Pastors Not Sold On Being Missional
(First major new post of The Blind Beggar 2.0)
I’ve just been reading some interesting research done by Ron Sellers of Ellison Research (Phoenix, AZ) on how involved Protestant churches are in community focused efforts. Community efforts are such things as blood drives, homeless ministries, after-school programs for children, low-cost day care services, abortion or pregnancy counseling, domestic violence programs, food donations, adult literacy and the such.
A couple of thoughts ran through my mind as I read a summary of this research.*
What Sellers really researched is what the pastoral staff thinks. Throughout the summary you read comments like “all pastors were asked” and “but pastors in larger churches.” Therefore, this is really not research into what the church (the ekklesia) thinks, but what the leadership believes.
There appears to be a strong distinction made by leadership between community outreach and evangelistic outreach. It may have been the way the study was structured, but it seems that most pastors do not view community outreach as having an evangelistic component and vice-versa. This dichotomy between the two is wrong and needs to be corrected. It may also be one reason why many evangelical faith communities view emerging/missional as a modern form of the old “liberal social gospel” movement.
Except for food donation and holiday food programs, few faith communities have any type of community outreach. According to Sellers, “fewer than 1 out of 10 Protestant churches offer any kind of free or low-cost day care services, abortion or pregnancy counseling, domestic violence programs, English language classes, job skills or job training, or adult literacy or reading classes.” I think by extension you could add just about any type of community related effort to this list. Could we say that leadership does not perceive being missional as important?
Before you answer that last question, here are the excuses 4 out of 10 pastors gave for not offering more community related programs (with my interpretation in italics):
- They would rather focus on spiritual needs than on physical needs (physical needs are the job of the government, we only deal with the spiritual).
- They would rather focus on their own congregation than on the community (and I’d get fired if I didn’t).
- Their community has no major needs (yes, they really said this).
- They don’t see it as a major priority for their church (they must have deleted Mark 12:31 from their bibles).
- Their congregation really isn’t interested in community outreach (we’re a private club and can’t be bothered).
These type of response demonstrate a strong lack of understanding of who we are called to be (an incarnational people), pastors bowing to the pressure of the congregation to focus on them exclusively, and an ignorance of the post-Christian culture we now live and minister within.
All pastors, regardless of their church’s level of involvement, said (quoting Sellers), “[when] asked what’s holding their church back from being more involved in their community. Four different reasons are cited by at least half of all pastors: lack of sufficient volunteers (58 percent), lack sufficient staff (56 percent), lack of sufficient lay leaders (52 percent) and lack of sufficient funds (50 percent).”
Staff, volunteers, and funds are helpful, but to me these type of response demonstrate for me how ingrained the top-down American business model of organization, program and structure is in the American church and how it obstructs the missional purpose of the church.
What is your reaction?
* As found in the January/February 2007 addition of “Fact and Trends,” LiveWay Christian Resources.
![[del.icio.us]](http://blindbeggar.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Facebook]](http://blindbeggar.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://blindbeggar.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://blindbeggar.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://blindbeggar.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
Tags: Community Outreach, Emerging Church, Missional Church, Pastors, Ron Sellers
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 am
This explains why Barna’s research shows lots of people dropping the local church completely and just getting together to do life with friends.
Unfortunately, if the “outreach” doesn’t include getting butts in their pews/chairs, they aren’t interested.
Sadly, I’m sure many of these “leaders” truly love God, but they’ve forgotten that the church is God’s instrument of change in the world. You can’t disconnect.
I do believe there is an element of rejection of the idea of the old “liberal social gospel.” That’s why I’m not a fan of the term “social justice.” A lot of these guys see old mainline churches that lost their way on spiritual issues when these things come to mind. But if they take their clue from scripture, they know that you can’t divorce the spiritual from physical needs. James said “Faith without Works is dead.”
Rick you’re absolutely right about the whole top down model of organization. Our homeless outreach is not funded by any church, just a few folks loving God who want to make a difference. We have no staff and we’re all volunteers.
I tell people all the time, if God is moving you to do something, start it with what you have. It may be small, that’s OK. God has this amazing way of bringing the right resources to bear when something is started in obedience. I don’t worry about what we’re going to do week to week in our outreaches. I use what God has placed in my hands and it’s amazing what he does. He brings in resources I would have never expected.
Scripture tells us to be faithful in little and he’ll make us rulers over much. I’m not looking to be a ruler, but I strive to be faithful in the little and then watch as God does wonderful things.
The truth of the matter is that it doesn’t even have to impact the “Church’s bottom line.” Many people will give above and beyond to something that they want to be a part of. I still tithe to my local church and what I spend in the homeless ministry is on top of that.
