Shapevine :: Feeds

World Magazine on Multi-site

World Magazine reports on the dialogue that Geoff Surratt and I started here at the blog. Both Geoff and I had a follow-up interview with the reporter, Mark Bergin.

Here are some excerpts, mainly focusing on my comments and Geoff's comments. Since the article is for subscribers, I am guessing they would not want me to duplicate the whole thing... but since they draw from our conversation here, it seems OK to cite those parts of the article.

The subtitle is a bit sensational ("mania," etc.) but the article is relatively "pro" when it examines multi-site.

Here are some excerpts:

Out of one, many

Multi-site churches are growing, spreading across cultures, and redefining the concept of gathered worship, for better and for worse. From high-tech to low-frills, unanswered questions and unproven strategies of NextGen churches have yet to slow the mania

...But unanswered questions and unproven strategies have yet to slow multi-site mania. Nationally prominent pastors from a variety of evangelical circles, such as John Piper, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and Timothy Keller, have become pioneers. A LifeWay Research survey last year found that 16 percent of Protestant churches in the United States are considering adding at least one campus within the next two years. Other LifeWay findings are due out next spring with the publishing of Scott McConnell's Multi-Site Churches: Guidance for the Movement's Next Generation.

Ed Stetzer, an experienced church planter and president of LifeWay Research, hopes its data will help protect against what he sees as common pitfalls of the movement: "Here's my main concern: Now that multi-site has become the next big thing, will people take the time to do it well or will they simply set up theaters with videos? Often what multi-site becomes is one prominent pastor projecting his image into another town without a missiological or evangelistic strategy accompanying it."

As interim pastor of the multi-site First Baptist Church in Hendersonville, Tenn., Stetzer does not oppose using multiple venues. But in "Questions for McChurch," a recent magazine column for Outreach, he outlines several potential negatives of the model: diminished pastoral care, the discouraging of church community, and fewer pulpits to develop young leaders.

Geoff Surratt, co-author of The Multi-Site Church Revolution (Zondervan, 2006), takes issue with Stetzer's criticisms. He says the multi-site model fosters greater pastoral care, deeper community, and more opportunities for young leaders to develop as preachers and teachers. He says that at Seacoast Church, where he serves as pastor of ministries, the congregation's 13 sites in the Carolinas and Georgia have helped section a large church of 10,000 people into smaller, more manageable blocs. Campus pastors direct the individual mission- and community-building at the various satellites.

Surratt relates how Seacoast "opened a campus in an inner city area where other churches were moving out. We moved in and started providing clothes, teaching English as a second language, and trying to meet the needs of the community." He notes that one campus pastor has parlayed such ministry experience into a thriving church plant, the success of which Surratt attributes to lessons learned at a Seacoast site.

Critics of multi-site expansion are apt to interpret the morphing of a campus pastor into a church planter as evidence that starting new churches is a more noble and significant enterprise than starting new campuses. Trouble is, that charge fails to recognize that many of the most committed church-planting churches in the country are also knee deep in multi-site ministry. Seacoast co-founded the Association of Related Churches, which has planted 60 new congregations since its inception in 2001.

According to a recent Outreach magazine report, the top two church-planting churches in the country are Redeemer Presbyterian (part of the Presbyterian Church in America denomination), which holds services at four sites in Manhattan and has planted more than 100 churches, and Mars Hill Church, which operates 16 services at seven locations in and around Seattle.

Stetzer celebrates such examples of internal and external replication: "I'm not a theologically driven critic of multi-site. I'm a critic of it done poorly. If you don't think this through and you don't have the right motives, you end up with a baby that grows up to be pretty ugly."

The speed and agility with which a large church can mobilize into new areas are among the benefits of planting a new campus rather than a new church. People, resources, systems, and values are already in place to make an instant impact. What's more, the church is often a known entity in the region with name recognition and existing appeal.

A desire to leverage that established brand for all it's worth has pressed some multi-site churches to launch online campuses, complete with pastoral leadership, community building chat tools, and even Sunday altar calls. Seacoast, with an online campus that currently generates only sparse participation, is still struggling to determine whether such a virtual venue truly constitutes a church. Baptism, communion, and the laying on of hands are proving difficult.

Other congregations, such as LifeChurch.tv out of Edmond, Okla., have embraced church online without reservation. The 13-campus church attracts several thousand weekly visitors to its five online service times. The interactive "worship experiences" include live chat with other online parishioners in a virtual lobby or seated in the same virtual row. Congregants may push a button to indicate response to the 40-year-old pastor Craig Groeschel's regular sermon-ending call for conversion.

Though cheesy to some, such applications may be useful to prisoners, the handicapped, and the elderly. Online church services offer a higher level of interaction than television preachers--not to mention availability to a wider variety of content and styles.

Stetzer believes such online outreach is a valid tool, provided it serves people who cannot physically attend church or offers an aid for people to connect and move into physical community. "The problem is when people equate it to church with online baptisms and that kind of stuff," he said. "You have to assemble, and that requires feet, not electrons."

By and large a good story. I would like to have explored some of the ecclesiological issues of why churches should "assemble" and not just meet on-line, but such is life when it comes to word counts.

One small mistake, the church I serve is not multi-site, it is multi-venue.

And, I would also add that this paragraph only tells part of the story:

Critics of multi-site expansion are apt to interpret the morphing of a campus pastor into a church planter as evidence that starting new churches is a more noble and significant enterprise than starting new campuses. Trouble is, that charge fails to recognize that many of the most committed church-planting churches in the country are also knee deep in multi-site ministry. Seacoast co-founded the Association of Related Churches, which has planted 60 new congregations since its inception in 2001.

Though the writer is correct with his examples (and I know and appreciate ARC and the churches he cites), I think it would also be helpful to point out that many of the most well known multi-site churches have no church planting strategy involvement at all.

It is good point out that the leading church planting churches in American are multi-site (and for the record, I made that list of leading church planting churches to which the writer refers-- and reported that they were multi-site), but I think that the fact that some of the best church planting churches are multi-site does not mean that most multi-site churches are deeply involved in church planting... I wish they were! (You might want to take a look at Aubrey Malphurs comments on that very issue here.)

And, finally, I wish they would have pointed out the great dialogue that Geoff and I had about it here at the blog. You can find that here. Conflict makes a good story, but I don't feel much conflict with Geoff!

By the way, Geoff will be contributing to the book LifeWay Research is publishing on multi-site (along with several other current practitioners).

All in all, a good article... though, as I have written before when the USAToday and AP did the same thing, I find it odd that people use my blog as a source for news.

Thinking about Ministry in Orlando

Whenever I come to Orlando, I end up thinking about life and ministry.

Today was a day like that. After I finished teaching class, my daughter and I did a little tour and I shared with her part of her dad's (and her mom's) journey. She seemed interested, but it might have been the promise of ice cream along the way.

I was born and reared in New York and list that as "home" on forms that ask. However, Orlando has a lot of memories for me. I lived here as a teenager and had some significant milestones during those years:

1. I came to Christ in Orlando.
2. I was discipled here (in a new church plant as a teenager).
3. I met my wife in High School. We were high school sweethearts and even went to the prom together.
4. My sister died here (in 1987).
5. I grew greatly in my faith through, and in some cases because of, those things.

So, today I went by my old house (which was just torn down), the restaurant where I had my first date with Donna, my sister's memorial garden, and some other meaningful places with my daughter.

Being in Orlando makes me wish it was a simpler time when I did not have to worry about books and research, the challenges of denominational structures, who has this-or-that agenda, what event I was speaking at next, or what I had to say (or not say) at the next place.

I miss those days when things were simpler and it seemed that the big concerns were loving God, growing in faith, and helping others do the same. I am sure it was not as simple as I remember, but coming to Orlando makes me wish it was.

Being here makes me want to go back in time, grab a guitar (yes, I play, though not well), and go start a church with nothing but God, a Bible, and a mission...

So, pardon my musings. It was just a good day. It reminded me of what really matters... and it prompts me to adjust some things in my own life today and over the next few months.

EdStetzer 2.0

As you can tell, the blog has undergone a major redesign. When LifeWay upgraded our blogging platform to the most recent version of Movable Type, I decided it was time to give the blog an overhaul and knew Tim Challies was a guy I wanted to talk to. Tim is an uber blogger, an author and a professional web designer.

I wanted a unique, professional look that is easy to navigate and Tim really delivered. We are still building a few pages, but everything else is complete. I am very pleased with what Tim has done here and I hope it makes your visit more enjoyable. For those who need a little help understanding the "interweb" and the features of this blog, I've put together a brief guide to the blog that may be of help.

Navigation

The navigation at the top of the blog of the page will take you to general information concerning:

• Lifeway Research (primarily a link to the actual LifeWay Research site and a list of national news stories including of LWR),


• the Lifeway Research Team,


• my speaking schedule, and


• the blog archives.

You can find all my blog series in the sidebar, as well as a link to the books I have written.

Recent Comments

The "Recent Comments" section in the sidebar lists the six most recent comments left by blog readers on various posts. It's a quick and easy way to see where the conversation on the blog is taking place. If you leave a comment it will show up here. For comment guidelines please see the end of this post.

