The absence of a magic bullet

Magic bullet: Or, sometimes, silver bullet. 1. The perfect drug to cure disease with no danger of side effects.  The term magic bullet was first used in this sense by the German scientist Paul Ehrlich to describe antibody and later the drug Salvarsan that he created to treat syphilis. 2. In general, a magical solution to any vexing problem that one thing that will solve the problem.  The cure for what ails you or for the troubling situation that has to be over come.

The church has its fair share of supposed magic bullets.  They seem to range across all the spectrums.  Left to right, Bible-based to humanistic, enduring to faddish, sober to goofy.  Every so often, someone latches on to a new idea, or more creatively repackages and re-markets an old idea, and heralds it as the fix for what ails the church.   These packages, programing, publications or proposals hit the church market, sell like hot cakes (for a while) and then end up on the top shelf of the church’s library or the back corner of a storage closet.  But sadly, the congregation, the Church, and the world are by and large unchanged. 

At one church I served, I went through the library, storage closets and educational resource area to find a total of 43 different programs, all of which in their day were touted as having the ability to set the church on the right course.  Most came with a three ringed binder filled with outlines and A.V. materials (some were transparencies [and, yes, we still had the over head projector], others held cassettes, some VHS tapes, the newer ones had CD’s and there were even a few DVDs).  When I took time to dig all these programs out, the church was the same size it had been for the 20 years prior to my arrival-the date of one the earliest programs I dug out.   If we assume that each program with all the workbooks and other paraphilia cost about $200 those 43 programs represent nearly $9,000 with nothing to show for it. 

That does not take into account the cost in sending leaders to conferences to be trained.  There is no accounting of the human effort and labor of staff and volunteers to learn the material and then teach it to the congregation.  We can make no calculation of the hours given by the congregants to come to the church building and learn the material.  

I am not opposed to helpful resources.  Over the years I have bought and used more than a few of these; some to great affect, others were useless.  I am not opposed to Christian leaders sharing their thoughts and how to be more effective in ministry.  But let’s be honest, over the last 50 years the church in America has spent a lot of time, effort, and resources to do church better and the condition of the church is not improved.  I know of no one who believes the condition of the church in America today is strong and healthy. 

I do read, study, and try to be a more informed disciple.  I try to add new tools to my toolbox on a regular basis.  But I have given up any hope for finding a magic bullet. 

In contrast, here is what I have found.  The Lord doesn’t call us to do many things.  He calls us to do one thing-to make disciples.  It is so weird, that as I read the Great Commission and the Great Commandment in Matthew 10 and Acts, and the New Testament in general, there is a beautiful and powerful simplicity to what we are to be about.  As we go, we make disciples. 

I become frustrated with the hype and promise of the latest and the greatest programmatic answer to the problem of static and declining churches.  In my travels I see churches that have layers and layers of infrastructure and operations, but appear to lack any urgency for making disciples.    We do not need another nationally marketed program.  I’m not sure that there is a program that will solve the church’s problems.   What I do know is, if I love God more and love people the way Jesus did, I will be compelled by that love to tell them about God’s amazing grace. Then I’ll be heading in the right direction. 

Measurement tools

Clowdisley Shovell was apparently an excellent naval commander.  But you would never know it from the way his life ended. 

Admiral Shovall’s record at the end of the 17^th century sounds like a who’s who list of navel action for the British Fleet.  He began his naval career as a cabin boy and began his climb through the ranks; he also saw action in 10 major battles.  Among other heroics he distinguished himself as a naval commander at the Battle of Barfleur, by being the first captain to break through the enemies’ lines.  In addition to being an excellent navel officer, he was a benefactor to his parish church and a Member of Parliament. In 1704, he was named Rear Admiral of the fleet and in 1705 he became the Admiral of the fleet.

But Admiral Shovall is better known for his greatest disaster, rather than his stellar career.  In the summer of 1707, he lead the British fleet in an operation in the Mediterranean and pummeled the French fleet off the coast of Toulon.  In the fall of 1707, Shovall was sailing for England and home when he lead his fleet into disaster.  On November 2, in foul weather, Admiral Shovell miscalculated his position and ran his flagship, H.M.S. Association, aground on the Scilly Isles.   The Association sank in only four minutes with all hands lost.  The Scilly Isles are a collection of rocky islands off the southwest coast of England.  The fleet followed their Admiral in absolute trust.  Four ships ran aground; however, other ships in the fleet saw the danger in time to avoid their own destruction.  The proud, seafaring British Navy lost four ships and about two thousand officers and crew. Among those lost were Admiral Clowdisley Shovell and two of his step sons, whose bodies were found washed up on a beach about 7 miles from his flagship.