Unfortunately the leaders of our churches take their cue’s from corporate America as you indicated more so than from scripture and real faith in God.
Maybe we can model some new ways and change some attitudes.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:37 am
I agree John, it also explains Barna’s findings because if the leadership is so out of touch with what the people want and need, the church itself is going to be completely defunct in their lives.
What a sad sad sad commentary.
It explains why we get so much backlash in our community that’s for sure.
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:01 am
I have a lot of thoughts on this topic.
After a rewarding but brief time of mission service in Brazil I stepped into a very unpleasant full-time position with a church in the southwest. The pressure to increase attendance and bring in tithing members was heavy, and so my priorities were expected to reflect this. You should be able to see why community outreach that is not specifically evangelistic in nature will not fly at a church board meeting. What’s in it for us?
Don’t attack “leadership” too much on this point. I desperately wanted to help people, but I also had to pay bills and feed my family. If I had continued in that ministry, it would only have “worked” if outreach were always at least minimally successful in bringing in new members. Thank God I’m not in that any more, and that’s why I refuse to consider taking another full-time position for pay with a church. Now it’s bivocational or nothing.
One last thought. When I was a teenager I left the Roman Catholic Church I was raised in and joined the Presbyterian Church (USA). At one point I was invited to a regional discussion on topics that would be taken to the national convention. One of the topics was where or not the church (PCUSA) should provide instruction in the area of sex education and morality, or leave that to the public schools and governmental agencies. I’m serious. I was the youngest person there, still in high school and the only one who spoke up to say “YES WE SHOULD!” My argument was that only the church has the moral authority, derived from Scripture, to speak on these issues. Looking back I know that the PCUSA would probably be more liberal than the government on these moral issues, though.
Oh I’m so cynical. ;-)
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:54 am
John: Is “getting butts in their pews” some new theological and missionology phase? :-)
I really like your insight on how to get started. If God is moving you to do something then he has/will provide the resources, so just get started with what you have and let it develop from that point. We don’t need a ton of organization to feed a homeless person, or tutor an immigrant in English or plant a tree to help counter global climate change.
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:58 am
…when we fail to connect people to the amazing work of God, including helping the physical needs of people (kinda like healing the blind and lame, and making more wine) then they will never fully realize the fullness of life that God has created us for…could this be why churches are not attracting outsiders and why their insiders are so boring?…graceandpeace y’all…
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 am
Makeesha, I believe you and John are correct when you note that this helps explain some of what Barna has found. Many leaders are out of touch with those “in the pews,” but I also believe Adam has some good insights.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:12 am
Adam: Thanks for bringing some balance. I didn’t intend to attack leadership and you’re right to remind us that many pastors desperately wanted to help people and be involved in community outreach.
Your comment about how being bivocational brings freedom of action is great! You should do a post on this.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 am
Jeff: Nice to have you commenting! Grace and peace to you also.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 am
Boy, Rick, nothing like starting the year with a bang! I don’t have much to add to what has already been said so well, except that maybe those of us not in leadership need to bypass that hierarchy and go straight to the top, to our Head, and take our orders from Him. Thank you, John Lunt, for the advice to start where you are, with what you have.
Michelle
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
well that’s the problem with “the leadership”, isn’t it? I suspect that they are not leading, but trying to do it all themselves, and they arte so busy doing what they are already doing that the thought of a bunch of extra tasks really spooks them.
One congregation I was involved with had a ministry to street kids. Why? Because God had called one of the members to have a ministry to street kids, and “the leadership” said “God bless you in your ministry”, and so it became part of the ministry of that church. Part of the ministry of leadership is to be able to identify people with the gifts and the calling for various kinds of ministry, whether in building up the community or in outreach.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Michelle: Always glad to see one of this blogs longest friends continue to visit and comment.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Steve: You hit on it. A bottom up ministry style where the “leaders” and organization are the servants and supporter of those ministries God raises up among his people is the right model IMHO.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Wow Rick, Happy New Year! Off to a great start, bro! Everybody’s comments are great.
My .02: I’ve never judged the heart-intentions of church leaders. Most of them have a real passion to serve the Lord. The disconnect, I believe, comes from being trained in seminaries that are out-of touch with the post-modern era we live in.
In ‘04, I gave institutional church one last shot after not being a part of one for 12 years. I would sit there in the senior pastor’s office and watch him weep for his community. He thirsted for the missional model of church that I was showing him as much as I did. But, when it got right down to it, he had no idea how to function any other way. Top-down church was all he had known for his 30 years in the ministry, and he knew that if he stirred the waters with something as radical as I had embraced (in in his heart, he did too), he would be out the door in a heartbeat and lose a lot of retirement perk in the process.