Twitter

What is Twitter? Think of it as a way to peek into my world, see where I am, what I am doing and what I am thinking as it happens. You can see the most recent "tweets" (brief posts, typically written from my cell phone) in my sidebar, but it's even more fun to sign up and follow on Twitter. You can follow me or subscribe to my Twitter at www.twitter.com/edstetzer.

The example to the right is a little tame, but today's twittering of the ICRS is here with about a dozen pictures and "commentary" here.

Article Series

Important topics that receive a number of posts are collected together in one place for easy reference. You can find them listed by topic in the sidebar. Click the topic link and you'll be directed to a page containing links to all the relevant posts on that topic.

Facebook

I'm on Facebook as well. Facebook is a social networking site that connects people all over the world, allowing for varying levels of interaction. If you are on Facebook, look me up here.

Noteworthy Items

You'll notice in the sidebar a section titled "Noteworthy Items." These are blog posts and articles around the web that are interesting, thought provoking, and worth a read. I am not endorsing everything linked, but consider worth thinking through and potentially discussing. You can find of my Noteworthy Items here.

Comment Guidelines

You will see this at the bottom of the articles now:

You are welcome (and encouraged) to comment on the blog, but be sure your comment relates to the post. Feel free to discuss the topic, but do not denigrate individuals. You may use HTML to style your comment. Comments are moderated and usually appear within 15 minutes of being posted. Regrettably, Ed cannot personally respond to most comments and questions.

I would love to hear any feedback from you and suggestions are welcome (perhaps for version 2.1!). Thanks for being a reader!

My Orlando Week

In case you are interested... here is my week in sunny Orlando.

I am flying down to Orlando in a couple of hours for some speaking, meetings, and some time with my youngest daugther, Kaitlyn.

Here's what's up:

Wednesday Morning

I will be heading to ICRS (International Christian Retail Show) in the morning, which used to be called CBA (Christian Booksellers Association), but basically is a shrine to all things commercial related to Christianity and Christian bookstores. I will be Twittering and it might get me in trouble.

Wednesday Lunch

I will be lunching with Joel Hunter (from Northland Church, and president of the Christian Coalition for a couple of hours) and Steve Childers (prof. at Reformed Seminary in Orlando and all around Jesusy guy).

Wednesday Afternoon through Friday noon

I will be teaching my doctoral students. My syllabus is here. I will teach them till Friday noon.

Thursday Morning

Steve Sjogren, of Servant Evangelism fame and founder of the Cincinnati Vineyard will guest lecture for me. Steve and I will then go to lunch with his staff.

Friday Morning

After breakfast with the staff of Crosspointe Orlando, Chan Kilgore (the pastor) will come and guest lecture in my class.

Friday Afternoon

Disney World with Kaityln.

Saturday Morning

Disney world with Kaityln.

Saturday Night and Sunday Morning

Preaching at Church at the Springs in Ocala (Ron Sylvia is the pastor). I will be preaching Saturday night and Sunday morning for 4 (count 'em, 4) services.

Ron says I should eat my Wheaties. Indeed.

Sunday Afternoon

Flying to Albuquerque and then up to Glorieta for the next week-- teaching and finishing my book!

Influencing Churches at Rev! Magazine

Yesterday, I received an email from Alan Nelson, telling me about some changes in his role. Alan is moving to California and moving from full-time editor to part-time Executive Editor of Rev! Magazine. He will be doing more speaking and writing now and you can find out more about him at www.alanenelson.com.

Anyway, all that to say that it reminded me of a recent article I published with the magazine, I think it was in the last issue. If you are a subscriber, you have already read the article. But, if not, let me share it below.

The theme of the article is change. This has been a "change" week for me. I am right now at Ridgecrest, NC where I have been teaching on the subject for the last few days. And, I just started reading Who Stole My Church, which is, so far, and excellent fictional parable of a church struggling with change.

When Mike Dodson and I wrote Comeback Churches, we did so to help churches change to reach their community. And, yes, it requires change. You cannot do the same thing and expect different results. However, Alan Nelson at Rev! challenged us with the question: how do you motivate people to make that change. The result is the article below:

"What are you doing? He's done. He's finished. Get him outta there!" The game is in the latter innings, and the pitcher is losing his stuff. The manager or the pitching coach goes out to the mound and talks it over with the pitcher and the catcher and decides to leave him in the game for one more batter. If you are a fan, you say to yourself (or scream out loud at the TV), "Take him out." Why? Because for many people in different contexts, we intuitively understand the need for change. The 324 pastors we studied in Comeback Churches knew they had to make such changes-- and they figured out the right time to make them.

We can sense the loss of momentum at times within our ministry. We realize that we have been coasting along, not staying sharp. We begin to see that we have eased our way into a plateau, or worse, things have started to decline. What do we do next? We know that some changes will be required. Keeping things the way they are will likely just get more of the same results. The bigger issues are figuring out what specific changes need to be made, when to make those changes, how to navigate opposition to change, and who will help make the needed changes.

What to change? - Identifying and addressing attitude issues. The biggest obstacle to making a comeback for most churches and leaders will be identifying and addressing attitude issues. Comeback leaders often mentioned that a "slow" or "no-growth"(1) attitude was the biggest obstacle to church revitalization. We defined some of these issues in Comeback Churches in a section we called the "Dirty Baker's Dozen." Does your church display any of these attitudes? Here is an abbreviated list:

• Institutionalized church--this is the church that has lost its way within the forms and programs of ministry. This church is just going through the motions and has forgotten the real purpose for which it exists.
• Voluntary association church--this church functions more like a democracy rather than based on New Testament principles. Competing factions help maintain the "status quo" because of a desire to keep everyone happy.
• Unintentional church--this is the church that often has good intentions but have difficulty acting on those intentions. This church has a hard time embracing an intentional process for making disciples.
• "Us four and nor more" church--this is the church that practically believes that growth will destroy their "sweet fellowship." The desire is to maintain a "family feel" which can make it hard for new people to break into the group.
• "We can't compete" church--this is most often the smaller church that has concluded that there is no way they can compete with the program-rich larger churches, and so, they stop trying to be the church.

You get the idea. These should help you get the process of identifying attitude issues in your church started. Once you have started identifying attitudes that need to change, what's next?

When to change? - Making sure the time and timing is right. Many pastors and church leaders recognize that things aren't right when their church is in plateau or decline. When discussing the need to make changes, many leaders want to make the changes yesterday. All they want to know is-- "How quickly can I make these changes?" That may be the wrong question. A better question might be-- "Am I ready to wrestle the wild animal of making changes until the job is done?"

Two things to consider when making changes:

First, leading the process of change in making a comeback is not easy; if it were, everybody would be doing it. Making changes can be like breaking a wild horse, wrestling an alligator, or stirring up a hornet's nest.

Second, most experts on leading change talk about a process that will take--hours? ... No! Days? ... No! Weeks? ... No! Months? ... No! Years? ... Yes, that's likely how much time it will take in many situations to effectively lead change. The first issue in leading the process of change is to get it set in your heart and mind that it will take TIME, likely several years, to lead a church to effective renewal.

Remember, that leading churches to change is a process that will take time. Churches do not develop slow or no-growth attitudes overnight, and they will likely not lay down those attitudes and pick up new ones overnight either. Once you have the TIME issue in mind, the next issue to consider is timing.

How to handle opposition to change? - Making sure the timing is right.

Making changes in church life is always going to be necessary, but it is also true that at least some people in every church are going to resist or flat-out oppose change. Therefore, it is not only vital to consider what needs to change and how long that change process is likely to take, but also to consider issues of timing so that you and other church leaders are prepared to handle opposition to change most effectively.

Two matters are important in handling opposition to change--understanding the nature of change in churches and following some key principles of timing.

When faced with the reality of needing to change, many established congregations will function in what Roxburgh and Romanuk call the "Reactive Zone." A church will "respond to the changing environment by working harder to make their dominant habits, programs, and actions effective."(2) In other words, people will react to change by adopting the attitude that, "We don't really need to change. We just need to work harder at what we are already doing." Or, churches will adopt the attitude that they need to reemphasize the commitments that church members need to keep. They try to regulate their way out of the situation rather than really dealing with the change process that is needed.

One of the challenges in changing a church is its history. Not because its history is bad but because it provides an idealized memory of what things once were rather than a path into a future that must be. And, the more successful a past was, the more likely people want to return to it-- which is why those who were most successful in a past paradigm have the most difficulty transitioning to the next.

