morning programming.  (See my post "How to plan and lead worship.") I just don't want churches to get complacent thinking that the quality of the Sunday morning programming is irrelevant to their outreach to young adults and nonChristians.  I think the seeker folks (like Granger Community Church and Willowcreek Community Church) are right to urge churches to welcome people well, clearly explain the elements of the service to them, and try to relate the eternal truths of Scripture to the world of today. 
 

Spoof on Consumer-driven Church

This video called Me Church has been on YouTube since December 2005 but it is still worth sharing because it is not offensive and it is funny. 

It is 1 minute 22 seconds long but you will have an hour's worth of a smile.  It is a commercial for a church called "Me Church" that is all about you.  It is light-hearted and fun.

For those of you who are quick to throw stones at megachurches who try to meet "felt needs," you should know that one of Andy Stanley's Seven Practices of Effective Ministry is "Narrow the Focus: Do fewer things in order to make a greater impact."  As they get large, many of these megachurch leaders see clearly the absurdity of trying adjust their ministry approach to the needs of complainers. 

To some people it seems that Stanley almost disregards the needs of people because of his narrow focus.  No, this need to please people and meet their every need transcends denominations, sizes and styles. 

What needs are legitimate and need to be addressed by the compassionate, justice-seeking church and which are driven by our consumeristic culture?  That ladies and gentlemen is the question. 

For more humor, see my post about Purgatorio.   

Spring 2007: Program and Curriculum Development Textbooks

Update: February 1, 2007

I have placed the syllabus below. 

Download syllabus_ced352_ver_2.doc

Original Post:

I thought I would list here on the blog what books I am requiring in my Taylor University Christian Educational Ministries 352 course this spring which starts next Wednesday, January 31st.  I have 26 students in the course spread out over two sections.  They are all juniors and seniors. 

We will begin the course by attending a workshop at Granger Community Church next Friday, February 2nd called First Impressions: Creating Wow Experiences at Your Church with Mark Waltz who has a book by the same title and also has a blog.  If you are near South Bend, Indiana, come check it out and we can chat about it!   

I told the students this about the workshop:

The reason we are going is that Granger does programming better than most any church in the nation.  They are known for their excellence and expertise.  They were rated in a recent Outreach Magazine survey as the #2 innovative church in the nation (though one of their pastors helped organize the survey).  In this workshop, we will see many of the principles of the course demonstrated: goal-setting, strategic planning and evaluation.  I hope you will be impressed by Granger's zeal for evangelism and its programming excellence.  This trip will also launch us into a semester-long discussion about what we can learn from the megachurch and what we might question.

COURSE TEXTS (We will be using the six books in this order). 

1. Stevens, Tim and Tony Morgan. Simply Strategic Stuff: Help for Leaders Drowning in the Details of Running a Church. Loveland, CO: Group Publishing, 2003.  $13 (Required last year so there are a number of CEM seniors with this book).

The Stevens/Morgan book is excellent for becoming a wiser, more competent church leader.  They both are pastors at Granger Community Church where will be visiting but we will not be attending their workshop. (Later correction: Actually Tony is leaving mid-February to take a position at a church in South Carolina).  If you are excited about reading before the semester begins, your assignment will be to read any 100 pages in this book.  You will be reflecting about what you learned at the workshop and from reading this book in a three page paper.  You will need to write how many pages you read.  Tony and Tim both have blogs: http://www.tonymorganlive.com/ and http://www.leadingsmart.com/ and a podcast www.simplystrategicshow.com    

Optional instead:

But if you are strongly interested in business and not as interested in church ministry, you may read the following work. (Tim and Craig, I am thinking about you here). Instead of reading 100 pages of Stevens/Morgan, I am requiring that you read 150 pages of Collins. I have not ordered the Collins book for the Taylor bookstore.  I hope and expect most of you will read the Stevens/Morgan book.  Though Good to Great is the most influential business book in many years, it has also been read by many pastors.  If you are excited about reading before the semester begins, read any 150 pages in this book.  You will write a three page paper reflecting on this book and the Granger workshop.  You will need to write how many pages you read.  You can also find audio to listen to Collins at http://www.jimcollins.com/  

Collins, Jim. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.  $17.

2. Olson, Ginny, Diane Elliot and Mike Work. Youth Ministry Management Tools. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan/Youth Specialties, 2001.  $28.

               We will use this book to help design a ministry and build programming skills.

3. Stanley, Andy, Lane Jones, and Reggie Joiner. Seven Practices of Effective Ministry. Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004. $15.

               We will be challenged by Andy Stanley, one of the most influential pastors in America, and the insights he has gleaned leading one of the fastest growing churches in America today.  Andy, Lane and Reggie have a podcast on this book at http://www.practicallyspeaking.org/  

4. Kimball, Dan.  The Emerging Church.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.  $13 (Required last year so there are a number of CEM seniors with this book).

This book will serve as an alternative to the megachurch model.  Kimball’s book is an excellent introduction to understanding the emerging church movement which is the most important young adult ministry movement in America today. Dan has a blog: http://www.dankimball.com /

Optional instead:

But if you are strongly interested in counseling, you may read the following book instead.  (Mary, I am thinking about you here).  But instead of reading 100 pages of Kimball, I am requiring that you read 200 pages of Scazzero.  I have not ordered the Scazzero book for the Taylor bookstore.  I hope and expect most of you will read the Kimball book.

