But How Do You Do It?
I recently finished reading Thom Rainer & Eric Geiger’s book Simple Church. While not necessarily groundbreaking, it has been both challenging and edifying to see research substantiate what many of us already suspected: too many churches have too many “programs” and the churches with a more “simple” approach are often more effective at making disciples.
You don’t have to name names, but would you say that your church has a clear, straightforward, unified process of making disciples (i.e., moving people through various stages of spiritual growth?)? If you attend a church with A LOT of programs, as I know some of you do, how many of those programs are essential and are the existing programs unified? Would you be upset if some programs were cut with the understanding that leadership is doing so with the hopes of becoming more effective?
So many questions swirling around in my mind about how to implement some of these things, so I thought, today I’d just open it up for discussion. What do you think? What have you seen? What has impressed you? What has not? Do churches need to simplify? If so, how? What does this mean for a brand new church (besides focus and being willing to say no to some ideas that might be good but not essential)?
- Read Planting Missional Churches by Ed Stetzer
- Read Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process For Making Disciples by Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger
- Read Planting Growing Churches for the 21st Century by Aubrey Malphurs
- Read 44 Questions for Church Planters by Lyle E. Schaller
So you’re saying that the Argyle outreach ministry is out? :o)
I think the tough thing about programs is that behind every program, there is usually a person with a passion and sense of calling to use their unique gifts. When programs are decommissioned, there’s the potential that someone might feel rejected or not valued.
I wonder if the answer is in merely framing gifts in the context of whole-church disciple making, and not creating an entity/brand for each gift area, as our cultural bias conditions us to do.
Do they make any recommendations/examples in the book of how you discern between essential and non-essential programs?
Essential activities would include: Teaching the Word. Preaching on Scripture. Evangelizing the lost. Encouraging the elect. Refreshing weary saints. Edifying the Body. Being Hospitable. Showing Mercy. Feeding the poor. Clothing the naked.
The one another commands in general.
These can be done in many ways but sadly the church tends to again follow a business model rather than a personal model. IOW, it is better to feed someone from your home than it is to just give them a gift card to Walmart.
Bring them clothes to their home rather than pointing them to a thrift store. That sorta thing.
Whenever possible we should fabricate our ministries both from the heart personally and from the trenches metaphorically.
This keeps us ‘real’ and relational rather than academic, cold, and programatic.
That’s at least part of the answer IMO :)>
I don’t have a lot of constructive advice to give because I don’t know that I’ve ever been a part of a community that ever did this well.
I wonder, and this is just wondering, if putting some emphasis and thought into how you measure and communicate success is a good idea.
We all SAY that numbers on Sunday morning and involved in small groups or whatever program isn’t our only measure of success, but when it comes down to it, those are the things we end up bragging about because they’re easily measurable and are the standard metrics.
If, on the other hand, you could figure out a way to talk about your church’s success (or failure) in easily communicable terms that WEREN’T about more programs and more bodies in those programs, would communicating that way help change (or in your case, set) the culture of your church?
Of course, that’s not the only solution, but maybe it’s part of it.
Maybe.