At least two leadership challenges exist in this reactive zone:

• "First, one must become aware that the challenges are no longer routine and can't be addressed by the methods and assumptions of the performative zone. Simply put, the system is in a situation where performative strategies, values, and approaches will never work. Decisions must be made and action taken that no longer fit an established paradigm. The issues the organization faces are not well understood, and attention needs to be given to developing people's awareness and understanding of the situation, not to strategic plans or organization.
• Second, the reactive zone is a place of instability and crisis that must be managed, not fixed. While people are experiencing crisis, they cannot risk substantive change. The organization needs a measure of stability to cultivate the creativity and innovation required to rediscover missional life. . . the primary skills for doing this involve cultivating dialogue and listening across the system . . . This is usually not the first instinct of reactive zone leaders in crisis, who often address their own anxiety by coming up with some form of bold plan (we think of BHAG, or "Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals)."(3)

Basically, churches and people don't respond to change well-- they often react with anger, denial, working harder, etc. rather than dealing with the real nature of change. So, the first way to begin addressing the need to change is to begin cultivating dialogue about where things really are with key people in the church and then, listen intently to how they respond. Then together, the church can begin to formulate a way forward. Here are some other principles to consider that will help you handle opposition and develop a sense of timing as you engage in the process of change:

• Principle #1: Pray fervently that God will clearly reveal needed changes to you and the congregation.
• Principle #2: Begin to clearly and specifically define the changes that are needed.
• Principle #3: Be objective--plainly outline positive and negative forces impacting the situation with other key leaders and influencers.
• Principle #4: Consider issues like support level for change in the congregation, who are the key influencers, and what is your current level of credibility.
• Principle #5: Create healthy discontent in one or two key areas in partnership with key influencers.
• Principle #6: Strategize your approach as much as possible and expect resistance.
• Principle #7: Create structures to support the change and create a systematic way to engage in conflict resolution as necessary.

As you apply these principles, remember that change is a process that God must and will help you navigate your way through. Don't expect the process of change to go smoothly or perfectly. No one is going to have all the answers in your situation. Ultimately, ministry should be and is a journey of faith and discovery, and leading change is part of ministry. Finally, as you embark on the journey of leading change remember to take others with you.

Who will change? - Involving others in the change process. Initially, it is really important to look for key people who will be willing to adopt necessary changes and help influence others to make changes. According to the "Rogers Adoption/Innovation Curve," the way people respond to change is categorized this way:

• 2.5% are Innovators.
• 13.5% are Early Adopters.
• 34% are Early Majority.
• 34% are Late Majority.
• 16% are Laggards. (4)

Therefore, in the early stages of the change process you will want to discern who the Innovators and Early Adopters might be. These are the people to begin discussing things with first.

In addition, here are some other things to consider when leading people to change:

• It is more likely that people will respond negatively to change the more complex or complicated the proposed changes are.
• The person proposing change will often be the object of ridicule.
• Some changes will be more readily accepted and others will not.
• Change agents' expectations will likely influence the outcome.

Another aspect of involving others in the change process is developing trust, and that can take some time. How do you develop trust? Trust develops from providing information that is complete and accurate. Trust develops from being consistent in the way you interact with others. Trust develops when people know that you are really listening to their concerns and genuinely care about honoring Christ. How do you know when you have their trust? Through your interactions with people and their willingness to follow your leadership, you will be able to gauge their level of trust.

Concluding Thoughts

Influencing churches to change their attitudes is often not a quick and easy process. Different schools of thought exist regarding how and when to make changes. But, here are some summary thoughts and illustrations that can help you influence your situation in regard to making attitude changes.

Clearly and specifically identify the attitude changes that are needed and then begin to help others see the reality of the situation. Often, people are not going to change their attitudes until the pain of functioning in the "same old, same old" way is greater than the pain of making necessary changes. In that case, someone has to inflict some pain in a loving way--speak the truth in love. Many times, churches must face the reality of not living up to their God-given potential. They may need to feel the pain of having children who no longer come to their parents' church or friends and neighbors who want nothing to do with the church. In a loving way, we may need to help them see that staying the same will not lead to making a Great Commission impact. Change is not only important but necessary.

"Tom Landry, the coach of the Dallas Cowboys, defined coaching as 'making men do what they don't want, so they can become what they want to be.' An apt description of the pastoral task is to call people to do what they don't want so they can become what they want to be." (5) Ultimately, one of the key tasks of leadership that has been entrusted to us is this--helping churches move beyond what they may WANT to be and do so that they can become all that they NEED to be in Christ. That's leadership.

Setting a slower pace for change in more established churches can positively impact being able to make changes. Mark Potvin has been the pastor at Centreville Baptist Church in Centreville, Nova Scotia. He stated that getting older church members to trust a new vision and direction for the church was a profound task at times. He disclosed that this process required some time and involved a change in focus, "One challenge of revitalizing a small church is getting older people to understand the need for change. One major key for us has been the willingness of our older generation members to change and accept change. We began doing things differently, like making young people a key focus of the church. If it hadn't been for the willingness of those older members, we might be declining or already dead." (6)

As pastors and leaders, we often see the need for change long before those we are leading. Remember, as you observe the need for change and spend hours or days at a time contemplating and wrestling with needed changes, the people in your congregation have not had the benefit of all that reflection and thought process that has already gone on in your heart and mind. Often, it will be helpful for you to "unpack" change more slowly than you desire to unpack it. This will give people time to think through the impact of needed changes and adjust.

As you consider making changes, keep the process of making disciples as the key priority in the church. "One of the key things to our growth has been the change in our leaders' attitudes about their spiritual growth," commented George Showers, pastor of the Seville Community Church of God (7) in Elwell, Michigan. "They have come to a point where they participate in weekly Bible studies together, as well as participating in group discipleship studies. One particular example of leaders coming from the laity has occurred in our youth group. We have a couple that has stepped up and become key mentors, chaperones, and whatever else we need them to be to our youth. Also, when we began our building program, we had two guys who are contractors give resources and time to help with the cost of the building. They had never done anything like that before." (8)

As we alluded to earlier, leading change should always involve a spiritual dynamic. The greatest asset to change will be God's people being renewed and revitalized in their relationships with Jesus Christ. The highest rated item by Comeback Leaders in the study of Comeback Churches was "renewed belief in Jesus Christ and the mission of the church." Do not underestimate this simple but powerful dynamic. Ask God to renew the hearts of His people and renew their passion to fulfill the mission that He has given us to make disciples.

Leaders in most plateaued and declining churches have lost their passion. If you desire to lead others to change, find a way to be renewed yourself. Find another pastor, friend, or denominational leader who can encourage you and hold you accountable in being renewed spiritually. Then, you will be able to get to a place where you can lead others to Christ and spiritual renewal. As you lead others to renewed belief in Jesus Christ and the church's disciple-making mission, they will become more open to the process of change needed in the church.
------------------------------------------------------

I would love to hear from you--

• What have you learned about change in the church?


• What advice would you give to others about to lead change?


• What am I missing here in this article?

If you don't mind, be sure to sign your entry as I might quote you in a future article.

Footnotes:

1 A slow growth attitude is when churches believe that the only way their church is going to grow is slowly over a long period of time. A no-growth attitude is when a church believes that their church really doesn't need to be concerned about growing, what's important is just being faithful. These attitudes can surface in many different ways.

2 Alan J. Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader: Equipping Your Church to Reach a Changing World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006, 49. This book provides an excellent discussion of the nature of change and, in particular, how churches can respond to the need for missional change.

3 Ibid., 54.

4 http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_rogers_innovation_adoption_curve.html.

5 Bill Hull, The Disciple-Making Pastor. (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1988), 91.

6 Mark Potvin, January 30, 2006.

7 www.sevillechurchofgod.org.

8 George Showers, February 2, 2006.<

Threads & Connect Conf. (updated below)

Warning: I am talking about resources and conferences... beware of shameless plugs!

As I've mentioned before, I'm doing some work with LifeWay's Threads initiative. They are good folks and I've enjoyed working with them. We'll be releasing a new Bible study this fall called, Sent: Living The Missional Nature Of The Church. I am excited about seeing the ideas of missional living in a small group format.

I've also told you about my new co-authored book, Lost and Found: The Younger Unchurched and The Churches That Reach Them. It will release this October in Atlanta at the Catalyst Conference. One of my co-authors, Jason Hayes, serves as a face and voice for Threads by providing teaching, consulting, writing, etc.

All this to say, Threads is hosting a series of regional events this fall that I would encourage you to check out called, Connect Conferences. I'll be participating at several locations along with folks like Jason, Margaret Feinberg, Michael Kelley, and several others. Click here for more information.

Here's a quick snippet that will help you better understand the nature of these conferences. Be sure to register immediately as each location is limited to 75 participants.

Are you concerned when you hear reports from LifeWay Research and others showing that today's 20-somethings are less connected to the church than any previous generation? Do you think to the future and wonder what our churches will look like in twenty years if this large part of the population continues to be disconnected from God and His church?

Threads is passionate about making a difference. We invite you to join us for a regional Connect Conference near you in 2008. You will learn more about young adults, understand some of the many reasons they leave the church and often stay away, network with other leaders in your area and walk away with some do-able next steps and encouragement for your ministry.

Threads is limiting registration for each Connect Conference to 75 people, allowing us to customize the training to the questions on your heart and that face your region, while offering you a more hands-on event experience. This intimate number also provides opportunities for you to engage in discussion with seasoned ministers and best practice leaders in the area of young adult ministry.

Sales pitch over...

Update:

Jason Hayes, one of the other speakers at the Connect Conferences, shows forth his communication gifts below. After watching this, you won't want to miss the conference.

Jason blogs here and explains his train wreck here.