Scazzero, Peter with Warren Bird.  The Emotionally Healthy Church: A Strategy for Discipleship That Actually Changes Lives.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.  $13.

But if you are strongly interested in social-justice or ministry to the poor, you may read the following book instead.  (Shanna and Carly, I am thinking about you here).  But instead of reading 100 pages of Kimball, I am requiring that you read 150 pages of Sider.  I have not ordered the Sider book for the Taylor bookstore.  I hope and expect most of you will read the Kimball book.

Sider, Ronald J., Philip N. Olson and Heidi Rolland Unruh. Churches That Make a Difference: Reaching Your Community with Good News and Good Works. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.  $15.

5. Peterson, Eugene H.  Working the Angles: The Shape of Pastoral Integrity.  Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.  $11 (Required last year so there are a number of CEM seniors with this book).

This book will serve as an alternative to a high emphasis on programming.  The Peterson book talks about the importance of prayer, Scripture and spiritual direction in the life of the pastor.  Peterson is one of my heroes. 

Optional instead:

But if you are strongly interested in charismatic prayer ministry and are less interested in church ministry, you may read the following book by Cymbala.  You will be required to read all 200 pages of Cymbala as opposed to only 100 pages of Peterson. I have not ordered the Cymbala book for the Taylor bookstore.  I hope and expect most of you will read the Peterson book.

Cymbala, Jim.  Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997.  $13.

6. Frazee, Randy. The Christian Life Profile Assessment Tool Workbook: Discovering the Quality of Your Relationships with God and Others in 30 Key Areas. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.  $11.

               We will use this workbook to learn about how to evaluate spiritual growth – something notoriously difficult to measure. 

Starbucks, Branding and Megachurches

If you want to read a little argument about why or why not churches should be more like Starbucks, read Skye Jethani's post "Burned by Branding: What churches can learn from the anti-Starbucks movement" at Out of Ur.  After the post, there are a huge number of argumentative comments regarding whether megachurches are good or not.  This is not the most civilized or clear discussion ever but if you have never thought much about this topic, it is not a bad introduction to the variety of opinions.  I decided it wasn't worth my time to study, sort through, clarify, refute and support the various opinions but I can give you my three-sentence conclusion.   

In short, as churches I think we can learn a lot from Starbucks (warmth, quality, friendliness, casual, atmosphere) but I think churches need to be relentlessly adaptive to their local settings.  Similarly, I really like learning from megachurch people because they tend to be outreach-driven, smart, passionate, serious-about-quality and hard-working.  But I cringe a bit when I sometimes hear pure pragmaticism ("Only souls in heaven matter. The ends justify the means") or the conviction that their way is the only way ("99% of other churches don't understand evangelism").   

Resources:

I have written best about megachurches here about Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Church and here about Andy Stanley's leadership ideas.  All my articles that touch on the megachurch topic are here. By the way, the Purpose-Driven organization no longer exists and has been folded back into Saddleback Church.  See here. (H/T Church Marketing Sucks).       

The people at Church Marketing Sucks (one of my top 10 favorite blogs) are very helpful in thinking through this whole issue of good branding and marketing for the church.  They actually understand marketing and are trying to use it to help churches get better at reaching non-Christians.   

Read Granger Pastor Blog Summaries of the Willow Leadership Summit

I'm thoroughly enjoying vicariously the Willow Creek Leadership Summit by reading the blogs of the Granger Community Church pastors.

Here is the schedule of the summit so you can follow along.

Here are the blogs:

Mark Waltz | . . . because People Matter - first post here

Tim Stevens - LeadingSmart - first post here

Tony Morgan | one of the simply strategic guys - first post here

Mark has written the book: First Impressions: Creating Wow Experiences In Your Church

Tim and Tony have written the books: Simply Strategic Growth: Attracting a Crowd to Your Church, Simply Strategic Stuff: Help for Leaders Drowning in the Details of Running a Church, and Simply Strategic Volunteers: Empowering People For Ministry

Big churches take note: Fortune magazine says the rules of business have changed

This is a guest post from my brother Brad Rowell who works for DeWALT Industrial Tools and is involved in a church plant called Hillside Church of Southeast Denver.  (See photo from last summer to the right).

The July 10 issue of the business magazine Fortune has a good cover story entitled The New Rules: Tearing up the Jack Welch playbook that I thought applied to the church.  The article basically says that famous GE CEO Jack Welch's rules for winning in the 1990's no longer apply today.  The article blasts Jack's 7 rules and suggests 7 new ones that might work.

	New Rules	vs.	Old Rules
1	Agile is best; being big can bite you.		Big dogs own the street.
2	Find a niche, create something new.		Be No. 1 or No. 2 in your market.
3	The customer is king.		Shareholders rule.
4	Look out, not in.		Be lean and mean.
5	Hire passionate people.		Rank your players; go with the A's.
6	Hire a courageous CEO.		Hire a charismatic CEO.
7	Admire my soul.		Admire my might

I thought that many of the "old rules" reminded me of building mega-churches in the 80's and 90's and I thought many of the "new rules" are being practiced by the emerging church of today. 

Enjoy,

Brad Rowell

Two Outstanding Ortberg Sermons without a Text

John Ortberg, pastor of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church, is probably my wife Amy and my favorite preacher.  He is funny, winsome, biblically sound, practical, and clear.  I was at Willow Creek's midweek New Community service last week and people cheered when they announced John was coming back to guest teach again August 2nd.  He is deeply loved there by the people he taught for years. 

