Is Your Church Ready to Reach Unchurched People?

I recently read a blog post by Carey Nieuwhof entitled "9 Signs Your Church is Ready to Reach Unchurched People".  I found the article thought provoking, and I'd love to dialog about what Carey wrote.  My plan is to re-post one of his 'signs' each day for the next 9 days, so that we can talk about them one at a time.  I'll give my thoughts; I am hoping that you'll post your own.

So let's start with the introduction:

Carey writes:  Almost every church I know says they want to reach unchurched people.  But few are actually doing it.  Part of the problem stems from the fact that many churches don’t really understand unchurched people (here’s a post on 15 characteristics of today’s unchurched person).

And part of the problem is that our model of church is designed to reach and helped churched people, not unchurched people. Churches haven’t embraced change deeply enough.

So you can say you want to reach people all day long. You can teach about it every week. But if you haven’t designed your church around ministering to people who don’t go to church, you might as well be preaching that you want to lose weight while eating a triple cheeseburger.

Your model simply doesn’t match your mission.

So how do you know that your church is actually ready to reach unchurched people?

Carey challenges us to make sure that our model matches our mission. Before we can do that we have to know what our mission is. 

I think the popular word for this is "alignment". If the people or more importantly the leadership of a church is out of alignment (ie they don't agree on their mission) then they will never be able to agree on a model.

Carey writes that it is a "problem" that "our model of church is designed to reach and help churched people not unchurched people" 

But is that really a problem? 

Certainly our mission "as the church" should be to reach those who do not yet believe, but when we come together "for church" is it wrong to focus on helping the people who are actually attending?

I think it comes back to the question of alignment.  Are the members of the church united around one purpose for coming together "for church".

I've heard the following ideas on the mission of the church:

• "The church is a hospital for sick people."
• TRANSLATION: The church is where you bring people who need to hear the gospel, and need to be loved.
• "The church is where the sheep eat."
• TRANSLATION: Christians meet at church to get equipped to go out and reach the world around them.
• "The church should be all things to all people so that by all possible means we might save some." 
• TRANSLATION: We do a little bit of everything so we have something for everyone, because everyone belongs in the body of Christ.
• "The church is the body of Christ."
• TRANSLATION: Our mission is to be as united and as Biblical as possible.
• "The church is the hands and feet of Jesus."
• TRANSLATION: We specialize in meeting the physical needs of the world around us.

Carey's blog presupposes that we have at our core a desire to reach "unchurched".  And I would champion the argument that you cannot know the God of the Bible, and live a life that disregards those that do not know Him.

But what does it mean to reach them? 

Do we want to take "unchurched people" and make "churched people" or do we want to make "disciples"?

 

Do our churches have a definition of what a disciple looks like?

Are we disciples?  

Do we need God to do something in us before he can do something through us? Or if we unite around a mission of disciple-making, will we find ourselves progressing as disciples? 

What is the purpose of dozens, or hundreds or thousands of us meeting together? 

Should our gatherings be focused on what happens outside the walls of the church, or should what happens outside the walls of the church be focused on what happens in our gatherings?

Should these questions be posed in an "either/or" way or a "both/and" way?

These are the questions I’m hoping you’ll walk through with me.

Radical by David Platt - Book Review

I have often wondered if Peter or Paul would be able to walk into our churches and recognize us as Christians.  I wonder if our religion has become so cultural, that we would be aberrant to our spiritual ancestors.  Usually when I pose these questions the conversation ends quickly and awkwardly.  Even if I find kindred spirits who are pondering these same questions, we end our discussions feeling overwhelmed, with no idea how to begin taking our faith back from the religious institutional mentality that has become so pervasive.  Even "be the change you want to see" is difficult, because when you have looked at the world through a certain pair of eyes for so long, it is hard to even see the problem, let alone articulate it.

I've been praying about this a lot lately.  Wondering just what to do.  Turns out I have a lot of growing up to do before I can be a part of the solution.  I just finished reading a book called “Radical” by David Platt.  The tag line is, “Taking back your faith from the American dream”.  The basic premise is that our culture has infiltrated our faith, to the point that we now want God to help us accomplish our goals, rather than desperately seeking to be saved from our own desires, and transformed into a new creature, and most of us don't even know the difference.

