Did I actually just say that? Yup.  I’m pretty sure I did.  I might clarify by saying that I don’t think you grow a HEALTHY church that way.

The thought process has gone, for decades, that if you have a great Children’s program and then a great Youth program, you will draw the kids and then get the parents.

It appears that when it works two things happen, and neither of them are healthy.  1) Families transfer from a smaller, dying church to a bigger church with better programs, and/or 2) reclamation of church dropouts.

While the reclamation of dropouts sounds like a good thing, my observation has been that they only reconnected when their kids got to the age where church programs became a part of an already overcrowded schedule of their kids’ activities.  Because their reconnection was just part of the general “busy-ness” in which they enrolled their kids, they typically pursued a nominal Christianity as a tangential part of our congregation.  That is to say, they attended sporadically, they rarely gave and they never served.

Neither transfer growth nor nominal reconnection produce a healthy church.

In a recent study published in USA Today, it was revealed that 70% of people aged 18-30 had dropped out of church by the time they were 23 years old.

The survey addressed a small group of these dropouts who return, but the question was not related to the role of children in their return to church:

The news was not all bad: 35% of dropouts said they had resumed attending church regularly by age 30. An additional 30% attended sporadically. Twenty-eight percent said “God was calling me to return to the church.”

The survey found that those who stayed with or returned to church grew up with both parents committed to the church, pastors whose sermons were relevant and engaging, and church members who invested in their spiritual development.

That last statement is paramount.

To grow a healthy church, we are going to have to 1) grow healthy families, where 2) discipleship is a process that takes place within community and happens over a timeline from cradle to grave and 3) the worship is going to have to be relevant.

That sounds to me like a church with family based small groups (parents discipling their kids in an engaged community) and relevant worship.

Conversely, that would include a scaling back of programs.  Churches aren’t programmed to grow.  They are programmed to die.

The mashup of my observations and the survey is that even if you grow by transfer or by nominal reclamation, the program model is going to produce 3 out of 10 real disciples, and of the 7 out of 10 who wander off, you might see a fraction return in a positive way.

Program driven churches have been withering in America for decades.  To depend solely on those programs is to follow that well worn path to the death of our churches.

We need a more organic, healthy, family inclusive and holistic mindset and structure.  We need to re-shape the church.

Most, not all, evangelicals I know are Republicans (I typically vote that way) and as such are duty bound to despise the welfare system.  Whatever good it may do could never outweigh the horrific and crippling results of people becoming dependent on handouts… or so the line goes.

Failure to work for oneself corrupts character and that internal collapse becomes the context and culture for generations, spreading like yeast through the dough… again, so the line goes.

Yet the same evangepublicans will consistently expect a centralized process for all things related to church.  Preschool Program, Children’s Progam, Youth Program, College Program, Music Program, Evangelism Program, Missions Program, Singles Program, Senior Adult Program, Benevolence Program… etc.  If it happens in the Christian life, the staff of the church should work it and drum up volunteers.

And I tell you that many of the things that can be said of the welfare system can be said of the program driven church.  The individuals of the church don’t have to do the work, so they don’t and they get used to it, come to expect it, pass those expectations on to their kids…

And the church in the West declines because the context and culture that we have bred is one of dependence. Laziness. Presumption.

And the best thing we can do for this church is to stop it.  Stop doing everything for them and put them into a situation where the expectations placed on the body of Christ are that these individual members must do it or it won’t get done.

Because, regardless of whether the church is centralized and program driven or decentralized and personal engagement driven… it’s not getting done without them doing it.

You buy that?

Amazing two minutes of video:

If we are to engage North America as missionaries, then we have got to deconstruct our own context and see it for what it is.  If culture is our god, then we are doomed, but if culture is our language, we can communicate.

I remember, over 20 years ago, reading Charles M Sheldon’s book, “In His Steps.” In that book, feeling himself challenged by a vagrant who is marginalized by the people of “First Church,” a pastor challenges his congregation to ask themselves the question prior to choosing a behavior, “What Would Jesus Do?”

