The Seismic Shift in Outreach

 

The Seismic Shift in Outreach

 

There has been a seismic shift in outreach that few church leaders are understanding, much less pursuing.

 

From the 1950’s to the 1980’s, the vanguard of evangelistic outreach was direct proclamation of the gospel.  Whether the crusades of Billy Graham or the creative approaches of Willow Creek Community Church, presentation led the way.

 

This led to joining a community, and eventually, being discipled into participation with the cause.

 

From the 1990’s thru the 2000’s, community took the lead.  People wanted to belong before they believed.  Skepticism was rampant, and trust had to be earned.  Once enfolded, Christ was often met in the midst of that community.

 

Cause, again, was the last to take hold.

 

From the 2010’s forward, “cause” has become the leading edge of our connection with a lost world, and specifically the “nones” (and it is increasingly best to replace the term “unchurched” with the “nones”).  Consider the recent Passion Conference in Georgia.  What arrested outside media attention was the commitment to eradicate modern-day slavery, not the 60,000 students in attendance much less the messages related to the Christian faith.

 

In a word, “cause.”

 

This made the gathering of 60,000 college students in the Georgia Dome for that cause become attractional.  In other words, then and only then did “community” come into play.  Then, after exploring that community, Christ could be – and was – introduced.

 

Think of this shift in terms of moving people through stages of introduction:

 

1950’s-1980’s:

 

Unchurched >>> Christ >>> Community >>> Cause

 

1990’s-2000’s

 

Unchurched >>> Community >>> Christ >>> Cause

 

2010’s -

 

Nones >>> Cause >>> Community >>> Christ

 

It is important to note how far the message of Christ is from the mind and sentiment of the average “none.”  It’s not that the church should “bury the lead” in terms of putting Christ at the end of the line – remember, we’re talking strategy.  It’s just that leading with Billy Graham’s simple “The Bible says” was a strategy designed for people in a different place spiritually than many are today.

 

The more post-Christian a person is, the more evangelism must embrace not only “event/proclamation”, but “process” and “event/proclamation.”  Earlier models were almost entirely “event/proclamation” oriented, such as revivals, crusades, or door-to-door visitation.  As I’ve written about in other places, this is only effective in an Acts 2, God-fearing Jews of Jerusalem context.

 

“Process” models are needed in Acts 17, Mars Hill, nones/skeptical contexts.

 

Like the one we live in today.

 

The presentation of Christ must remain central to our thinking, to be sure.  That is the only reason we are even talking about strategy; the goal is to present Christ and Him crucified.  But is that where we start?  On Mars Hill, the spiritual illiteracy was so deep that Paul had to begin with cultural touchstones, lead in to creation, and work his way forward.

 

It took him a while to get to Christ.

 

And community?  It matters, but the average person has tastes of that already.  Maybe not functional, but they don’t seem as drawn to it as they used to be.  Perhaps it is because of the lure and illusion of social media, or because they’ve simply given up on it, but it’s not the great “search” it once was.

 

So there has been a great, seismic shift.  Today, it is cause that arrests the attention of the world.

 

Which brings us to the challenge.

 

First, to recognize the seismic shift, and begin to strategize accordingly.

 

Second, to realize how difficult this will be.  If cause is in the lead, and community close behind, the church is at a deficit.  In the minds of many, our causes have been mundane (let’s raise money for a fellowship hall!) or alienating (Moral Majority!).  And the close second of community?  Our reputation for dysfunction in that area is legendary.

 

But there is great irony in the challenge.  Jesus wed mission and message together seamlessly, proclaiming the Kingdom that had come while healing the leper and feeding the hungry.  He mandated concern for the widow and the orphan, the homeless and naked, the imprisoned and hungry, while speaking of the bread of life and a home in heaven.

 

In other words, we should have been nailing this all along.

 

And if community is lurking in the back of the minds of people as a felt need, that should be a calling card as well.  Jesus challenged his followers about the importance of observable love toward one another as the ultimate apologetic for His life and ministry and message.