Jason has since busted up his jaw (in a boating accident, no less). I saw him yesterday and, unfortunately, this video may be the last time he communicates with a normal look on his face.

(Actaully, he is doing much better and he really is a good communicator.)

By the way, here is the final cover of our co-authored book, Lost and Found: The Younger Unchurched and the Churches that Reach Them.

Catalyst Monthly is Out

It is a fascinating mix of articles at Catalyst: Take a look.

My article, based on the ideas in my new book, Compelled by Love, agrees that ministry is tiring, and can leave us asking, "Why bother?" We should ask that question.

...sometimes, we get tired.

The "wet blanket committee" roams the church to see what passion they can squelch. Tons of logistical work has to be done when all you really want to do is talk to people about Jesus. And there's the never ending cycle of dreaming, strategy, and vision-casting. It's a lot for one person to handle.

So why?

Because of love. Not love like a Reese Witherspoon romantic-comedy or an afternoon talk show pseudo-psychology counseling session. I'm talking about love that asks you to die for the greater good. Like Jack Bauer in 24. Or Leonidas and the Spartans. The kind of love that motivates us should be the same as Christ - a dying love.

Love stands at the center of the Christian life. Understood rightly, it is the "why." It is the supreme command of scripture. When Christ was asked to name the greatest law, he pointed out that it is to love God supremely and others sacrificially (Matthew 22:37-40).

I hope you'll check out the article and are able to find encouragement in it.

Just a reminder: I will be presenting some new research on the main stage at the Catalyst Conference this year, in addition to hosting an IMB event and leading some breakouts. Hope to see you there.

SBC Messengers-- Age Analysis

Baptist Press reported today on the SBC messengers in Indianapolis. Registration Secretary Jim Wells has always done a good job with this thankless job.

The number of messengers is not encouraging, but since so many have already commented on that, I want to look at the younger messenger numbers for two reasons:

1. I was young a couple years ago (at least I was under 40).
2. We have done some research on age trends and I have opined on the subject earlier.

From the BP story today:

According to data from 672 messengers who provided additional information during the registration process, messengers 18-29 years old accounted for 5.95 percent of the total; 30-34, 4.76 percent; 35-39, 5.51 percent; 40-44, 5.51 percent; 45-49, 13.10 percent; 50-54, 14.73 percent; 55-59, 18.90 percent; 60 and over, 31.25 percent.

The writer, Mark Kelly, rightfully points out, "The percentage of messengers in the 18-29 category almost doubled over the 3.12 percent at the 2007 meeting in San Antonio." That's good-- and a step in the right direction. (This year, there were 40 messengers reporting their age that fit in this age category. In 2007 San Antonio, it was 20. In 2006, it was 53 and back in 2005 it was 106 for that age group.)

Of those who reported, 16.22% of the messengers were 18-39 year olds or the "under 40 leaders" that are often referenced and that we analyzed in our story earlier this year.

Some quick thoughts:

• The good news is that it is up from last year... that is worth celebrating


• The not-as-good news it is more in line (percentage) with the two years before, which were not-so-good years. (It is lower numerically as overall attendance continues to shrink.)


• The bad news is that it fits where the trend line would predict (see graph below) and, following the trend line, is probably an adjustment to the trend line.


• The "more bad" news is that this age group represented 24.33% the last time the SBC met in Indianapolis just four years ago. (And, in case you are wondering, it was 27.4% in 1992.)
  

Here is the chart from our recent research (not updated with this year's info):

Here is the chart that Scott McConnell, Associate Director here at LifeWay Research produced yesterday:

This year's numbers (in both catagories we tracked) is right where it is "supposed" to be, at least if it follows the trend line. The trend is declining for young messengers and growing for older.

Perhaps this is why, during a powerful moment from Ted Traylor's nomination speech, Ted encouraged the messengers to look around and be concerned about the lack of young leaders.

But don't worry... there is no young leader problem. It is just a figment of your imagination. (OK. There really is a problem and I am just reminding you in my always charming and humorous way.)

But, maybe this is the first sign of a turnaround... probably not, based on the trend line, but I am still just willing to pray and believe that it might be.

God is bigger than trend lines.

Here is what I said at the end of our research article on the subject:

"Oddly enough, in some quarters there has actually been a debate about whether the SBC attendance is aging and losing its young leaders," Stetzer said. "Of course, facts don't convince everyone. My hope is that now, finally, we will stop debating and instead ask the hard question: 'What is causing so many young leaders to stay away?'

But, as I said in my post-SBC analysis, I am still encouraged. Once people acknowledge the problem (and increasingly they did at this year's SBC), the more likely we are to focus on the real issues, not pretend everything is going "just fine, thank you."

I know that I am much like a broken record, but let me remind you of what I believe we need, from my earlier commentary on SBC decline:

First, we have to deal with the continued loss of SBC leaders. As we have recently reported in Facts & Trends, we have witnessed a serious (and increasing) depopulation of young leaders at our convention. Also, ethnic leadership remains absent after decades of ethnic change in America...

A second issue is the infighting which defines so much of the SBC--its meetings, its churches, and its blogs... Satan has used our incessant bickering over non-essentials to promote his last great mission on earth--to keep lost people lost... If the focus of every SBC meeting is a new controversy to be debated, new parameters to be narrowed, and new issues to be fought, the trend toward decline will only accelerate.

The third, and most important, issue is our loss of focus on the Gospel... We must recover a gospel centrality and cooperate in proclaiming that gospel locally and globally.

Feel free add your own thoughts, analysis, or ideas below. I am out speaking today but will get back later this afternoon.

Weeping for Willow's Disciples

As most of you who read here know, I am not a big Willow guy, largely because I have some concerns about seeker-driven ministry.

They are good people and they love Jesus, and I have learned some good things from them, but my approach to church heads a different way. But, I have learned a lot from Hybels. And, I am interested to see how these things progressed lately.

Willow has made news by, well, correcting the news. The Christian Post has the story here. And, finally, Out of Ur sorta' repents for their sensationalist headline.

When all the hubub first came up, I jumped into the fray in my monthly column in Outreach Magazine called "As I See It." (If you are a subscriber, you would have read it already! If you are not, go here and subscribe.)

The article was birthed out of my surprise at how quickly people lied about what Willow and Hybels had said. Yes, I think some were unintentional errors, and some were irresponsible spreading of misinformation, but some of it was lying.

Some misquoted what others misquoted. However, I was very surprised to see how freely people just, well, lied-- all in the name of good theology.

So, I went on a bit of a rant-- particularly addressing those who thought Willow's concern for relevance was the problem.

Here is the article.

Weeping for Willow's Disciples

Willow Creek repents! The evil barbarians have admitted they were wrong. Seeker churches are bad. John MacArthur is the man.

And we knew it all along. Seeker churches do not produce disciples--and even Hybels sees that now!

Too bad that is not what Hybels or the Willow team said.

Before I get too far in my rant, I must confess I am not a big proponent of seeker driven churches. My understanding of church heads a different direction. But, I am a big fan of the 9th commandment and think we ought to follow it.

Why am I not a "seeker guy"? Well, I think we need to take seekers into account when we plan what we do-- but I prefer calling that making church "seeker comprehensible." For me, I want our gathered worship to be driven more by worship and Word-- but I have learned a lot from Hybles about loving the lost, making sure my message is understandable, and having a compelling vision. And, I am learning more about how to admit you made a mistake.

So rather than listening to all the giddy Willow haters, let's take a look at what Hybels actually said:

"We made a mistake... What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and became Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become self feeders.
We should have gotten people (and) taught people how to read their Bible between services (and) how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own."
Hybels indicated that the emphasis on programs and meetings did not produce disciples.

What does make disciples? We will soon be releasing a study at LifeWay Research that looks at over 2500 people and tracks their spiritual formation over time (longitudinally) to answer that very question.

Here are some things we have already found.

First, genuinely seeking God first in one's life produces the fruit of discipleship in a way that participating in weekly church activities cannot.

Second, being in small community makes a big difference. Those who were in small groups showed remarkably more maturity than those who were not.

More on that next year...

But, the elephant in evangelicalism is this: We have spruced up the worship, spiked up the sermons, and become great at organization-- all the while we are failing to produce disciples.

If Hybels wants to use drama, have everyone on the worship team wear matching shirts, and reaches sparkly clean suburban Unchurched Harry and Mary-- great. If you want to wear a suit, sing from a hymnal, and yell when you preach, super. The real question is this-- does your church obey the Great Commission? And, the command of the Great Commission was not to "go" (that was assumed), it was to "make disciples."

I am glad Willow takes discipleship serious enough to ask hard questions then seek to discern the answers. I am just a bit worried that all the "I told you so" might be distracting people from the 70% young adult drop out rate at most Protestant churches, or the huge divorce epidemic, or porn addition, or whatever.

I know many Willow haters hate relevance. I can hear it now, "Brother, we don't need to be relevant, we just need to preach the word."

But, let's remember one of the four things from our recent dropout study that were most predictive of keeping young adults in church. Young adults were more likely to stay in church when they considered the sermons relevant to life.