Now, in all fairness, the weather was very foul with storms and fog.  Additionally, at the time no one had an accurate way to measure longitude.  While the Admiral was ultimately responsible for his fleet, the loss is understandable.  It wasn’t till the development of the Seafaring Chronometer that it became possible to accurately establish longitude.  Until this device and the mathematical calculations to back it up, the best a captain could do was dead reckoning, an educated guess, that at times was based on bad information.

I have this question for you.  What measurement tools can we use to measure our success in ministry? How do we measure the growth of the spiritual communities we serve or of which we are a part?

Please do not assume that I have a grudge against larger churches, the church growth movement, or tracking attendance.  Nor do I claim that I have found the solution or have the right canon.   But if we are using the wrong measurement, we will pursue the wrong goals and we may find ourselves sailing at high speeds to our own destruction.   

Embrace rejection

I was working a part time, temporary job in which I asked people to apply for a credit card.  It was a job fraught with rejection.  I would stand outside a convenience store/gas station and approach EVERYONE to solicit him or her to apply for a credit card.  There were lots of reasons why folks rejected my offer of a credit card.  “I’m in a hurry.” “ I have bad credit.”  “ I don’t buy gas here often.”  My personal favorite, “I never use a credit card.”  To be honest, with an interest rate of 29.99% I wouldn’t want one of these cards myself.  Part of the job was rejection; lots of rejection.

After turning down my offer, one patron asked me, “How is it going today?  Getting many takers?”   I answered, “This is a great job if you need to learn how to handle rejection.”  For every 20 people I approached with this stellar offer, 19 would say no.  Most were polite, some engaging and conversational and more than a few were rude.  I also spent a lot of time with nothing to do but watch the shadow creep across the concrete.  But it gave me time to think, especially about the value of rejection.

Ours is a society with a growing sense of self-importance.  It is the age of pride, convinced of how important we are, in which the prime value is self-esteem.  Rejection is, therefore, especially hard to accept.  The greater our pride the greater our offense when we are rejected.

In a culture driven by consumerism and advertising, we are taught to do everything possible to avoid rejection; everything from buying mouthwash to having the ‘right’ clothes or cars or address.  To be rejected, to be the outsider, to not be included may be the worst fate we can possibly experience.   Parent to teenager, “If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you?”  Honest teenager, “YES.”  And in a sense we are a society of teenagers.

Wherever this pattern spreads the implications are bad.  We could talk for days about what it means in politics, respect for police officers, or sexual morays.  But when this creeps into the church, it can have eternally negative implications.   It appears that the church has become so afraid of rejection that we are beginning to act like an early adolescent obsessing in from of a mirror wondering what others think of us. Unless you have been living in a parallel universe, you cannot help but notice that we are living in a media craze about deviant sexuality.   From the first NBA player to come out, to the first openly gay football player to be drafted into the NFL, to the radical mutilation of a formerly Olympic athlete there is an explosion of sexually driven drama.  In the midst of this whirlwind of noise and pseudo news, the message I hear from the conservative church, not exclusively, but dramatically, is one of fear of rejection by culture at large and concern about image.

For those of you who have not unsubscribed from the blog on that last paragraph (I can embrace that rejection) let’s step away from that powder keg and look at a couple of areas where we might live in the tyranny of fear of rejection.  Using these examples we might find a template for a better approach. 

Worship:

No one is in favor of boring, monotonous worship.  But shaping our worship based on opinion polls to avoid being rejected or to shape our worship to suit people tends to shift the focus and object of worship.  How many times have the worship wars begun when someone says, “I want” this or that kind of music.  It can be traditional or contemporary; the same narcissistic spirit drives them both.  And we feed that spirit by trying to avoid rejection from either a segment in the church or the world.  We try to please as many as possible with our compromises and politically arrived at decisions. 

I understand that the forms of worship must have a cultural aspect.  What is dynamic, effective worship in an outlaw church in China will not be the same for a gathering of believers under an Acacia tree in Kenya.  I am not proposing that there is one form by which we all must worship.   But one story may illustrate the struggle.  I visited one church and when I was handed a bulletin I was offered earplugs.  I must have had a quizzical look on my face because the greeter volunteered, “We like our music loud.” The ownership statements in their reply told me more than they might have expected. 

