Do you really need your church building?

This is a difficult article to write, but I think the topic is one that many smaller churches need to discuss. A few years ago I was a speaker and work shop leader at a denominational event. While there I met an organic church planter for that denomination. Rather than taking a more traditional approach to church planting he was committed to planting small churches that would meet in people's homes. Part of his time was spent in trying to convince people that they would be better off selling their church properties and using that money to do ministry in their communities. I ate lunch with him each day of the conference listening to his ideas and vision.

One of his comments has stuck in my mind. He said that anything a church of 30 people does can be done in a home as well as in a building that is used one day a week. Let that thought sink in for a few minutes.

If you are a member of a church of 30 people or less each Sunday, ask yourself how much money are you spending on building upkeep, insurance, utilities, and other costs of owning property. What might happen is you spent that same amount on ministry that touched people's lives? If we are to be good stewards of God's money should it be spent on buildings or people? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with buildings, but if those buildings prevent us from doing ministry with people there is something seriously wrong with our sense of stewardship.

I know we have an attraction to our church buildings. They are the places where we were married and where our children were baptized. Perhaps a family member's funeral was held in that building or our grandparents gave a gift to install a stained glass window that has their name on it. I understand all that, but at the end of the day it is a building. It is not the church; we are the church, it is a building. As I used to remind our congregation occasionally, our building would hold a lot of hay, and if we're not doing what God has called us to do then it might as well be used for that.

The church planter I was talking to encouraged smaller churches to turn their buildings over to their denomination for sale. Once the property was sold the people would begin meeting in homes, and the money would be divided between the denomination and the congregation. The denomination would use that money for new church planting, and the congregation would use their money to do ministry in their communities. If their congregation grew beyond 20-30 people a new group would be formed and meet in another home.

My new friend admitted that very few people were excited about his vision for new church planting. It requires a major paradigm shift in how we define what constitutes a church. Just as many denominations struggle trying to identify their bivocational ministers I would imagine they would struggle with recognizing these house churches as real churches.

Despite the resistance many people would have to such an idea, I think this is a conversation many smaller churches and denominational leaders need to have. Many smaller churches have neglected building maintenance for years and will soon face some major expenses making needed repairs. These churches face growing challenges finding pastoral leadership, and even with the increased numbers of bivocational ministers some find it very difficult to find a pastor. The church is also facing an uncertain future with many questioning the tax exempt status churches now enjoy. Governments at every level are constantly looking for new tax revenues. Forcing churches to pay property taxes would add multiplied millions of dollars of new tax money to their coffers, so I think it is dangerous to assume that we will always enjoy the exemptions we now have.

More important than any of these reasons is that it would force us to think differently about what it means to be a church. It would require us to think about what God's purpose for the church really is. It would cause us to be a community rather than an organization.  Caring for one another would become more important than Robert's Rules of Order, and we could learn what it means to minister to one another and to those outside the church as a community of believers. Rather than waiting on the paid professional or someone else in a position of authority to do something we would each use the gifts God has given us to minister as we see the need.

Yea, I think this is a conversation many of us in smaller churches need to have.

At the end of the year, what has changed?

Most churches have a lot of activities going on. Larger churches usually have something happening at the church seven days a week, and sometimes multiple things. Even in smaller churches there are various activities occurring throughout the year.

A good exercise might be to take the church calendar at the end of the year, review all the activities that have occurred, and then determine how much of an impact those activities had. You may be surprised by what you find.

Many of the things churches do are done out of tradition. Although nobody remembers why the church began a particular activity, it continues today because no one can remember a time it wasn't done. Unfortunately, no one takes the time to evaluate the effectiveness of the activity by looking at how that activity has impacted the church or community.

If the activity does not provide the church with a good return on investment, this does not automatically mean that the activity should be eliminated. Maybe a different approach would produce better results. Maybe it won't, but unless you are willing to experiment you'll never know. And, if you don't take the time to evaluate the results of the activity you will never know that it may not be the most productive use of your time and resources.

A key word for me in recent months has been intentionality. Too often, churches are content to drift along hoping something they do will produce good results. Drifting seldom produces the results you want. Moving forward with intentionality is usually much more effective. Knowing where you want to go and having a plan for how to get there is much better than drifting and hoping you end up in a good place.

Churches can stay busy and yet accomplish very little. Unless the activity is leading somewhere, it is not likely to have a lot of impact on the church or community.

Barbara Corcoran of Shark Tank fame used to fire the bottom 25 percent of her sales force each year. She recognized that these were not earning their keep and was a drain on her organization. What if the church took the same approach to its programming and activities? What if we evaluated everything we did at the end of the year and eliminated the bottom 25 percent that produced the least results?

This may be a radical idea, and it won't be easy for people to give up some of their sacred cows. Some of the things that churches do can be difficult to measure, but I think we must at least try. At a time when many churches are struggling with human and financial resources, we cannot continue to keep programs and activities that are no longer effective.

In many churches, the week between Christmas and New Years is often a slow time. This could be a great time to sit down and begin to evaluate everything your church did that year and see what adjustments need to be made. Become more intentional about doing the things that give you the greatest results, and at the end of the following year you will probably find a lot has changed in your church.

Tough questions the church must ask

In the movie Sister Act the character played by Whoopi Goldberg wanted the nuns to leave the safety of their convent to go into the dangerous neighborhood that surrounded them.  The Mother Superior forbade it saying that is was much too dangerous.  When the priest overruled her ban the nuns went into the neighborhood where they found numerous ways to minister to those who lived there.  As the weeks went by the church sanctuary, which had been nearly empty, began to fill with those folks whose lives had been touched.

The world is a dangerous place, but it is in exactly that dangerous place where we are called to serve.  Too many churches want to sit in the safety of their "sanctuaries" and wonder why the people are not coming to them.  Jesus taught that we are to go into all the world and make disciples, not sit around and hope people will come to us.

I was involved in conversations with some folks yesterday about the situation facing many of our churches, especially our smaller ones.  Some of them were amazed when I told them that approximately 100 churches in the US close their doors every week.  I explained to them that the size of the church had nothing to do with that although the majority of those churches were smaller churches.  The primary reason they closed their doors was that they had forgotten why they existed.  At some point in history people had a vision that involved a church in that location, but over the years succeeding generations lost that vision.  They no longer had a purpose for existing other than ensuring that the existing members had their spiritual and other needs met.  While this is important, it is not a vision that can sustain a ministry nor should it be the primary focus of the church.  Eventually, a church with such a tunnel vision will cease to exist.