 

And even if it takes a while to get to Christ, He should be presented raw and unfiltered in all of His scandalous specificity.  As Moltmann proclaimed, “the crucified God.”

 

So as we ponder the rise of “cause” as the cultural bridge over which to walk, perhaps the greater truth is more elemental:

 

Do all three.

 

Imagine a church that had community, cause and the undiluted message of Christ in the vanguard of its efforts.

 

It might just become the church Jesus had in mind all along that would reach the world.

 

James Emery White

 

 

Editor’s Note

 

James Emery White is the founding and senior pastor of Mecklenburg Community Church in Charlotte, NC, and the ranked adjunctive professor of theology and culture at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which he also served as their fourth president.  His newly released book is The Church in an Age of Crisis: 25 New Realities Facing Christianity (Baker Press).  To enjoy a free subscription to the Church and Culture blog, log-on to www.churchandculture.org, where you can post your comments on this blog, view past blogs in our archive and read the latest church and culture news from around the world.  Follow Dr. White on twitter @JamesEmeryWhite.

Causation vs. Correlation

 

Causation vs. Correlation 

 

You visit a church that has become known for its rapid growth.  You take down a number of observations, seeking the “key” to its “success.”

 

You note that the pastor is young, dynamic, and hip.  The music is loud and edgy.  It is situated in an affluent area of the city.  They “market” their “brand” unblushingly.

 

The temptation would be to do the following:  take note of the music, the sermon topics, the communication style, the outreach strategy, the type of facility it rents or has built, and deem yourself informed about what makes that particular church “work.”  Throw in a few designer tees and skinny jeans, and you think you’ve got this one covered.

 

There would be so much wrong with this it’s hard to even know where to begin.  First, it’s one of the poorest ways to study church growth.  Second, it assumes that whatever works in one situation will work in a different context under a different leader.  Third, it mistakes cosmetic issues – the kind gathered from a site visit – the most substantive ones to note.

 

But most of all, it runs the very high risk of confusing causation with correlation.

 

Seth Godin gives the example of noticing how, in most cities, every time you observe that lots of umbrellas are out and open, it's raining.  From this analysis, the obvious way to make it rain is to be sure that everyone has an umbrella, preferably a black one, since that seems to be the kind that's most visible during big storms.

 

But that would be confusing causation with correlation.  There is a correlation between umbrellas and rain, but not causation.  The umbrellas have nothing to do with whether or not it rains.

 

Let’s return to our church visit.

 

What if the deeper reality is that the church was actually the beneficiary of unprecedented transfer growth due to several large churches in its proximity going through some kind of split or internal dissension at the same time, and they just gathered the disaffected?  What if one church alone sent over 1,000 people its way, and another nearly 2,500?  And further, the high baptism rate was not true conversion growth, but Presbyterians getting dunked by Baptists, or rebaptisms for rededications?

 

Suddenly what might deserve to be studied is how to position a church for transfer growth, largely through the disgruntled and the disaffected, and to see the maximum value of that church’s education more in the realm of assimilation than outreach.

 

Countless other examples could be offered of fast-growing churches that beg to be examined for music or teaching or style or innovation, but in truth:

 

...the church reached out to Christian high school students, and then the parents followed in fear of becoming spiritually separated from their child (but in truth, didn’t really like the church at all).

 

…the church was planted in a small town, rural area with a large population base built by many nearby small towns.  They became the transfer growth magnet due to being the only contemporary church in the region, almost its only “entertainment.”

 

…the church has such a flaming evangelist for a pastor that the church would grow regardless of the style of worship or strategy.

 

…the church is benefiting from the fastest-growing edge of town and interstate access.

 

I know all of this is crass, and plays into some of the worst (read “secular”) reflections on church growth.  My apologies.  But the point is that whenever we study any model of church life, health or growth, or get ready to anoint the “next, next thing,” we must dig deep to make sure we are determining causes, and not just correlations.