It is time for us to embrace the rejection that comes when we refuse to make the worship, and especially the music, simply another choice to please me.  Is it time for us to tell demanding individuals, “You didn’t like something in worship?  GOOD!  Worship is not about you or for you.”?

Teaching:

I am not in favor of picking fights.  The methodology of the Westboro Baptist Church is clearly deeply flawed, if not demonically guided.  We will not develop the right to be heard by the lost world by yelling at them that they are lost.  But in our world today the anthem of compromise is sung loud and by a large choir.  We are advised that the prime virtue is tolerance and/or acceptance.  I do not know any preacher or Bible teacher that publicly advocates compromise or says, “I’ll gladly change my core convictions in order to be popular.”   I do know preachers that categorically refuse to address certain Biblical themes for those same reasons.  If pressed on the issues, these preachers would say they believed the teachings of scriptures, but because of past rejection these Biblical subjects have become a taboo they will not address.  A conviction that is held in the heart, but is not taught and lived is not much of a conviction. 

It is time we embrace the rejection that comes when we lovingly address the difficult statements of scripture.    

As I wrote this, I kept coming up with other areas where the cultural fear of rejection has impacted the church.  Given its head this list would be endless.  I would end up railing against all of my pet peeves and frustrations.  So, I will reframe from opening up the cans of worms associated with discipleship, evangelism, church discipline, etc. and ask you to look at your own life and ministry and reflect on where you need to embrace rejection. 

The better approach:

This better way is found as a lonely individual walks away from the seat of power on a lonely and deeply rejected path.   In the ancient Roman world, when a man carried his cross he usually did so alone.  There would, of course, be spectators, by standers, the accompanying guards, accusers, curiosity seekers, and even sympathizers.  In the case of Jesus, there was even a commandeered, temporary slave.  But, ultimately, the cross is for one alone, one rejected.  When we are told to take up our cross, we are told to embrace rejection.    

Throw momma out of the church

Okay, throwing momma out of church maybe a bit extreme, but the data supports a diminished role for moms.  

Practice of Parents	Practice of Parents	Practice of the children	Practice of the children	Practice of the children	Practice of the children
FATHER	MOTHER	REGULAR	IRREGULAR	NON-PRACTISING	TOTAL
Regular	Regular	32.8	41.4	25.8	100.0
Regular	Irregular	37.7	37.6	24.7	100.0
Regular	Non-Practising	44.2	22.4	33.4	100.0
Irregular	Regular	3.4	58.6	38.0	100.0
Irregular	Irregular	7.8	60.8	31.4	100.0
Irregular	Non-Practising	25.4	22.8	51.8	100.0
Non-Practising	Regular	1.5	37.4	61.1	100.0
Non-Practising	Irregular	2.3	37.8	59.9	100.0
Non-Practising	Non-Practising	4.6	14.7	80.7	100.0

From Werner Haug; Philippe Wanner (January 2000). "IV. The demographic characteristics of linguistic and religious groups in Switzerland". The Demographic Characteristics of National Minorities in Certain European States. Population Studies No. 31. Volume 2. Germany: Council of Europe. p. 154. ISBN 978-92-871-4159-0. 

This data is based on European families so there may be variables that are somewhat different in the American church.  As expected the role of the father is the key factor is a child’s future faith practice.  However, there is critical observation that must not be missed.  In each category when the mother’s practice is equal to or greater than the father’s practice, the future participation on the part of the children actually declines.  Surprisingly while we might expect that the greatest likelihood for children’s future participation would occur with both parents being active that is not the case.  The greatest participation of children came when the Father was regular and the mother was non-practicing.

While this study did not focus on leadership in the home here is my conjecture.  In cases where the father attends regularly but the mother is the one who is providing the impetus for spiritual formation the faith development of the children will be diminished. It is NOT enough for a father to attend service HE MUST BE THE LEADER IN THE HOME.  This study also did not take into account the gender of the child.  It would be interesting to do a study on the participation of the children based on their gender.

If you are preaching on the role of “Fathers” in the spiritual development of their children this study will provide you plenty to think about and work with for your sermon.  If you look around your sanctuary and see a lot of moms and few dads you have a couple of choices.  First you may begin developing a strategy to help the men in your congregation develop into the strong spiritual leaders in the home.  Second you can form an advance committee to over see the closure of your church.