We have recently listened to two outstanding sermons by him.  You can find his sermons here.  He 3/05/06 sermon "An Ordinary Day with Jesus" is practical and thought provoking.  It is based on the adult curriculum of the same title. 

His next one on 3/12/06 "The Church on Monday Morning" is also incredible.  It is about the people of the church getting out and making a difference for good in the community.  It is inspiring!

In neither one does Ortberg focus on one specific text.  And yet his theology is good and it is practical.  Amy and I have been taught to focus on one text in preaching and we teach our students to do the same.  And here our favorite preacher isn't!  Cognitive dissonance - oh no! 

I would explain it this way.  In these two sermons, Ortberg briefly outlines the biblical principles that could be exegeted from many passages and focuses his sermon on fleshing out application.  You could look at them as long application sections of an expository sermon where the exposition is assumed! 

There is a place for these topical sermons but a congregation needs a steady diet of Scripture or they will depend on the preacher and his whims.  But if you want to hear good topical sermons, listen to these two.  They come highly recommended.   

Seven Practices of Effective Ministry

  On Tuesday I listened to the first two of "Seven Practices of Effective Ministry" podcasts with Andy Stanley, Reggie Joiner and Lane Jones.  They are the authors of the popular 2004 book of that title.  I have heard pastors recommend this book in the last year more often than any other. 

Two comments and a question:

1. I want to thank them for putting this out for free.  Podcasts are great!  I love audio for when I am in the car!  It is great to hear the North Point folks trying to explain how they practically implement these tips. 

2. I have been reflecting on how these hints apply to worship planning.  It has been helpful for me. 

For "Clarify the Win," I am asking: do we want to be a) more seeker-sensitive, b) have more meaningful worship, c) equip worship leaders, d) see more participation, e) have more ancient and contemporary worship, or f) see more age-blended worship?  North Point tries to have their worship leaders create unforgettable experiences because they are seeker-driven.  It would be good to get clear with the leadership of a church what we are trying to achieve in worship.  Once we have that, they encourage us to state it simply, repeat it often and celebrate it. 

They encourage intentionality in their "Think Steps Not Programs" practice.  How do we make sure that worship is actually moving people where we want them to go?  How does it fit with the overall plan of the church?  Is it central or peripheral?  If it is peripheral, nix it.  In other words, there are lots of nice things we could do in worship (improve the prayer time, sharpen the PowerPoint, improve the flow of songs, etc.) but do these improvements unintentionally produce more problems in other areas of the church life?  The North Point folks want everything to flow from their three environments: "The Foyer" (welcome guests) to the "The Living Room" (connect with friends) to the "Kitchen" (intimacy with family).  (See also Andy's January 8&15 2006 messages "A Face in the Crowd" and "Our House" for a description of their church strategy.) All in all, I think this is excellent stuff. 

3. My question is: what do we lose when we become focused?   Under this strategy, a few people set the "clear vision" and other possible purposes are weeded out.  Some might go too far with what the North Point people are saying and try to impose a focus or vision on their people.  "Andy Stanley told me to do this!  I cannot listen to you people because you are not focused on the vision - my vision." 

I listened to a John Ortberg talk on Jesus, Leadership and the Kingdom of God podcast immediately after listening to the North Point material.  Ortberg (quoting Jesus) emphasizes that Christian leaders do not lord their leadership over others.  The North Point leaders don't lord their leadership over people but it is very clear who the leaders are and it is they that set the direction.   

The North Point folks are emphasizing the motto "do less things and you will do those things better."  Most of our churches need to hear this.  And yet we will have further problems if we think that all of the vision and focus are going to come from the top tier of leadership.  In reality at North Point, the leaders do a whole lot of listening to thoughtful and godly "regular" congregation members.  Though the church seems to be led from the senior pastor, in reality Andy is also highly influenced by his conversations with regular folks. 

So let's do both. 

As leaders, let's pay attention to the voices of creative people, prophets, and real people.  We might not always enjoy what they have to say.  It may not be comfortable.  They may not agree with our vision or "focus."  But they may have a point that we haven't seen.  They may need to tell us the truth because we are off-track.  I was tremendously helped to be advised that

Sometimes your critics and the complainers are simply good leaders in disguise who need a place to plug in and unleash their gifts.  The reason they are unhappy is that they know we can do better and they want to help. 

The Old Testament prophets were constantly trying to make sure that the temple priests didn't get so into their rituals, efficiency and duties that they forgot the real point.  I think creative, prophetic, and ordinary-Joe people often help me remember what really matters.  Their criticisms of me often have some validity that I need to pay attention to.

At the same time, the North Point folks remind us that we can't be scattered and confused and unfocused because of every little opinion or criticism.  We can sort through the feedback and focus on what is most important.  So let's listen and focus - that seems to me to be the road toward effective ministry. 

See another post about Andy Stanley here where Andy S. actually commented. 

See also Granger Community Church pastor Mark Waltz's blog on the 7 practices.  Part 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

I rewrote this point on September 14, 2006. 

What is the Emerging Church Movement?

I have been asked to brief a fellow professor on the Emerging Church Movement.  Here is how I responded. 