It was like I am when I try to talk to Ukrainians. I want badly to be able to communicate better, but it is a very slow process for me to learn their language. It’s the same way with an institutionally trained and oriented pastor when it comes down to anything but the top-down leadership model. It’s a foreign language to them.
I nearly went back to seminary in the early 90’s, and the reason I didn’t was because I could already see that there was no way I could function anymore in an institutional environment. When I would try to explain to seminary administrations my form of evangelism (which we now call missional) they thought I was a heretic.
But, we toughed it out again for two years back in an organized church until last August, when we realized that we were spinning our wheels there, and it was taking too much time away from what God was already using us for. That is a sad scenario when church involvement takes you away from serving God, but in all honesty, it does just exactly that for more of us than anyone might want to admit.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Good to have this blog fully up and running again - and Happy New Year.
This is a painful one for me in my own church situation. We went through a lengthy process, lasting almost 18 months, that took people through a process of community / mission engagement - it involved various bridge building exercises, community audits, bible studies, sermon series etc, all helped by a consultant.
It was all really helpful in lots of ways, but in the final analysis people were able to take on board the theory, but not the practical application. By far the biggest reason was ‘too busy’ - in other words ‘our lives are too crowded to get involved, even though we think its a great idea (and would fully support *other* people doing it…)
Currently, we’re keeping missional engagement with our community off the agenda for a bit - just to let things settle down, and to try to figure out a fresh way that will stimulate more.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Webb: Interesting that you should mention traditional seminary education. I thought about mentioning it as one possible reason for pastoral attitude towards community involvement, but I didn’t want to sound negative on this type of training. Like so many things, it has its upside and downside, but we would, as a Body, be better off if some seminaries didn’t run their degree programs as if they were training MBAs instead of pastors.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Paul, thanks for sharing about your journey. A good example of how a pastor is ready and can’t get the people to follow. Is there even one or two who you could work with and start doing even one missional project? I know it is the heart of all pastors to want to bring along the entire (or most of it) congregation, but my experience is that it is rarely possible. Start with the little God gives you and let him then expand it.
Just a thought.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Rick: Well, I understand as this is what we’re going thru here in VA. In the past 2.5 years (since I have been pastor here) we have partnered with a regional university to open a community music school; partnered with local artists to put on a teen open mic night each month that draws 80+ kids to an empty storefront in our town; started a Boys and Girls Club in our church which now has 40-kids per day in after school programs; started a community non-profit which received a $3-million grant to build a new community center in our town. We have also done movies in our parking lot; family skate nights; John Maxwell’s Max Impact simulcast for business leaders; and increased our community VBS from 60 to over 180 for two years in a row. Yet, we have had some of our members vote against all of these things, criticize me for doing all this stuff, and fail to welcome those not like us. But, this is our mission and others are getting it, stepping up, and supporting. Change is tough, and missional engagement is really tough.
Oh, I saw “butts in the pew” on Ryan Bolger’s blog — not sure if he gets the credit for this new theological term, but he is the church growth guy, so who knows! Peace and joy.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Praise God for what you are doing Chuck. Seems like I remember seeing a chart on your blog once about the changing missional nature of many of your faith communities efforts.
Dang, smart people like Bolger always come up the good technical jargon.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Chuck, your post warms my heart! :)
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
The trouble is that the church has become both the producer and consumer of its own content. It’s a closed loop, and ‘missions’ is something done by someone else - someone to whom we send money once a year. To engage the community outside the church doors is to work at cross-purposes to the actual functioning of the church - despite our lofty sentiments or outright protestations to the contrary. It’s a very difficult area for a pastor, sincere of heart, weeping for the congregation to know Christ. We can’t grow in faith without losing certainty, without experiencing dissonance, without being uncomfortable for a time and, let’s face it, no-one wants to be uncomfortable on a Sunday morning. No, that’s not what Church is about, not what it’s capable of.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we do church because we don’t know what else to do.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Chuck, sorry, didn’t see butts in the pew on Ryan Bolger’s blog. However, I must confess to plagerism, well kinda sorta.
It actually comes from a discussion I was having with a prominent member of the financial board of a mega church I was part of a few years ago. The guy is a great guy with a generous heart having helped the church financially with his own resources. However, he made a statement I found disturbing and has stayed with me to this day.
“It’s about butts in seats, baby. Butts in seats.” So I did lift it, but for this one, but it was about five years ago from a man named Jack Furst who probably hasn’t ever read a blog.
