If you want your church to move toward a slow yet certain death, make certain your church leadership and membership affirms most of these ten statements. They are troubling statements. Indeed they are proclamations that virtually assure your church’s decline and probable demise.
What is troubling is that these statements are not uncommon. They are articulated by both staff and lay leaders at times. See if you have ever heard any of these ten.
- We hire our pastors and staff to do that. “That” can be evangelism. Or discipleship. Or caring for others. Or visiting people in the hospital. Some lay leaders view pastors and staff as hired hands to do ministry they should be doing themselves.
- We have enough churches in our community. I rarely see a community that is really “overchurched.” The number of unchurched people in any one community is typically increasing, not decreasing. This comment usually comes from church leaders who view new churches as competition.
- We are a discipleship church. Or an evangelism church. Or a ministry church. Church leaders who say their churches are focused on only one area of ministry are offering excuses not to be obedient in other areas.
- We have never done it that way before. Yes, it’s cliché. But it’s still a very pervasive attitude among change-resistant people in the church.
- We don’t have the money to do that. More times than not, the church does indeed have the money to focus on necessary priorities. The problem is that some church leaders don’t have the courage to reallocate funds toward those priorities.
- We really don’t emphasize small groups. Churches that do not give a priority to small groups or Sunday school classes can count on a big exodus of people out the back door. Those in groups are five times more likely to stay involved in a church than those in worship services alone.
- We have enough people in our church. This is a tragic statement by leaders of inwardly focused churches. And it is an excuse not to do evangelism and ministry.
- We aren’t a church for those kinds of people. Though similar to number seven, this statement is an appalling declaration made by church members who really believe people of a certain race, ethnic group, income group, or other descriptor should be excluded from the congregation.
- We really shouldn’t expect much of our members. Low expectation churches are far too common. Too many church leaders communicate unwisely that it’s okay for members to do nothing, give nothing, and not be concerned about growing spiritually.
- We focus only on our members, not guests and others. Many church leaders make this statement either explicitly or implicitly. Sometimes the facilities, the worship services, and the small groups shout “Guests not welcome!” I released a resource today that addresses this critical issue of guest friendliness.
What do you think of these ten troubling statements? Are they accurate? Are they fair? What would you add or change?
I really like your list. I have also heard this by pastors. “You have to run a church like a bussiness.” Very troubling.
Thanks, Doug.
Thanks Thom, a good reminder to avoid saying and/or correct such statements. I would probably add ‘we need to make our message more user friendly in order to get people in’.
For certain. A clear sign of compromise.
I’ve been associated with a church that essentially turned #10 around: “We focus only on our guests and others, not on our members.” I’m thinking that’s just as wrong, and just as dangerous.
Good point, Sam.
I too have attended a church that focused a lot more on visitors than older members and the visitors seemed to fit pretty much one demographic too. I call that the sport fishers of men. (Catch and release).
I would love to hear your explanation concerning #3. I lead our people to embrace the idea that we have one assignment or main mission and that is disciple making. Everything flows out of making disciples.
Your last sentence is key. You don’t use the one mission of discipleship to avoid evangelism. Good work.
“young people have ruined the church”
“he’s not even playing that guitar, he’s just chording”
“I get nothing out of anything at this church especially the music”
“we need more strong gospel preaching (we baptize over 10% of attendance)”
“We need to know where you are pastor”
“I can’t believe we pay so much, at my first job I made 25¢ an hour and I was there at 7:30 every morning”
To me: “some people want the pastor there all the time, your primary job is the Word! It’s the church’s job, the people, to visit.”
To others: “well, I’m the only person who visited So-n-so when they were in the hospital (except I did too, and they’ve never called to tell me of anyone in the hospital)”
All this from someone almost everyone says, even those who oppose him: “he’s the most godly man I know, his biblical knowledge is amazing.”
