95 Questions to Shape the Future of Your Church

Other Abingdon Press titles by Thomas G. Bandy

Kicking Habits, Upgrade Edition

Moving Off the Map

Christian Chaos

Coaching Change

Introducing the Uncommon Lectionary

Why Should I Believe You?

NINETY-FIVE QUESTIONS TO SHAPE THE FUTURE OF YOUR CHURCH

TOOLS TO FULFILL THE CONGREGATION'S MISSION

Copyright © 2009 by Abingdon Press

All rights reserved.

No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed to Abingdon Press, P.O. Box 801, 201 Eighth Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37202-0801 or e-mailed to permissions@ abingdonpress.com.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bandy, Thomas G., 1950–

Ninety-five questions to shape the future of your church : tools to

fulfill the congregation's mission / Thomas G. Bandy.

p. cm.

ISBN 978-0-687-34374-4 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Church renewal. 2. Church management. I. Title. II. Title: 95

questions to shape the future of your church.

BV600.3.B367 2009

250—dc22

2009004654

All scripture quotations are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1952 [2nd edition, 1971] by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18—10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Contents

1.Ninety-five Steps to a New Reformation

2. Who Cares Whether Your Church Exists?

How to Measure Viability

Mission-driven Churches

3. The Synergy and Sidetracks of Authentic Church Growth

4. Stress Habits

5. The Church Stress Test

6. The Ninety-five Crucial Questions to Assess Congregational Mission

Introduction

CMA I: Foundation

CMA II: Function

CMA III: Form

7. Implementation

ONE

Ninety-five Steps to a New Reformation

Many voices have been calling for a new reformation of the church. Unfortunately, Christians in the twenty-first century have far less clarity about what a revitalized church might look like than Christians did in the sixteenth century. When Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the literal and figurative front door of the church, there was really only one door. Today there are so many doors, leading in so many directions, with so many competitive visions of church life and congregational mission, that it is difficult to build any consensus about reformation.

In the past fifteen years the number of church consultants and consultation tools to measure church health has increased exponentially. When I first began as a consultant, you could count on one hand the number of credible, nationally or internationally recognized church consultants. They were people with long and diverse Christian leadership experience, authors of many books, and respected among denominations and congregations across the theological, ideological, and cultural spectrum of church life. Today there are so many people claiming to be church consultants that congregational and denominational leaders are bewildered. Anyone with even modest success in one church, one location, or one culture can develop an impressive website or e-zine containing the latest church growth jargon.

There are so many assessment tools! There are so many people claiming expertise about solving the problems of the local church! This book is designed to provide a template or standard against which all other assessment tools and opinions about church health can be compared. You do not need to use my ninety-five questions exactly as printed. You can adapt and customize as needed. You can even use another tool, or blend several tools, to assess the health of your church. However, at least here you can comprehensively see what any worthwhile tool for church assessment ought to include.

The emerging reformation of the church is different from Luther's simply because our situation is not the same. There is not one unhealthy church to reform, but a plethora of unhealthy ways to reform. There is not one European context to reach, but a global diversity of many cultures, languages, and customs to reach. Twenty-first-century Christian leaders are going to approach reformation in two ways that are very different from Luther's strategy.

First, Luther's leverage for reformation was theological. Our leverage for reformation is missiological. The Christian church will not be revitalized, realigned, and reformed by resolving doctrinal debates or even by reconciling political differences. It will only happen when the church recovers its heart for mission. What does this mean?

Twenty-first-century reformation is all about recovering directly and experientially the incarnation of Jesus the Christ. Luther could reform the church by exploring the nuances of the mass and the role of the priest. Today, in our emerging pagan world, Christian churches have lost the original closeness and companionship of Christ.

Of course, there are many ways to experience Christ as healer, guide, perfect human, vindicator, promise keeper, and apocalyptic transformer. ¹ Unfortunately, established churches of all kinds, shapes, and sizes today actually experience none of them. This is not a matter of the mind, and expository preaching or popular translations of the Bible will not solve it. This is a matter of heart and gut and lifestyle, and only mentoring and relationship can solve it.

Any consultation tool worth its salt will go beyond mission statements to explore the real heart and soul and identity of the congregation. It will look beyond the right elements of worship to discover if the Holy is touching people. It will go deeper than conflict resolution to break any control that blocks people from Christ.

Twenty-first-century reformation is all about sharing clearly and daringly the welcome relief of the gospel with strangers to grace. Luther could reform the church building on a platform of Christendom. Today we have no such advantage. Most people (even church members) haven't a clue about Christian history or God's purpose. The church will reform itself only as a side effect of transforming others.