Platt, a pastor himself, compares his experiences with the church in countries where Christians are persecuted, to what we see in the pews here in the States, as he begs us to ask which would be more pleasing to the one we call Lord.  He challenges us with the stories of missionary heroes of the past and the unsung heroes of today, who are living out their faith in ‘radical’ ways.  More than that, he sites scripture after scripture each of which sharply contrasts our cultural religion with Biblical Christianity.  I love looking at the Bibliography at the end and seeing that it is 80% Scripture references.

In many ways I think this book should be required reading for new believers, as it gives a beautiful description of the heart of God, the role of the Christian, the history of the faith, and practical steps to becoming who God commands us to be.  While I believe the book would be great for new believers, after 30 years as a christian and 10 years in ministry, I was extremely challenged, because Platt's goal is to challenge our basic understanding of what it means to be a Christian. In what feels like a modern retelling of Hebrews 11, Platt connects us to modern examples of the same faith found in that beautiful chapter.  The effect is one that brings the faith out of history and into our present reality, making it accessible to every believer, not just those who have been through formal training.  Because of this, the book is idea for aligning your focus with what it really means to be a Christian.

The book ends with 5 specific challenges to help you shift from cultural Christianity, to Biblical Christianity.  While some of them are very basic on the surface, the combined result of all 5 is nothing short of Radical.

I'd tell you what they are, but you need Platt's build up, he step by step, logical, Biblical outline of what it means to be a Christian, and why some of our most basic assumptions about scripture are just plain unscriptural.  Don't read this book unless you are willing to finish it, willing to be offended, and willing to move outside your comfort zone into a faith that will really transform you and the world around you.

After reading the book I realize that I have been arrogant.  I have bestowed upon myself a level of maturity, that I am far from grasping.  I finished the book broken, and in need of serious change.  I am desperately hoping that some of my friends will read this book and commit to the same steps, hold me accountable, and journey with me.  If you've read the book or want a copy, let me know.  I'd gladly buy you the book if you promise to read it and tell me how it challenges you.

Beer With Jesus

It may come as a shock to some of you who know me, given that I've never had so much as a sip of beer, but I really like the song "Beer with Jesus", by Thomas Rhett.  (Confessing this will probably upset some of my friends who believe that Jesus turned water into "non-alcoholic wine" at the wedding in Cana.)

If you have never heard the song, you should take a listen.  Here is a link to the lyrics.

While the questions posed by the song may not reflect perfect theology, and they made not be the questions that a student of the word would ask, they do reflect a clear desire for a personal relationship with the Savior.

It also makes it clear that Jesus is approachable.  As I listen to the song I can't help but believe that Jesus would like nothing more than to sit down across a table from me, and chat. I don't think He'd mind sipping a beer.

But it's not the beer that intrigues me.  What makes this song so thought provoking is the idea of a corner table and a chance to have a private conversation with Jesus.  Like the singer, "I'd be sure to let Him do the talking," but I'd also have a plethora of questions I'd be "Careful when I got the chance to ask".

My favorite part of the song has to be that the most important question, the one that gets repeated over and over is, "How'd you turn the other cheek, to save a sorry soul like me?"  Of all the other questions I have, that one is really what matters.

We get caught up on whether or not Jesus would actually drink a beer, which church would he attend, who would he vote for, which side would he take on this debate or that debate? Could I sing this song at my church without having people walk out? But the critical question is one of forgiveness.  How does He manage to love a sorry soul like me so much that He forgives me time, after time, after time? 

If I could fully comprehend the depth of that love, how would it change me.  How would it change the way I love others?  Would all of the squabbles and divisions disappear?  Most importantly, how much more approachable would Jesus be to the world...

Wine, Whine, Whine...

So I am in the process of reading the Bible in a year.  Reading through Luke I noticed something that I have somehow missed every other time I’ve read it. 

Luke 5:36-39 - And He was also telling them a parable: “No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. 38 But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. 39 And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good enough.’”

Verse 39 is the one that seemed to suddenly appear.  I’ve memorized 36-38 before, even preached on Matthew’s version of this passage, but somehow missed verse 39.

If you are used to the old wine you won’t want the new wine. 