On the finance committee: “well, let’s go over the pastor’s salary in detail… (And they cut it by $10,000, though it’s the Personnel Committee who handles staff compensation, not the Finance Committee)”
I’d like to find a nice comfy spot between a rock and a hard place. That would be nicer ;^)
Ouch on all of those!
#11. “We have to be willing to compromise.”
The watering-down of biblical principles or ideals will wear away conviction. Compromise, even in areas that we think are unimportant, is a dangerous. Take us the foxes, the little foxes that spoil the vines: for our vines [have] tender grapes.”
Doctrine matters!
Well said.
Not all compromise is bad. Somehow the idea of compromise became equal to “making a deal with the devil”. This is not always the case. If moving the service 30 minutes earlier would help, do it. It having an earlier service on Christmas Eve instead of 11 pm, try it. If implementing an early (7 am ) service for youth involved in sports would help, try it for a few months during the season.
Listen to what the other person is asking. It might surprise you.
Certainly methodological compromise is called for at times.
Judging from the context of Steve’s comment, I think he was talking about doctrinal compromise, which is always wrong. I’m reminded of an old saying. I can’t remember who said it, but it goes like this: “Moderation in principle is always vice. Moderation in temperament is always virtue.”
Thom,
Nice post. I would also add the ageist church, the one that specifically caters to a specific age group.
Yep.
Yes. I agree. I saw plenty of churches where the old people could do no wrong and the young could do no right.
Agreed. I love my church–fabulously flexible. But most churches I’ve been involved in have evening (including midweek) services that begin when we’re putting kids down. Beyond having special needs, young kids need 10 hours of sleep. Yet all the ministry opportunities are understandably during evening and midweek times–and parents of young kids (especially with special needs) can’t sacrifice their kids health to get more involved.
I fear today we’re going to the opposite extreme. Churches seem to think young people can do no wrong and old people can do no right. Either mentality is a recipe for disaster.
See Chuck Lawless’ blog on “Bridging the Generation Gap”. He gives some good suggestions on how to bring generations together in the church.
Thom, can you cite your source for the stat that people in small groups are five times more likely to stay in a church? It’s a great point in favor of small groups. Thanks!
It’s old data. It came from the research in my book, “High Expectations.”
OK, I’ll check it out. Thanks!
Tom,
You made some bold claims about small groups.
“Churches that do not give a priority to small groups or Sunday school classes can count on a big exodus of people out the back door. Those in groups are five times more likely to stay involved in a church than those in worship services alone.”
I would love to see some research regarding small groups. There are some great journals that what put out by Christian education journal about 6 moths ago. I have no doubt whether small groups are building fellowship opportunities, but i question whether its actually building more mature believers if you know of any research please point me to the right direction.
See my comment regarding this issue in this stream.
May I add:
There is/are a deacon(s)/elder(s) to take care of that. This is often done regardless of the competence/expertise of said deacon/elder. Example is church finances may not be handled by a member who is CPA, banker, financier, etc. but who is not a deacon/elder.
We don’t want to hear or consider your opinion or thoughts. This translates to you are of the wrong age, gender, marital status, parental status to provide an opinion to for consideration.
You have to pay to play. This translates to you did not give a large enough donation to be permitted to give an opinion.
Ouch.
Thanks for the list. #8 definitely resonates for us. Our organization resources churches to minister with kids with disabilities and their families. We surveyed attendees to a conference we held last month and found that more than 60% of our attendees with a disability or a family member with a disability had been unable at some point to attend church as a result of the disability.
As a physician in a pediatric subspecialty, it’s shocking for me to hear some of the stories parents share about their experiences when they’ve sought to attend church. Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of some of the statements church leaders make.
Thank you, Dr. G. And thanks for your great ministry.
Again Thom another great article.
According to the Biblical definition of what the church should be, I don’t know how churches that frequently use these statements especially numbers 2, 7, 8, & 10, could even qualify as a church to begin with. These statements are more descriptive of a private country club rather than a church.
