What is the State of the Church? Part Two

One of the most significant changes in ministry at the local level has to do with staffing. When I started in ministry in 1975, I was asked to be an Associate Pastor. My main responsibilities were in Youth Ministry but I was also being groomed for a Senior Pastorate. Therefore, I attended Trustee meetings, CE meetings, developed a Young Adult SS class, participated in funerals, did general hospital visitation, and much more. When some problems developed in the music program, I became the defacto Minister of Music (a scary thought!). This was the nature of "multiple staff" ministry in the church. I was the first full-time associate the church had hired in, well, forever. This was a church of nearly 300 on Sunday. The only other person on staff was a retired minister who  did hospital and nursing home visitation. He was paid a small stipend for his work.
As I progressed in ministry, the prevailing thought was that a church could only be effectively pastored by a single minister up until about 125 in attendance. After that, the church needed another pastor to help with the multiple cell church. This seemed to be born out by effective single cell pastors who had difficulty growing or maintaining a church by themselves when it got to the 200 barrier. What was needed was specialization of ministry. You didn't need an Associate involved in everything, you needed a Youth Pastor to do youth only or a Minister of Music to do worship only. The days of hiring a Youth and Music Associate Pastor were long gone. Associates needed one area of specialization and Senior Pastors needed to be "vision castors" that saw the big picture and then developed a staff to lead everyone toward the vision. This was the popular "business model" for church staffing, ministry and leadership.
Well, a funny thing has happened on the way to this model. The next generation of leaders coming along has not embraced it as an effective model of leadership. Maybe it is their dissatisfaction with the emphasis on the church as an institution and the lack of seeing the local church as a mission sender. Whatever the case may be, the old model is dying and a newer/older model is arising. Back at the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther emphasized the radical idea of the "priesthood of all believers" and taught that everyone -clergy and laity - had a call to mission and the need to minister in Christ's name. This doctrine has resurfaced in many ways. In the church growth movement it was categorized under the idea of motivating lay people for ministry (usually whatever program or emphasis the pastoral staff developed). Today, however, it is taking a far more comprehensive view.
Many seminarians are pursuing their M.Div. without any idea of what they are going to do in ministry. They know they don't want to be on a pastoral staff. They are moving to inner cities of foreign countries without the aid or assistance of professional sending organizations to do indigenous mission work in a community. One friend of mine at Fuller moved to inner city Chicago and planned to start, not a church, but a ministry to people in his apartment complex; another hopes to move to Spain and begin ministering to Muslims in their neighborhood. Neither is approaching sending organizations for support. They intend to do tent-making ministries to fund themselves - and be beholding only to Christ and his call rather than an organization and their bureaucracy.
At the same time churches are changing their approach. My son has just helped a congregation where he was an Associate to become part of a multi-site vision of a neighboring church. Led by leaders from the state organization, they are now the first multi-site congregation in this vision. As a result, Jonathan has lost his job and is looking for only part-time employment in the community. Why? Because he is going to take on a ministry role at the church (unpaid) that will be greater and more involved than his paid role in the previous church. When questioned about his plans by his mother, Jonathan replied, "That's the difference in generations. We are not looking for paid staff positions but places to minister and to serve." The new multi-site church is heavily dependent upon major responsibilities being handled by volunteer staff. Having attended their service last week, they are committed involving laity in mission. Not programming, but mission and ministry in the community. They will do this without trying to add staff but by motivating leaders to get excited about missions and ministry. It appears to be working.
In tough economic times, the church has to learn how to do more with less. More volunteers and less paid personnel is one effective way of approaching the problem. However, this new/old idea is being driven not by economics but by a real sense of being called to ministry. If this reemphasizing of Luther's doctrine is successful, it will change the role of the church from one of being an observer of the movement of the Holy Spirit to one of being the active participant in what the Spirit is doing. This will have a profound affect on budgets and education; mission and ministry; theology and preaching. The state of the church is changing.

What is the State of the Church? Part One

Let me begin by saying I am not qualified to answer this question. I imagine few, if anyone, really are prepared to answer this definitively. Maybe George Barna can give you research information and Leonard Sweet can be a Futurist, predicting the trends that are coming our way. I respect and value both of them and their information.
My position is one of vagabond. Prior to coming to Princeton, I had pastored a small congregation of the Church of God in Pasadena for three years. They were a wonderful group of folks that we miss dearly. Upon departing Pasadena, we traveled across country driving through Iowa where we attended a Presbyterian congregation one Sunday. We then participated in numerous services at Anderson Campmeeting before traveling to New Jersey. After coming to Princeton, my wife and I have been searching for a church. The nearest Church of God is nearly 45 minutes away. If we are to find a church home near where we live, we will need to attend a church other than where we have been ministering for our adult lives. It's a little daunting. We will continue to travel around to Churches of God in the Boyertown District (we have already been to two district churches and the District Campmeeting) but we will also be spending time attending churches in the Princeton area. So far, we have attended a non-denominational congregation and we will be visiting some Nazarene and Presbyterian churches in the area. In addition, we are traveling over the next several weeks through the midwest. We attended my son Joel's restart congregation in Sterling, Illinois last week and will attend our other son's (Jonathan) new congregation in Northeast Indianapolis this Sunday. Next week we will be in church in Tampa and over Labor Day weekend we will attend my other son's church (Doug) outside Akron, Ohio. I'm not suggesting that this makes me qualified to speak about the state of the church, but it makes me more educated about the various ways in which the church is living out its mission in different places and in different traditions.
I should also note that I am no longer preaching on a regular basis. For only the second time in 35 years I have no regular preaching assignment in a local church as either a pastor or interim. I did preach last Sunday for my son in Illinois and will preach again on Labor Day weekend for my other son in Ohio. My preaching at this point will be limited to guest appearances and, more importantly, listening to others preach. My wife also not leading worship in some capacity for the first time in 35 years. She has always been a great helpmate and effective minister of worship in her own right. Prior to my graduating from Fuller, she completed 24 hours of Master's work in the field of Worship. Having studied with Clay Schmit, Ed Willmington, and Todd Johnson at Fuller, her understanding of the history, theology, and practice of worship has been greatly enhanced. Since we enjoy talking about our impressions of new situations, some of what I will say here reflects insights gained from her considerable expertize. However, I won't saddle her with the thoughts expressed here. She is more than capable of expressing her opinions on her own.

