Think and Rethink

There is a big buzz right now on emphasizing words like "authentic" "organic" and "natural." I think this is all part of the "pomo" thing -- post-modern for the uninformed. The resistance to things that are systematized without a heart has overshadowed the things that are systematized with a heart. Since people want something with a heart many are now rejecting anything that is systematized. That is the old "throw out the baby with the bathwater" problem.

As soon as it appears organized, it also appears suspect to some. But when you think about it that is such an over simplification. If six friends agree to get together at Starbucks at 11:00 on Thursday morning to muse about the fact that the world is so plastic and insincere, they are forgetting that the calendar just organized their life. The calendar always has. Systems and calendars. Sorry people, there is no such thing as absolute spontaneity.

If one accepts that premise then the discussion shifts from avoiding structure to discussing which structure can most effectively meet needs. Structures tend to resist change. So it is important that we identify the best structure based on a kind of rolling calendar. And sure, let’s get together at Starbucks on Thursday morning at 11 am to start the discussion.

Super Stars

I hear the Spice Girls are at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto tonight. I hear but I don't care, except for this -- it got me thinking about the concept of the superstar.

In the church realm, we love our heroes as well. The leaders at the top of the food chain capture our attention. They have the moxy and the manpower to do so using their podcasts. Good for them!

My problem is that we must remember the realities. Few of us are superstars. And we must live in the zone God has fitted us for. That doesn't mean we dumb down our actions to mediocrity. It does mean we realize that in the grand scheme of things Google Page Rank doesn't count for much. It is the last that will be first in the end of the day. Surprises are coming.

My bigger problem as it relates to starting churches is that many have fallen into the trap of believing that the church starting leader thinks of himself as a star in waiting. Or at least those who are looking for church starting leaders are looking for stars in formation. Bad idea.

Bad idea because you cannot predict with certainty who will become the next Rick Warren or moving in on his heels the next Mark Driscoll or even the next James MacDonald. They all have some things in common. They started their churches. Their churches all got big over time. They are still in the churches they started. The list goes on. But if you were to go back in history before their fame you would find many of the people around them -- probably the majority -- would not have voted them the next in line for the superstar mantle. I wonder if any would have passed a church planter's assessment without being put on probation. I doubt it.

I believe that the quest for the next superstar is ill-advised --or more strongly stated -- stupid. It is a waste of hope and resources.

The far better thing to do is to create a seedbed in which all get the nourishment to grow to their potential. Time will tell who gets to the top. There is no sense in trying to pick and choose. Work with a coalition of the willing and the teachable. If the next superstar bolts and develops his own seedbed, so be it. That is a good thing. Since everyone learns more from failure than from success, if they fail in their quest for significance nothing is lost. Education is gained.

Creating a "franchiseable" superstar system has proven over and over again to be the best idea. This approach takes more ordinary people and gives them to the tools to put out the "fries" at the same quality every time. They don't have to be good cooks. They just need to know when to push the buttons. Granted, this isn't fulfilling if the dictums come from on high and micro-manage. But within a proven framework, it is very possible to create success that rhymes with other successes.

We need to get off of the hero worship and onto creating better systems so that more ordinary people can obtain more extraordinary results. We need an army of church starting leaders who more quietly grow new churches one at a time. If a few emerge and take over the Spice Girl slot at the ACC that is OK with me. Anyone want to buy my tickets? I will scalp them in advance.

Security and/or Freedom

One of the key motivators that keeps people from starting churches is the desire for security.

The perception is that the church start situation is insecure and therefore to be avoided by all but the most hardy. Potential church starting leaders conclude they are not that hardy and therefore reject the possibility out of hand.

I think this one deserves much more than a blog entry. I just did a quick Google search on "security 'church planting' -eternal" and found that I have "only" 43,200 articles to scan. But then that is much better than "church planting" which gives me 675,000 hits. And just by the way, last month only about 10,000 searches occurred on the Internet for "church planting" but nobody added the word security to their church planting search. And also btw you should always use the advanced search capability if you want to get the best results in the first few pages of a web search.

All that just tells me that while a key inhibitor for church starting leaders is the perceived lack of security, virtually nobody is trying to eliminate the inhibitor.

Note to self: "Gary, you have to add this subject to your to do list."

Here is a start. Freedom and security are strange bed-fellows. There is no more secure place than a prison. Free room and board. Defined schedule. Homogeneous expectations. As secure as it gets. But apparently not desirable. I have never experienced staying there but visiting is enough to know a prison is an unhappy place. Of course, that is an extreme portrayal. But it is a metaphor.