Thank you . . . and you are so right.
The country clubs have policies for membership, board terms, voting, etc. Most churches don’t have them or have an unwritten set. This is not a good way to run any organization.
My biggest concern is any statement starts with “you” instead of “we.” “You all don’t do…” indicates the speaker doesn’t consider themselves a part of the church. (Even positive comments worded this way concern me– “you have a great church.” When I hear this from long-time members it often indicates they are thinking about leaving. I also occasionally catch myself in sermons saying “You need to…” instead of “We need to…” Christ calls us a body and what happens to one part impacts the rest. For good or bad, we are “we” and not “you.”
Totally agree.
I think in some cases it depends on who the “you” is aimed at because it might be a symptom of a very different problem. It may very well be that the person has intellectually seperated themselves from the body, but I have also seen situations where you have a pastor who routinely refers to the church as “his church”. I don’t mean this in the way that I might refer to “my family”, which I am a part of, but as “my company” or “my shoes” which belong to me.
There are many leaders out there that kindle that “Me and Them” attitude. Sometimes it is not the member who has seperated himself from the body, but the assumed head that has long ago done so. It it often times subtle, but it can be found within the language that is used sometimes bu pastors and other leadership.
Regarding the commonly used term “MY” when referring to the church……
This word really is disturbing when coming from a long-time elder or deacon whose relative of long past may have been one of the founders of the church.
This can reveal that they may actually posses the attitude that it really is THEIR church, and in a subtle way letting the hearer know who is in charge.
To go along with #4 – We’ve NEVER done it this way. (The rest of that statement usually remains unspoken, but is often seen in the attitude that goes with change-resistant people – “And we NEVER will!”)
So true!
That finishes up with a condemnation to hell from the pulpit for asking/suggesting it in the first place.
Mark, I agree with everything that you said there. I think that the key word in what you wrote is “role”. A pastor is defined by their gifting, and the role within the body that they are functioning in. That is one of the reasons why I will harp on something like pastor search committees because we should be raising up people who ARE functioning within a role, rather than assigning job responsibilities to someone who we have deemed to have the qualifications. For the most part we don’t seem to have a problem doing that with elders or deacons, but when it comes to the pastor we seem to shy away from raising up leadership from within.
Part of the issue is that so many of the extraneous details of running a church fall on the shoulders of the pastor because he is the one who gets “paid for ministry”. It gets to the point that they can’t necessarily focus their time on their actual gifting to equip and train the body for ministry. With the exception of discipleship, none of what is listed in number 1 applies to the pastor any more than it does to the believer in general. If you ask the pastor to head up an evangelism ministry, you are asking him to function as an evangelist rather than a pastor.
The body needs to function as a whole, in some cases that means that the congregation needs to be lifted up. In other cases it means that the pastor needs to be taken off his pedestal. In either case we are many members, but we are one body.
In regards to number 1, don’t words like “staff”, “lay leader”, and “pastor” lead to the kind of thinking that is being addressed in that concern in the first place. By assigning titles and positions to certain people within the congregation it would seem to engender the attitude that those are the people who are supposed to “do” ministry.
If you hire someone for a position it is only natural to have an attitude within the congregation that they should be out doing their job.
I would wonder if congregations that raise up leadership (even paid leadership) from within are any less likely to fall ino this than those who go through a hiring process to bring someone into the congregation.
There are plenty of congregations out there that will give lip service to a dissolution of the clegy/laity distinction, but I would wonder how many of them still function as if it exists.
I agree that titles can become obstacles to an every-member ministry. However, the “pastor” who fulfills that biblical role will intentionally be “equipping/training the saints in the work of the ministry” (Eph 4:11). Each pastor will eventually become either the catalyst for ministry involvement or a bottleneck to it.