Well that's a long introduction to some preliminary thoughts. Here's one: The Church seems relatively unconcerned with theology. As I travel around, the emphasis is on practicality. "What works?" is the new theology. Churches are asking how to grow, survive, reach out, increase their offerings (both financial and outreach), and be more effective in their communities. All these are important questions. As a practical theologian I am concerned about these questions, too. Part of my concern is that we are answering these questions despite out theology. For instance, Bill Hybels began the Willow Creek Church based on a Youth for Christ model. This led to the "seeker sensitive" model of worship and philosophy of outreach. Recently, Hybels commissioned a report on its effectiveness. In November of 2007, Bob Burney of Baptist Press wrote the following Blog:

For most of a generation evangelicals have been romanced by the "seeker-sensitive" movement spawned by Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago. The guru of this movement is Bill Hybels. He and others have been telling us for decades to throw out everything we have previously thought and been taught about church growth and replace it with a new paradigm, a new way to do ministry.
Perhaps inadvertently, with this "new wave" of ministry came a de-emphasis on taking personal responsibility for Bible study combined with an emphasis on felt-needs based "programs" and slick marketing.
The size of the crowd rather than the depth of the heart determined success. If the crowd was large then surely God was blessing the ministry. Churches were built by demographic studies, professional strategists, marketing research, meeting "felt needs" and sermons consistent with these techniques. We were told that preaching was out, relevance was in. Doctrine didn't matter nearly as much as innovation. If it wasn't "cutting edge" and consumer friendly it was doomed. The mention of sin, salvation and sanctification were taboo and replaced by Starbucks, strategy and sensitivity.
Thousands of pastors hung on every word that emanated from the lips of the church growth experts. Satellite seminars were packed with hungry church leaders learning the latest way to "do church." The promise was clear: Thousands of people and millions of dollars couldn't be wrong. Forget what people need, give them what they want. How can you argue with the numbers? If you dared to challenge the "experts" you were immediately labeled as a "traditionalist," a throwback to the 50s, a stubborn dinosaur unwilling to change with the times.
All that changed recently.
Willow Creek has released the results of a multi-year study on the effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry. The study's findings are in a new book titled "Reveal: Where Are You?," co-authored by Cally Parkinson and Greg Hawkins, executive pastor of Willow Creek Community Church. Hybels himself called the findings "ground breaking," "earth shaking" and "mind blowing." And no wonder: It seems that the "experts" were wrong. The report reveals that most of what they have been doing for these many years and what they have taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not disciples. It gets worse. Hybels laments:

"Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasn't helping people that much. Other things that we didn't put that much money into and didn't put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for."

If you simply want a crowd, the "seeker-sensitive" model produces results. If you want solid, sincere, mature followers of Christ, it's a bust. In a shocking confession, Hybels states:

"We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become 'self feeders.' We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their Bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own." Incredibly, the guru of church growth now tells us that people need to be reading their Bibles and taking responsibility for their spiritual growth. 
Perhaps the most shocking thing of all in this revelation coming out of Willow Creek is in a summary statement by Greg Hawkins:
"Our dream is that we fundamentally change the way we do church. That we take out a clean sheet of paper and we rethink all of our old assumptions. Replace it with new insights. Insights that are informed by research and rooted in Scripture. Our dream is really to discover what God is doing and how he's asking us to transform this planet."
Isn't that what we were told when this whole seeker-sensitive thing started? The church growth gurus again want to throw away their old assumptions and "take out a clean sheet of paper" and, presumably, come up with a new paradigm for ministry.
To put it in my own terms, Hybels and Hawkins discovered that practical theology doesn't work if you only concentrate on the practics and fail to consider theology. What works to get crowds does not always work to build Christians. And, as Jesus clearly saw in his public ministry, his task was not to build a crowd but to build a church - and that requires making disciples not churchgoers. Sometimes the two (big crowds of seekers and building disciples) are incompatible. The danger for the church is that it will sacrifice the theology that gives it a mission in the world for the growth mission it seeks to fulfill. The Church cannot be the Church if it gains people to hear the message of Christ to become disciples of Christ if it never preaches the message of Christ and resolutely grows disciples who will follow the teachings of Christ. I do wonder if the Church will heed the discoveries of one of its most charismatic and influential voices and remember that practical theology is not about what works but about what works in relationship to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? If the Church fails to learn this lesson it does so at its own peril. Theology matters. It may not be the cure all and the end all for the Church but it is the lifeblood of the mission of the Church. What we think, teach, require, understand, preach, worship, and live about God and His Son, Jesus Christ, is the heartbeat of our mission.