In my opinion, "The Emerging Church Movement" is a description for the new styles of evangelical churches that are being led by younger pastors who are between the ages of 25 and 40 today (who we used to call "Generation Xers").  (There are people younger and older but I’m trying to give you a ballpark sociological description).  Most used to be youth pastors and are now senior pastors.  They are using their youth ministry experience to help create churches that better reach younger people.  Of course any changes in church structure or practice could become heretical and deserve reflection.  But, it seems to me that all of the main "emerging church" writings would easily fall within the boundaries of the National Association of Evangelicals statement of faith.  The most controversial things some emerging church writers have questioned include how to best reach out to homosexuals (see an example from Brian McLaren at Leadership Journals’ Out of Ur blog 1, 2, 3) and whether hell has been biblically taught correctly within evangelicalism (See again McLaren at Out of Ur 1, 2, 3).  In my opinion, these are standard conversations within evangelicalism.  (As you can see, they are happening on Christianity Today’s website). 

As theological educators, I think we should view it this way:

the emerging church proponents = innovative evangelical youth pastors

They will make some mistakes in their enthusiasm for changes and relevance but they are trying their best to reach young adults and teens.  These are not enemies to argue with but rather people to cheer on, put your arm around, and offer guidance.  They will also challenge us in good ways and keep our churches fresh. 

Below I have provided some resources.  Let me know if you have questions or concerns.   

andy

Resouces:

The proper term is "The Emerging Church Movement" not "emergence" or "emergent."  And it does fit the sociological definition of a "movement."  The "Emergent Village" is the most organized group within the movement.  You can read their "statement of faith" which they call an "order" here.

You can read a decent description at Wikipedia on "Emerging Church."  (Wikipedia is a user generated encyclopedia that anyone can edit and both critics and supporters of the emerging church have basically agreed upon this description). 

The best scholarly book on the subject is:

Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures
by Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger

Baker Academic (November 1, 2005)

You will be interested to know as well that the highly respected Trinity Evangelical Divinity School New Testament professor D.A. Carson has written a book that is mostly critical of the movement. 

Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church : Understanding a Movement and Its Implications
by D. A. Carson

Zondervan (May 1, 2005)

Carson tries to analyze the movement by analyzing Brian McLaren's epistemology.  It is a theological and philosophical analysis of what is really a practical phenomenon.   

See especially North Park New Testament professor Scot McKnight’s review of D.A. Carson’s Becoming Emergent with the Emerging Church

Parts: 1 2  3  4 5  6  7  8  Final issues: 1 1a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Or if those links don't work, the first eight parts are here. 

Here is Scot McKnight’s description of the emerging church: 

What is the Emerging Church?

What is the Emerging Church? Protest

What is the Emerging Church? Postmodernity

What is the Emerging Church? Pro-Aplenty

I have my students read a book about the emerging church in Program and Curriculum Development.  They compare it to the megachurch movement.  We look at them as both influential church models within evangelicalism.

 

Is Congregational Singing Seeker-Sensitive?

Last Sunday I visited Willow Creek DuPage, one of Willow Creek's Regional Campuses, which meets at Wheaton Academy.  I actually just made it for the end of the service because I went to another church service first. 

The Willow Creek DuPage room seemed quite full.  All of the rows were 70% full.  400 people perhaps?  After the service, they had lemonade and cookies set out at different tables labeled with different high school names in the area.  The idea is that people can more easily find people who live near them. 

But I had one question.  At the end of the video message by Mike Breaux, the worship leader came up and led three songs.  He invited people to stand and later to clap their hands.  It didn't seem to me like many people were singing.  Then again, I was in the back.  Perhaps many of the people visiting are "seekers" and thus feel uncomfortable singing. 

For this reason I thought that Willow Creek did not invite people to sing very much in their weekend services.  I thought the focus was on performed music as opposed to congregational singing.  Is this still the line of thinking?  Or are Willow Creek and other seeker-driven churches incorporating more congregational singing?  Just curious.

P.S. I'm sorry for not asking the regional pastor this question but I felt bad because I hadn't been at the whole service and he had invited people who were hurting to talk with him.  I threw away my brochure but I have sent an email to the general DuPage regional church email address to see if someone wants to comment. 

I'm also sorry for not carrying my camera and taking a photo.  The law of copyrights with photos is that you usually don't get in trouble if you post your own photos.  So I'll have to do that more often.  This photo is free to use because I found it on stock.xchnge

See my recent post about video venues for more discussion about this concept. 

Media and Preaching

A fellow professor e mailed me this question:

I'm looking for a book that can help explain the communicational importance of using electronic support during worship. Any ideas you have for me to peruse would be appreciated.

Here is what I said:

Check out these in this order. You can see my notes below.

High-Tech Worship?: Using Presentational Technologies Wisely (Paperback) by Quentin J. Schultze

Publisher: Baker Books (January 2004)

Schultze was in my class this year because he has been a visiting scholar at Taylor. This book is short and wise and would fit your purpose I think.

Communicating for a Change : Seven Keys to Irresistible Communication (Hardcover) by Andy Stanley, Lane Jones

Publisher: Multnomah (June 1, 2006)

Andy is one of the leading communicators in the nation. (He is speaking at Willow Creek's Leadership Conference this year). This is his new book.