Of course, there are many needs for which grace, and grace alone, will do. Perhaps only looking to the first century will we see people as broken, lost, lonely, anxious, victimized, and yes, grateful to higher powers and unknown gods as we find them today. Unfortunately, established churches often fail to address any of that. They are too preoccupied with protecting membership privileges and preserving comfort zones, making the church the rock and oasis that resources members' personal lives.

Any consultation tool worth its salt will go beyond conflict resolution, generational differences, and the priorities and preferences of the members. It will explore the gifts and callings of members to give life away to nonmembers. It will explore how church members are equipped to reach out to strangers, and their ability to readily, articulately share the gospel.

Twenty-first-century reformation is all about strategic social change. Luther could reform the church relying on the potential goodwill and political clout of princes and nations. Today, captains of industry and national self-interests are part of the problem. Reformation of the church won't happen unless the church also reforms society.

Of course, the urgency of social reform in all sectors (government, business, manufacturing, healthcare, education, law, and media) is daunting. The prejudicial attitudes, self-destructive habits, and violent compulsions that have been allowed—or encouraged—are so advanced as to be beyond the power of merely elected bodies. The church of a new reformation must function as a chosen people.

Any worthwhile consultation tool will go beyond program management to explore leadership development. It will examine the vital connection between worship, spiritual growth, and mission outreach. It will lay bare the truth that an unnetworked church is not really a church at all.

This is what missiology means. The leverage point of reformation today lies in recovering our mission to multiply disciples, who follow Christ into the world to do good stuff and make even more disciples. The church may well develop good theology and negotiate political unity, but without recovering its mission it will sink into irrelevancy. Mission is the key.

There is a second point of divergence today from Luther's strategy for reformation. Luther posted theses. We ask questions. The prescriptive approach to change doesn't work today as it did in the past. Change doesn't happen top-down. It doesn't begin with replacing the CEO, lead to a new strategic plan, require the recruitment of loyal soldiers, and end in a quest for quality. Change today happens bottom-up. It begins with transforming lowly amateurs, elicits visions and callings, requires empowered teams, and ends in a quest for authenticity.

In the messy, rapidly changing, ambiguous, crosscultural world of today, what matters is to ask the right questions—not to have all the right answers. The right answer today might be the wrong answer tomorrow. What works today might not work tomorrow. Congregational assessment tools that obsess over the correct ratio of parking spaces to worship attendance, or the right technologies for worship, or the best curricula for Sunday school will never succeed in reforming the church. You cannot measure a church against a universal structural blueprint or a single action plan. Prescription doesn't work.

But you can ask the right questions. You can encourage church members and leaders to face the right issues. You can assure churches that at least they have looked for all the skeletons in the closet and discovered all the hidden potentialities for renewal. There is much talk about systemic change, but most church assessment tools only really address programmatic change. There are, in fact, eleven subsystems that combine to make a church go and grow.

Say the word church and most church members immediately associate the word with images of crosses, clergy, and peculiar polity; keyboard instruments, programs for genders and generations, ushers and greeters, and nonprofit charitable activities; steeples, pews, colored glass, unified budgets, newsletters, and holy days. Say the words healthy church, and most consultants immediately associate making all these things better. The system of church life and mission, however, is bigger, deeper, and more diverse than any of these tactics. There are many ways to be a healthy church. Even the Bible doesn't provide a blueprint for a franchise. Healthy churches are loyal to Christ but indigenous to their context.

Luther only wanted to reform the church. He really didn't want to split the church and certainly didn't want to splinter the church into so many pieces. His terminology for reformation really didn't include any vocabulary for healthy churches at all. His terminology was all about faithful churches. He dreamed of churches, in every context and form, that were faithful to the presence and purpose of Christ. In this the reformation goal of yesterday and today is the same.

The trouble is that faithfulness inevitably leads to a church split of another kind. This is not the diversification of tactics. Reformation does not split churches because some people like to do things this way and other people like to do things that way. Indeed, if churches were really to experience reformation of the heart, there would probably be more opportunity for diverse tactics to exist equably under a single roof. No, the kind of split precipitated by true reformation is the division between those who want to be faithful and those who just want to be privileged. This is the real separation of the sheep from the goats.