Scripture clearly gives each church its mission.  It's found in the Great Commission and the Great Commandment, and neither can be fulfilled unless the church is in the world touching people's lives.  Unfortunately, the reality is that too many churches have abandoned this God-given mission.  Such churches need to ask some really tough questions.

• Who are we here for?  If a church exists for those who do not yet know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior it should be reflected in their budget and in their programming.  You might want to check out those before answering this first question because it could change the way you answer it.
• Is what we're doing worth the life of the Son of God?  Think back to your last board meeting or business meeting.  How much of the time in those meetings were spent discussing vital issues that will impact the lives of people and how much of it was spent discussing trivial things that won't matter five years from now?
• Who is Jesus to you?  How the church answers this question will determine what kind of church it will be.  Any church that calls itself a conservative or evangelical church that is not reaching unchurched people for Christ has some serious problems.
• Do you love people as much as Jesus does?  On the night he was betrayed Jesus took a basin of water and washed the feet of his disciples, including the one he knew would later betray him.  Many churches claim to be the friendliest church in town, but from my experience of being a different church nearly every week I would say that many of them are only friendly to one another, not necessarily to the stranger in their midst.  People matter to God.  Do they matter to your church?
• What price are you willing to pay?  Many of the churches I work with claim they want to reach new people until they learn they will probably have to change some things to do so.  After all, if you could reach people by doing what you're doing, you would already be reaching them!  What preferences, what traditions, what sacred cows would your church give up to reach people with the gospel?

These are tough questions which I believe every church is going to be forced to ask at numerous times in its life.  Based upon your answers your church will be set on a path that will lead you to a destination.  The right answers will result in transformed lives and the advancement of the Kingdom of God.  The wrong answers will lead to the church becoming irrelevant and useless to the purposes of God.  Is it time to begin asking these questions of your leadership?

For more on this issue I recommend you read my book The Healthy Community: Moving Your Church Beyond Tunnel Vision.

What is the real mission of your church?

What is the mission of your church?  I know what the correct answer is, and most churches would give that, but what is honestly the mission of your church?  Now, before you answer that I want you to look at your church calendar and your financial statement because it is in that calendar and checkbook that we find the real mission of every church.

Sadly, most churches do not have a mission beyond providing services to their members.  They have been so inwardly focused for so long that they can no longer see the needs of people even within the shadow of their own steeples.  Reggie McNeal once wrote, "Member values clash with missionary values.  Member values are all about church real estate, church programming, who's in and who's out, member services, member issues (translated: am I getting what I need out of this church?)  Missionary values are about the street, people's needs, breaking down barriers, community issues (translated: am I partnering with God's work in people?)  He believes "the North American church is suffering from severe amnesia.  It has forgotten why it exists."  That's quite an indictment of the church, but unfortunately it is true for many of them

The bottom line is that a church is either focused on maintenance or on mission, and many have chosen maintenance.  There is much less risk when a church chooses maintenance.  No one has to learn anything new.  There is less chance of upsetting people with messy changes that often accompany mission.  Everyone can remain in their comfortable ruts, and this includes the pastors as well.  Pastors sometimes complain about the lack of mission within their congregation, but the truth is many pastors prefer maintenance as well.

The challenge for the church today is to recapture the passion the early church had for the Great Commission and the Great Commandment.  When we read the story of the church in Acts it was this passion that allowed them to overcome extreme persecution and become people who were known as the people who turned the world upside down.  It is this passion that have enabled underground churches in China and other Communist nations to flourish despite their government's attempts to destroy them.  It is likely this same passion that led people to start the church you attend today.

The mission of the church is the same for every church regardless of size.  Your bivocational church of 40 people shares the same mission as the largest mega-church in America.  That mission is the Great Commission and the Great Commandment.

Part of our problem is that many Christians understand this.  They know what their mission should be, but they avoid doing it because if they committed themselves to this mission it would require too many changes in what they are currently doing.  They are not willing to make the necessary changes to live into the biblical mission of the church.

To become a church on mission will require extensive change for many congregations.  They will have to be willing to give up some cherished programs and preferences in order to minister in a way that will transform people in our postmodern society.  Mission will have to become the driving force behind everything they do, and anything that does not contribute to that mission will have to be abandoned.

Let's ask the question again.  What is the real mission of your church?

This post is adapted from a chapter in my book The Healthy Community: Moving Your Church Beyond Tunnel Vision.

The challenge of turning around a declining church

We regularly read that 80 percent of the churches in North America are plateaued or declining.  As I've written elsewhere I believe that the majority of those churches are in decline.  A plateau is a relatively short period of time on a life cycle.  Although I do not know the actual percentage of declining churches that have been turned around, my experience would suggest it is a fairly low number.  In his excellent book Taking Your Church to the Next Level: What Got You Here Won't Get You There Gary McIntosh explains why it is so difficult to turn around a declining church.

McIntosh writes that a turn-around pastor must be a reorganizer.  Such a person must be skilled at multi-tasking and able to build a new vision for the church while at the same time satisfying the existing members.  This requires excellent people skills that enables the pastor to enjoy credibility with the membership and the ability to attract new people to the church.  One challenge is that if some headway is not seen within two or three years the reorganizer will leave.  A second challenge is that such pastors are in short supply with the author suggesting that only about five percent of ministers would fall into this category.

As the church continues down the decline side of the life cycle into the dying stage it requires a super reorganizer.  This person will have the ability to raise the dead as the only thing that can save such a church in this stage is a rebirth.  The problems encountered at this stage is the very low percentage of ministers capable of such a rebirth, perhaps 1-2 percent, and the fact that the church must be willing to try almost anything to survive.  The truth is most churches at this stage of life have become very risk averse and will refuse almost any suggestion that they fear might actually shorten their lives.

Is it difficult for a declining church to turn around and experience new life and new ministry?  Absolutely, but it is not impossible.  The primary cause of such decline in McIntosh's opinion is a loss of vision for ministry, and I completely agree.  If the church can discover a fresh vision from God for a future ministry then a turn-around is possible.  Without such a vision, and the courage to live into that vision, a turn-around is unlikely.