There are leadership implications here, to be sure. Trying to bring change is going to be hard, if Jesus himself says that everyone who has tasted the old wine is going to be satisfied… Every book on change worth it's cover will tell you that "good enough is the biggest threat to excellent that exists". Well-meaning people become like the Pharisees, obstacles to change, because they like what they first tasted…

But what about the personal implications for someone who wants to constantly be moving and re-thinking?  How do I prevent becoming addicted to a certain kind of wine, and whining about the rest?

I remember being a teenager in the 90's, and thinking that my parents were weird for not liking the new music that was coming out.  Now I’m 31 and my favorite type of music is 90’s rock (now called “adult contemporary”).  I’m pretty much annoyed with most of what comes out today, unless it is heavily influenced by 90’s rock.  I’ve settled into a certain wine skin.  When it comes to music, I say, “The old is better!”

But just because I understand the “old is better” attitude doesn’t mean I can defend it.  That attitude is the one that had Jewish believers upset when Gentiles started coming to Christ.  That attitude is the one that pushed Paul to say (about those who were demanding that Gentiles become circumcised if they wanted to pursue relationship with Jesus) “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”  It is the attitude that caused the first big church counsel in Jerusalem (one that ended in compromise rather than in leadership, and whose decisions were eventually reversed), and the one that caused Paul to oppose Peter to his face in front of the Galatian church.

On the contrary, I have an obligation to do what Paul did, and become “all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some”.  I follow the example of someone who “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped”, but emptied himself, and became like me.  He gave up all the comforts of heaven to suffer through being like me, not because there was anything in it for Him, but because He loved me. 

If singing along with some music I don’t like will help someone else know God’s love, count me in.  If seeing things at church done differently than the way I’ve always done them will help more people come to know Christ in 1 year than in the 5 previous years combined, count me in.  If I have to volunteer in some ways that feel a little awkward, instead of the old comfortable ways, so that I can carry out the great commission, count me in.  

And keep me accountable to my attitude, because I have a tendency to do the right thing through gritted teeth because I know I have to, instead of with genuine love and compassion, and if I do that, then I’m not going to bless anyone.  And I am tempted to only serve with honest love if I get to do it my way, but if I do that I'm just forcing new wine into old wineskins. 

So if I can't serve new wine with a smile, put a cork in me and put me on a shelf in the basement.  The mission of the church is not to keep me content and tithing, but to go and make disciples.  If I get in the way of the mission, then call me Jonah and toss me overboard.  There are plenty of life boats out there that are happy to pick up the picky and serve them their favorite kind of wine.  Maybe I'll even get swallowed by a big fish, get my act together and go do the right thing...

I try to avoid becoming a wine whiner, by remembering that the wine skins that helped last year's crop become a great vintage, might not work well for this year’s harvest; thus the need to constantly move and re-think.   

I am not a change agent, because I want things to be the way I like them.   

I don’t want you to move and rethink your ideas, so that they will be more like mine. 

I want to move and rethink so that I can follow Paul’s example as he followed the example of Christ, so that I will always have new wine-skins ready for new wine, even while I privately prefer and older vintage.

After all, what is old wine to me was once new wine, and someone cared enough to move and re-think their favorite vintage and to create one I could fall in love with.

Unpopular

Have you ever made an unpopular decision because you believed it was the right decision?

Maybe you decided to do something your peers advised you not to to.  Maybe it was the other way around and everyone else was doing something, and you opted out...

I saw a quote the other day that went something like this "You have enemies, GOOD, that means you have stood up for something!"  The implication being that you can't take a stand and not make a few enemies along the way.  My question is, "Does it have to be that way?"

And if you've read my blog you know I'm opinionated, and that I take stands.

In my post "Controversial" I shared a link to a leadership blog, that challenges my thinking.  I then posted my thoughts on said blog in "Controversial II".  I'm an advocate for reading and contemplating ideas that challenge me.  If it wasn't for those challenges I'd be more inclined to coast, and less inclined to think about "The Why Behind the What". 

I think that when I make unpopular decisions, I'll be less incline to make enemies if I do a better job expressing the why behind the what. 