The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture : How Media Shapes Faith, the Gospel, and Church (Emergentys) (Paperback) by Shane Hipps

Publisher: Zondervan/Youth Specialties (February 1, 2006)

Taylor communication professor and my friend Kathy Bruner is reading this book. She says it is good. He has been on Leadership Journal's Out of Ur recently. See my blog post responding to his article about Video Venues here.

-- The rest of these books I don't know much about. Abingdon (of United Methodist roots) has published all of them.

· The Wired Church: Making Media Ministry (Paperback) by Len Wilson

Publisher: Abingdon Press; Bk&CD Rom edition (March 1999)

· Digital Storytellers: The Art of Communicating the Gospel in Worship (Paperback) by Len Wilson, Jason Moore

Publisher: Abingdon Press; Bk & DVD edition (April 2002)

· Media Ministry Made Easy: A Practical Guide to Visual Communication (Paperback) by Tim Eason

Publisher: Abingdon Press; Bk & DVD edition (April 2003)

· The Spectacle of Worship in a Wired World: Electronic Culture and the Gathered People of God (Paperback) by Tex Sample

Publisher: Abingdon Press (September 1998)

---I have a few other books about how to use movies in teaching here.

Video Venues and the Future Shrinking of the Megachurch

On Leadership Journal's Out of Ur blog, they are having a discussion about video venues based on the post by Shane Hipps entitled "Video Venues and the Papacy of Celebrity: Why changing the methods always changes the message." What is a video venue?

The best way to describe a video venue is to give you an example.

Willow Creek McHenry County is located more than 30 minutes from Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, IL. McHenry County campus pastor, Wayne Alguire, attends the Saturday night service at the main campus. Afterward, he is given a DVD of the sermon. On Sunday morning, he plays that DVD during the preaching portion of the service in McHenry country. "What," you ask, "they do not have live person preaching?" No, they don't. They have "live" worship and announcements but not preaching. On occasion, there may be an exception but in general this is the basic idea. Wayne Alguire does not have to prepare a sermon each week and is thus freed to care for people. The congregation does not have to drive all the way to the main campus in South Barrington. They can get amazing preaching in their own backyard. That is the basic idea of video venues.

Here are a few of my thoughts (pro and con) about this approach.

PRO:

I like the idea that megachurches are in some ways getting smaller and homier through this approach. In other words, rather than driving from McHenry Country to Willow Creek and not seeing anyone you recognize, you can hear Bill Hybels on video at the Wheaton campus with a smaller group who you will begin to get to know.

I also dislike bad preaching. Bill Hybels says in his preaching/teaching workshop something like, “If you’re not good at teaching/preaching, save your listeners, and go do something else.” I’d choose a good sermon on video over terrible sermons in person any day.

It is worth noting that the microphone changed church culture more than video. Before that, we were limited by the strength of the preacher's voice, the acoustics of the room, and the youth of the audience's ears. No wonder there weren't many megachurches.

CON:

Due to overemphasis on the Eucharist/communion in the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformers put more emphasis on the sermon. I think we have swung the other direction and put too much emphasis on the sermon to the detriment of congregational life. The logical extension of the crucial nature of “good preaching” is to get it "efficiently" by playing sermons on video.

The logical end of the VV "efficiency" argument is to pick two preachers and just have everyone listen to them. How about my favorites Rob Bell and John Ortberg as the two?

I think there is already too much borrowing and imitating in evangelicalism. It is remarkable how much of what thousands of churches do is rooted in the actions and programs of five influential churches.  (Later note August 1, 2007: These rankings by The Church Report are probably not legitimate).
What is really scary about that exaggerated scenario is that few of us would be studying our Bibles as studiously if we didn't have to preach! That is human nature, right? There is something about the local pastor studying and applying the Scripture to a specific context.

The Future of the Video Venue:

I don't think we need to worry about everyone going to the video venue approach. Some people will appreciate it and the approach will continue to grow through the megachurches. Others though will want a live preacher that they can interact with.

Interestingly, this approach may be the sign of the waning of the megachurch movement. People don't want to drive 40 minutes to go to a church. They want to get to know people who live in their community. I bet that Willow Creek will never build a bigger auditorium than the one it opened two years ago. Church planters, and other advocates of the power of the small church, should feel vindicated that even the megachurch is noticing that bigger is not necessarily better. There is power in local churches who contextualize themselves to a community.

Calvin College professor, Quentin J. Schultze, reflects well on these issues in: High-Tech Worship?: Using Presentational Technologies Wisely. Baker, 2004.

If you are interested in this topic, you might be interested in listening to an audio presentation on this topic from Leadership Network at
http://www.leadnet.org/Resources_AV.asp

Here is the description:
Seacoast Church (www.seacoast.org) currently has 9 different campuses, and it continues to pray and plan toward the launch of more campuses. The primary teaching comes from our Mt. Pleasant campus by videocast. This model prompts questions about whether a teaching pastor in one city can effectively pastor people hundreds of miles away. The answer is no, and in the accompanying podcast lead pastor Greg Surratt explains Seacoast's approach and rationale.

Some photos of Saddleback's Video Venues are here.

There is a video venue starter kit from North Coast Church in San Diego here.