Any consultation tool worth its salt will raise the stress level of church members in the congregation and the denomination. The primary goal of consultation will never be to produce mere harmony. It will never—and probably should never—make everybody happy. If some people leave the church because the consultation tool asks too many questions, probes too deeply into personal motivations, and challenges too honestly their hidden assumptions, that is probably a sign that it was a good consultation. Reformation has bite. It clears the air. It purifies the spirit. It focuses the church on who is important (the stranger) and who isn't that important (the member), and on what is essential (the sacred Christ) and what is nonessential (the sacred cow).

Reformation today is a very practical affair. It is not going to be achieved by dueling theological scholars or high-level negotiations among denominational officials or restructuring the congregation's constitution. Real reformation is more mundane. It will be achieved by asking the right questions, challenging the hidden addictions, and empowering the lowly amateur Christian. Reshape the attitudes of the board and the trustees; open the eyes of weary church veterans to new opportunities; expand the imaginations of church leaders to learn new things from unlikely tutors; hold people accountable to the nitty-gritty of the spiritual life today and tomorrow and the next day. Reformation is a big thing. It is the accumulation of a lot of little things, done in the right order, for a single-minded purpose. Never expect reformation to begin at the center of church life. The status quo never births anything new. Why should it? Always look for it to emerge from the fringes, edges, and innovations of church life. That is where Christ, the great Reformer, is.

_____________________

1. See my book Talisman: Global Positioning for the Soul (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2006).

TWO

Who Cares Whether Your Church Exists?

One of the most important annual questions every church staff or board must ask is whether anybody cares that this church exists. They will review all the potential sidetracks and irrelevancies of congregational life and mission; talk with all the possible alliances with religious, social service, healthcare, advocacy, corporate, and government sectors; and monitor perspectives from all the lifestyle segments of the zip code. And they will discover whether anybody really cared (or continues to care) that this particular church continues to occupy space in this particular community.

There is a deeper spiritual issue behind this question. Church leaders need to ask whether God cares that this church exists. Most church members are aghast that one might even ask such a question. Of course God cares that this church exists, they say. A closer scrutiny of Scripture, and a careful reading of the book of Revelation in particular, suggests that this is not a safe assumption. God wants faithful churches to continue to exist, and he wants unfaithful churches to get out of the way.

It is entirely possible that God might not want a church to exist. Why not? The church might be siphoning away precious resources for its mere institutional survival that struggling faithful churches somewhere else might better use. The church might be compromising the integrity of core values and convictions, undermining the credibility of other faithful churches in the community. The church might even be providing a safe haven for otherwise dysfunctional Christians who would be better challenged by faithful churches to grow up and fly right. Yes, it is entirely possible that God might not want your church to exist. The pastor, the board, and the denomination all need to find out.

How to Measure Viability

As more and more churches in North America decline, leaders focus on how to measure viability. Denominations create task forces to determine the criteria to assess the critical mass required to sustain life. When is it time to close a church? Clergy strain to assess realistic hope. When is it time to move on? The patient is comatose and the caregivers are holding a mirror to the nose of the local institutional body of Christ. And is it yet alive?

In fact, it is not all that hard to establish reasonable criteria to assess the hope of transformation. Many very healthy, vibrant churches in the past declined for understandable cultural, environmental, and strategic reasons, and readily assessed their options. It is not hard for a thriving church to close, relocate, or seed a new church. Healthy churches understand that they are just a part—a tactic—in Christ's larger deployment of God's mission resources. They can face the time of their death with confidence, knowing that they have contributed to the mission and that others will carry on the quest. The problem is that less healthy churches don't want to hear their advice.

If you want to measure the bottom line of church viability and decide if there is reasonable hope for a resurrection, here it is:

Give it your best for three years and then lay down a fleece. Within six months at least three out of five of the following changes must be realized.

(1) A net increase of 20 percent of the adult members in serious, partnered, midweek, spiritual growth disciplines that include daily Bible reading, daily intercessory prayer for strangers, intentional conversation about God, increased financial giving at least 3 percent above the average weekly gift to the church, and perfect worship attendance (except for reasons of health).

(2) One hundred percent of the board can publicly, individually articulate their answer to the key question, What is it about my experience with Jesus that this community cannot live without?

(3) The average number of newcomers or visitors in attendance at weekly worship has increased by at least 10 percent.

(4) The congregation has staked significant money and volunteer energy (proportionate to their budget) on a signature outreach ministry toward some microculture not currently represented in the church.

(5) At least ten lay members have separately and individually come to the pastor, without any outside encouragement or announcement, to declare their readiness to do whatever it takes to follow Jesus in mission—and have agreed to pray together for the resurrection of the church.