Let me try to explain.  One unpopular decision that I made months ago has come back to the surface recently.  As it does, I find myself wishing that I had done a better job explaining why I made the decision.  Even people that I consider friends, don't seem to understand, which means I did a lousy job explaining. After all, it is one thing to have someone be able to articulate why you made a decision and disagree with you, but it is poor leadership indeed if no one else can even articulate your reasons. 

A few posts ago, I blogged an apology, one that I had to make to several people directly, and that I made to my church as a whole. I did not apologize for what I had said, instead I apologized for how I said it.  I realized, as the result of a significant process, that 'how' you say what you say is as important as 'what' you say.  As I continue to unpack the lessons God has been teaching me, I am realizing more and more that 'why' you say what you say, may be even more important than 'how' or 'what' you say.

I think that is what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 13.  When he said he could speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but it was meaning less without love.  He could fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, but it was empty without love. 

At this point in my process of learning and growing, I think that God made us with a deep need for truth, and an equally deep need to hear it from people to whom we relate.  I think this is the reason God became a man, not because he couldn't relate to us, but because we needed to know that he had experienced everything we experience.  It is easier to take advice from someone who has walked in your shoes.

I also think it is why the Scripture tells us that if our enemy is hungry, we should feed him and if he is thirsty we should give him a drink.  Too often I have ignored a problem or let sin go unaddressed because, "I don't have a strong enough relationship with that person to rebuke them".  Instead, when I see bad behavior, I should become aware of a heart need, and should dive into relationship with that person, so that they will be able to see the why behind the what, the love behind the rebuke, the compassion behind the correction, the way my children hopefully do.

It is certainly not popular to discipline a child (from the child's perspective anyway).  But the first thing my boys want after discipline is a hug.  I hope that is because they know how much I love them, and they want our relationship restored as soon as possible.  This reaction is missing from most of my interactions with adults.  When I have to say unpopular things to adults, (or when I hear unpopular things) the reaction is usually a desire for more distance in our relationship. 

Maybe this is because I haven't taken the time to demonstrate the why behind the what?

Maybe if I take the time to explain the why behind the what, if I make time to let people see my heart instead of just hearing my argument, then people will be able to trust me even when my decisions aren't popular, and I'll be able to take a stand without making enemies...

The Why Behind the What

I don't know about you, but my natural inclination is to coast.  You know, just let the momentum of previous effort or of gravity to do the work, so that I can take a break.  I tend to go through long periods where I just do what is easy or familiar, rather than what is excellent.

I can see the evidence all around me that this is not a good plan.  When I coast at home, the dishes pile up, the trash piles up, and we run out of wood for the wood stove, leading us to burn more oil, sending dollars up the chimney.  Coasting leads me to buy lunch instead of packing it, which leads to ingesting more calories and wasting money.  Coasting leads me to skip the gym, or my daily scripture reading.  Coasting leads me to letting the kids watch cartoons or play video games rather than engaging them.  Coasting leads me to plan my youth group lessons the night before, rather than planning, praying and preparing.

When you've had lots of success in the past, you can build up lots of momentum, and coasting can carry you for a good long time.  It can even go unnoticed that you are loosing speed, if it happens gradually.  The more momentum you had, the longer you can coast before crisis hits.  There is an old Irish proverb that seems quite apt "He who has a reputation for rising at dawn can sleep until noon."

Maybe it's only me, but haven't you had that moment when you realize your house, your car, your weight, or some other aspect of life is such a mess that you just don't even know where to start making it right?  Maybe that realization hits you on multiple fronts all at once, and the temptation is to just bury your head in the sand.  I know that's what happens to me.

So when I wake up to the fact that I've been coasting.  Coasting as a dad, coasting as a husband, coasting as a leader, coasting as an employee, coasting as a disciple, how do I get back on track?

For me the answer is in looking at 'the why behind the what',  i.e. 'motivation'.  Why do I want/need to put in some effort here?

If my house is cleaner, my wife knows I love her.  If I engage my kids, rather than plugging them into some piece of tech, then they are much more inclined to be obedient respectful and responsible, and better equipped to be the men God wants them to be.  If I stop wasting money on donunts and pizza, not only will I be healthier, but I will be able to spend money on something of greater value. If I am purposeful with what I teach teens and parents, then I will get to hear my King say, well done, good and faithful servant. 