The book was old when I read it, set, I believe, at the turn of the last century.  Ancient by modern perspectives. Yet, it had proven powerful for many readers and was equally so for me while I muddled through making my faith my own during my college years.

I also remember the time when someone in Christian kitsch put the letters, “WWJD” on a fabric bracelet to symbolize the question, which might have been more appropriately translated, “What would Jesus have me do?” since I’m pretty sure Jesus was capable of more than any of us at any given moment.  I think I wore a WWJD bracelet for all of a couple of months, but then realized that it had become the “in” thing among, well, everyone.

Last month, I caught a modern narrative.  My wife loves all kinds of reality shows, from game shows to documentaries, the latter of which had her attention on this particular evening.  The affair is called, “Intervention.” Aptly named, the series records families in turmoil being coached through confrontation between loved ones in the throes of addiction.

In this episode, two brothers were being challenged for their lifestyle of using and selling drugs, a pattern of life that had invited their parents’ home to be invaded and ransacked.  As one of the two sat, head in hands, the camera focused on his fingers as they wove through his greasy hair only to have the letters, “WWJD” come into focus as they dangled from his wrist.

I looked down at my wrist.

Decades after I tossed WWJD in the drawer, a yellow rubber bracelet adorned my right arm, engraved with the letters, “LIVESTRONG.”

I don’t know what you know about Lance Armstrong.  You probably know that he survived cancer and won the Tour de France.

You may not know that he won 7 times. In a row. That he is the most tested (for performance enhancing drugs) athlete ever.  That he has never failed a drug test.

You may know that he has become a tremendous advocate for cancer research and treatment, setting up the Lance Armstrong Foundation and Livestrong.com.

You may not know that he curses like a sailor, when not on camera.

Not to belabor the point, Lance is not a representation of conservative evangelcalism. Not now. Not ever.

Yet, I wear a bracelet that represents values he promotes while discarding the representation of values promoted by Sheldon, et al.

Why?

Because conservative evangelicalism has come to present itself to the world as shallow, self righteous, disingenuous… meaningless… separatist… a kitsch based lifestyle that is show without substance in the world.

Meanwhile, when you first get diagnosed with cancer and call Livestrong, a counselor will talk to you about all things related to your disease, including treatment, side effects and what is going to happen to your family.  They are raising money and last week at the World Cancer Summit, Lance spoke and elicited commitments from several nations to increase their investment in finding cures for this disease.

They are actually trying to make life better on the world and everyone can see it, no matter what they believe.

Bottom line: It seems to me that when asked “What would You do?” Jesus would most likely answer, “get involved with the healing of the sick, the comforting of the wounded and the betterment of the world, of course.”

And, no.  I don’t think He would want us to stop without sharing the Gospel and calling these people to redemption, but I do think that they are more likely to actually hear that message from a person working alongside them to raise money for cancer research than from a person wearing WWJD apparel and sitting on the sidelines.

So a few weeks ago, as I was at my in-law’s house about to head with them to a family reunion vacation for the week, I got a call from Alan Cross.

He started with the line, “I’m trying to get the band back together.”

Flattered that he thought me essential, but wary of being drawn back into a political melee, I was initially non-commital.  I told him I was happy trying to advance the Kingdom from my church and blogging my ideas of the Missio Dei (Mission of God) from 12 Witnesses.  I was not going back “there.”

It was a longer conversation than just that, but I ranted about the foolishness of some and the impure motives of others alongside the personal regrets that I had for my own follies.

Patiently allowing me to disgorge all my emotions, when I was done, Alan simply agreed and said that everyone pretty much felt the same way.

So I said I was “open” to the idea.

Shortly thereafter, during a video conference, Todd Littleton argued that we were Southern Baptists and that, unless we were willing to walk away completely from the SBC, then we had an obligation to stay engaged – at least ideologically.  After all, we are sending part of the tithes and offerings of our church members to the SBC.  We at least owe it to our churches to stay connected.

I had to agree.

Therefore, Paul and Todd Littleton, Marty Duren, David Phillips, John Elam, Alan Cross and I agreed to launch MissioScapes.com where we address the Missio Dei from a Southern Baptist context in several expressions (from rural to urban), but also with an eye toward things beyond our denomination.