So, after the Sunday message railing against Hybels and relevance, make sure to stand at the back door and watch the 20 year olds say good-bye-- 'cause you probably won't see them next week if not being relevant is a core value of your church.

So, relevance matters. Willow is not "repenting of relevance" they are repenting for what 95% of churches in America should also repent-- not creating Christ honoring, spiritually formed disciples. For thinking that sitting people down and having them read studies will make them disciples.

So, rather then, "let's get Hybles" can we try, "let's get serious"?

Now, you may not like Seeker churches. Great. But, listen to what the man said. Then, go home to your church and take a look at your programs and ask, "How many disciples are we really making staking people up in rows and teaching them from books..." I think you might be surprised.

Let's help people become disciples on mission, becoming spiritual self feeders, serving the marginalized, loving their neighbors, and telling others about Christ-- that might be revealing, too.

In case you are interested, the Florida Baptist Witness published the Bob Burney commentary that was widely distributed and, to their credit, they also published Willow's response to it and other statements.

From The Witness:

Editor's note: The Nov. 15 issue carried a column by Bob Burney, "A shocking confession from Willow Creek Community Church leaders," re-printed by Baptist Press from TownHall.com responding to a new study from the Willow Creek Association. After receiving a letter to the editor referencing a statement issued by Willow Creek responding to Burney's and other accounts on the study, the Witness sought permission to publish the statement. In the interest of justice and in the spirit of Christian charity we publish the statement here.

THE SITUATION:

The Willow Creek Association published a book called REVEAL in August 2007 about "ground-breaking" research findings regarding spiritual growth. These findings were based on survey results from seven churches and have now been confirmed through research with an additional two-dozen churches around the country, including two Canadian churches.

Some in the Christian blogging and media world point to these findings as evidence of a church model "flaw"/breakdown that applies exclusively to Willow Creek and/or the seeker movement inspired by Willow Creek 30 years ago.

This is not what the research shows.

Here are several quotes based on partial or incorrect information:

World magazine; Nov. 10, 2007:

"'We made a mistake.' Bill Hybels ... on a study that showed the Willow Creek model had not produced spiritually mature Christians."

Bob Burney, Townhall; Oct: 30, 2007:

"The report reveals that what they've been doing for these many years and what they've taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ ... Numbers, yes, but not disciples... ."

H.B. London, The Pastor's Weekly Briefing; Nov. 9, 2007:

"Hybels goes on to say, 'If you simply want a crowd, the "seeker sensitive" model produces results. If you want solid, sincere, mature followers of Christ, it's a bust."

Bill Hybels did not say this. Focus on the Family is printing a retraction.

FOUR FACTS ABOUT REVEAL:

REVEAL's findings go well beyond Willow Creek and the "seeker" church movement.

REVEAL's findings are based on 30 churches besides Willow, chosen specifically to reflect a diversity of church models. We've surveyed traditional Sunday School model churches, missions-focused churches, mainline denominations, African-American churches and churches representing a wide range of geographies, sizes and styles. In all 30 churches, we've found the six segments of REVEAL's spiritual continuum, including the Stalled and Dissatisfied segments.

REVEAL is currently surveying 500 churches, including more than a dozen denominations and English-speaking international churches. Early results from the first 200 demonstrate REVEAL's segments exist across multiple church model/style/size alternatives.

Forty percent of these 500 churches do not describe themselves as "seeker-focused" or "seeker-friendly".

REVEAL's findings show that Christ-followers are being developed at Willow Creek and all other surveyed churches.

The two most spiritually mature segments, called the "Close to Christ" and the "Christ-Centered" groups, account for over 40 percent of the total 30 church sample. To date the spiritual profiles of those churches show a range of 30 percent to 60 percent for these two segments.

The controversy:

REVEAL discovered a Dissatisfied segment that fell out of the two most spiritually advanced segments noted above. They are sold-out Christ followers, but are disappointed in their church. The Dissatisfied segment averaged nine percent over the 30 churches, ranging from three percent to 14 percent.

The bloggers and media point to this Dissatisfied group as proof that the "seeker" movement does not grow up disciples of Christ. The fact is this Dissatisfied group exists in every church we've surveyed, including the 200 churches currently in process.

Willow Creek's Senior Pastor Bill Hybels said, "We made a mistake."

Bill acknowledged that Willow did not appreciate the undercurrent of dissatisfaction expressed by some of our strongest Christ-followers. Nor did we appreciate the Kingdom impact of training and encouraging all Christ-followers to devote themselves to a daily discipline of personal spiritual practices.

But taking corrective action is not a new experience for Willow Creek. We've made a number of course corrections over the years - like adding a mid-week service in the '80s and building a small group ministry in the '90s. We've always been a church in motion and REVEAL is another example of Willow being open to God's design for this local church.

Willow Creek will use REVEAL's findings to take its mission to redeem people far from God to a whole new level.

Bill would say that Willow is not simply seeker-focused. We are seeker-obsessed. The power of REVEAL's insights for our seeker strategy is the evangelistic strength uncovered in the more mature segments. If we can serve them better, the evangelistic potential is enormous, based on REVEAL's findings.

I am glad Jim Smith, editor of The Witness, sought permission to publish the statement-- though it is too bad that others did not. To my knowledge, it was only publsihed in The Witness.

Now, I recognize that mentioning Hybels brings out the Pajamahadeen like moths to the flame. I would probably agree with some of the concerns, but I am not looking for a bash-Hybels session here. Instead, my question is this: why is it easier to lie about each other than to learn from each other?

Yes, we disagree on some things. But, and I know this is crazy, can we at least be honest? Honest about what others are really saying, and honest about what we are doing, or not doing, in our own churches?

With Facebook Friends Like This...

In April, I mentioned here on the blog that I was creating a Facebook page. Well, today, Russ Rankin (from LifeWay Communications) emailed me to tell me that I have 666 friends. This is not good and I am accepting some new requests to fix the problem. However, does it seem a bit suspicious that the guy who told me about the 666 is also the guy who appears under the number on my profile page.

Just sayin'...

On Independence Day

When I was growing up, American Independence Day was always a big day. Perhaps it was being reared in a union, working class, Irish family, but I have two memories of that day. First, we celebrated America. And second, there was a lot of drinking. Needless to say, there was much volume to the celebration and the fireworks were especially dangerous.

Donna, my wife, is actually Canadian by birth and a naturalized citizen. So, growing up, she did not experience all the Stars and Stripes celebrations. (Canadians have Canada Day, which is good and fine, but lacks the punch.) The Canadian equivalent of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is "peace, order, and good government." It's not nearly as exciting. So, I have to explain to her why large amounts of explosives are so essential. No explanation is necessary for the girls... they just love the explosions.

Well, today, we will think of our freedom and spend time with our family. While on the subject, let me direct you to Denny Burk's post on Lincoln's second inaugural address and Mark Batterson's on the 56 original signers of the Declaration of Independence.

And, it is always good to read the Declaration... click here to do so.

Have a great Independence Day.

More on the Pew Forum Research

Terry Mattingly of the Scripps Howard News Service and the GetReligion.org blog adds more helpful information about the Pew study related to our recent release, "Are Evangelicals Really Universalists?" Read his synidcated column here and his blog on the subject.

Founders Conference Address

Did I call the Founders Conference attendees "functional hyper-Calvinists?"

Well, some comments have sprung up on the blogs about my message at the Founders Conference. Today, the news story was published covering my second message.

Here are some of the notes from my first message-- which I may not have said exactly as I wrote in these notes. But, these "talking points" may give a feel for what I said. (Some of it, particuarly the section on pragmatism, were hand written and then I added them here.)

Best case, listen to my messages and the other messages here.

I was impressed with these men and their passion for the gospel. I am encouraged to hear their desire to get more involved in evangelism and church planting. Though we would not do everything the same, I was grateful that they invited me. And, I was glad I went.

And, don't be a functional hyper-Calvinist. ;-)
_____________________________________________

My first message:

I want to be upfront with you that I come with a bias-- many of my Southern Baptist Reformed friends are not well represented in church planting and evangelism...

That is not the case with all of the Reformed community.

I have had the privilege of speaking at 4 of the 5 top multiplying churches in America (based on a study I did for Leadership Network and published in Outreach Magazine). Interestingly, 4 of the 5 are Reformed.

1. Redeemer Presbyterian
2. Mars Hill Church
3. NorthWood Church
4. Perimeter Church
5. Spanish River Church...

And, let me add that in my recent book, Comeback Churches, filled with statistics that drive some of you crazy, we studied 324 churches that had "comeback" after a significant period of decline. One of those churches was Grace Baptist, pastored by Tom Ascol, President of Founders Ministries...

But, I think that much of the SBC Reformed community is under-involved in these areas. Which, to be fair, is why your focus in this meeting is church planting and revitalization... a good and important theme.

Now that I have probably offended some of you, I want to start with a few quotes:

"As our blessed Lord has required us to pray that his kingdom may come, and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven, it becomes us not only to express our desires of that event by words, but to use every lawful method to spread the knowledge of his name."

This "whatever it takes" approach came from William Carey in An Enquiry into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens.

I believe that many in the Reformed community need to start using "means" to more faithfully do evangelism and start churches.