What makes this book so valuable is that McIntosh gives some very practical ways for different types of churches to find that vision and put it into practice..  For better or worse, I seldom re-read books, but I am currently re-reading this one.  It is filled with practical ideas that any size church can implement to experience a turn-around if they are determined to do so.  If your church is currently struggling and in that 80 percent I would certainly recommend this book to you.  If you are fortunate enough to be in a church that is in the 20 percent I urge you to read it to learn how to avoid falling into the plateau/decline trap.

We must be willing to pay the price of change

This post is condensed from a chapter in my newest book The Healthy Community: Moving Your Church Beyond Tunnel Vision.  Church leaders often tell me they want to see their churches grow, and many of them claim to be willing for change to occur for that to happen.  However, few are willing to pay the price of such change.  As soon as things start to become difficult they quickly revert back to what they were doing to alleviate the pain of the change.  Change often requires a tremendous price on an organization and its leadership.  Jesus taught us that before engaging in a new endeavor we should count the cost, so what are some of the costs that a church might encounter as it begins to make significant changes?

1. It could require new pastoral leadership.  George Barna insisted in his book  Turnaround Churches: How to Overcome Barriers to Growth and Bring New Life to an Established Church, that a new pastor had to be brought in to turn around a church.  In some cases, a pastor could re-invent himself or herself, but quite often a pastor must be willing to step aside so a church can make the necessary changes to become healthier and grow.
2. It could require new lay leadership.  In some churches lay leaders may be willing to step aside, but often it will require either intervention or confrontation.  Neither are likely to be easy.  Pastors who attempt to do either are often the ones who actually end up out of a job.  In many cases, the best opportunity for ineffective or dysfunctional lay leaders to be challenged is when the church is between pastors.  This can be a very important task for an interim minister to achieve before the new pastor arrives.
3. Any significant change will lead to conflict.  A church will not experience a significant change without conflict of some type.  Such changes often bring a sense of loss to some people, and most people resist losses in their lives.  Before introducing change into a church the wise leader will consider what possible conflicts it might create and proactively address them as much as possible before the change occurs.  At the very least, anticipate that conflict will occur so that you are not surprised and unprepared when it does occur.
4. There is always the potential that change will cause some people to leave the church.  Some will leave because they were unable to stop the changes from occuring and sense that their power and influence in the church are gone.  Others will leave because the changes create a church different than what they prefer.  Although no church wants to see people leave the congregation, the threat of losing members should not deter the church from moving forward in the direction God has laid out for them.
5. If the change successfully leads to growth there is often an unexpected cost to a congregation.  It is no longer the same church that current members have become used to.  New people may park in "their" parking spots and sit in "their" seats.  If young children begin to attend the church the noise level may be greater than people have been used to and it may be more difficult to keep the carpet and walls clean.  New people will be available for leadership and teaching positions which some of the old guard will find threatening.  The church structure may have to change to reflect the differences in the church.  I am convinced that some people resist change in the church because they are fearful of the costs that might be involved if the changes are successful.

You can find more information on these possible costs and some recommendations for how to avoid them in my book.

Let them leave

Churches, especially smaller ones, worry too much about people leaving for another church.  As a result, we allow individuals to derail our best efforts at doing new ministry.  All they have to do is threaten to leave if we don't do things the way they want.  Such people have been known to hold a church hostage for years, even decades.  If some churches ever want to get to the place where it is able to offer relevant ministry to the 21st century they are going to have to stop giving these people veto power over decisions the congregation wants to make.

There are two types of people who threaten to leave a church, and how a church responds depends upon which category they would fall into.  As a pastor the ones I hated to see leave were the ones who simply were not comfortable with the changes that were occurring in the church.  These were good people who did not want to create problems, but the new directions the church was taking were not what they wanted in a church.  It affected their ability to worship and to serve, and as painful as it is to lose such people it is probably best for them and the church for them to leave.

I was working with a church one time that was trying to make a decision between two options.  At a leadership meeting one night one of the leaders said that if the church chose one option he and his family would leave.  He wasn't angry, and he didn't say it as a threat.  He just wanted the others to know that his family would not be comfortable with that choice.  I immediately said to the group, "And that's OK.  If he and his family chooses to leave that is their choice to make and should not influence the decision you make."  In the end, the church did make the choice that he was not comfortable with, and he and his family left that church.  Within a few weeks they settled into another nearby congregation where they continue to be very active members and hold leadership positions.  You hate to lose such people, but if God is leading one way and they felt led another direction you have to respect that and make the decision that God is leading the entire congregation to make.

The second group consists of the controllers.  Any time they don't get their way they stomp and snort telling everyone they are going to leave the church.  These are people who believe the church exists for them and their families, and everyone else there is expected to bow down to their wishes.  They may or may not be major givers in the church (sometimes you might be surprised to find out that the ones who demand the most give the least).  They will announce to anyone who will listen that they represent a large group within the church, and if they leave that whole group will leave.  Sometimes that happens, but in my experience I've learned that they usually represent their family who were conditioned years ago to not cross them and few others outside their immediate family.  Even if a large group does follow them out of the church, are these people with whom you would expect to build a ministry?  If they are following a controller that means they are not following God.

I would never lose a minute's sleep when these people leave.  I would wish them well and then turn back to the task God had given me.  While I would never invite people to a party to celebrate that these people had left, I might be tempted to thank God for a blessed reduction in our church.  Sometimes a church needs to grow a little smaller before it can grow larger.

A church will never be any healthier than its members and its leaders.  If your church consists primarily of controllers and other dysfunctional people it will never be healthy until these people are gone, and until it has a measure of health it will not be able to do much for the Kingdom of God.  For more on healthy churches and how to deal with controllers you may want to read my book The Healthy Small Church: Diagnosis and Treatment for the Big Issues.

Where do I begin?

I recently received an e-mail from an individual who said he was a first time pastor of a small church.  He is serving as a bivocational pastor.  The church is not healthy, and he wanted to know which of my books he should read first as he attempts to lead this church to become healthier.  I recommended he begin reading The Healthy Small Church: Diagnosis and Treatment for the Big Issues.  This would help him with several different areas of church life that may need to be addressed.  I also felt the last chapter which contains diagnostic questions he and his church leadership could answer together would be beneficial.  However, as he reads this book there is something he needs to be doing before he starts addressing problems.

Everything in a smaller church is built around relationships.  When change is introduced one of the first questions people will ask is how it will impact the relationships that exist in the church.  Smaller churches are often referred to as family churches for a very good reason: they operate like a family.  There are patriarchs and matriarchs who sit at the head of the table.  New people can join a small church but they never really become part of the family until the patriarchs and matriarchs adopt them into the family.  (By the way, that includes the pastor as well.)   A new pastor of a smaller church must be very intentional about building relationships with the people in the congregation before attempting to make any significant changes in the way the church operates.