Andy Stanley Says There is No Such Thing as Distinctively Spiritual Leadership

Here are my comments on the article: Is Ministry Leadership Different? Andy Stanley and Jim Collins in an unexpected point-counterpoint by Eric Reed at Leadership Journal's Out of Ur blog:

Andy Stanley, pastor of the third most influential church in the nation with more than 18,000 in attendance, is right in urging pastors to practice competent leadership regardless of its source. He says: “I grew up in a culture where everything was overly spiritualized . . . A principle is a principle, and God created all the principles.” He is right in saying that too often churches have permitted abuse, waste, and ineptitude in the name of forgiveness, family, and niceness. He is also right in declaring it makes sense to learn from others. We should be reexamining Scripture for wisdom as well as sifting through leadership and business management books for wise insight. (See my list of recommended business management books that are helpful for pastors here).

But Christian leaders are different from other leaders because of their Christian character (as Andy tacitly indicates in his words about the importance of prayer, counsel, and integrity when he speaks to church leaders). If leaders are not formed by Scripture, prayer and counsel [Eugene Peterson calls these the three angles in his book Working the Angles)], their vision and leadership will ultimately be shallow and self-serving. So I think Andy overstates the case when he says “There’s nothing distinctly spiritual [about the kind of leadership I do].” There is such a thing as spiritual (pleasing-to-the-Holy-Spirit) leadership that is often different from secular business leadership. Spiritual formation will actually change the way we do leadership. Some practices which would violate Scripture cannot be used even to meet seemingly good goals. In other words, Scripture restrains the use of some means. The ends do not always justify the means.

Eric Reed is right in pointing out that many young people are attracted to Andy Stanley but that he does not fit with the “emerging” leader profile which is also popular among young people. Reed writes:

“Stanley is becoming the model for the next generation of large church pastors [note Reed’s adjective large] . . . Because Andy connects well with younger leaders, who in general are bent more toward spiritual formation than church growth . . . I thought I’d hear something that backed up the pendulum swing we have heard prominent emerging leaders identify--that younger leaders don’t buy all the church growth stuff, that the models that built megachurches worked for boomers, but for Gen-X and younger? Fuggidaboudit.”

Many young suburban white young adults are attracted to Andy Stanley. He is what they want to be: attractive, making-a-difference, young, confident, and articulate with a gorgeous facility and a talented staff. But Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger describe in Emerging Churches a different set of young people who don’t want to copy management principles or accept megachurch assumptions. They want to emulate Jesus’ practices – wandering around talking to people, without a building, praying, telling stories, and helping people. Seeker churches like Stanley’s, on the other hand, want people to “meet Jesus” through getting them through whatever means to sit in the seats of their church.

My comments on the Gibbs and Bolger book Emerging Churches are here.

Most of the college students in my classes at Taylor University are attracted to both Andy Stanley and the Emerging church conversation. They are attracted to young charismatic leaders regardless of their ministry approach. Rob Bell and Erwin McManus are probably the two most popular among them since they have all the things Andy Stanley has (attractive, making-a-difference, young, confident, and articulate with a large facility and a talented staff) but also embrace some of aspects of the emerging churches: art, attitude, informality, stories, urban culture, and justice.

See my list of sermon audio links to listen to Stanley, Bell and McManus here.

For a scholarly presentation of how the apostle Paul dealt with secular ideas of leadership when they began to appear in Corinth, listen to New Testament scholar Bruce Winter's lecture "Secularization of First Century Christian Leadership - Inroads of Secular Models." Here is the synopsis.

Bruce Winter questions the word "leader" as the name we use when talking about church ministers. He says Paul intentionally does not use the Greek word for leader to describe the ministers in the early church. Winter also says Paul intentionally rejected the braggart, money-making, attractive orator image that was readily apparent in the culture at the time.

This must cause all of us to pause as we think of the kind of Christian leaders that are so often held up as "making a difference" in our culture. Most often they get famous as successful pastors because they are great speakers and attractive. Perhaps this is always the way to fame and there is no preventing it. But that does not mean we need to try to emulate the famous (as is so natural).

Jeffrey Fox lays out "the rules to rise to the top of any organization" in How to Become CEO. Here are a few out of the 75.

• Keep Physically Fit
• Dress for a Dance
• Be Visible
• Learn to Speak and Write in Plain English
• Say Things to Make People Feel Good
• Look Sharp and Be Sharp
• The Concept Doesn't Have to Be Perfect But the Execution of It Does

I am quite sure that Fox is right that if we applied these we could rise to the top of any organization including the church. The Corinthians would have sent Paul the book. "Work on your appearance, Paul. Don't do manual labor. Charge higher fees. Try to be a bit more polished."

We could work on those things or instead we could learn to pray the Psalms.

1 Sam 16:7. But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things human beings look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart" (TNIV).

May God give us wisdom to do our tasks well - gathering wisdom wherever we may find it - from secular and Christian mentors and books. But may God also form us as people after his own heart so that we do the right tasks in the right way.

Strengths of the Purpose Driven Church and Sober Advice For Those Considering the Megachurch

I first read The Purpose-Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Message & Mission by Rick Warren soon after it came out in 1995. I am now teaching a Christian ministry course at Taylor University entitled "Program and Curriculum Development." I require my students to read the book because of how influential this book has been. I don't want them to be in the dark at a staff meeting or conference when people refer to it. Ten years after reading the book and being involved in pastoral leadership during that whole time, it has been interesting to read the book again. There are some definite strengths of the book. But I also have some cautions for my students about the megachurch as well.