Charles Spurgeon also has a warning to some of his brothers who lacked passion for evangelism:

"...they maintain their churches by converts from other systems. I have even heard them say, 'Oh, yes, the Methodists and Revivalists are beating the hedges, but we shall catch many of the birds.' If I harboured such a mean thought I would be ashamed to express it. A system which cannot touch the outside world, but must leave arousing and converting work to others, whom it judges to be unsound, writes its own condemnation." --Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: Complete & Unabridged, by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, page 243, Zondervan, 1979.

Let's open up to Luke 24:46-49

Luke 24:46-49 (HCSB) 46 He also said to them, "This is what is written: the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead the third day, 47 and repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And look, I am sending you what My Father promised. As for you, stay in the city until you are empowered from on high."

1. The Gospel and the Mission

46 He also said to them, "This is what is written: the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead the third day, 47 and repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed"

Jesus is clearly presenting the focus-- the gospel. Church planting is a tool, the gospel is the goal.

We must remember that the gospel is on a mission. I was going to call it "a missional gospel," but I don't think the gospel needs modifiers. Prosperity gospel, social gospel, they all have one thing in common - when you have to modify the "gospel" with an adjective you end up with a false gospel.

Jesus describes the gospel similar to that of Paul's description:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Now brothers, I want to clarify for you the gospel I proclaimed to you; you received it and have taken your stand on it. You are also saved by it, if you hold to the message I proclaimed to you--unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

But, Jesus also added the idea of propagating the gospel. Jesus gives the same, "suffer and rise from the dead," formulation from 1 Corinthians, but then adds "and repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed."

Jesus is on a mission and wants us to join that mission.

John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you."

Fundamental to the nature of the gospel is the proclamation of the gospel.

We need to be in the world to tell the world about Jesus. We hear much from our Reformed brothers about holiness... but I warn you: holiness is separation from sin and not separation from sinners.

We need to be known for being passionate evangelists.

Let me encourage you as friends here:

Don't make heroes of pastors who are great preachers and theologians, but whose churches are not evangelistic. They are talking about the gospel without living it out.

What we celebrate we become. And if we celebrate those with strong theology but week witness, that is exactly what we will become.

Churches with strong theology but little mission are like a bodybuilder with huge theological arms, but tiny, spindly missional legs. Don't make that exciting. Don't celebrate that.

I know that claims of "hyper-Calvinism" are a straw man. I know no hyper-Calvinist in my denomination. If I did, their church should discipline them and the denomination should dis-fellowship them. But, I know that Bill Ascol cautions his church here to not be "functional hyper-Calvinists."

Watching out for functional hyper-Calvinism is a good caution for all of us.

I know many who are "functionally hypercalvinist," Reformed and not-Reformed.

But, here is the important thing: Hyper-Calvinist or functional hypercalvinist, the result is the same: God is not honored and given the glory he is due.

2. A Gospel for the Nations

Jesus said the gospel (v. 47) "would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

It is both a Global Mission and a mission whose applications in some ways determined by the people we have been called to reach.

The "nations" come up here and in Matthew 28.

What does it mean?

Matthew 28:18-20 Then Jesus came near and said to them, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Panta ta ethne.

Now, not everyone thinks that the "nations" refers to different kinds of people as I do. But, most misisologists and many theologians do.

We need a passion for God's global mission among the nations.

I work for the IMB and we need you involved in reaching the nations: the Pokot, the Quechua, and the Iban. We need you to "Let the Nations Be Glad."

Working in "peoples-focused" ministry leads to some important "means":

• The how of ministry is in some ways determined by the who, when, and where of culture. Yes, churches have "marks," but it seems that some churches are all marks and no mission. Mission leads to churches and expressions that look different. A biblically faithful church should look different in New York, Singapore, and Owasso.
• Older Western expressions are not necessarily more holy expressions. The gospel must be understood and expressed in each cultural context. God and the gospel do not need to be "made relevant," they already are. But, that does not mean we are. (And, I should add, neither are younger expressions.)
• Church plants need to be seeker-comprehensible. And, I use the seeker language on purpose to rile you up. But, if you are going to get into church planting you will need to use language that the unchurched can understand. Planting is not the same as pastoring an existing, particularly a theologically driven existing, congregation.
• What you call respectful, sober, and worshipful, is often based more on your culture than the scriptures.

3. A Clear Obligation to Witness

vs. 48 You are witnesses of these things.

Jesus calls us to be witness of that message. That's good and we all agree with that. We all talk about it. But, it seems to me that many don't do it.

The "in-thing" right now in the reformed community seems to be to write books on evangelism. I think that is good in some ways, but bad in others. It is good because it is an acknowledgment that the movement desperately needs to grow in that area. It is bad because it might be similar to me writing a book on weight loss.

Maybe it would be better to listen to those who are already adept at evangelism rather than find it necessary to write a new version to correct theirs.

If you want to overcome the negative perception of Calvinists, Calvinists must be known as evangelists.

Nobody was upset at D. James Kennedy for being a Calvinist. He was known as an evangelist.

We must evangelize and plant the gospel to start a church.

I believe that church planting is the most important form of evangelism because it ties the church to the mission.

Let me share a few thoughts related to evangelism that leads to church planting:

• Begin by understanding the gospel and clearly articulate what God has called you to do.
• Exegete the context. (Statements like "contextualization was an anathema to the apostles," are exceedingly unhelpful.) Most SBC churches do not need more reasons to not engage the culture. If the 50's came back, most Southern Baptist churches would be ready to go - but if we believe this gospel is true, we need to live it out and evidence it here, now, today in a way that people look in and see the kingdom of God evidenced.
• Reach out and evangelize (This is a challenge for people who think, "If I just preach the word, my church will grow.).

Door to door

Community events

Bridge events

Too many think if they just tell someone the gospel, they are faithful... they say, "I don't need to learn how, the power is all in the gospel." Then why did Jesus approach the woman at the well differently than Nicodemus. Why did Paul preach differently at the Aeropogus, Lystra, and Psidian Antioch?

• Start groups
• Begin worship (launch the church)
• Disciple the people (they are not a church until they covenant with each other).
• Covenant together
• Plant new churches

My desire is that churches will be: Biblically faithful, culturally relevant, counter culture communities for the Gospel and the Kingdom.

4. A Spirit Empowered Mission

49 And look, I am sending you what My Father promised. As for you, stay in the city until you are empowered from on high.

Jesus indicated that such a focus will require waiting for the Holy Spirit.

I am pragmatic. Let me get it out there since I know it will bother some. It seems like pragmatism has already been whacked at a few times here.

You see, I am a missiologist and I ask, "How has God worked and what can we learn about how he is working today?"

People often beat on pragmatism like a low hanging pinata on cinco de mayo, but the dictionary defines pragmatic as, "Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical." Not sure who would be opposed to that, but I am sure there are some.

But, I looked up the antonyms since so many people don't want to be pragmatists. They are: idealistic, impractical, unrealistic, unreasonable

I also want to be anti-pragmatic. I believe this is Holy Spirit work that genuinely is, "idealistic, impractical, unrealistic, and unreasonable."

We need the supernatural non-pragmatic work of the Holy Spirit to work in our prayed over and thought out plans.

Remember William Carey, An Enquiry into the Obligation of Christians
to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens:

As our blessed Lord has required us to pray that his kingdom may come, and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven, it becomes us not only to express our desires of that event by words, but to use every lawful method to spread the knowledge of his name.

We need to learn how God has already worked to create a biblically driven and contextually appropriate (pragmatic) strategy. We also need to believe Him to work in supernatural ways as we trust Him and are obedient to his commands.

Conclusion:

You have great influence at Founders. And, I am hopeful and encouraged that you want to use that influence to focus on evangelism and church planting that reaches lost people.

_____________________________________________

And here are some of the news excerpts from my second message:

The overwhelming assumption of the New Testament is that local churches will plant other churches, Ed Stetzer said June 26 in the keynote address at the 26th annual Southern Baptist Founders Conference...

Stetzer challenged pastors to avoid leading local congregations that are theologically sound but inwardly focused (a "cul-de-sac church") and encouraged them to wed orthodox theology with church planting.

"What was normal in the New Testament has become abnormal today," Stetzer said of church planting. "The New Testament church was always multiplying and the church today must always be multiplying. Mission is to be wrapped together with good theology.... God is a sending God."

Preaching from Luke 10:1-12, Stetzer gave six principles that undergird church planting:

-- Prayer is essential to successful church plants. The proper place to begin a church plant is on one's knees, Stetzer said, but many church planters have a tendency to shirk the duties of prayer because they are self-starters. When a person begins to pray for the place where he is going to plant a church, God will break his heart for that place, he said. A church planter must go where he has a deep love and concern for the people and not where the latest demographics predict a favorable outcome, Stetzer said.

-- Prayer flows into a radical reliance on God. All Christians are called to be on mission with God, Stetzer said, but the church has created a false three-tiered Christianity: lay people, those called to full-time ministry and those called to ministry but not called to missions. "We're all called," he said. "The only questions are 'Where?' and 'Among whom?' There is not a separate call to missions." Church planters must not wait until circumstances such as personal financial resources are right, but must radically depend on God, he said. "You will never have enough resources to plant a church," he said. "God will provide."