Since some Pastors are chiming in and I’m really glad to see that, I want to encourage you. If you don’t believe for some reason that you can financially support the missional activity of some of your people, you can certainly support them.
1. Be upfront that financial resources are not availabe (if that is true).
2. Take time to meet with the folks that are interested in taking on a missional project. Listen to their hearts, (A great test of their sincerity is this - do they expect the church to pay for it, or are they willing to pay for it or at least start it out of their own pockets.) If they are sincere. Encourage them. Pray with them.
3. If they are worried about how they can do it financially, get someone on the staff if you’re too busy yourself to brainstorm with them and see how to start it without a lot of money. I’ve done lot’s of ministry and usually I’ve received no money from the church and have had to start it myself. I would start small and watch God bring the resources.
4. You can find sometime during your Sunday gatherings to recognize them, what they are doing. Let the body hear their vision. Some may want to join them on it. This is the test for you. Is Sunday morning “your thing?” I’ve known Pastors that don’t want to relinquish any time for this. That’s a big mistake. Also make time for the God Stories that come out of those projects or efforts. It can encourage others.
I understand that the pressures on Pastors can be intense. But I will also say that a good many Pastors like the church being about “their vision of ministry.”
Part of the pastor’s job is the “equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry.” If a pastor won’t do that, I won’t even consider sitting under his leadership anymore. He’s missing a whole lot of his job description.
This is not a knock on the guys responding to this question. Just the fact they are reading Rick’s posts is encouraging. My concern is for the church to get real about some things and reaching people with the good news of Jesus Christ is one of those things - and that doesn’t always mean just “preaching.” Often it is through serving and witnessing.
I know that these seems a little like piling on Pastors. I really don’t want it to be the case. But you are the key decision makers in your local congregation. So the pressure is on you. All I can say is Thank God he never called me to pastor. :-)
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Great post rick!
Chuck I’d love to talk with you! We are beginning a similar journey tomorrow actually. Check my blog for details.
My ministry server is down so my normal email is not functioning.
Thanks again rick for a great article. I’d appreciate everyones prayers concerning my meeting tomorrow.
Jerry
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:47 am
Paul Walker’s comment tells the typical story I have found in trying to institute missional work in a traditional church setting. Even Chuck, with his encouraging report admits resistance for the old guard.
As I see it, it is very difficult to initiate such programs into a church where a traditional model already exists (building program, attraction-oriented ministries, etc). Everyone is already engaged in these things, both financially and physically.
The first step is to communicate the need, helping the congregation to put a face on their mission, developing a passion for it, and inspiring them to believe they can make a difference.
But, in the end, until a church finds a better way to fund their mission work, they will remain bogged down by maintaining the physical plant.
My current post on Stumbling into the Kingdom addresses this, and I will be discussing some of the ways that for-profit missions can radically change the way we approach this problem.
Like anything else, it begins with grassroots folks, like many of us on here, to initiate necessary change. But, I still have hope that the institutional models can and will get on board. If they don’t, I have a hard time believing they will be able to cope with the mounting challenges of post-Christendom.
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 am
[...] Good post by Rick Meigs on pastors not being sold on missional [...]
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 am
[...] Church and I have also been sold on the missional expression of the church. Yet, I ran across this article that explains how pastors are not sold on [...]
August 25th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I was a pastor in the Lutheran Church (ELCA) for 24 years - and then dropped out. I always took Jesus at face value when he said it was about relationships, people to people and people toGod relationships. This was after I had been a layperson until 39 when I became that pastor (laity and women somehow didn’t make the grade to count remember? It is still yesterday in alot of plaaces).
Now, I am in a church of less than 20 people living the Gospel, reaching out, struggling, and being honest with what life flings at us and God graces us with. Missional Church IS the way to go. The sooner the established church wakes up, the sooner it (and those estranged places still in people like me) will better serve God in Christ Jesus in a post modern-post (Traditional) church world. God Bless!
October 30th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
[...] Pastors Not Sold On Being Missional [...]
July 17th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Hi there,
This was one lively conversation! :) I can’t help recall what Jesus once said to a group of people. “You came because of the food”, I think it was. Jesus knew that the provision of food, the healing and the casting out of demons was the main reason for the people to come.
Yet, he used it to teach people about God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yes, the Gospel was preached but it was combined with the meeting of physical needs. Hmm, it is sad to use labels like ‘Oh, that’s a liberal idea” as an excuse for not doing what Jesus did. We deceive ourselves when this is done.
Uh oh, you may have got me started on a possible story ideas. :)
July 17th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Hey Barry, thanks for dropping in and commenting. Hope you do get a post out of your thoughts.