The huge strengths of The Purpose Driven Church

Here are notes from my lecture about the strengths of the book: 

Programming should be inspired by vision, moved by need and thoughtful about its approach.

• Experiment. Warren admits that his strategy was mostly to just try things out! Emulate him in this way! p. 27-29 
• Consistency. A family will not be healthy if it has 10 fathers but might be healthy with one. Consider committing to a place for the long haul. p. 31

Programming should be done with purpose, balance and discipline.

• Balance p. 49, 76, 122. Left to our own devices, we will do what we are most passionate about and neglect other aspects of the biblical mandate.
• There is a time to pray and a time to take responsibility. p. 58 There is a time to put our heads together and try to solve a problem with the brains and abilities God has given us rather than just spiritualize problems.
• Major on the majors. p. 89 If your church is majoring on something like a choir, which is pretty peripheral to God's purposes, think about majoring on something more important.
• No program is meant to last forever. p. 89-90. If it has stopped being useful, nix the program.
• Need a leader for every program. p. 90. Do not start a program without leadership.

Programming should be done with awareness of reality

• Levels of commitment will differ. p. 131-136. Program in light of the fact that you are ministering to people with different levels of commitment.
• Pay attention to people. Yes, target people but realize that the kingdom of God is about more than one demographic. Warren targeted Saddleback Sam but admits God has led them to minister to many new targets. p. 160.

Programming should be done with hospitality and excellence

• Emphasize hospitality - welcoming people - over attractiveness though they are similar. Warren and Saddleback are very hospitable and we can learn from this. All churches think they are friendly but most are not in reality.
• Pursue excellence but realize that the smaller the congregation, the less you will be able to do what the world would judge as excellent and that is ok. Recognize what you can do well (160) (for example, fellowship) and yet also strive to do the other purposes well as you can (worship, discipleship, evangelism, service).
• The importance of outreach. p. 50 Most churches never reach any non-Christians and essentially serve the believer. Warren and friends remind us of the importance of reaching the lost. "The Church is the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members" (William Temple).
• Think like an unbeliever. p.189 Do not try to reach out by using Christian jargon like "Come hear the preaching of the inerrant Word of God."
• Encourage people to find a place they can thrive in ministry. It is not about filling spots. p. 382 They will most likely need to experiment. I have taught the SHAPE ("spiritual gifts, heart, abilities, personalities, experiences) assessment course and the most important message is for people to jump in and try something. p. 387

I critique Warren's approach in my posts
A wider target: Deconstructing and redeploying the Seeker Sensitive Service planning of The Purpose Driven Church
and
Why pastors should be both goal-setting fanatics and cynics
but also give some general words of caution below.

Introduction to the Megachurch

In the next sections, I do not focus specifically on Rick Warren's Saddleback Church or his The Purpose Driven Church but rather the megachurch in general.

I received the following excellent statistical introduction to the megachurch from Bill Easum's article The Exponential Church: Learning From America’s Largest and Fastest-Growing Congregations

"Twenty years ago American megachurches (more than 2,000 attendance) numbered just over two dozen. Today, they exceed more than 830, with more than 30 now exceeding 10,000 worshipper- launching a whole new category we call the "gigachurch." Since the late 1950s, the time it has taken for a church to grow large has been cut in half almost every decade. Ten of the churches started in 1990 reached attendances of 5,000 to 18,000 in one decade.What is driving this growth? The factors are many, including the migration of people to urban centers, word-of-mouth, sharpened leadership skills, churches becoming multigenerational and most recently, Web site access, TV exposure and megachurches teaching other churches through seminars, books and curriculum."

I had never heard of the gigachurch and I don't think that terminology has taken off yet but it does make sense to me to differentiate the 30 churches over 10,000 attendance from the 800 over 2,000 but less than 10,000.

Because the megachurch is big, strengths and weaknesses are exaggerated. It is great to study because it has systems for everything and they are often visible on the grand scale.

Not all people thrive in a megachurch. Consider the following.

If you grew up in a megachurch, you may intuitively understand who tends to fit there. But if you didn't, consider the following.

• Because it is a large organization, it has to function as one. Thus business skills and larger-organization leadership skills are sought after.
• Because the megachurch is always trying to make things better and this is visible to thousands of people on a weekly basis, it can tend to be a high pressure, result-oriented environment.
• Because vision-casting is needed to rally volunteers and you are often known by your brief public speaking opportunities, outstanding public-speaking skills are an asset.
• Because cutting edge technology is often used to keep track of lots of people and do ministry programming on a large-scale, technology skills are a sought after.
• My friend writes: "Like those in big business, mega-church workers need to bring at least one towering strength to the enterprise. It's not a place for those who can do many things with average skill; it's a place for those who can do one or two things with tremendous skill. Excellence is of such high value that only over-achievers need apply. Smaller church workers can be generalists; most mega-church workers have to be specialists."
• If you walk into a megachurch or visit a website of a megachurch and are attracted by the facility and professionalism, this may be your thing. If you have a bad taste in your mouth and feel like it seems fake, you should run the other direction because it probably isn't you.