-- Church planting blesses a community. A church planter can go in confidence that God is already working in the hearts of some in that community, he said. Churches are to go and serve all the people in their communities and be a blessing to them, he said.

-- Build relationships and settle in. A church planter should become a part of the community which he serves and must build deep relationships, while preparing to stay for the long haul and engage the local people with the Gospel, Stetzer said. The planter will likely have to leave some of his own culture behind, especially if he plants in a place far outside his native territory, Stetzer said.

-- Meet needs and serve people. One of the means God sometimes uses to bring people to Himself is through Christians who meet practical needs of people in their community, Stetzer pointed out. Serving others often builds a bridge to the Gospel, he said. "Though salvation is entirely a work of the Lord, we have an obligation to use means," Stetzer said.

-- Church planters are announcing the kingdom of God. "When we plant churches, we are extending the boundaries where Christ reigns -- a church as a sign and instrument of the Kingdom of God. The world around us sees what the Kingdom of God looks like when visible saints express the love and life of Christ."

The task of church planting is not fundamentally a denominational function, he said, but is a function of the local church...

"If you really believe the agenda of the Kingdom of God, if you want God's name and God's fame magnified, how can you not want to be a part of church planting?"

And, no, I did not call the attendees "functional hyper-Calvinists," though I warned them not to be.

It seems that many evangelicals, Reformed and not so, have become that very thing...

Malphurs: Multi-Site vs. Church Planting?

Dr. Malphurs is the Senior Professor of Pastoral Ministries at Dallas Theological Seminary and a visionary with a deep desire to influence a new generation of leaders through his classroom, pulpit, consulting, and writing ministries. He is involved in a number of ministries ranging from church planting and growth to leadership development. He has pastored three churches and is the author of numerous books and articles on leadership and church ministry. Currently he is the president of the Malphurs Group and is a trainer and consultant to churches, denominations, and ministry organizations throughout North America and Europe. His research and teaching interests include church planting, church growth, and leadership development.

Aubry recently entered the dialog on multi-site churches and church planting with a helpful article worth digesting and discussing...

MULTI-SITE VERSUS CHURCH PLANTING?

(June 6, 2008) There's a new person on the block. A new kid has moved into the ministry neighborhood. It's the church multi-site movement. However, I must use the term new carefully as there likely was a multi-site movement in the first century church. An example would be the church at Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 1:2 Paul writes to the church at Corinth. Then he mentions a house church that likely was located in or near Corinth (1 Cor. 16:19-20). It would seem that in the first century there was a city church (1 Cor. 1:2) that was made up of a number of house churches as in chapter 16.

What is a Multi-site Church?
The simple definition is that a multi-site church is the same church that meets in more than one location. It could meet in several places on the same campus, another location in the same town or state, or even in another country. For example, Ed Young who pastors Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, also has established two other downtown campuses in Dallas and a third in Miami, Florida. While Ed usually preaches at the Grapevine campus, the service is sent by video to the other locations as well. And what takes place at Grapevine-the programming in particular-also takes place at the other campuses. In a real sense this is church franchising, and I don't mean this in a negative way. Initially these were begun to relieve some of the mega-churches of land and facilities problems. They needed more room to expand their ministries. And what began as a solution to a land problem has become a major movement.

What is a Church Plant?
A church plant is similar to and different from a multi-site church. Like a multi-site church, they may be started by a sponsoring church. However, a difference is that unlike the multi-site church they may not be at all like the sponsoring church. Thus you are not franchising a particular style of church ministry. Another observation with exceptions is that multi-site churches consist of more of the same kinds of people. For example, a predominantly boomer church will attract boomers at its other locations. What appeals to them at one site appeals at the other.Whereas, a church plant will often attract those who are different from the people that attend the sponsoring church. They are usually a younger crowd. Perhaps the difference might be summed up this way. Starbucks would represent a multi-site approach. Whereas, Aubrey's coffee shop would be indicative of a church planting approach. If you like Starbucks coffee, then go to Starbucks. But if you want something different - that's unique - then visit Aubrey's Exotic Coffee Shop.

My Concern
While I'm all for multi-site churches as I attend one (Lake Pointe Church in Rockwall, Texas), I'm concerned that they not replace church planting. While I have no research to support my view, it would appear that a number of pastors are opting for a multi-site approach over church planting. The problem with this is that most churches best reach a younger population not through a multi-site location but by planting churches. Many of today's youth react negatively to the predominantly boomer, multi-site churches. They want to meet in smaller more intimate groups as seen in a growing number of house church plants. They want to belong before they believe. They want to check things out to see if church people are authentic: "If what you think you see (Jesus) is really what you get."

My Appeal
Instead of supporting one approach to ministry, lets do both. Let's embrace both the multi-site approach and church planting. That way we can continue to reach those who've been blessed by what many of today's churches are doing and reach out to tomorrow's generations as well. It shouldn't be as in the title to this article - "Multi-site Versus Church Planting." One must not exclude the other. Both are necessary to reach our lost and dying world.

When I did a church planting research project for Leadership Network (download it here), we did find that in some cases, churches that were once strong in church planting had moved away from such and were now focused on multi-site. On the other hand, we found some doing both (like Seacoast in Charleston, Community Christian in Naperville, and Mars Hill in Seattle, to name few).

So, let me ask, why do you think this is happening? The pastors I talked to (who had moved from church planting to multi-site) told me it produced a higher success rate when you started a site rather than a church planting.

Your thoughts?

And, feel free to post questions to Aubrey as he will be around the blog today.

More Multi-site Tommorrow

Tomorrow, Aubrey Malphurs will come by the blog and talk about the impact of multi-site on church planting. He has some concerns he wrote in a recent article. I will post the article and we will start the discussion at 10a.m. Eastern. If you are interested in multi-site ministry, be sure to read the last two discussions with Geoff Surratt, multi-site author and pastor, here and here.

Are Evangelicals Really Universalists?

Here is a story we just released:

Are Evangelicals Really Universalists

NASHVILLE, Tenn., 6/27/08 - In the second major release from their U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, the Pew Forum states that "70 percent of Americans with a religious affiliation say that many religions - not just their own - can lead to eternal life." The detailed findings (available at: http://religions.pewforum.org/reports) indicate that 57 percent of those attending evangelical churches also agree that many religions can lead to eternal life. Only 36 percent chose the alternative, "My religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life."

However, some have expressed concerns about the way the question was asked. "The Pew Forum accurately reported the question they asked and accurately reported the responses they received, but I do not think that led to an accurate portrayal of evangelicals," said Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research, the research arm of LifeWay Christian Resources.

Terry Mattingly of the Scripps Howard News Service and the GetReligion.org blog wrote, "I am being a bit picky here, but I suspect that if you asked a lot of people that Pew Forum question today, they would think of the great world religions. But many Christians would think more narrowly than that. Not all. Not many, perhaps. But some. What is your religion? I'm a Baptist, a Nazarene, an Episcopalian, a Catholic. Can people outside of your religion be saved? Of course. This is not the same thing, for many, as saying that they believe that salvation is found outside faith in Jesus Christ."

"I believe the Pew study is directionally right in pointing out that a surprisingly small number of self-identified American Christians believe in the exclusivity of Christ as a means of salvation, and therefore, getting into heaven," explained Scott McConnell, associate director of LifeWay Research.

"But the way they worded their question may have had some impact; many people think of 'denomination' when they hear 'religion,' so it isn't that surprising that a Lutheran could think a Methodist would also go to heaven or a Catholic could think that a Protestant would go to heaven," said McConnell.

Stetzer cautioned, "When we define evangelicals as not just those who sit in pews but who agree with certain evangelical beliefs, we find a different picture than was widely reported in the news about the recent Pew study."

LifeWay Research has been studying the practices and beliefs of hundreds of Protestant churchgoers in a longitudinal multiyear study and recently asked questions which did not just indicate "religion" but indicated "religions other than Christianity."

In this study, which will be featured in The Shape of Faith to Come, a fall 2008 book by B&H Publishing Group Vice President Brad Waggoner, LifeWay Research asked 2,500 Protestant adults who attend church at least once a month, "How much do you agree/disagree: If a person is sincerely seeking God, he/she can obtain eternal life through religions other than Christianity."

When answering questions about "other than Christianity" rather than "other religions," the answers may change. In total, 31 percent of Protestant churchgoers agreed (strongly or somewhat) with this universalistic statement compared to Pew's 70 percent. This makes for a difference of 39 percent between the universalism in the LifeWay Research study and the Pew Study.

"LifeWay Research utilized a five-point scale, in which 28 percent of Protestant churchgoers neither agreed nor disagreed with the universalistic statement. Assuming that all the 'neither agree nor disagree' would move to the universalist side when forced to choose (a doubtful assumption), the difference is still 10 percent," Stetzer noted, pointing out that the questions were not identically worded and a direct comparison was not possible.

