Here's a dirty little secret most pastors won't share: They keep "prospect" lists - like a potential sales list...a sort of "people I need to get to buy into us" list. I even know pastors who have quotas. For years I believed a statement made by a pastor I respected and wanted to be like: "A pastor who isn't leading two people a week to the Lord isn't worth his hire."
I used to keep Prospect Lists - two of them, in fact: One a short-term list, the other a long-term list. The short-term list had the names of the people I thought I could persuade to join the church within the next six months. Anyone longer than that was on the long-term list.
I realize now that at that point in my life, I had more in common with a hooker than a shepherd. After becoming healthy and returning to the ministry in 1995, I was struck by this verse:
"...for the prostitute reduces you to a loaf of bread (Proverbs 6:26)..."
In other words, the hooker looks at you and says to herself, "If I can entice him to join me for a few minutes, it'll be worth X-number of dollars to me, and with that, I can buy (whatever)." I looked at my prospect lists and knew in the past I'd said to myself, "If I can entice him to come to church, that'll please my eldership and that's job security and financial security for me..." Ouch.
I dropped that list.
I stopped seeing them as "things to be conquered for Christ" and started seeing them as friends at a different point on the same journey as me - friends who will listen to those they trust and love. My goal is now to be that loving, trusted friend who can tell them what was over the next horizon on their spiritual journey - and who could walk with them as they looked at the horizon.
And suddenly, my ministry began to grow. Go figure.
Btw, I don't lead two people to the Lord in a week EVER. The Holy Spirit does that. But I often have the privilege of being there when they "get it." Sometimes that's zero in a week. Other times, it's 15 or 20 people in a week.
It's amazing what happens when ego gets out of the way and God gets to be God on His terms rather than mine. :)
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Wednesday Planter: Personal Transition #4: Jesus builds the church; I don't.
I used to flat old-school work my butt off and I prided myself on it. Yet my perfectionist side considered me a failure. I could not get my stupid churches to grow. I could blame a lot of different people and different things, and those would all be valid, but since I believe everything rises and falls on leadership, I can't hide behind those other things. I had to take responsibility for my part. I wasn't a leader. And I considered myself a failure - such a failure that I left pastoral ministry for a year and even messed up my body's ability to regulate itself and its moods, so I wasn't just a crash and burn. I was an epic crash and burn.
Then I went to a godly counselor in Columbus, IN, named John Brumbaugh, graciously paid for by our then-church home (a great congregation named New Hope Christian Church). John took me on a several days long cathartic journey that brought out my failings, my insecurities, my arrogance, and let me purge them for my own health.
One day he mentioned a verse where Jesus was talking to Peter about the foundation of the church, but it was the center section that hit me and rocked my life: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it (Matthew 16:18 NIV)." In all of my years of study and education, how in the world did I miss that? Jesus said He would build the church. In fact, He didn't ask me to do anything of the kind.
With that new perspective, I went back into ministry and for the first time in my life actually enjoyed it - and it was a fairly unhealthy, dysfunctional church! :) I had learned that my role wasn't to do God's construction work for Him, but to make sure that I didn't interfere - and that no one else did either.
That's why I have a pang of conscience when I use the term "church planter" in reference to myself. I'm not really a planter. God's the Planter. I'm just a gardener that works to keep the weeds out of His way as much as I can. I still work my butt off, but my focus is now His, not mine pretending to be His.
Then I went to a godly counselor in Columbus, IN, named John Brumbaugh, graciously paid for by our then-church home (a great congregation named New Hope Christian Church). John took me on a several days long cathartic journey that brought out my failings, my insecurities, my arrogance, and let me purge them for my own health.
One day he mentioned a verse where Jesus was talking to Peter about the foundation of the church, but it was the center section that hit me and rocked my life: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it (Matthew 16:18 NIV)." In all of my years of study and education, how in the world did I miss that? Jesus said He would build the church. In fact, He didn't ask me to do anything of the kind.
With that new perspective, I went back into ministry and for the first time in my life actually enjoyed it - and it was a fairly unhealthy, dysfunctional church! :) I had learned that my role wasn't to do God's construction work for Him, but to make sure that I didn't interfere - and that no one else did either.
That's why I have a pang of conscience when I use the term "church planter" in reference to myself. I'm not really a planter. God's the Planter. I'm just a gardener that works to keep the weeds out of His way as much as I can. I still work my butt off, but my focus is now His, not mine pretending to be His.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Wednesday Planter: Personal Transition #3: Not everyone worships or learns like I do.
I am from an American home-grown church movement that officially began on the frontiers of the late 18th Century. From the beginning, we’ve often been called "The People of the Book (Bible)" because of our hard-core commitment to Scripture and it's authority. I'm proud of that heritage, and I wouldn't have our teaching do anything BUT rely on The Book.
But ultimately, history has borne out a problem with our approach: We have a lot of seriously book-smart people with lots of head knowledge, but not a fair amount of heart application. That makes for legalists who don't consider the spirit or the context of God's Word.
Back in the 1980's, Leadership Magazine carried an article that talked of how there are basically three kinds of people who attend church (I'm paraphrasing from memory now): Those who respond to auditory stimulation, those who respond to visual stimulation, and those who respond to content stimulation.
Auditory-focused: Those who respond to auditory stimulation don't place high value on what the building looks like or even so much what is taught. They are focused primarily on the sound value: Is the music good? Is the sound good? Are there distracting noises? Can I clearly hear what is going on or being said? Is it pleasant for my ears?
Visual-focused: Those who respond to visual stimulation don't place high value on what they hear or what is taught. They are focused primarily on the visual value: Is it clean? Is it respectfully maintained? Are the colors right? Can I see things being done well and competently? Is it pleasant for my eyes to observe?