 

Most of the time, the umbrella has nothing to do with the rain.

 

James Emery White

 

 

Sources

 

Seth Godin, “Getting confused about causation and correlation.” Read online.

 

 

Editor’s Note

 

James Emery White is the founding and senior pastor of Mecklenburg Community Church in Charlotte, NC, and the ranked adjunctive professor of theology and culture at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which he also served as their fourth president.  His latest book is What They Didn’t Teach You in Seminary (Baker).  To enjoy a free subscription to the Church and Culture blog, log-on to www.churchandculture.org, where you can post your comments on this blog, view past blogs in our archive and read the latest church and culture news from around the world.  Follow Dr. White on twitter @JamesEmeryWhite.

Megatrends that Weren't

 

The most recent issue of Foreign Policy is themed around its first-ever set of predictions about the future.  Articles from some of the world’s most “bleeding-edge” thinkers look at the planet in the year 2025.  
 
As you would imagine, most of their predictions have already been set in motion by recent events, and could, themselves, have been predicted. For example, technology will take on a life of its own; micromultinationals will run the world; everything will be too big to fail; the South China Sea will be the future of conflict; the world will be more crowded (but with old people); the shape of the global economy will fundamentally change; and problems will be increasingly global in nature, as will their solutions (you think?).

But what intrigued me the most was an article titled “Megatrends That Weren’t.” Joshua Keating writes about “yesterday’s Next Big Things” that never took place, noting that “history can be awfully unkind to pundits wielding crystal balls.” 
As his examples show, today’s “Next Big Thing can quickly become tomorrow’s “Trend That Never Was.”

Such as:

*The Japanese Superpower.  In the 1980’s and early 1990’s, as Japan’s industrial production surged by more than 50 percent, a cottage industry predicting Japan’s economic dominance was born. Instead Japan entered its “lost decade” of economic stagnation and was overtaken by China in 2010.

*The Permanent Economic Boom.  Prior to the current financial crisis there was unbridled optimism that the good times don’t have to end. Experts placed inordinate faith in the power of computerized trading, financial “innovation,” and the exploding housing market. The reality was that the Dow Jones industrial average never did get higher than its 2007 peak of 14,164.53. So much for predictions of the Dow reaching 36,000, 40,000 or even 100,000, as some predicted.

*Peak Oil.  While there is a finite amount of oil in the world and it’s going to run out sooner or later, it was predicted that global oil production would tap out in the early 1970’s. Peak-oil theorists failed to take into account both the discovery of new oil and new means of extracting difficult-to-recover reserves buried deep beneath the ocean or in tar sands in the Canadian tundra.  

*The Resource Crunch.  In 1798, English scholar Thomas Malthus predicted that global famine and disease would eventually limit human population growth. As of last month, we are now at 7 billion and growing without imminent global famine and catastrophe due to rapid population growth. There may come a time when the Earth’s population becomes unsustainable, but for now the problem isn’t lack of resources but how to distribute them to those in need.

*The Internet Fad.  Excessive skepticism can be as bad as buying into overly optimistic predictions. In 1943, IBM Chairman Thomas Watson saw a global market for “maybe five computers.” Then there’s astronomer and popular science author Clifford Stoll, who in a 1995 book and Newsweek article, ridiculed the idea that “we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Internet” and argued that “no online database will replace your daily newspaper.” And more recently British entrepreneur Alan Sugar predicted in 2005 that the iPod would be “kaput” within the year.  

In my recent book What They Didn’t Teach You In Seminary, I talk about the “Next, Next Thing,” and how our culture’s preoccupation with “next” has replaced our earlier fascination with “new.” The difference? New is what something is; next suggests a special insight.  

Christians can be captivated by “next” as much as anyone.  