Six behaviors to develop generosity in your congregation

When it comes to giving we want to do more than fund a project, budget or organization.  The real objective of sacrificial giving is to grow disciples, to teach followers of Christ to live lives, like His, of generosity.  Having been created in the image of God we are by nature givers.  Giving is hard wired into our being and the research indicates that we are happiest when we give.  Part of our calling is to promote generosity in our churches, not for the gain, but because it is so good for the people of God. 

Here are some practices that churches can use to teach and motivate strong, long-term, healthy giving patterns:

1.     Develop, teach, and live an understanding of the Mission of the church as the God-given calling for the church. A conviction that the church, and therefore these funds, will fulfill God’s calling is profoundly powerful.  Or more simply put everyone in your congregation needs to be able to explain why you exist.   That statement needs to be repeated frequently and talked about often.  If your mission statement is small, tepid, weak or selfish your giving will be as well.  A well- developed mission statement is not a luxury it is a necessity.

2.     Tied closely to your mission statement is authentic excitement and enthusiasm for the church because it is evident that the will of God for this people, at this time, is being fulfilled.  A powerful tool that the church needs to rediscover is the personal testimony.  We need folks to say, “Here is what God is doing in my life.”  People are moved and motivated by stories of God making a difference in the lives of people they know. 

3.     A sense of belonging to each other as a part of the church body.

It is the Biblical understanding of fellowship, which includes laughing with those who laugh and crying with those who cry.  It is the commitment of life to each other and includes restorative discipline, when needed.  A part of that is quality pastoral care from the leadership and minister.  There are some calls or visits and conversations that only leaders should have, but everyone in the church can invest themselves in the lives of other members.

4.      A direct and honest request from the church leadership to the members on behalf of the church, for their personal support of the church.

We treat giving as if it is immoral and unscrupulous.  There have been charlatans in ministry and popular culture and the bias of the media has tried to depict all Christian ministries as if they were part of PTL.  But the PTL scandal was 30 years ago.  We need to get over it.  We have acted as if we are ashamed of asking people to give. That is not Biblical, wise, nor effective.  If you are doing what God has called you to do, there is evidence of changed lives, and there is quality pastoral care, then part of that pastoral care is to ask people to support the ministry.  If the flock knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are loved and cared for, then an honest and direct visit and request for support is appropriate.  But don’t you dare visit and ask for support if you have not earned that right by faithful pastoral care and leadership.

5.     The church leaders must have the resources to accomplish their task, vision, and calling. 

It may sound odd to say spending promotes giving, but it is true.  If the Sunday School classroom is a dump and is filled with broken cast off and unwanted toys, people will not be motivated to give for Sunday School.  I will answer once and for all the question about which came first the chicken or the egg as it relates to ministry or giving.  What comes first is faith.  Never forget that under resourced leaders slip into the survival mode.  Your leaders have to have the resources they need to do their job.  If the job is done poorly, you will not see excitement for giving.  This is an especially difficult balancing act and challenge for in-culture missionaries, underfunded church planters, small or poor congregations and bi-vocational ministers.

6.     A planning and decision making process that is transparent, accountable, streamlined, trustworthy, and participatory.

This relates to the spending decisions in item #5.  People support what they understand, even if they do not agree with all the details.  I strongly recommend a process where those with responsibility have the authority to spend their budgets.  But those budgets are developed in public in advance and there is time for comment and review from the congregation in budget workshops.  Let a leader passionately explain why they will need a given tool in the next fiscal year. Budget workshops may not be well attended but they provide a moral framework by which decisions can be made. 

Giving is ultimately about discipleship.  Here are four statements about giving that are developed in healthy giving.

Giving is:

A.   A statement of loyalty to God.  I trust God more than stuff.

B.    A statement of love.  I love God more than stuff.

C.    A statement of faith.  I want God’s will more than my own.

D.   A statement of humility.   Not my will but God’s will.

Six behaviors that de-motivate giving

Last week I talked about what to do if your giving is in trouble.  This week I want to expand on that in a specific way.  Here are six behaviors that churches often practice with the hopes of increasing giving, but actually de-motivate giving. These all come from the Survival level of the pyramid (see last weeks blog).  Typically, these are used when things are getting tough.  We develop a sense of panic and we are afraid, so we employee these to respond for our survival needs.  Because these seem to address the pressing need of the moment they are very attractive.   It feels as if we can just get these things right, then some how the budget problem or crisis will be resolved.  The reality is that these will never motivate people to be long-term, healthy givers.