Content-focused: Those who respond to the teaching content don't place high value on anything but the content. They will meet in dirty barns and put up with horrible music and sound just to have what their brain considers solid teaching.
It has to do with individual learning methods. God wired each of us differently from many others, yet we all fall into one or more of these three categories.
The challenge? I’m a content-oriented person, but we need to be more concerned about the whole person. Without compromising the content, the church-at-large still needs to be more intentional, more experiential, more engaging on all levels - not just the one learning style we like. Our priority should always be teaching the Word of God skillfully and accurately, but if we can engage the whole person in a multi-sensory experience where what they learn goes deeper into them, why wouldn't we be eager to do that?
But ultimately, history has borne out a problem with our approach: We have a lot of seriously book-smart people with lots of head knowledge, but not a fair amount of heart application. That makes for legalists who don't consider the spirit or the context of God's Word.
Back in the 1980's, Leadership Magazine carried an article that talked of how there are basically three kinds of people who attend church (I'm paraphrasing from memory now): Those who respond to auditory stimulation, those who respond to visual stimulation, and those who respond to content stimulation.
Auditory-focused: Those who respond to auditory stimulation don't place high value on what the building looks like or even so much what is taught. They are focused primarily on the sound value: Is the music good? Is the sound good? Are there distracting noises? Can I clearly hear what is going on or being said? Is it pleasant for my ears?
Visual-focused: Those who respond to visual stimulation don't place high value on what they hear or what is taught. They are focused primarily on the visual value: Is it clean? Is it respectfully maintained? Are the colors right? Can I see things being done well and competently? Is it pleasant for my eyes to observe?
Content-focused: Those who respond to the teaching content don't place high value on anything but the content. They will meet in dirty barns and put up with horrible music and sound just to have what their brain considers solid teaching.
It has to do with individual learning methods. God wired each of us differently from many others, yet we all fall into one or more of these three categories.
The challenge? I’m a content-oriented person, but we need to be more concerned about the whole person. Without compromising the content, the church-at-large still needs to be more intentional, more experiential, more engaging on all levels - not just the one learning style we like. Our priority should always be teaching the Word of God skillfully and accurately, but if we can engage the whole person in a multi-sensory experience where what they learn goes deeper into them, why wouldn't we be eager to do that?
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Wednesday Planter: Personal Transition #2: The "Cool" Factor.
Never underestimate the power (nor importance) of "cool", or at least “decent”.
My family lived in a big apartment complex while pastoring a very traditional congregation that had been hemorrhaging people for years. Leading by example, I worked to get our apartment friends to visit our congregation, but very few ever visited twice. They'd come to our apartment to seek spiritual answers or Bible study and they'd ask for prayer and pray for me, but our congregation was a one-shot event for them. Then I heard a shocker that froze my blood: People I’d shared Christ with were now attending church – elsewhere. It was a good congregation—good solid teaching, great ministries, rapid growth—but it wasn't ours. That hurt.
I eventually asked about it. God spoke through their words: "We like you and your teaching, but everything else is so unfriendly and boring. We found a church that's actually cool, and we like it. It speaks to us on a lot of levels." BAM.
That seems rather carnal if you're secretly shallow and more into religious appearance, but pretty deep if you really wanna reach people.
There are a lot of churches out there in any given town who all believe the same thing, who all teach biblical truth very well, who hope to expand the Kingdom, but why do people choose one congregation over the other? I think it's what I've now heard called "the Cool Factor."
For the church, the Cool Factor is about nurturing the kind of bond with people where they are secure enough to drop the old barriers and open themselves up to being taught God's Word in new, creative, relevant ways. It’s not about giving up theological distinctive, but about how they are presented. What the Cool Factor looks like will vary from congregation to congregation and community to community, but it's gonna be a presentation that consistently grabs the attention of a person and creates a dialogue between the church and the unchurched.
Remember: It’s not theology OR “cool” methodology. That’s a false dichotomy. It’s about the marriage of truth with relevant presentation. That’s cool.
My family lived in a big apartment complex while pastoring a very traditional congregation that had been hemorrhaging people for years. Leading by example, I worked to get our apartment friends to visit our congregation, but very few ever visited twice. They'd come to our apartment to seek spiritual answers or Bible study and they'd ask for prayer and pray for me, but our congregation was a one-shot event for them. Then I heard a shocker that froze my blood: People I’d shared Christ with were now attending church – elsewhere. It was a good congregation—good solid teaching, great ministries, rapid growth—but it wasn't ours. That hurt.
I eventually asked about it. God spoke through their words: "We like you and your teaching, but everything else is so unfriendly and boring. We found a church that's actually cool, and we like it. It speaks to us on a lot of levels." BAM.
That seems rather carnal if you're secretly shallow and more into religious appearance, but pretty deep if you really wanna reach people.
There are a lot of churches out there in any given town who all believe the same thing, who all teach biblical truth very well, who hope to expand the Kingdom, but why do people choose one congregation over the other? I think it's what I've now heard called "the Cool Factor."
For the church, the Cool Factor is about nurturing the kind of bond with people where they are secure enough to drop the old barriers and open themselves up to being taught God's Word in new, creative, relevant ways. It’s not about giving up theological distinctive, but about how they are presented. What the Cool Factor looks like will vary from congregation to congregation and community to community, but it's gonna be a presentation that consistently grabs the attention of a person and creates a dialogue between the church and the unchurched.
Remember: It’s not theology OR “cool” methodology. That’s a false dichotomy. It’s about the marriage of truth with relevant presentation. That’s cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)