simply perfect
Although I've now worked as a "consultant" for several organizations, I've always hated the term. For one thing, so much of what consultants produce just seems like common sense. ("Oh, so if I never say anything affirming to my staff members, they might feel demoralized?")
Consultants are also presumed to have the answers, when often I find the people within the organization already know the best course to pursue--they just need a facilitator (my preferred term) to help them realize it.
In any case, during some of my recent work as a facilitant (consultitator?), I read Simple Church by Thom Rainer and Eric Geiger. The premise is, um, simple: Churches should resist the increasing complexity of modern life by designing a clear process for connecting people to God and helping them grow. This blueprint for discipleship should be easily communicated, easily understood and composed of sequential steps moving toward greater commitment. Staff roles and ministries should be aligned around the process, and anything extra should be eliminated.
Although I found much of the book to be just more common sense, I was fascinated by the authors' boldness in calling for churches to say no to any program or "ministry" not reaching the ultimate goals of the church. Like many simple ideas, this is harder to do than to talk about.
"Your programs must be submissive to your ministry process," the authors write. "They are tools to facilitate the process of spiritual growth." Defining a spiritual growth process, then concentrating on the few initiatives truly nurturing people through that process toward maturity, may require tough decisions about the MOPS program or the Christmas extravaganza. Or it may require more work for leaders and volunteers; as an example of one way to remain focused, the book recommends emphasizing stewardship by offering the material through existing small groups rather than adding another weeknight class for already busy members. But this is harder: it requires coordination of curriculum and training of dozens or hundreds of small group leaders instead of just one teacher, and it presumes all of the church's groups are already on an identical schedule.
Difficult or not, Rainer and Geiger are saying it. Jim Collins spends a chapter of Good to Great saying it. And as I review this blog, I'm even saying it. Perhaps I should be a consultant after all.
posted by Jen @ 7:25 PM
4 Comments:
A good friend of mine left the mega church I went too and he was the youth pastor of, to be a part of a much "simpler" church plant. However, this church was swiftly pulled into the programming that most churches feel they need. He then left and started a church called "Simple C." He and his wife have much of the view that Thom Rainer and Eric Geiger have. I even wonder if he may have been to a conference that they spoke at? Here is his website in case you are interested in what he started in his community. http://simplec.typepad.com/simplec/2008/05/index.html
Love ya.
H
I think there's a spectrum here.. certainly any corporation needs defined goals, and increased efficiency will only aid in pursuit of the goal; but corporations in pursuit of their own goals at the expense of any other besides being focused also meet the definition of pychotic.
If a Church's #1 goal is to make more christians, I guess we shouldn't have Divorce Recovery, the Christmas Cantata, the Church Picnic, possibly the choir as a whole... but is that what Jesus came to do? Surely AA, MOPS, the Arts, and all the other ministries have value beyond their ability to produce christians.
As an artist, it's very apparent to me that the Arts exist to glorify God, and the 2 millenia of church arts are testament to that. Theologically, what does it say to jettison all activities that aren't expressly evangelical?
I don't think the idea is to get rid of anything not evangelical.....it's anything not missional. The book advocates first deciding your mission or "process" of building disciples, then focusing energy on what fits that mission. So Celebrate Recovery, or an all-church picnic, or a Christmas program may or may not fit within the mission (usually broader than just winning souls) and should be evaluated accordingly.
As a side note I'm also an advocate of the arts, but I think the Christmas cantata, etc. is passe. In my experience they're mostly attended by existing church members and maybe some close friends or family, many of whom are also already believers.
I think the authors would say, rather than adding another program draining thousands of dollars and dozens or hundreds of volunteers, why not invest that energy and money into the artistic excellence of weekend services, which are already part of the mission? It's not about getting rid of the arts, in that instance, it's getting rid of the program.
I am saddened when I see any proposal that would attempt to define the "right" way to do church, live Christianly, etc. We are blessed with an amazing diversity of temperments, gifts, etc. Even the differences between the Biblical authors should remind us of this. God is creative, not formulaic!
Post a Comment
<< Home