Crucial Issues to Consider While Working at a Megachurch:

1. Think about what ministry "success" really means.

It is customary (not just in the megachurch) to equate success with the A, B, C's (Attendance, Buildings, Cash) or you can also say it as the three B's (Bodies, Buildings, Budget). How can we measure quantitatively some things that are hard to quantify (discipleship, inner growth, godly character development, true worshipfulness)? Randy Frazee, author of The Connecting Church and formerly pastor of Pantego Bible Church and Willow Creek, has tried to to create an assessment tool:The Christian Life Profile Assessment Tool Training Guide: Discovering the Quality of Your Relationships with God and Others in 30 Key Areas of 30 core competences which is a place to start.

2. Take into account the location.

Don't feel too proud of yourself if your church grows and you are in a geographical area that is booming economically and growing quickly. Don't be too discouraged regarding your church growth if you are in an area that is suffering economically. Megachurches often (but not always) occur in growing areas where there is a Target, Starbucks and new developments. In the megachurch game (a spoof on megachurch leadership) there are different levels of difficulty:

"A suburban church plant (for those who want it easy or just starting out). Or pastor an inner-city, multi-ethnic 80 year old church with 50 members and $1 million mortgage debt (for those who really want a challenge)."

3. Do not uncritically accept the idea that "quantity frequently indicates quality."

Rick Warren writes, "Health produces growth . . . Quality produces quantity" (p.49, 51). Natural Church Development, another school of thought, concludes that of the major eight positive characteristics they look for in churches, only "Inspiring Worship" is most typically stronger in large churches.

1. Empowering Leadership

2. Gift-oriented Ministry

3. Passionate Spirituality

4. Functional Structures

5. Inspiring Worship

6. Holistic Small Groups

7. Need-oriented Evangelism

8. Loving Relationships

This makes sense that people would assume that all the characteristics are stronger in a megachurch because when one visits a megachurch, people are often moved by the large-setting worship.

4. Impact is not fame or joy.

It is tempting to think that you are making a bigger impact if your ministry is famous. It is good to want to make a profound impact for God's kingdom. Go do it! You may not get noticed for it by Christianity Today but you may end up with a better family life, more joy, more friends, and more satisfaction than the famous Zondervan "____ Church" author. I'm told fame can be a pain--people who don't know you say all kinds of silly things about you and you don't know whether to respond or ignore it. Remember that "audience of One" concept (Luke 10:42).

5. Consider making biblical reflection a priority.

The megachurch is often characterized by a radical pragmatism that focuses on doing "whatever works." It can be very difficult with the weekly deadlines and pressure to thoughtfully consider the merits of a particular decision in light of biblical values. The thinking usually goes: "if it gets butts in seats, it is exposing people to the gospel, so it must be good." The megachurch may not appropriately value biblical reflection including the foundation of biblical reflection that is hopefully instilled in theological education / seminary.

6. Consider carefully how to use resources.

The megachurch often spends extraordinary amounts of money that might seem to be frivolous (the shuttle that brings people in from parking lot has video screens, etc.) Are there other ways that God might be calling the wealthy North American church to use its resources? Consider this question often.

7. Understand biblical evangelism.

The strength of the seeker megachurch is that it stresses outreach to the unchurched. I tell my students: "You're not allowed to throw stones at the seeker church unless you are committed to an equally intense evangelism approach (small groups that invite unchurched, Alpha program, 1-on-1 evangelism training, special seeker events, etc.)" However, the seeker church can also tend to get a bit over-focused on "getting souls into heaven" which may not reflect the totality of the message of Scripture.

8. Consider discipleship in the seeker church.

My friend writes: "When evangelism is the primary purpose of every Sunday's gathering...you're essentially doing 'crusade' ministry on a weekly basis. And if there's one thing that stadium crusades have taught us, it's that it's easier to draw a crowd than to disciple a crowd. As I recall, a study of the Billy Graham Association showed that about 4% of the respondents at their crusades ultimately wound up assimilated into a church. The mega-church might not be doing much better. I think discipling people may only be able to be done a few at a time."

9. Consider discipleship in the non-seeker church.

Some megachurches do not have weekend seeker services and a midweek believers service. They gear the weekend worship and preaching to believers. At least the seeker churches are spending the tremendous amount of resources on reaching the unchurched. The megachurches that are believer-centered need to doubly ask whether their expenditures are justified. Are they reaching the unchurched? Are people really growing in their discipleship? Attracting believers with a good show is even less justifiable than attracting unbelievers.

10. Consider the consequences of over-valuing excellence.

Another friend writes:

"Oftentimes, one of the values of the megachurch, especially Willow Creek is 'Excellence honors God and inspires people.' It sounds nice, but the services can come across at times feeling fake, plastic and like a production. And if you are not excellent, you will not be up front very often. (Therefore, leadership development is at a minimum -- it is much easier to fly in and pay an outside guest speaker than to allow younger, green behind the ears leaders in the church to grow in their teaching ability)."

11. Consider the danger of a selfish mentality creeping in.

My friend writes:

"If not careful, it can truly breed an unhealthy consumerism mentality. Specializing in everything to cater to our every need (affinity groups, a cafe in the lobby, Sunday school programs for children that are incredible, etc) isn't always bad, but can foster a "its all about me" mentality."

Note:

For more information on specific megachurches, see the data compiled by the Hartford Institute for Religious Research here.

See also the latest report by the Hartford Institute (Feb 2006). It is an excellent summary of the latest statistical findings regarding the megachurch. It is available as a free download here. They also have a church staff salary survey posted as well for free download at the Leadership Network. Large churches pay their pastors well!