Thom S. Rainer has long been a leading expert and consultant on church growth. He’s authored countless books, and participated in numerous studies on what works and what doesn’t. He recently posted an article summarizing what works when it comes to revitalizing a church.
Two Foundational Issues
First, the church must have the right leaders on board. Second, the behavioral patterns of the church members must change.
No infusion of methodologies or innovations can take place until these two issues are addressed. Such is the reason most revitalizations fail, and only a few succeed. Let’s look at that reality in light of three approaches.
Leadership and attitudes. It makes sense. No church will change unless someone leads the church to change, and then the church must be willing to follow its leaders. Makes sense.
Three Types of Church Revitalization
Most church revitalization attempts use the least effective approach. There, of course, are good reasons for that reality. That will be apparent in the descriptions below.
-
Acquisitional revitalization. This approach is both radical and largely successful. Another church acquires the existing church in need of revitalization. Sometimes the doors of the existing church are closed for a season. The church then reopens, possibly with a new name, but definitely with new leaders. The success rate is high because both foundational issues are addressed: leaders and behaviors. Estimated success rate: 90%.
-
Covenantal revitalization. The second approach is relatively new, but one for which I am becoming a strong advocate. The existing church, led by an objective person (often an outsider), agrees to make some significant changes. The leadership actually signs a covenant, and the congregation affirms the covenant. In other words, the existing members and leaders agree to behavioral changes. Success is somewhat high because one of the two foundational issues is addressed: behaviors. Estimated success rate: 40%.
-
Organic revitalization. This approach is the most common taken today. The church may try new methodologies and approaches. But resistance is common because most of the members really don’t want change. The church addresses symptoms rather than causes. Some members would rather see the church die than change. Failure rates are high because neither of the two foundational issues is addressed. Estimated success rate: 2%.
Yeesh. This not good news. In the Churches of Christ, I know of exactly zero churches that have attempted method 1 or method 2. Everyone tries no. 3. And I can’t begin to count the number of churches that did that, had initial success, and then failed as members worked diligently — and successfully — to thwart their leaders’ efforts.
Method 1 sounds like a description of acquisition by a successful multi-site congregation — meaning a change in governing leadership as well as a decision by the old congregation to turn themselves over to another congregation — to give up control.
Method 2 is novel to me. I searched the Internet for examples of this approach. The closest I could find was this renewal covenant, from the Evangelical Covenant Church —
A Definition – A Behavioral Covenant is a written document developed by leaders, agreed to and owned by its creators and practiced on a daily basis as a spiritual discipline. The Covenant answers the question, “How will we behave (how will we live together?) when we don’t understand each other and when we don’t agree?”
Gil Rendle, Behavioral Covenants in Congregations: A Handbook for Honoring Differences
An Example – (from Colossians 3:12-17; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-26)
At ________ Covenant Church…
-
We seek to build each other up and not tear down.
-
We respect and honor the office of pastor and other lay leaders.
-
We seek to communicate clearly and completely.
-
We offer our opinions with charity and humility.
-
We make positive investments in the lives of one another.
-
We seek to discover what is best for our church as a whole, not what may be best for us or for some small group in the church.
-
We accept disagreement, conflict and evaluation as normal and natural.
Interesting, and I can readily see the need of an outside “expert” to help guide a congregation through such a change — since we are talking about a church that is struggling.
I’m not aware of anyone attempting this sort of revitalization within the Churches of Christ, but I’d love to hear anyone’s experience if they’ve been through such a process.
In fact, I’d love to hear from the readers regarding any successful congregational revitalization — and how it happened. Now, sometimes churches take off because they are located in a neighborhood that happens to grow. Sometimes they are in a city that suddenly enjoys growth, and they grow with it. Sometimes a Church of Christ grows because it has better programs than the other Churches of Christ in town and it recruits away the other congregations’ members. But who has seen a change from no growth to evangelistic growth? It’s rare, but it happens. It’s not impossible. It’s just hard.
Notice this peculiarity of church-going people. Compare these two congregations:
Congregation X. This church has been around 75 years. It has 150 members. Little debt. Members of all ages who’ve been well schooled in the Bible. They have a solid contribution base, elders, deacons, and a full array of the programs for church its size. It hasn’t grown in 20 years.
Congregation Y. It has 20 members, almost all less than 30 years old. It was planted with a leader — preacher — who is the missionary or church planter, and he runs the church. There are no elders or men old enough to be elders. The church is less than 5 years old. The members have little Bible instruction, and about half grew up unchurched. They struggle to make budget, and they don’t have a teen program or many programs of any kind.
Which church has the best odds of hitting 250 members? Obviously, Congregation Y. Every time I’ve asked a class this question, it’s always Y. Always.
Why? What is it about Congregation Y that gives it better odds? The single-pastor leadership structure? They’ll probably ordain elders when they get big enough.