Small church pastors cannot spend the bulk of their time in the church office.  They have to be with their people.  I remember visiting one of the patriarchs of the church I served and found him in the barn working on a piece of farm machinery.  I grabbed a nearby five gallon bucket, turned it upside down and sat there with him as he continued working.  Our entire visit was spent in the barn as he finished getting his disk ready for spring.  When I was leaving he smiled and said, "You know.  You just might do all right here."  I had entered his world and was not uncomfortable and we were able to make an immediate connection.  It also helped that I was raised on farms so it wasn't the first time I had ever sat on a bucket in a barn.

Relationships are key to an effective ministry in smaller churches.  Spend time with your people where they work, in their homes, at school functions.  Get to know their hearts and allow them to know yours.  The time may come when they will disagree with an action you want to take but will trust your heart and be willing to follow your leadership.  As you know them you will avoid making decisions that you know will create undue pain in their lives.  That kind of wisdom cannot be learned in a classroom but can only be found through the relationships you have with people, and that will make you a much better leader.  It will also lead to a healthier church.

Responsibility without authority

In his excellent book Winning On Purpose: How To Organize Congregations to Succeed in Their Mission (Convergence Ebook Series) John Kaiser writes,  "When a congreation has a bureaucratic structure, either by design or default, it assigns responsibility to its pastor but divorces that responsibility from the authority needed to fulfill it.  So the formula is responsibility minus authority, and the result is an organization that may appear safe but is certainly ineffective...The pastor of this congregation fuctions merely as an employee."  There is nothing more frustrating that to be assigned responsibility but not given the authority to fulfill that responsibility.  Unfortunately, that is exactly where many pastors live.

As I meet with pastor search committees to help them find their next pastor one of the desires I nearly always hear from this committee is the church wants a pastor who will grow their church.  Six months later I see these same people standing on the brakes doing everything within their control to stop the changes that will be needed to reach new people with the Gospel.  Folks, it doesn't get any more dysfunctional than that.  Not only is it dysfunctional, it is also the definition of hypocritical.  The church says the right words but their actions are the exact opposite, and that is hypocrisy.

This does not mean that I am advocating that the pastor be given ultimate power to do whatever he or she chooses.  I am advocating that the church leadership and the pastor work together to identify the direction God wants to lead the church (See yesterday's blog post.) and move in that direction.  I also believe that the pastor must be given great authority to lead this movement of the church while remaining accountable to the leadership.  The role of the lay leaders here is to provide the parameters beyond which the pastor may not cross.  These parameters will include the core values and bedrock beliefs of the church.  With the parameters in place and a clear sense of where God is leading the church, the pastor must be free to lead and the congregation must be willing to follow.

This will often cause great discomfort for some because they have never travelled this way before nor have they submitted to any pastor's leadership.  Some may refuse to make the journey, and that is OK.  We worry too much about people who threaten to leave the church if things don't go back to how they used to be.  You want everyone to take this journey with you, but some may choose not to go.  Let them leave.  They are a hindrance to your church fulfilling the vision God has for your congregation.  God's vision always leads to life; the vision of the naysayers leads to death.  As long as the pastor is leading the church in the fulfillment of the vision the church agreed has come from God and remains within the parameters of the core values and bedrock beliefs of the church he or she must have the authority to lead. 

Periodically, the church leaders will want to evaluate the pastor's leadership in this journey.  Here is where a pastor evaluation becomes helpful.   Most pastor evaluations I have seen are extremely subjective and are not based upon vision and the purpose of the church but upon the unwritten expections each person has for the pastor.  In my opinion, such evaluations are worthless and do nothing to advance the ministry of the church.  The only helpful evaluation of the pastor's ministry will be based on previously agreed upon objectives and goals that the pastor and leadership have determined are critical for him or her to achieve if the church is to be successful.  Each of these outcomes must be measureable to ensure helpful evaluation.

It is also important that the leadership have the pastor's back during this time of transition in the church.  Critics will rise up to accuse the pastor of neglecting his or her duties.  The lay leadership must remind such critics of the primary tasks they have asked the pastor to assume.  Others in the church must step up and assume some of the maintenance tasks that too many pastors have been required to do in the past.  Changing people's expectations of the pastor meeting all their needs will not be easy but is the responsibility of the lay leadership if the pastor is to lead the church towards a fresh vision.

The churches Kaiser describes in the above quote will make up many of the 80 percent of the church in North America that are plateaued or declining.  Frankly, there is little hope of most of these churches turning this around unless they are willing to give their pastors the authority to lead them to the new place God has for them.  I encourage you to read Kaiser's book.  It really does provide an organization model to help your church succeed in its mission.

Planning for the pastor's departure

In my Baptist tradition the announced departure of a pastor is usually a big event in the life of the church.  Some people are cheering the news while others are deeply saddened, but for many of the people in the congregation there is often a sense of uncertainty.  Where will we find an interim pastor during the search for a new pastor?  Who will serve on the search committee?  How long will the search process take, and what will happen to our church during that period?  How difficult will it be to find a pastor who is a good fit for our church?  What kind of changes will calling a new pastor bring to our church?  For many churches today there is often the additional question of will they be able to get a fully-funded pastor or is this the time for them to call a bivocational person?

As an Area Resource Minister in our judicatory I have worked with many churches during their search process, and I find these questions are asked by many of them at some time during the process.  However, this does not have to be such a traumatic time especially if the church has been discussing the possibility before the announcement is made.  I have not understood why a pastoral transition is always such a shock to a congregation.  Assuming the Lord tarries, your pastor will one day leave your church.  He or she may move to another place of ministry, retire, leave the ministry, or die, but the bottom line is there will come a time when that pastor moves on and the church will begin the process to find a new pastor.  Rather than being surprised and caught unawares by the announcement that the pastor is leaving, the church would be better served by having already discussed the process that will be followed when the time comes.  I have found no better resource for this type of strategic planning that the book The Elephant in the Boardroom: Speaking the Unspoken about Pastoral Transitions (Jossey-Bass Leadership Network Series).