It launched today, and we hope to bring you some great ideas alongside some that just won’t fly, but all of which we hope will spur you to think about fulfilling God’s mission to our world.  You’ll be reading interviews, book reviews and original articles from the the 7 editors and beyond.

Just for clarification, this effort is ideological and not political.  We will be addressing SBC related issues, among other things, but nobody needs or wants “a seat at the table” and we have no intention of sponsoring motions or resolutions.  Nor do we have any intent of being drawn into petty side discussions with those that do desire to dwell in the world of political mechanizations.

Oh, and 12 Witnesses is going nowhere.  I’ll still be posting here in the same vein that I have for the last couple of years and there may even be an occasion when I’ll post an article in both places.

I hope to see you around.

Interesting what this evangelical pastor has to say about the church’s involvement in the political process.  All three videos = just over 20 mins…

You know that I think we need to transition American church culture into a something far more effective in engaging the world around us.

The problem most often faced in the attempt to accomplish this goal is an adherence to individual preferences by those not wishing to change.

The attitude of those desiring to be agents of change, when confronted with this obstacle, is that of disdain, convinced of our own accuracy.

It is common among those pursuing change to decry the attachments to these biases as selfish and sinful when they stand in the way of our goals.

The hypocrisy of it is that many times we are pursuing our own preferences rather than that which will be best received by those to whom we are sent; for whom we claim to lobby.

When moving a church, we need to be honest about our own preferences and be as willing to lay them aside as we expect others to be when it comes to their comforts.

What matters is what communicates.  We can’t use one mindset’s failure to communicate as leverage to replace it with another mindset that is equally unable.

It is disingenuous.  The result will be a spiralling loss of relevance that makes our current failures look tame in comparison.

From Acts 17.

1. Paul was sensitive to the spiritual surroundings (vv. 10-17). He did not go there of his own intention, but was directed there by circumstance at the direction of Providence. He could have viewed the situation from a self centered worldview that would have led him to consider himself stranded and in need of support, possibly leading to a timid response to his surroundings. Instead, he responded to the vast number of idols by immediately proclaiming the Gospel.

2. Paul sought to help them understand (vv. 17-31). He did not expect those not exposed to the culture of Early Christianity to understand the Gospel, so he used the connections he had available. He walked the common pathway of Jewish heritage with the Jews in the local synagogue and marketplace. When the Greeks brought him to the Areopagus, he pointed to their acknowledgment of a God they didn’t know and drew upon some of their commonly held beliefs, quoting several local poets/philosophers.

Not mincing words or being timid, he communicated the truth through values they already held in common. For the Jews, the OT Scripture. For the Greeks, the belief they were all children of God.

3. The results were not Paul’s to govern (vv. 32-34). Paul proclaimed, many rejected, some were still open and a handful believed. Whether you believe that faith begins in man’s move towards God or in God’s move toward man, Paul is responsible for neither – only to faithfully offer the opportunity and allow God and man forge the result. Too often we concern ourselves with whether or not someone will respond and allow that to govern how we share or if we dare to offer the message at all. This is not our concern, but is between God and our friends.

We must be faithful to share.

Today is the day when more collect phone calls are made than any other day of the year: Father’s Day.

We love you Dad, please pay for us to say it… ;)

Happy Father’s Day.

It would almost seem obligatory that I would post on the recent confession of moral failure by a reasonably high profile pastor.  Gary Lamb confessed to such and resigned his position this last Sunday.

I won’t write about what we should do to avoid becoming such an example.  Others have done so and I commend them to you:  Marty Duren, Geoff Surratt.

I’m not even going to comment on Gary’s situation, though I join the chorus asking for the body to pray for all involved.

I simply desire to express how vulnerable I feel at the news.  I have known for a couple of decades now that anyone is capable of anything.  Seeing this happen scares me to death.

It ought to scare us all.

We should not view such things from the position of security and, therefore, pity.  We should view such things as from the precipice and realize that we are far from secure.

Should we fail to recognize how vulnerable we are, we may likely find ourselves looking at the situation from a position that is entirely too uncomfortable.