Mark, I agree with everything that you said there. I think that the key word in what you wrote is “role”. A pastor is defined by their gifting, and the role within the body that they are functioning in. That is one of the reasons why I will harp on something like pastor search committees because we should be raising up people who ARE functioning within a role, rather than assigning job responsibilities to someone who we have deemed to have the qualifications. For the most part we don’t seem to have a problem doing that with elders or deacons, but when it comes to the pastor we seem to shy away from raising up leadership from within.
Part of the issue is that so many of the extraneous details of running a church fall on the shoulders of the pastor because he is the one who gets “paid for ministry”. It gets to the point that they can’t necessarily focus their time on their actual gifting to equip and train the body for ministry. With the exception of discipleship, none of what is listed in number 1 applies to the pastor any more than it does to the believer in general. If you ask the pastor to head up an evangelism ministry, you are asking him to function as an evangelist rather than a pastor.
The body needs to function as a whole, in some cases that means that the congregation needs to be lifted up. In other cases it means that the pastor needs to be taken off his pedestal. In either case we are many members, but we are one body.
I am having a much stronger conviction with this word “RACE” not because it isn’t a word with meaning but because it is a word that is misused. There is only one “RACE” it begins with Adam and Eve. Let us who believe the Book be leaders in making the word apply as it should one race there are ethnic differences there are people group differences but genetically there are no differences.
Many of the comments have tended to focus on one or another of these statements, or add more to the list. This sounds a lot like falling into the #3 trap, doesn’t it? But the first sentence of the article indicates that all or most of these statements taken together spell doom. Every congregation has at least one or two areas of ministry that could use some improvement. My congregation could work on a couple of the items on this list. The danger I see is letting that become “the main thing.” Backing up to get a broader view might show us where the individual items on our own lists aggregate to prevent us from being effective in ministry.
Here’s a familiar song I grew up hearing having special needs in my family, working in children’s ministry, and having a child with special needs. After bringing a need to leadership (even with a suggestion and willingness to enact it), the response is that they haven’t heard anyone else with this concern/issue/problem, so they didn’t see the need to address is potentially for others too. When someone speaks, led by the Spirit, there are others who may not yet be mature enough in their spirituality to share their needs. Statistically there are likely others–but that was rarely if ever the reaction.
I’ve heard every one of those at the church I serve except #6. This post is eerily on target.
I’m eagerly waiting for the resource to talk about guest friendliness!
It’s out today!
Thom, good article. However, I may be the lone dissenter. I think most of your list is spot on. I think there is a place for #8. Let me explain. I am not espousing racism or any sort of prejudice. However, just as we as individual members of a local congregation are “many members but one body”, I think God can and does raise up specific churches to reach specific people groups. And these congregations are being a member of the larger Church body.
As an example, my brother is a pastor of a church that started in an old John Deere dealership. The smell of diesel was in the air and old oil stains were on the floor. The local bank president or lawyer may not be comfortable there. But, then, the farmers and ranchers (and other blue collar types) which my brother’s church reached would not have been as comfortable on the red pile carpet, formal vestibule, and chandeliers of the primary church in town. Neither was bad, they were just different. That doesn’t mean that others were not welcome, but these churches had natural in-roads to these folks.
Similarly, the church I attend is a clapping, shouting, testifying sort of old-school Appalachian baptist church. We can’t even spell liturgy. And if you encounter the same order of service two weeks in a row, I guarantee you it was an accident. Some folks are not comfortable with that level of freedom. But on the other side, our members would be disruptive if they chose to worship at the church 2 miles up the road.
By praying and identifying your body’s own spiritual DNA: by looking at where God planted you, by looking at the gifts, talents, and skills God has blessed your congregation with, I believe a church can discern unique ministries and opportunities to serve in their area. After all, God placed them where they are and gave them the members they have for a reason – in His divine sovereignty.
There is no “white church”, black church”, “Large church, or “small church” there is only The church, and individual members of that body serving where they were called, blooming where they were planted…or not. It is not about competition but obedience. There are enough lost people in every community for us all to share as we join our Father in the family business of seeking, redeeming, and discipling.