The authors write, "Succession planning is the second most important need in every church in the country...and few if any do it or do it well."  Based upon my observations and experiences I would agree with that statement.  This may be due to our fear of offending the pastor or making him or her feel that we are planning to replace the pastor in the near future.  Because churches do not normally do this type of succession planning that would be an easy assumption for a pastor to make.  So, the whole issue of the pastor one day leaving the church is ignored until the day the announcement is made, and then the church goes into crisis mode.  Would it not be better to have already planned for that announcement and made the necessary plans for how to respond when it is made?

One thing that might help churches become more willing to do succession planning is to count the cost of not having a pastor.  Many churches will see a steady decline in the number of people attending services during the interim process resulting in decreased giving.  These numbers will not immediately return once a new pastor is in place.  There are costs associated with searching for a new pastor and relocating one once the call is given.  In addition to the financial costs there are emotional and morale costs to the church. Churches often find that whatever momentum they had for ministry fades during the interim period.  It will take a while for that momentum to return as the new pastor has a steep learning curve before he or she is able to provide effective leadership.  According to the authors, about half of the members of the search committee will leave the church within three years of the new pastor's arrival.  While my numbers are not that high, I have seen a number of search committee members leave their church after it called the person they recommended.  If it turns out the new pastor is not a good fit for the church and ends up leaving after only two or three years, there is a repeat of all these costs and even more as the church begins to wander without capable leadership.

I believe the authors have done a good job of identifying a number of strategies for churches to consider based upon their size and make-up.  They do not offer a one-size-fits-all model for planning for pastoral succession since different churches will have different needs.  I would recommend that the church find which church culture best fits them and begin to study the suggestions associated with that culture and determine how to best implement them in their own planning.  To me, the best of all worlds would be for the current pastor to lead this study.  This removes the fear that the pastor may feel the church is seeking to find a new pastor by engaging in this study.  When the pastor leads such a study, what he or she is really doing is helping ensure the ministry he or she has enjoyed in the church will continue and the church and new pastor will be able to build upon that legacy.  This makes pastoral succession planning a win for everyone.

Is your church needed in your community?

I recently had two interesting conversations with pastors of very different churches.  One is a small, struggling church in a rural area.  The church isn't the healthiest church according to a denominational leader who knows it well, and some would argue that it should be closed.  However, what this ministry leader told me is that this church is located in a very poor area in their state that has a high level of problems - economic, family, violence, crime, etc, and this is the only church in that area.  He said that this church, even with all its problems, offers the only message of hope in this community.

Only a couple of weeks after that conversation I was speaking with the pastor of a larger congregation who was telling me they are quickly running out of space in one of their worship services.  Their church is landlocked and cannot build at its present location.  As we were talking about possible options I mentioned they should consider starting a satellite church in a nearby community.  They already have people driving from that area due to the fact that there are no churches of his denomination in that community.  He not only agreed with me but had already been thinking of the same thing.  The only other option for that congregation would be for them to relocate their entire facility which would make no sense.  Besides, the pastor told me, their community needs their church.  While there are a number of other churches in the immediate area, none of them are reaching out into the community as my friend's church is doing, and none of them are growing.  That community needs this church in that area so the church will have to look at starting a second site if it wants to continue its growth.

Two very different churches.  One is growing while the other struggles to remain open.  One has a bivocational pastor, and the other church has three fully-funded ministers on staff.  What they have in common is that their communities need them because of the spiritual impact they make on those communities.

Does your community need you?  One writer once asked, "If your church closed tomorrow would anyone in your community know?"  If your church did not open next Sunday would your community be impacted at all?  How long would it be before some people even knew your church had ceased to exist?  What difference is your church having on your community?  By honestly answering these questions you will also answer the one that is the title of this post.

Several years ago I was scheduled to meet with a church committee.  This was before GPS so I got directions to the church from MapQuest.  I soon found out MapQuest did not know where this church was located.  I had seen a sign for the church from the highway so I knew I was in the right vicinity so I continued to drive up and down the country roads looking for the church or at least another sign.  I stopped at two homes to ask directions, and neither of them could tell me where the church was located.  I was late for the meeting and about to give up and return home when I found the church.  The incredible thing was that the church was within two miles of both homes where I had asked for directions.  This church had been in the same location for over 100 years, but people within two miles of it didn't know where it was located.  Could that happen if someone was trying to find your church building?

Our churches should be well known in the communities they serve as ministry centers where people can find hope and comfort, and most of all God.  People should smile when they say the name of our churches because of the ministries we provide.  People from all denominations, and people of no faith at all, should recognize our churches as people who are having a positive impact on their communities.  What specific things will your church do in your community between now and the end of this year that will serve the people of that community?  When you live your faith outside the four walls of your building your church will be needed in your community.

What is a pastor-leader?

In the last couple of posts I've looked at the need for pastors to provide leadership to their churches.  We can list any number of things that are wrong with our churches today, but at the top of that list has to be the lack of leadership many churches are receiving from their pastors.  In fact, many of the other problems could be directly traced to that lack of leadership.  But, what we have not done is define what it means for a pastor to be a leader.  That is what I hope to do in this post.

Pastor-leaders are not dictators nor are they CEOs.  They do not lead with a "My way or the highway" attitude.  They do not threaten, manipulate, or force anyone in order to get their way.  Unfortunately, when one talks about a pastor being a strong leader this negative image is the one some people immediately think about.  It sounds too much like a cult leader, a Jim Jones type person, who everyone must follow regardless of the cost.  This is not at all what I mean when I talk about a pastor-leader.

A pastor-leader is one who is in the trenches with the people.  He or she has a vision for where God wants to lead this congregation and is willing to lead them there.  A pastor-leader knows he or she is accountable to God for the congregation he or she has been given.  The goal of a pastor-leader is to take everyone on the journey, but he or she also knows that some may refuse to go, and they cannot be allowed to prevent the others from experiencing what God has in store for them.  (Does any of this sound like Moses leading the Israelites to the Promised Land?)  This means a pastor-leader has a spine and is willing to confront those who will oppose or hinder the ministry God has given the church.   Such confrontation is not done in a mean-spirited way or without much prayer, but there will be times when a pastor-leader must take a stand and challenge the controllers and others who would sabotage the work God is doing in the church.

Pastor-leaders do not seek their vision but God's.  They are not interested in climbing the ministerial ladder of success; they are interested in fulfilling God's purpose for their lives whatever that might be.  For some, that may be serving as a bivocational pastor of a small, rural church that may struggle but offers the only hope in the community in which it serves.  Others may be called to a mega-church with thousands of persons attending services each week.  Regardless of where one is called, the pastor-leader rejoices that God has entrusted him or her with the responsibility to lead the congregation that has issued the call.  If this is not be a great place in which to serve, the pastor-leader is committed to staying there until it becomes a great place.