Note that these criteria only become valid once a leader has given at least three full, dedicated, sacrificial years experimenting with anything and everything to help the church grow. These may well be stressful years. When it comes to determining congregational viability, now is not the time for conflict resolution. Now is the time to raise the stress level to do whatever it takes to revitalize the church. But at the end of three years, if the church cannot accomplish three out of five of these goals within the next six months, the pastor knows it is time to move and the judicatory knows it is time to sever its relationship with the church.

The real challenge is not to define the criteria of viability. These are fairly obvious from any biblical and mission point of view. The reason pastors and denominations cannot reach a conclusion about congregational viability is that they are afraid to do so.

First, denominations and pastors refuse to apply these obvious criteria for church viability because if they did so half the congregations would be revealed to be nonviable. Since there isn't all that much money in a nonviable church anyway, the real threat is loss of prestige. It would be quite a blow to personal and denominational pride to admit that so many congregations had been allowed to sink to such a perilous, and indeed nonredeemable, situation.

Second, denominations and pastors refuse to apply these obvious criteria for church viability because they have a misplaced and theologically unsound assumption about God's grace. They believe God can work miracles and transform the nonviability into viability. The problem is that the question of viability has nothing to do with God's grace and everything to do with our faithfulness. Jesus said to let the dead bury their own dead; take up your cross and follow me; and if one house refuses to be faithful then kick the dust from your sandals to move on to the next house. What is being measured here is not God but us. The truth is that God has declared many a church nonviable a long time ago and is wondering why faithless church leaders continue to waste precious resources for mission on churches that have no desire to grow spiritually or to influence the world for Christ.

Third, denominations and pastors refuse to apply these obvious criteria for church viability because the judgment they give is the judgment they will receive. Leaders cannot expect congregations to grow in faith, witness to Christ, invite people to worship, reach out to strangers, and pray for the mission unless they are ready to do the same. The nonviability of a congregation is a judgment on the nonviability of a denominational judicatory and on the professional church leaders who allowed the church to get into that situation in the first place.Better to let a congregation linger in its death throes, and continue to waste resources propping it up, than to admit to bad leadership.

The good news is that faithful clergy and faithful denominational leaders are beginning to take ownership for their own mistakes, accept the loss of nonviable churches, and reinvest resources in the viable churches. Only when they confess their sin to the Lord will the Lord forgive and empower them to do better with the churches of the future.

This is all about accountability and missional urgency. Leaders must hold themselves and their churches accountable for their inreach of spiritual growth and their outreach to the lost. Viability is simply measured by inreach and outreach. Is the congregation going very, very deep? And is the congregation reaching further and further out? There is a minimum expectation for both (the five criteria named above), and there is a reasonable timeline to expect correction (six months).

The irony is that when a pastor or denomination rigorously applies these simple principles for viability, some very small churches may actually continue to be supported—and some moderately large and larger churches may actually be declared nonviable. The issue here is not membership and money per se. The issue is inreach and outreach. Get it together, folk! Church growth is all about the passion to go deep and the urgency to reach out. Take that away and the church is a black hole of resources dedicated to the protection of ancient musical forms and celebration of potluck suppers. And yes, if you're a member, your daughter can be married here for free. Peter never would have stood for it. He would have confronted the new Ananias and Sapphira who are the current favorites to cochair the board.

What is interesting to me is that the question about viability usually leads to a debate about closing a church. This is absurd. It suggests that the real issue about viability is who inherits the assets of the deceased. Lest we forget, it all belongs to God. The denomination does not inherit. The congregation does not inherit. Anyone at all who inherits the assets and does not use them faithfully for the mission of Jesus Christ is a thief. God will judge him or her in God's time.

Congregational nonviability can occasionally happen to even the best and most faithful churches, just as it inevitably happens to the least faithful churches. There are two possible reactions.

First, honor the faithful leaders of the pastor by reinvesting in a newly planted church that grows faithful leaders for the future. Let the old church die. Start a new church. But give the new church absolute control and freedom to use the assets of the old church as it chooses—no strings attached. Use it or lose it; change it or keep it; do whatever you want with it so long as you keep on following Christ on the road to mission.

The second denominational reaction to a nonviable church is not to close the church but to dissociate itself from the church. If the church will not unconditionally give away their assets to a new church, then walk away. Sever the partnership. Who cares if the denomination does not get the assets? It is far more important that the denomination stops wasting resources on a nonviable church. And it is even more important that the denomination eliminates the stranglehold of a nonviable church to claim voting privileges that shape and limit the destiny of the denomination.