Forty percent of these Protestant churchgoers disagreed (strongly or somewhat) that eternal life can be obtained through religions other than Christianity. When "evangelical" is defined by beliefs (using the combination of nine evangelical definition questions from The Barna Group) rather than which church is attended, 8 out of 10 evangelicals reject this universalistic statement.

Rejection of the universalistic statement in the LifeWay Research study by disagreeing strongly or somewhat are shown in the following percentages:
• 80 percent of those who indicate evangelical beliefs
• 61 percent of born-again Christians
• 49 percent who say they attend an evangelical church
• 27 percent of those who do not indicate evangelical beliefs

The LifeWay Research study used a five-point scale and the requirement of minimal church attendance which makes direct comparisons to Pew's data difficult as they used an "either/or" question and only required affiliation. However, Stetzer explained, "There is enough of a difference in the results for me to conclude that their choice of wording likely led a number of folks away from the exclusive response."

"The Pew study accurately pointed to a growing problem. The shape of faith to come is in some ways discouraging. Christians are becoming more universalistic and lack biblical views on a host of other issues," Waggoner explained.

"The Pew research is helpful even though this question needs clarification. However, the bigger issue here is why there are so many self-identified evangelicals who sit in evangelical pews but do not evidence evangelical beliefs, particularly in regard to universalism," Stetzer said.

More information and graphics can be found at www.lifewayresearch.com.

###

What are your thoughts?

Sin, Culture, and Ministry

The Scripps Howard News Service published a story with the title, "Is sex outside of marriage a sin?" (The title may change in local papers.) Terry Mattingly interviewed me for the story a few days ago (after the Pew research was posted).

You can read the full story here.

Some excerpts:

It's becoming more and more dangerous for preachers to use the words "sex" and "sin" in the same sentence...

"We have to recognize that our historic positions on sexual issues are becoming incredibly distasteful to more people in this culture and especially to our media and popular culture," said Ed Stetzer, director of the Southern Baptist Convention's LifeWay Research team.

"The whole 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' thing -- people are not getting that anymore. People do not believe that we mean that."

Right now, the gay-marriage issue is making headlines. But for millions of traditional believers in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and many other faiths, this issue is linked to a question rooted in religious doctrine, not modern politics. In a spring LifeWay survey, researchers asked: "Do you believe homosexual behavior is a sin?"

The results showed a culture torn in half, with 48 percent of American adults saying that homosexual acts are sinful and 45 percent disagreeing.

Considering the margin for error, this is a virtual tie...

These numbers are evidence of great change in the religious and moral views of many Americans, yet they also point toward familiar tensions between traditionalists and progressives. The Pew Forum survey, for example, again demonstrated a reality seen in recent elections. Americans who frequently attend worship services and say that religion is very important in their lives continue to take more conservative stands on hot moral issues in public life.

What about people outside the pews? That is where another set of statistics will prove especially distressing to clergy who sincerely want to defend what Stetzer called the ancient "one man, one woman, one lifetime" doctrine of marriage.

In the LifeWay survey, 32 percent of American adults said that their decision to visit or join a congregation would be "negatively affected" if it taught that homosexual behavior is a sin. That number rose to 49 percent among the "unchurched," those who rarely or never attend worship.

The issue of homosexuality does not, of course, stand alone, said Stetzer. It's getting harder for religious leaders to maintain consistent teachings about other acts and conditions that traditional forms of religion have, for centuries, considered a sin. This affects preaching on premarital sex, divorce, cohabitation and adultery.

"Ultimately, the modern church has failed to proclaim and explain a biblical ethic of sexuality," he said. "We also need to admit that the church has failed to live out the ethic that it's claiming to be advocating. If we are going to say that we stand for the sanctity of marriage, then we -- in our churches and in our homes -- are going to have to live out the sanctity of marriage."

Help Indentify America's Fastest Growing and Largest Churches

My research team is working on the 100 Largest and Fastest Growing church lists and we don't want to miss any churches. Finding them can be a challenge, particuarly the fastest growing.

What churches do you know of that have grown significantly in the past year (numerically or percentage wise)?

If your church has experienced significant growth in the past year or you know of a church that has, please email my team at research@top100churches.com (give us at least the church name, city, state, and pastor's name if you don't know anything else like a phone number or website address). My team will take it from there.

To motivate those of you in the know... if you are the first person to mention a church that 1) we don't already have on our list, 2) makes it to one of the top 100 churches, I'll send you a free book and thank you on the blog when they are published in Outreach Magazine comes out this fall.

Help us out! Tell us about the churches who are reaching people.

Important & Challenging Research from Pew

Don't miss the post I just put up about ministry to people groups, but moments ago the Pew Forum sent me their new research release. Click below for their press release. Click here for more information.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 23, 2008, 12:00 p.m.

CONTACTS:

• Robbie Mills, rmills@pewforum.org,


• 202-419-4564


• Erin O¹Connell, eoconnell@pewforum.org,


• 202-419-4555

New Report from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life Finds Religion in U.S. is Non-Dogmatic, Diverse and Politically Relevant

Part II of U.S. Religious Landscape Survey details Americans¹ religious beliefs and behaviors as well as their social and political attitudes

WASHINGTON ­ The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life today released its second report on the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, which finds that while many Americans are highly religious, most are not dogmatic in their approach to faith. This new analysis examines the diversity of Americans¹ religious beliefs and practices as well as their social and political attitudes. It follows the first report of the Landscape Survey, which was published in February 2008 and detailed the size, internal changes and demographic characteristics of major religions in the United States.

"The fact that most Americans are not exclusive or dogmatic about their religion is a fascinating finding," said Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum. "Most people will be surprised that a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including a majority of evangelical Protestants, say that there isn¹t just one way to salvation or to interpret the teachings of their own faith."

Based on interviews conducted in English and Spanish with a nationally representative sample of more than 35,000 adults, part two of the Landscape Survey includes a wealth of information on the religious beliefs and practices of the American public. It also explores the social and political attitudes of religious groups, including members of many small religious traditions ­ such as Mormons, Jehovah¹s Witnesses, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics ­ not typically analyzed in public opinion surveys.

"This report illustrates, chapter and verse, the amazing diversity and dynamism both between and within religious traditions in America," noted John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum. "And this diversity of affiliation, belief and practice matters when it comes to social and political questions."

The second report of the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey finds:

• Although many Americans are highly religious, they are not dogmatic in their faith. Seventy percent of Americans with a religious affiliation say that many religions ­ not just their own ­ can lead to eternal life. Most also think there is more than one correct way to interpret the teachings of their own faith.
• This does not mean, however, that Americans take religious matters lightly. Most, in fact, say they rank the importance of religion very highly in their lives, and a plurality wants to preserve the traditional beliefs and practices of their faith, while only a small minority wants to accommodate their religion to modern culture.
• There is tremendous diversity of religious beliefs and practices in the U.S. Important religious differences exist between the major religious traditions, but there are also important differences within religious traditions.
• While more than nine-in-ten Americans (92%) believe in the existence of God or a universal spirit, there are considerable differences in the nature of this belief. Six-in-ten adults believe that God is a person with whom people can have a relationship; but one-in-four ­ including about half of Jews and Hindus ­ see God as an impersonal force. Similarly, seven-in-ten Americans say that they are absolutely certain of God¹s existence, while roughly one-in-five (22%) are less certain in their belief.
• Three-quarters of Americans report praying at least once a week, with large majorities among most religious traditions saying they pray on at least a weekly basis. Even among the unaffiliated, roughly one-in-three pray on a weekly basis. At the same time, however, there are those among all faith groups who pray much less frequently; overall, one quarter of the public says they pray a few times a month or less often.
• Almost two-fifths of Americans report meditating at least once a week. This practice is particularly common among Buddhists, but nearly half of evangelical Protestants and Muslims say they meditate at least weekly. About one-quarter of the unaffiliated report weekly meditation. These patterns may incorporate elements of both Christian and non-Christian traditions.
• Politics and religion in the United States are intertwined, and religion is highly relevant to understanding politics in the U.S. Yet while the diversity of religious affiliation, belief and practice translates into important differences on many social and political issues, differences on other issues are less pronounced.
• Religion is closely linked to political ideology. The survey shows that Mormons are among the most politically conservative groups in the population. Jews, Buddhists and Hindus, by contrast, are among the most likely to describe their ideology as liberal.
• People who regularly attend worship services and say religion is important in their lives are much more likely to identify as conservative, and this pattern extends to many religious traditions. For example, within the evangelical, mainline Protestant, historically black Protestant, Catholic, Mormon and Orthodox Christian traditions, those who attend church weekly are significantly more likely than those who attend less often to describe themselves as political conservatives. And among Jews, those who say religion is very important to them or pray every day are more likely than others to be politically conservative.
• The connection between religious engagement and political attitudes appears to be especially strong when it comes to hot button social issues such as abortion or homosexuality. For instance, about six-in-ten Americans who attend religious services at least once a week say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, while only three-in-ten who attend less often share this view. This pattern holds across several religious traditions.
• On other topics covered in the survey, such as views on the role and size of government and foreign policy attitudes, the role of religion is less clear and there appears to be greater consensus across and within religious traditions. For instance, a majority of nearly every religious group supports stricter environmental re