A pastor-leader is committed to personal growth.  Pastor-leaders are often found attending a workshop, reading a book, or enrolling in a course that will help him or her grow personally and spiritually.  Every pastor-leader I've ever known has been committed to lifelong learning.  A true leader knows he or she has much to learn, and the minute they stop learning they stop growing.

Pastor-leaders lead from the front, not from the safety of their office.  They lead by example.  They are not afraid to get their hands dirty.  If they want their congregation to win souls for Christ, they are soul winners.  If they want the members of their churches to be more involved in feeding the hungry and ministering to the physical needs of the community, they will be involved in doing that alongside their congregations.

Pastor-leaders understand the importance of equipping the saints for the work of ministry.  No military leader would think of leading troops into battle without first making sure they were trained and equipped.  However, many pastors spend more time complaining about the lack of commitment on the part of their church members than they do in equipping them so they can do ministry.  Not the pastor-leader.  He or she takes seriously the Eph. 4 mandate to equip the saints for the work of ministry.  Discipleship and lay ministry development is serious business in a church that has a pastor-leader because such a leader knows how critical these are for the personal well-being of the individuals and for the ministry effectiveness of the church.

Pastor-leaders are servant leaders.  They understand that the call to lead is a call to serve.  Again, this doesn't mean they become door mats for every disgruntled controller that calls them on the phone.  It does mean the pastor-leader develops relationships with the people.  He or she loves them unconditionally as Christ does, and the pastor-leader is not afraid to tell them of his love.  He or she admits when they are wrong and quickly extends grace to others when they fail.

No one has to wonder who is in charge of a church that has a pastor-leader.  He or she has earned the right to lead by their faithfulness in small things, their love for the people, and their love for God.  People are not afraid of a pastor-leader because they know that person always has their best interest at heart.  I once heard a pastor-leader tell of a time when some of the lay leadership questioned a decision he made.  He told them if they couldn't trust his judgment on the matter would they at least trust his heart, and at that the opposition ceased because the people knew his heart.  Even if his actions would prove wrong (they didn't), they knew that whatever he did was out of love for the church and its mission in the world.  He had earned that trust through many years of faithful service to that church.

Let me end this post where I began: our churches need strong pastoral leadership if they are ever to become what God envisioned the church would be.  Congregations that will not follow such leadership are destined to wander in the wilderness wasting God's resources and squandering the ministry opportunities that could have been theirs.  Pastors who are not willing to lead are forfeiting their calling and should immediately step down from pastoral ministry.  But, pastors must understand that it will take time to earn the right to provide strong pastoral leadership, and they must be very intentional about earning that right.  If you prove yourself trustworthy, and the church is healthy, the day will come when you will be ready to provide the kind of leadership your church needs.  When that day comes, lead.

Doctrinal confusion

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I began my latest book The Healthy Community: Moving Your Church Beyond Tunnel Vision by addressing the problem of doctrinal confusion that exists in so many churches today.  This problem is at the core of most problems in the church.  In an effort to try to appeal to unchurched people many churches and denominations have watered down the gospel message.  Not only is this not biblical, it's unnecessary.  Thom Rainer's research found that 91 percent of formerly unchurched people said that doctrine was one of the important factors that attracted them to the church they eventually joined.  People are seeking answers to the complicated questions and issues facing them, and they are not interested in spending time listening to diluted messages that refuse to speak an authoritative word to those questions and issues.

Of course, if those proclaiming those messages have a low view of Scripture then we should not be surprised if they can't offer anything more than what a person can get from any television talk show.  Many years ago I read statistics that showed the percentage of ministers who denied the basic doctrines of the Christian faith.  The numbers of such ministers were shockingly high.  If such a low view of the Scriptures was being proclaimed from the pulpit then we should not expect those listening to such messages week after week would have a very high view of Scripture either.

Ed Stetzer and Elmer Towns wrote, "Take away the authority of the Bible, or the essential content of the Bible, and you no longer have Christianity."  Many in our postmodern world will find their words offensive, but they are absolutely correct.  I actually began this book by asserting that the most important decision any individual or church can make is what it believes about the Bible.  If the Bible is not the authoritative Word of God then we have no basis to believe anything it says.  That is why the enemy has attacked the Bible so hard since it was given to us.  If he can discredit the Scriptures then he can more easily cast doubt in people's minds as to the identity of Jesus Christ, the way of salvation, and the morals and ethics by which we should live our lives.  Without an authoritative Bible then everyone's beliefs are equal and everyone is free to choose the values by which they will live, and no one can say they are wrong.

The church and its leaders must address the doctrinal confusion that exists today and begin to speak with a clear voice.  We will not find the answers we need from Washington, from the media, from the statehouses, or even from religion.  The answers we need to resolve mankind's greatest problems and needs will be found in the Scriptures and through a relationship with Jesus Christ.  The churches that will proclaim that message will thrive while those that continue to deny the Scriptures and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ will eventually shrivel up and die.

We can't grow disciples if we do not learn to delegate.

Early in my bivocational pastorate I tried to do everything at the church.  I was worn out and about ready to leave the ministry when our judicatory had its annual meeting.  I scheduled a time to meet with a denominational leader to discuss what was happening in our church and my own frustrations and temptation to leave.  When I finished speaking he did not hesitate with his answer.  He said the problem was that I had become the church.  Not only was I wearing myself out by trying to do everything I was preventing others from being the church God had called them to be.  He was right.  I might complain that few people in the church would help with the ministry, but the truth was that I never asked.  The next Sunday I announced the title of my message, "Confessions of a Tired Pastor," and began to share with the congregation the conversation I had the previous weekend, my own sense of weariness, and my apologies for limiting them in their own spiritual growth as disciples.  I then announced that as of that moment I was not doing anything for which someone else had responsibility.  No longer would I go behind people and do the things they failed to do, and I would be asking others to step up.  Quite frankly, delegating tasks to others does not come natural to me.  I can do most of them quicker than I can train someone else how to do them, I know they are done if I do them, and I dislike asking people to do things.  But, not delegating prevents others to grow as disciples and it limits the ministry in our churches to only the things we can do ourselves.  No pastor should want to be guilty of either of these.