Keep up the good work! (but let us have number #8) 🙂
I wonder if #1 comes about sometimes innocently, because churches are some of the few places in the culture (the only place in the culture?) where SO much unpaid volunteer work goes on, from top to bottom, from simple cleaning tasks to the leading of the body. And if a church doesn’t have a good, detailed description of the pastor’s role or expected tasks, as that particular church views them, then you’re more likely to get odd/weird/wrong comments about what people t-h-i-n-k the pastor should be doing (and related to the fact that he is paid, while others are not). On a related note–I wonder how many statements in this list are views held by church members/staff–but UNsaid……
I don’t know how else to contact you, but your emails have been trying to connect to feedburner recently every time I flip past them in my email client. It takes forever to connect sometimes and I don’t know why they are all of sudden doing this (probably past couple of weeks). I’m going to have to unsubscribe if I can’t figure out how to stop it from trying to connect all of the time. That being said, I really enjoy your blog and emails.
Thanks, Kevin. I’ll let my team know.
I would love to see you write something (or a few somethings) on “church volunteers”. I have witnessed personally how so many folks volunteer their time and talents only to be abused and mis-used by the leadership of the church. Everything from extra demands and overwhelming expectations to micro-managing all of which (in my opinion) only serve to frustrate the volunteer. Volunteers do so because they have a desire to help and serve. Churches need our talents but that’s not just our money and musical skills. Churches need Volunteers! People that love people (young, old, big & small), every age group should have a place to serve and be served. We need folks who are organizers and event planners, finance folks and carpenters, housekeepers and computer geeks, prayer warriors and parking lot patrollers and EVERYTHING in between. We need both the creative leaders and willing followers but why are we always begging folks to volunteer? Why are we destroying the very help that God sends us and tossing them aside only to beg for more help? Why is their gift never enough? Why do we discount their abilities and talents because we don’t understand them or think we know how to do it better? If leadership is so smart, if we know how it should be done why don’t we just do it? Volunteers are givers yet those gifts are often times very unappreciated by leadership. These wonderful people are tangible assets with talents that they are offering/giving in service to the church only to find that those gifts are received by a leadership that wants to manipulate them by demanding that they do even more or in some cases do something totally wrong all because they don’t like it or don’t want to lose control of it. While it is one thing to maximize a person’s potential it’s quite another to take advantage of your leadership position and guilt or force a volunteer into something they are not equipped to handle. How often do we see young believers who find it hard to say no because leadership leads them to feel like they are disappointing God? I know personally the pain and frustration caused by some of these very issues and have witnessed the devastating affects to both the volunteer and even to the church relationship. Should we not as leaders encourage volunteers to say “this is what I am prepared to do” then determine how to best utilize that gift within our organizations expectations and needs? Why do we continually press and press volunteers to their breaking point then shun or discipline them when they say no, or quit, or worse yet just leave the church all together.
Good idea.
Kelli, I think that what you are saying kind of touches on number 3 in this list. In many cases you have leadership within a church that has a “vision” of what that church should look like. What happens is that if your personal gifting does not fit into the vision for that church you will be marginalized.
There are so many people out there with so many visions and they often seem to be really small because it generally involves everybody moving in the same direction. We can have a very hard time individually being all things to all people, but within the diversity of the body we can reach out in many directions at once. No one person can or should be involved in everything.
From my experience it seems like the really successful ministries tend to be one person or a small group of people being supported in something that they are passionate in, rather than one corporately decided focus that some people are passionate about but everyone is expected to participate in.
My suggestion would be to potentially stop volunteering for the church, and just find something that you are passionate about and serve your community. If you need support as it grows, then reach out to your brothers and sisters for the help that you might need.
37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!
From St. Matthew ch 23.
Also in St. Luke’s gospel.
Kelli, This is nothing new.