Most Pastors will accept a secure job in a church at which they would not otherwise become a member. How do you spell, "prison"?

Most Pastors have an idea of how they would structure and conduct a church if they had the opportunity to do it with freedom. News flash. That is what happens when you start a church. You get to "put your money where your mouth is!"

There are a lot of things in life that are highly over-rated. One of them is security. And security often comes at the price of freedom. Freedom is a highly under-rated experience. For starters let's get our eyes on the ball of freedom and off the distraction of security.

Now that is just a small start on the subject. I won't even know everything I know about that subject until I write it down and read it back to myself. So I had better keep that subject simmering. It will come to a boil sooner if you help me by poking me with some questions.

One simple internal decision to pursue freedom first and set security further back on the list will start someone on a wonderful, colorful adventure into starting a church. Will that someone be you?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Why Fail?

"Why didn't I meet you in 1998! I could have taught most of what I learned in my Seminary classes on starting churches. But all this is different."

I have trained some of the sharpest church starting pastors I have ever met in the last few years. It is a common theme. Somehow they didn’t feel they got what they needed in school.

Out in the real world there is a fear of failure. There often is some experience they are overcoming that has led them to believe they have already failed.

My friend from the opening quote further said, "Never mention my name to Prof XYZ. I think he hates me."

I am confident that professor thinks well of him, not has he suspects. You wouldn't believe how experienced and talented he is. You also wouldn't believe how deeply he feels the failure as he now lives on secular dollars. Mind you. Of the hundreds he works around, he consistently rates as the #1 employee. But he still feels like a failure.

What am I offering him that is different? Here is one thing ...

He never understood that to succeed in starting a church you have to learn to manage the perception of rejection. When someone says, "No thanks" you have to learn to not take its as personal rejection. It is only a statement that they are not ready to respond at that point in their life.

They never taught my friend that in seminary and he is recovering from the damage of experiencing that reality. Perhaps the concept was mentioned but not emphasized. The inspiring stories of wonderful successes may have squeezed the hard messages out.

It is OK to have others think you are failing as long as you are succeeding in terms that the Judge understands and will use to evaluate our fruit on the Day.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Chicken or Beef?

What would you like? For me it is a simple answer. Today I'm thinking chicken. Tomorrow I may prefer beef.

For some people this becomes a cosmic question. Some won't eat red meat. Some point out that it takes less vegetation to to raise a chicken than a cow and that leaves more good food for humans. Some will just count calories and cholesterol.

Me? I just want lunch.

I think of this "chicken or beef" discussion as a metaphor for what happens in church.

Someone might come to my home discovery event but not to my Sunday services. Someone might say they accept Jesus but not the church. Someone might say they like this kind of church and not that.

The other day I got an email from a man who wanted to tune me up. I have never met him. But he was quite sure from our church website that we were off base and he wanted to supply the correct information. He asked a question. So I gave him a forthright answer by email since that was the only contact information he gave. In the essence of it I think we were in agreement. But I never heard back from him. I guess I will never know. And I haven't got my fingers crossed that I will ever see him in church. Nor do I have the inclination to figure out what he wanted.

When you are starting a church you can invest way too much time trying to satisfy the chicken eaters or the beef eaters. But you won't convert many.

Try this question as a prequalifier, "If I could show you why our "beef" is a viable option to the "chicken" you had in mind, is there any reason why you wouldn't want to give us a try or at least hear our story?" If they mumble too much in response, just move on. Be nice. Keep the door unlocked from your side. Even leave it wide open. But move on. There is someone else who is more ready. You have to find the person who is ready to show more response.

If someone is willing to come to your "beef" restaurant it doesn't mean they will also frequent your "chicken" restaurant. Don't assume they will. A person could be open to attending one kind of event but not another. It is really difficult to get carry over from one kind of event to another. They probably won't tell you why they will come to your "chicken" house and not your "beef" barn.

There is much to be said on this phenomenon. But for today get used to the idea that whatever you do, some are going to like it and some aren't. When you talk to more people, more often and in more ways you will get more response. Identify those who want what you offer. Spend much less time trying to convince people they need what they don't want.

Never try to put pants on a pig. If you do the pig will get angry and you will just get dirty. How is that for introducing a third option? Would you like chicken, beef or pork? Shall we add emu to the menu?

It will never end if you invest too much time on the road of trying to convince people and not enough time on the road of identifying the people who are ready for what it is that you offer. Don't get distracted; offer what you offer; let the people decide on their own.

Some day when the conversions dribble in you will understand why they were so resistant. For not, find those who can be found and work with them.

As for me, I still just want lunch.

Powered by ScribeFire.