Delegation is more than just assigning tasks to people.  For delegation to be successful it has to be done while taking into consideration a person's unique spiritual giftedness and passion.  For instance, no pastor would want to ask me to become a choir director.  My musical abilities are extremely limited, and I am being kind to myself.  I have a great voice in case of fire or shipwreck, but you don't want me to lead singing.  In a similar fashion you would not want to ask the church grouch to lead the church greeter team.  One of the most important things a new pastor can do is to identify the gifts and passions of the people in the church so when it comes times to ask people to do certain things the pastor will know who is the best person for each task.

There are several good reasons why we need to do a better job at delegation.  One is that it provides our church with more ministry points.  If the pastor is the only minister in the congregation then the ministry of that church is limited to one person.  But, if the ministry has been delegated to a number of people the church has just multiplied its ministry by that number.  Second, it helps prevent fatigue for the minister.  Involving many people in the ministry of the church reduces the burden the pastor must carry.  Thirdly, it helps with disciple-making.

Growing disciples is more than just offering a number of Bible studies in the church.  Disciples need to learn the Scriptures, but in order for them to become disciples they must have opportunities to put into practice what they are learning.  Discipleship is education + service.  Delegating ministry opportunities to others enables them to grow as disciples.  Refusing to delegate stunts that growth.

If our churches are to be serious about developing disciples we must learn to delegate.  If we are serious about wanting to grow our churches we must learn to delegate.  If we who are in the ministry want to enjoy more productive ministries while maintaining a measure of balance in our lives we must learn to delegate.

How a congregation learns part 3

This is the third in the series of how congregations learn best.  Each of these posts are inspired by an article written by Tim Shapiro for Congregations published by The Alban Institute.  The third element for a learning church is Congregations that learn well ask open-ended questions and practice active listening.

Many of us have heard the story of the little boy, when asked a question in Sunday school class, responded, "I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's probably Jesus."  Very often in the church people assume that there is always a pre-determined answer to difficult questions, so they give those responses without spending time to dig deeply into the question.  Each of us, including congregations, learn best by asking questions for which there are no pre-determined answers or, at least, not being satisfied with such answers, spend time examining the issues surrounding the question more thoroughly.

An example...A church notices that its giving level has been declining for the past several months.  In recent years church leaders have told me that it's probably due to the economy, and when it improves their giving will climb back up.  Maybe, but I know a number of churches that have not seen a decline despite the economy.  Others contact me asking if the denomination has a new stewardship program they can use.  They assume people need training, and they may be right.  Many of the churches I serve have neglected stewardship training in their churches for years because "people don't like it when I talk about money."  I sometimes tell church leaders who attend my workshops that another reason for poor giving is a lack of vision.  People are reluctant to give money if it's only going to be used for maintenance.  If their money is only going to be used to pay utilities and a small salary to the pastor many people will hardly be inspired to give much more than what's needed for such purposes.  They may well give to another ministry that is doing some things they support, so a church that has no real vision for ministry will likely see a low level of financial support from its members.  Any of these could be the cause for the poor giving level in the church, but what if it isn't one of the obvious issues.  Just assuming it is could lead the church to miss the real reason for the poor giving costing them an opportunity to learn some new things about themselves.

Perhaps it's a problem with how the church is structured.  For instance, I have seen people who disagreed with the direction the church was going withhold their money.  In some cases it's to punish the church, and that is sin.  But, in other situations, they felt their view was being ignored, that no one was listening to them, and they withheld their money in an effort to get people's attention.  They weren't necessarily mad, and they didn't want to punish the church, they just wanted someone to hear them.  Once they felt they were being heard they returned to their previous level of giving whether their view was adopted or not.

No one wants to be ignored, but sometimes a church's systems set people aside and make them feel their opinions are not valued.  A new stewardship program will not fix that, and neither will an improved economy.  By immediately assuming that one of these is always the cause of poor giving a church can miss a learning opportunity that it needs to include everyone in its discussions and needs to honestly hear those who may have a different perspective than the majority of the membership.  That does not mean that we give that minority veto power over the decision, but it does require that we hear them out and that they believe they have been heard.

How a congregation learns part 2

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Today we will continue our discussion of how a congregation learns taken from an article in Congregations published by The Alban Institute.  The article was written by Tim Shapiro, president of the Indianapolis Center for Congregations.  As in yesterday's post, I will briefly share Shapiro's thoughts on the subject and then add my own thoughts.  The second element that permits a congregation to learn is that Congregations that learn well live within a worldview of theological coherence.

These are congregations that have a clear theological foundation for all they say and do.  You will find this theological coherence in their mission statements, their education and discipleship programs, conversations in the hallways and hospital rooms, and even in their business meetings.  Members of such congregations have spent time thinking through their theological beliefs and they are not reluctant to share those beliefs with others.

For me, this begins with the view one has of Scripture.  Is the Bible the revealed Word of God or is it a book written by men in an attempt to explain their views of God?  Is it authoritative or does it merely make suggestions about how one lives his or her life?  Do the Scriptures have the last word on any topic that it addresses or can man change what the Bible says to fit present day circumstances?  If the Bible is not the revealed Word of God, if it is not authoritative, and if it does not have the last word in any topic it addresses, then it will provide a very shaky foundation for anyone's theological beliefs.  It will be shaky because it can be changed at any time by a majority of people advocating a particular stance.  We see this happening in recent years as denominations have voted on particular issues that are addressed in Scripture to determine whether or not the majority of people still agree with the interpretations that have stood the test of centuries.  What arrogance to believe that man can vote on God's declarations as if they are nothing more than the color of carpet we prefer for our sanctuaries!

I experienced this personally last week when I became involved in a Facebook discussion on an issue that divides Christians.  My position was one that can be defended from Scripture; others chose a different position.  My view of biblical authority would not allow me to have a different position.  I cannot say what their view of biblical authority is because it did not come up in the discussion.  I made two mistakes in that discussion.  The first was that I should have never entered into it on Facebook because that is hardly the forum for an in depth discussion on any serious topic, and after two or three posts I announced I was done posting on the issue for that reason.  The second was that before responding to what was being said I should have questioned where these persons stood on biblical authority (another topic not really suited for Facebook!).  If two parties engage in a discussion on theological issues and each of them are coming to that discussion with opposing views on biblical authority, there is really little use in having the discussion.  There is not common ground for such a discussion in such circumstances.  As it turned out, they gave their talking points, I gave mine, but no learning occurred because we did not have a coherent theological worldview from which we could debate.