Here is the bitter truth. Nonviable churches are literally holding hostage many regional judicatories. These churches are declining. They are not going deep, nor are they reaching very far, but they have their representatives on the denominational committees and their votes set denominational policy. Most of the viable congregations have distanced themselves from the denomination. They will sustain themselves, control their own staff appointments, and avoid the judicatory as much as possible. Judicatory life becomes a dance of dysfunctional representatives of nonviable churches, arm in arm in a codependent embrace with denominational leaders. The one partner needs the prestige of numerous churches even though the churches are barely breathing, and the other partner needs the resources of the denomination to keep them on life support. The healthy congregations have gone off to refresh themselves at the banquet of grace and get on with God's mission.

Here is another bitter truth. Nonviable churches are literally blackmailing many pastors. These leaders are dying inside, burned-out, and frustrated beyond endurance. They are kept from pursuing their original call to ministry, because they fear telling the truth about the nonviability of their church might endanger their careers or invite abuse to themselves and their families. Courageous pastors shake the dust from their feet and surrender to God's mission, unknowing about the future of their careers but confident that God rewards the faithful.

I have been a national denominational leader and then an independent consultant for more than thirteen years now. During all that time there have been endless committees investigating congregational viability, and all with no result. Yet the answer is fairly obvious. I am not a patient man. Many church planters, church transformers, and mission-driven laity are even less patient. And I have learned through thirty-plus years of pastoral leadership that God is the least patient of any of us. How long will God tolerate our vague hesitation to set clear policies that assess nonviability? We are so fearful to hold our churches and ourselves accountable for spiritual growth and mission impact. Do we seriously believe God will not hold us accountable?

Some readers might find this article pessimistic. I actually feel increasingly optimistic. What I see today is that faithful pastors and judicatory leaders are finally standing up for God's mission above all else. They are finally holding churches accountable for spiritual discipline and missional impact. They are separating themselves from nonviable churches the way growing congregations separate themselves from inactive members. Onward! Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, follow the Lord!

Mission-driven Churches

The contrast between a maintenance-driven church and a mission-driven church has been around for some time. Everyone knows that the former leads to creeping institutionalization and decline, and that the latter leads to a thriving faith community and growth. The trouble is that nobody will admit to being a maintenance-driven church!

When the judicatory oversight officer visits, everybody claims to be mission driven.

When a new candidate for pastor is being interviewed, the entire search committee claims their congregation is mission driven.

When the capital campaign is unveiled to renovate the sanctuary, the stewardship committee proclaims that they are mission driven.

When the youth complain that staff salaries are taking up 85 percent of the budget, the board is quick to reply "Ah, yes, but they are all (you guessed it!) mission driven!"

If one were to simply accept the research of countless sociological studies of the church, which take the opinions of clergy and church leaders at face value, it is remarkable how many rapidly declining churches in North America think of themselves as mission driven!

The churches that are maintenance driven always seem to be those other guys! Those other guys (a generic term that includes churches of men and women) are the ones who should merge, relocate, reorganize, recovenant, reprioritize, and generally stop doing stupid, addictive, selfish things. Not us. "We are in fact open and eager for growth—but, alas! The demographic shifts, the economic times, the aging population, the sad state of seminary training, and the indifference of the younger generation are all against us."

Yet there is a very simple way to measure the mission-mindedness of a congregation. A truly mission-driven church dedicates more than 50 percent of its money, energy, leadership attention, program, and prayers to microcultures not currently represented, or underrepresented, in their church.

More than 50 percent of all your resources . . .

to people not currently involved in your church . . .

out of a primary mission field defined by the average distance people in your community drive to work and shop.

That's a mission-driven church. You can spend 49 percent of your money, energy, leadership attention, program, and prayer on yourselves (the current members of the church and their extended families) and still reasonably call yourself mission driven. But if you spend more than half of your energy on yourselves, you can only be described as maintenance driven.

The rigorous application of the principle divides the sheep from the goats.

For example, a church enters a capital campaign to renovate the sanctuary and improve the property. Is this maintenance driven or mission driven? One simply has to ask, Who is it really for? If the goal of the renovation is to refurbish the organ, repair the steeple, relead the stained glass windows, and install access for people with disabilities, it is probably maintenance driven. It is all about satisfying the desires of people already inside the church. Ask the general public what they want! But if the goal of the renovation is to expand the stage, upgrade technology, install flexible seating, and enlarge the food court, then it is probably mission driven. It is all about meeting the needs of people who are not inside the church.

Or, for example, a church