The youth of the members — who have families and new jobs and budget issues? Well, yes, Congregation Y has young member who have friends who are looking for church homes or who are open to Christianity — unlike most of us old people. But Congregation X has just as many young members.
Well, the fact that Congregation X hasn’t grown despite its otherwise blessed status tells us that there is something deeply unhealthy there. Right? Congregation Y was planted and has growth as an explicit goal. Members who join join knowing that this is a church that is going to do what it takes to grow. Members who join Congregation X know that this is a church that doesn’t grow, doesn’t demand that level of commitment, and so changing from no growth to growth will require a change in church identity — and the self-identity of the members. The leaders will have to shift from keeping the members comfortable to pushing for evangelistic change — and whatever else that requires. And there will be turmoil because that wasn’t the deal the existing members signed up for.
To me — and I’m open to a better explanation — it’s about what the members who joined thought they were committing to. If, on day 1, you know you’re committing to do what it takes to grow, then you aren’t upset when the leaders ask you to do that. But if you thought you were joining a comfortable church, then when the leaders ask you to do uncomfortable things, well, that could be upsetting — not because what they want is wrong but because it’s not what you signed up for.
Maybe you joined because your kids needed to be in a great youth program. Maybe you found the preacher to be gifted. Maybe you love the music and singing. Maybe you found seven good friends in six months. But if you didn’t join to be evangelistically effective, the leaders will be asking something of you you didn’t commit to. And if you didn’t join to cope with change but were looking for comfort and stability, well, that wasn’t the deal either.
Or maybe I’m wrong. What do you think? Why is it that it is nearly unheard of for an established congregation to go from being non-evangelistic to evangelistic — and yet expected for a church plant to be evangelistic? What is that we do in our established churches that kills our evangelistic effectiveness?
Thanks Jay. I really appreciate this post. Most of my ministry has been with stablished churches who have moved toward racial/ethnic reconciliation and growth, and your conclusion resonates true to me. I would add that it goes a little further. It is not only that changes in direction goes against what people signed up for, but it goes against what they were sold on. Churches that are not growing attract people based on comfort and stability as if these were key for their spiritual growth (individual and family). I’m in by 30s and have little ones. As a family, we spent a significant amount of time discerning how to live our spiritual lives. We concluded that although, enticing we would forego the comfort of a stablished congregation for the unpredictability of an evangelistic body. We discerned that our sons would only learn to be evangelistic by being evangelistic from an young age and not from good programs that would give them knowledge. This was a very personal decision (not rising from dissatisfaction with “them”, but from a disconfort we felt about ourselves) and we still have a great relationship with the stablished congregation.
Question… most of the time these discussions seem to focus on the ENTIRE assembly making a shift in some direction.. That seems like an enormous task… Has anyone ever looked at having, for lack of a better word “groups”, that would start a new program, outreach or ministry ?
Seems to me that it might be better to see if an idea actually works in a particular setting, demographic, etc., before asking the entire assembly to change direction. If the new program was showing obvious signs of bearing fruit, then perhaps more effort and resources could be directed toward it.. Again to me it seems reasonable that this method would allow for certain interests to exercise their spiritual gifts and see if it bears fruit. Those that are interested in something else or gifted in another area could do their thing. Just because somebody comes up with a good idea doesn’t mean it’s going to work in your assembly so it seems reasonable to try it and make sure before trying to shift focus… But, what do I know.
This is a great post, Jay.
I have often thought that the corporate world enters the religious world far more often that we would care to admit. A church plant does a lot to succeed and everyone pitches in effort as well as donates money. The new church is nimble. No one has a fancy title, and there is little effort to overrule one who is legitimately trying to do something useful and right. It is much like the startup company. On the other side of the spectrum is the WalMart which is a big ship that is hard to steer and does not often invest in anything that could result in a future charge against earnings. The conglomerates are full of committees even of board members. It is similar to the USSR with the directorates and politburo. That is the equivalent of the big church with elders, deacons, programs. Once entrenched, no one wants to give up any power nor do insiders see a need to do anything but protect their fiefdom.
Sadly, evangelism is not seen as necessary. Once there are enough people to get everything done and everyone is known by everyone else, why are more people needed? Replacement of deceased elders may occur but only with someone who thinks similarly. More land, yes; more people, no. A new large donor, great; twenty new converts who aren’t large donors and who don’t like the way the politburo operates, no. Thus preserving the power structure is best achieved by not risking growing with potentially disloyal subjects.
Change Either originates from the top or the bottom. Either way it occurs, it isn’t often pretty. It can result in a rebellion if mandated from the top and accusations of treason if originated from the bottom. However, if times get bad enough that the congregation might close, then new people are welcomed, evangelism starts back up with a knowing that the old way failed and returning to the old way can cause failure again. In this case, the new converts are welcomed.
Price, you are on the right track in your thinking of individuals or small groups getting out and doing something.