If I continue coasting, then I have only to look at proverbs to see what happens to the fool and the sluggard, I can look at Matthew to see what happens to lazy servants and I can look at Revelation and see what happens to the luke warm.

What would it look like if I had a reason for everything that I do.  What reason could I find to watch netflix? what is the rational for spending so much time playing games on my ipad?  What decisions do I make everyday that I really cannot justify?

I've been coasting.  Making decisions because they are easy, not because they are right.  I'm almost out of momentum, and it's time to take a good long look at the "Why" behind "What" I do.

Controversial II

I recently shared a post from Carey Nieuwhof. You can read it here.  He is someone who challenges me to think outside of my 'box' all the time. 

Because his post was, in my mind, so controversial, I asked for feedback, and since I don't get a lot of that here on the blog (not complaining just stating a fact) I put it out on facebook and via e-mail. 

Here is the gist of some of the responses I got:

~ LOVE IT!  I have seen so many ideas go to committee to die, let leaders lead!.
~ Everything in moderation, spend too much time trying to build consensus you'll never do anything, but if you never slow down long enough to think through your ideas with others, then you'll burn a lot of bridges and make some really bad decisions.
~ Lots and lots of verses from Proverbs about how success comes from seeking wise counsel.
~ If leaders don't make sure that absolutely everyone is on board with every the idea, they will destroy the church, the author is wrong, dangerously wrong!

I got a good range of answers!  Exactly what I was hoping for.

One trusted advisor pointed me to Hans Finzel's book, "The Top Ten Mistakes Leaders Make", specifically the chapter on making room for "Mavericks"  (I just happened to have a copy, and being home from work because I was sick yesterday I had plenty of time to read!) In this chapter Finzel talks about the life cycle of organizations.  They tend to follow the life cycle of humans, not able to do much when they first start out, really awkward teenage years where they struggle to define themselves, vibrant adult life full of accomplishments, and a slow decline before eventually dying (or just decomposing).  Finzel says that in the graying years, organizations need "Mavericks", people who defy convention, (and consensus) and are willing to buck the system enough to make it vibrant again.  Effectively they take the organization back to it's adolescent stage, re-introduce it to the awkwardness of trying to define its identity.  The organization then has 2 options.  Change or continue the slide toward irrelevance.

Finzel cautions that you pay careful attention to the difference between a Maverick (Someone who has the goals of your organization at heart, just very different ideas about how to accomplish those goals) and a Malcontent (someone who just doesn't like what you are doing, or thinks their own personal way is the only way or wants to re-define your mission).  He recommends evaluating the ideas of Mavericks, based on the objectives of the organization.  Do they want to completely change your mission? If so, best to ignore their advice.  Is their thinking completely different from the way you've always done things, but their passion is for the same mission you've always had? Maybe you need to give them room to grow.   

Finzel concludes by saying that, "The best way to take the wind out of the sails of a visionary is to send their ideas to committee." Which is I believe the very same point Carey is trying to make.

So here is my take:
Don't kill ideas by sending them to committee. Instead, have standards (a measuring consistent measuring stick) for evaluating suggestions so that you can keep the good ones and filter out the bad ones!

Here is a sample set of standards:
1. Is it Biblical (if not, don't waste your time)
2. Is it in keeping with the mission of our organization (if you are running a nursing home ministry and someone wants to allocate resources to open a preschool, they may have come to the wrong place.)
3. Does the person presenting the idea demonstrate the following:
  a. Experience (Maybe not the 5 decades of experience you have, but have they done some time in the trenches?  after all you can't lead until you've learned to follow.)
  b. Research (if someone is reading everything they can get their hands on about the topic, they are far more credible than people who won't show up to a meeting or read a book)
  c. Passion (Please don't confuse passion with how loudly they speak! instead ask yourself, "Do they live the ministry they want your organization to be a part of?"  )
  d. A willingness to seek and take advice (if they won't listen to the Proverbs and won't take advice, they they can't be trusted with leadership. True leadership requires a submissive, servant's heart)
  e. Willingness to work within the current system. (or do they refuse to volunteer until they get their way?)


What would you add to or subtract from the list?