I know of pastors who joke about a “migratory flow pattern” among Christians in their community who are constantly church-hopping to the “next” thing in church life. They move from one church to another, looking for the next hot singles group, the next hot church plant, the next hot speaker, the next hot youth group. Many times they end up full circle where they began, because their original church suddenly became “next.”
Church leaders can succumb to the same temptation, only in terms of church model. First it was Willow Creek.  Then Saddleback. Then came Hillsong, Northpoint and Fellowship. Or perhaps instead of doing it by church name, it was by type:  first came seeker-targeted, then purpose-driven, then postmodern, then ancient-future, then emergent, then “simple.” For some the allure of the next “next” is programmatic, moving from Alpha to KidStuff to...well, you get the picture.  

Stop and think what happened to the “megatrends” of drama in church, the meta-model of small groups, the seeker-targeted strategy of the 80’s and 90’s, and praise choruses?

In truth, many of the “next” churches we flock to - as attenders or leaders - have little of the true “next” about them. More often than not, what is behind the attention is little more than a gifted communicator, or a niche-focus, or tried-and-true contemporary approaches in a traditional context, maybe one or two twists on previously envisioned programs – coupled with a growing edge of town.  

Yet the seduction of the “next” lures us to race to their conference to find the “secret” to success.  

But racing toward the “next” is more than just deceptive – it can be dangerous. Meaning you can buy into the “next” before you know whether it was ever worth buying into in the first place.  

There have been, and will be, some truly “next” churches. But our threshold should be more than rapid growth, a charismatic leader, a niche-market, the latest beneficiary of a growing edge of town or the migratory flow of believers. Not simply because there may not be anything truly “next” about it beyond that which is cosmetic, but because our appetite for the “next” has us looking to churches that have yet to truly prove themselves, much less their ideas, through the test of time.

Leaders must realize that however exhilarating a new church model may appear, silver bullets do not exist.  Leaders must look deeper than the latest model or program, conference or style, and realize that the process inherent within a thriving church has not changed in 2,000 years:  you must evangelize the lost, then assimilate those evangelized, then disciple those assimilated, and then unleash those discipled for ministry.

That’s a megatrend that is, was, and ever will be.

James Emery White

  

Sources     
“Megatrends That Weren’t,” Joshua E. Keating, Foreign Policy, September/October 2011, p. 92. www.foreignpolicy.com
James Emery White, What They Didn’t Teach You In Seminary (Baker Books, 2011).

 

Editor’s Note

 

To enjoy a free subscription to the Church and Culture blog, log-on to www.churchandculture.org, where you can post your comments on this blog, view past blogs in our archive and read the latest church and culture news from around the world.  Follow Dr. White on twitter @JamesEmeryWhite.

A Formula for Success

Emil Brolick, CEO of Wendy's

Wendy’s new CEO is fed up with being known as the “third” burger chain.  If you want to pull his chain even more, talk about Wendy’s as the fallen star of the fast-food industry.

In his first interview since being named chief executive, Emil Brolick spoke candidly with a USA Today marketing reporter about his plan to once again make Wendy’s an industry innovator.

It better be a good one.  It will need to fix a company with 6,600 locations worldwide that has been, to quote USA Today, “rudderless in an ocean of competition since its iconic founder, Dave Thomas, died nearly a decade ago.”

When asked what difference he could make, Brolick said, “I’m a big believer in the importance of leadership in an organization.  My leadership can make a difference in this brand.”

He’s right.  And not just for burger chains.  The Bible talks clearly about the spiritual gift of leadership in Romans 12, and challenges those with the gift to step forward and lead.  Since the gifts were given for the building of the church, there can be little doubt that the Holy Spirit finds leadership indispensable for the church’s flourishing.

Brolick then offered a single formula for success.

“Have a vision, a strategy, define reality, give hope and execute.”

I think I like this guy, and may just buy stock in Wendy’s.  I have seldom read a more concise, direct plan for organizational success that resonates with everything I know about leadership.

Let’s unpack it in light of the church.