I know I keep saying the same things about opportunities for outreach we in the COC are not very good at.
To prove my point, today on TV there was a feature of many being baptized in Calhoun County jail or prison here in Alabama. Everything was not perfect and some would of hollered they did not go all the way under in some cases. Being used was a shallow metal cattle watering tank. I think it was a COC group since they were called ministers and they said “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of your sins).
Opportunities are out there and very well received and needed and this is just one of many that cost nothing as the facility will supply everything you need out of donated songbooks, Lords Supper etc.
Don’t have to or need to go to a foreign country until we are doing all we can right here in our home area is my opinion.
#3 does work, but not when large assembly groups try to transition,but when people themselves transition. Even small changes stymie a large group, so what chance does a large group have in making a big one. Jesus didn’t try to change the Jews or Jewish groups into Christians, but rather individual people into Christians who were first Jews.
I have been to large congregations that were deciding to build a larger building or divide and start a new work. They built a bigger building because they liked the people and the status quo. They didn’t want to drastically change the church dynamic, even though growth would eventually do this. It seems that we are often against change, even when it is positive change or change that makes things happen to grow the Kingdom.
The coC is not good at externalizing the gospel, because we internalize it way too much. We try to grow the church using the same tactics that show no growth or results. Insanity.
I was really surprised as I watched the A.D. Continues movie when the recently converted Saul was speaking to others of the Apostles and comparing their directives to an organization they seemed to attempting to create, stating that what did they intend to do create a replica of the temple to be called the church. He stated that we need no such thing if Christ is in us and the church is in us as we are right here.
Now, I see here again we are speaking in terms of church leadership and government. We are expecting church to develop programs to entice an increase in membership. Lost Souls enticed to come to the church to be saved. Has the church really become a duplicate of the Temple? We attempt to evaluate the size of Christianity (followers of Christ) by the churches. I fully believe as I learned from teaching on this blog, that God who adds members to the church is the only source of valuation of the church. Churches count members in accordance with members activity with an assembly. Even though the church has an ability to ostracize an individual from their assembly, it does not have the ability to condemn a Soul. As Jay has repeatedly directed us that the only way out of the church or God’s family (the bride) is for an individual to reject Christ, leave in the opposite direction of entering. Then no amount of neglecting to assemble with the Saints at a particular location can remove a Christian from the church which God added him. I can remember some evaluating the man or the Christian as to his relationship with Christ. Some men display that in their lives even though the association they claim to be members of is not abiding with enough of God’s teachings that the world will acknowledge that thew organization belongs to Christ.
I have seen many churches who really believe that they have the power to control salvation.
Churches are supposed to increase because God gives the increase, from those who are drawn to him through his Son. The Son is the enticement to the Lost, not the church.
The paradigm of evangelism is the issue not the lack thereof. A congregation here in the DFW area recently made the statement from the pulpit that they were going to become more evangelistic and told members that they wanted to have at least 10 studies going as soon as possible and gave them all a format to use in conducting the studies. The idea was that if they always were getting studies with people they would then be evangelistic. This couldn’t be more further from the truth. Evangelism in the Greek simply means to spread the good news. But the commission is to make disciples not just get them to complete studies and be baptized.
Point number one our method of evangelism doesn’t lead to disciple making it leads to someone joining a local congregation, subscribing to a list of doctrines and completing the sacrament of baptism. That’s about it. The truth is our version of the Gospel is not big enough!
Point number two. To engage the typical postmodern mind in a spiritual dialogue none of the previous assumptions of modernistic approaches of convincing our religious friends that their method of doing church is wrong will even come close to answering their questions.
Point number three. If people are not really excited in their souls about their relationship with God and their brothers at their local congregation and their treatment of their fellow man there is nothing that can be done to motivate them to try to convince a true non-believer that should put their faith in God and join the local congregation. There are tons of local congregants that are not about to lead people to the failed legalism and other issues they experience in their church all the time. This is just one example.
Here is a statistic that we must understand. Most the people (87%) who are new converts that means that they came from completely unchurched backgrounds who are converted in a typical local church of Christ leave that church for a Bible church or Community church or Pentecostal church within one year. I believe the reason is self-evident.
All of these other discussions of methods and approaches and top down beginning of change or organic change are of no consequence until the above three things are addressed.
The lack of traditional evangelistic effort is the symptom not the problem. The core problem is a theological one.
The situation with the 87% is that too often we “convert” them to a “church” rather than make disciples ala Mt. 28. point 1: make disciples; point 2: baptize; point 3: teach. We too often have gone about it in reverse order, and there lies the basic problem , , , IMHO. When the 87% see a call to discipleship, it makes sense — exactly what a new Christian needs to hear, not the “finer details” of church doctrine.
John F.
We see the same point (converted to a church) not to Christ.
The Hills has done method 1 once and is in the process of doing it again with another church.