Why do you think that Habit for Humanity gets more volunteers that most churches? They learned how to treat volunteers. There are more people in churches that would give time and effort if only they weren’t criticized, micro-managed, or of the wrong gender, age, marital and parental status, etc.
My pastor has been told this before,
“All you worry about is the pulpit. I run this church”
– Chairman of Building and Grounds
Ugh.
church I am a member of but rarely attend any more has lead pastor that focuses almost entirely on newcomers. That approach is just as bad as the ignore guest approach. Also appears to me that lead pastors are fostering a mindset that ministry is only done if it is something organized through the church. The same people chewing on me for not participating in church social work are the same ones who do not even know their neighbors.
It is not so much that these are said but thought of not only by the leadership but also the membership. Very often what is stated is not always what is thought or believed by the majority.
I have told too many times “but we don’t think like that” or “we don’t do that.” Yet, I never saw anyone who went to the person and confronted them as to why they said something that so few agreed with or was too radical.
Condemn it or you condone it.
“I don’t believe we should go on a mission trip, we should be doing missions in our own areas.” Sounds good, but my experience has shown me 2 truths as it relates to that statement:
(1) Usually, those who make that statement aren’t involved in either mission field.
(2) Most churches who engage mission trips also do a great job of local missions.
#5 (no $) especially rings true for me. Too often leaders view the budget as the be-all-end-all.
“We can’t do it because there’s no money for it” becomes an excuse to not think creatively or even TRY.
Not having enough money is just a problem to solve (like the many others that will come in any endeavor). It shouldn’t be the end of the discussion.
“You’re just a youth pastor.”
Most churches are strapped with huge amounts of debt. This often manifests its self in statements #3 and #5. Is that million dollar “Family Life Center” really more important than widows and orphans?
On several of those blogs people have brought up issues regarding “special needs” children, particularly autism. Can any of you refer me to any resources on ministering to such children? I don’t have much expertise in that area, and it is an issue our church will have to face very soon.
great job and was found guilty in the past. retired now but do interim work and hear most of them and also some mentioned by other people posting here. I wonder how many even realize what they are saying and the ramifications of it.
keep up the good work that calls us (pastors) to accountability
I remember my mom telling me a story of visiting a church where a woman approached her and was quick to advise that my mom was sitting in the woman’s seat. My mom replied with recommending that the woman get to church earlier in the future if she wants to be sure the seat is available. I’ve seen another list of things that turn visitors off and telling visitors that they’ve sat in someone elses seat was on the list.
Another problem is when a visitor leaves the worship service without ever being greeted. It’s amazing to hear of congregations that actually have a moment in time for people to stand, turn and greet one another near the beginning of services only to find out that a visitor was still not greeted by anyone.
Think this is a good list, but wanted to comment on #2. While I agree that the number of un-churched is growing in most places, I don’t always agree that another church is the answer. Sometimes, when a new church opens it’s doors it does little to impact the un-churched but has a huge impact on the churches in the area due to many members jumping to the next big thing. In one sense, we are the “competition” – but in a good sense. Let me clarify. I was involved in team sports most of my life. All week long we “competed” with each other for the starting positions. This competition made us all much better than we would have been without it. But on game day, we were a team and we cheered each other on. In this metaphor, I see the local churches near me as those that spur me on to be better than I would be without them. I want to be the kind of church that when a Christ-follower comes to visit, they want to be a part of our church family. In a sense, we compete for those already saved, and that can make us all better. However, when it comes to evangelism, we must all be on the same team. We must cheer each other on and learn from each other as to how to reach those in our community and in our unique circumstances for Christ. Unfortunately, in my experience, new churches often, (not always) do more to weaken the churches in the area than they do to bring people to Christ. I just wonder what would happen if all the resources, effort, passion and energy to start up a new church were funneled into rebuilding and revitalizing the already existing churches in the same area? Would that be a more effective approach to reaching the lost?