1.     Budgets numbers. 

Budgets are useful tools for a church.  They serve as a way of expressing vision and goals in tangible ways.  No church should operate without a careful and well-planned budget.  So why are budget numbers not a good tool to motivate giving?  In short, numbers don’t tell stories; they are not exciting.  Most folks in your church do not want to provide a lot of input into the budgeting process.  Most of these folks do not care how much the electric bill is expected to be each month.  Sharing the numbers can create awareness with a budget, which is not a bad thing, but it will not create a lot of excitement for giving.

2.     Equal monthly division of annual budgets. 

Many churches print in their bulleting a line that says something to the effect “Week needs…$XXXX”.  The idea is to take the annual budget and divide it by 52 and post that number in the bulletin or newsletter.  Additionally, a church will also post last week’s offering on the next line and below that, post the amount above or below budget that offering was.   The number indicating 1/52 of the annual budget is an almost useless number.  A church almost never receives exactly 1/52 of its annual budget on any given Sunday.  Most people are paid on a 2 week cycle so half the time the offering will be well below the “weekly need” which is discouraging, and half the time the offerings will be well above the “weekly need”, which may create a sense that generous giving is not necessary.  Additionally, giving varies month to month.  No month will receive exactly 8.33% of the annual budget because giving is fluid.  Typically, giving at the first of the year is low, as folks are paying off Christmas bills and grows toward Easter.  After Easter giving begins to decline and bottoms out during summer vacation season.  It begins to increase in the fall and tends to grow until sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas.  Understand a graph of your giving over the course of the year will look like a two hump camel.  Don’t expect to have a steady income.

3.     Bills.

In the classic film “The Sound of Music” there is a song that praises “a few of my favorite things”, and after listening to that song a number of times, I have never heard “paying bills” as one of the favorite things.  People are not motivated to give generously because the church has an electric bill.  The only time most people are motivated by paying bills is if they will be able to walk away from the debt.  No one lists the weekly or monthly bill paying moment as the high point of the week.  While paying bills is an important thing to do, it is not a motivational thing.  I have heard offering meditations and even sermons in which the speaker says something in reference to the offering “it is time for us to pay the bills”.  Remember that the word “offering” is essentially a word about worshipful giving to God.  When something as holy as an offering is reduced to paying the bills, it takes us from something grand and high to something plain and even boring. 

4.     Guilt.

Guilt trips are almost always short trips and generally are not taken a second time.  One of the least effectively ways to try to motivate people to give is to attempt to guilt people into giving. 

“Have you done your part?”

“Those who have gone before have done so much, what have you done?”

“Many of you will spend more on Sunday dinner than you put in the offering plate?”

“What have you done to support this church?”

As young teenagers, our parents may have guilt-tripped us into cleaning our room, but none of us were ever guilt-tripped into being neat.  We may have been guilt -tripped into writing a thank you note to Aunt Ethel for the underwear she sent at Christmas, but we weren’t guilt-tripped into have a heart of gratitude.  Guilt as a manipulation for giving fails to motivate people to have a generous heart.  It can never reach the real center of our will and will never effect long-term change toward generosity.

5.     Crisis moments and emergency appeals.

Emergencies happen; they are by nature unexpected and unpredictable.  At times they require special giving.  But if they come often it leads to the opinion that resources are not being managed well and that long range planning is not being done.  We also need to be a little narrower in what we call an emergency.  A tornado hitting our town is an emergency.  The AC breaking down should not be an emergency.  The second law of thermodynamics tells me that it will break and I should plan for that event.  A rainy day fund is not a luxury; it is a prudent preventative.    An ongoing pattern of crisis appeals will cause church members to doubt the wisdom of its leadership and will teach people not to give generously consistently, but to wait for the next crisis.

6.     Power giving.

“If you give, you get your way.”  We would never in a million years say this out loud or publicly, but we communicate this in many different ways.  If giving volume (amount), rather than faithfulness (sacrifice) is part of the consideration in the selection of leadership, we can inadvertently communicate this message.  If we are more apt to have a follow-up call with a wealthy visitor than a poorer one, this attitude has a foothold.  Because we live in a culture of consumerism and preference for wealth this sinful attitude is very subtle and we will have to be diligent to guard against it.

Take time to do an evaluation and see if you are attempting to motivate giving using these practices and consider doing away with them or revising them to help motivate your people to give with a joyful and generous heart.

Next week, six tools that can actually help motivate giving and develop generous hearts.