Tim Shapiro is absolutely correct when he notes that such coherence is necessary for a congregation to learn.  This presents a number of challenges to the pastor who serves a church that lacks theological coherence.  One, he or she should expect a higher number of conflicts and disagreements between the membership.  The members are operating from different theological perspectives.  Two, he or she may need to spend some time teaching the congregation how to think theologically.  Three, he or she may need to begin teaching the basics of theological beliefs if it is determined that the church has not been taught these in the past or if they have been taught a theology that does not agree with biblical teaching.

The question then for church leaders who want to introduce new learning into their congregation is how ready theologically is that congregation for such learning?  How would you answer that question for your church?  Do you think it is even a question that needs to be asked?

A brief parable about lawns

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

In the book Transformational Discipleship: How People Really Grow one of the authors describe what it's like to return from vacation and find large brown spots in his lawn.  He compares that lawn to a congregation.  Let me now quote a section from the book because I want to make sure I properly capture what he writes.

"If there are dry and parched sections in your church, hopefully your heart is filled with much greater dissatisfaction for the level of deficient disciples than for a subpar lawn.  Perhaps you are thinking of some of the people who sit in your church, those whose lives seem parched.  Maybe you are frustrated with the lack of passion in worship, apathy toward the Scripture, an inward focus, the grip of materialism, childish men, or failing marriages....

"Some don't care.  Some leaders are consumed with creating a bigger field, even if it's a parched field.  Other leaders mask the lack of life with the multitude of activities on the church schedule.  Size and activity often cover immaturity.  Some leaders have given up the dream of leading a movement of people transformed by Christ.  They have become apathetic chaplains of a mediocre institution.

"If you don't care, repent.  If you do care, be careful."

That's powerful stuff, and I think it captures where many churches and church leaders are today.  But why did he say that if we care we should be careful?  He goes on to warn against the temptation of finding ways to cover the parched lawn.  Specifically, he warns of the danger of painting over the lawn to make it appear better than it really is. 

The first time I saw someone paint grass was at a NCAA baseball sectional.  Our son's team played that year for the chance to go on to the College World Series.  As we were sitting down I noticed a groundskeeper with a spray can painting the grass behind home plate.  He touched up the brown spots, and although the paint didn't exactly match the color of the grass, it did make it look better.  If the games were televised I doubt the viewers would have noticed the different shades of green behind home plate.

We must not attempt to cover over the lack of discipleship in our churches and declare our churches healthy.  We can make all the external changes we want to but until we address the heart issues that prevent our people from developing spiritually our churches will remain unhealthy.  When we see a lack of spiritual fruit being produced in the lives of our people we should know there is a problem that needs to be addressed. That should challenge us to take a hard look at the discipleship efforts in our churches and make the necessary changes that will help transform people's lives.

Are you willing to pay the price of change?

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net

In my newest book The Healthy Community: Moving Your Church Beyond Tunnel Vision I discuss the cost of change.  In this post I want to briefly touch on the different ways change will cost you.  I included this chapter in the book because of a phone call I once had from a church member who invited me to attend their next Church Growth Committee meeting and talk to them about how they can grow their church without making anyone mad.  I told him that I would save them a meeting and me a trip: You won't.  He sounded surprised until I explained that if their church could grow by what they are doing, it would already be growing.  Obviously, something needs to change, and change will always produce conflict in any organization.  In fact, change will cost the organization in a number of ways.

First, the leader will have to pay a price.  Very often, for a significant change to occur the leader has to be changed.  Sports teams fire the manager when they want to turn their team around.  Corporations fire managers and CEOs if the organization isn't producing the results they expected.  Sometimes churches fire their pastors if things in the church are not moving in a way that suits the leadership.  Whether the pastor is terminated or not, any significant transformation in a church will require the pastor experience that transformation first.  George Barna insists that a new pastor must be brought in to introduce significant change to the church.  Shortly after reading that the first time I seriously considered resigning as pastor of my church so they could bring in a new pastor who could begin the changes the church needed.  However, what I ended up doing was to allow God to make me into a new pastor.  I explained to the congregation that I had to become a new pastor if we were going to be able to move forward, and I began to reinvent much of what I had been doing as the pastor.

There is also a cost to the lay leaders in the church.  Some of them may need to step down from their positions before the church can move forward.  The church controllers will have to be confronted and may well need to leave the church.  Leadership roles will need to be changed

Any significant change will being about conflict, and sometimes the change doesn't have to be very significant for that conflict to sweep through the church and community.  Such conflict is often seen as a sign by the pastor that it may be time for him or her to resign and move to another place of ministry.  Unfortunately, where ever you move you will eventually encounter conflict.  That conflict may well cause others to leave the church.  For many churches, the fear of losing people is enough to stop the changes because it's a cost the church is not willing to pay.

Jesus taught that we should always count the cost before starting something.  Before you introduce a significant change to the church you should try to visualize some of the potential costs that such changes will require of you, your family, and your church.  The more you think of these things before presenting the changes to the church the better prepared you will be to lead the congregation around some of those costs.

Member values vs missionary values

In my book The Healthy Community: Moving Your Church Beyond Tunnel Vision. I quote Reggie McNeal who wrote "Member values clash with missionary values.  Member values are all about church real estate, church programming, who's in and who's out, member services, member issues (translated: am I getting what I need out of this church?)  Missionary values are about the street, people's needs, breaking down barriers, community issues (Translated: am I partnering with God's work in people?)."  The question for each church leader is which of these values best represents the thinking in your church?

Maintenance-minded churches focus primarily on member's values.  That is why these churches are often plateaued or declining, and usually declining.  If people are not having their needs met they will either go elsewhere or change the leadership in hopes that new leaders will meet their needs.  As members, they expect to be served.

Missional churches focus more on the missionary values.  The majority of their congregations see themselves as called to serve others, not to be served.  They seek to minister in the areas of their giftedness and passion to make a difference in the lives of people in their community.  They continue to enjoy great fellowship with other members of their church, but that fellowship is often in the context of ministering to the surrounding community.

The values your church focuses on will determine the look of your church five years from now.  I recently spoke to a men's group and told them their church will change in the next five years.  It will either have a number of new people attending who have been reached through your church's ministries into the community or it will be a smaller, grayer congregation.  Either way, it will change, and their decisions about whether they focus on member values or missionary values will determine which change they will experience.  The same is true of your church.