1.      Have a vision.  We all know that where there is no vision, the people perish.  Or more accurately, run amuck.  Vision is a clear picture of the future that paints a target on the wall.  You can’t ever hit what you don’t aim at.  Vision tells us what we’re aiming at.

What is your vision?  Has it been clearly articulated?

At Meck, our immediate vision is called our 20/20 Vision: to have 20,000 active attenders with ministry in 20 countries by the year 2020.

2.      Have a strategy.  Very few churches have a strategy.  Instead, they have tactics – meaning, things they are doing.  But there isn’t an overarching strategy that leads tactics to be chosen, much less that the tactics feed and support.

What is your strategy?  How do you plan on achieving your vision?

At Meck, our strategy to reach 20,000 attenders is to mobilize our church community to invest in those around them and then invite those very people to attend a growing number of regional campuses throughout our city.  Our strategy involves not only outreach, but assimilation, discipleship, and then unleashing individuals for ministry.

3.      Define Reality.  This is one of the most overlooked aspects of church leadership.  My friend Bill Hybels has, of late, been chanting “facts are our friends.”  He’s right.  If an area of ministry is slipping, if a staff person is not a good fit, if a strategy is not working, if an area needs work, it does no good whatsoever to continue on with a “business as usual” mentality or to gloss it over as if everything is fine.  A leader defines reality, and that helps realities change.  If something is broke, call it broke – and then fix it!  If something is dying, bury it – before it starts to stink!  A good leader won’t just tell you how good things are – they can also tell you exactly where things are weak. 

What is the reality of your church’s situation?  What’s working, and what’s not?

At Meck, we need to relocate one of our new campuses as early as January because its current location/facility is hindering growth.  Our set-up and break-down teams for our two newest campuses are in desperate need of support to prevent burn-out and break-down of volunteers.  We are grossly understaffed in areas of children’s ministry and guest services.  These are realities, and there are many more to go with them.

4.      Give Hope.  It’s been said that you can live for four months without food, four days without water, and four minutes without air - but not four seconds without hope.  It isn’t enough to cast vision, much less to define reality – a leader has to give hope that the vision can become reality; that things can change. 

Does your church feel like it can change?  That it can do what it is being called and challenged to do?

At Meck, we take the first weekend after my summer study break and lay out the God-movements in our church.  When a church has a breakthrough, when progress is being made, it should be brought front and center to the church.  Not simply so that God can be given His glory, though that is primary, but also so that the people can maintain the hope they need that we can continue to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight.

5.      Execute.  I recently tweeted about the importance of having a bias for action.  Too often we have a “ready, aim, aim, aim…” mentality.  Fire your dang gun!  There comes a time to pull the trigger on action and decision.

Is your church weighing whether to do something, and it’s been weighing it for a long time?  Is there a “paralysis of analysis” going on?

At Meck, in the last 12 months, we decided to build on one campus, launch two new campuses, begin a ministry to Spanish-speaking persons, add two more countries to our mission investments, and adopt a local school that has the highest poverty rate in the city. 

In truth, having a vision, a strategy, defining reality, giving hope and executing is far from simply a marketplace strategy, much less unique to a fast-food executive.

It’s part and parcel of the exercising of the gift of leadership.

And as the apostle Paul said of the gifts given for the church, “If God has given you leadership ability, take the responsibility seriously.” (Romans 12:8, NLT).

It’ll flip around more than a burger chain.

James Emery White

 

Sources     

“Wendy new CEO has big plans to flip its ranking,” Interview with Emil Brolick, conducted by Bruce Horowitz, USA Today, Tuesday, October 18, 2011, p. 1B and 2B. Read online.

 

   

Editor’s Note

 

To enjoy a free subscription to the Church and Culture blog, log-on towww.churchandculture.org, where you can post your comments on this blog, view past blogs in our archive and read the latest church and culture news from around the world.  Follow Dr. White on twitter @JamesEmeryWhite.