What Works?

What do people want – and need – from the Church?

If you had to choose only one or two things for your church to do well, what would they be? What drives church satisfaction as well as spiritual growth? In this first section of FOCUS, the authors, Greg Hawkins and Cally Parkinson, examine the evidence and reach surprising conclusions. Their aim is to identify the key to meeting both wants and needs.

FOCUS begins with three hypotheses:

What people need from the church is spiritual guidance, but what they want is something different.

What people need from the senior pastor is spiritual challenge, but what they want is great preaching.

What people need from the church is spiritual guidance, and what they need from the senior pastor is spiritual challenge, but what they want is a great weekend service.

Hawkins and Parkinson assume that there is a disconnect between what people want and what they need. The first part of the research examines the first hypothesis by seeking to determine what really does drive spiritual growth.

The authors identify sixteen sources of church satisfaction and spiritual growth. They call these ‘drivers.’ A driver is a strong force that creates significant energy and momentum.

Having found sixteen such drivers, the authors group them into five categories. Each category represents an element of the Christian life which people expect their church to provide.

In no particular order, these are:


SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE – the expectation that the church will provide leadership for personal spiritual development.
- Helps me to understand the Bible in greater depth.
- Helps me to develop a personal relationship with Christ.
- Encourages me to take personal responsibility for my own spiritual growth.
- Challenges me to grow and take next steps.
- Provides a clear pathway that helps guide my spiritual growth.
- Church leaders model and consistently reinforce how to grow spiritually.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPACT – the development of intentional spiritual relationships that will help people to grow.
- Helps me to develop relationships that encourage accountability.
- Provides opportunities to grow spiritually through relationships with others.
- Empowers me to go out on my own to make a significant impact in the lives of others.

OWNERSHIP – a feeling of allegiance and identity, not in the passive sense of participating, but in the sense of “I am the church.”
- Sets clear expectations about what it means to be part of the church.
- Inspires such a sense of ownership that the church becomes an important part of who I am.

BELONGING – the desire to experience community and worship in a place where you fit in.
- Helps me to feel like I belong.
- Helps me in my time of emotional need.
- Provides compelling worship services.

SERVING – the expectation that the church will help those in need.
- Promotes a strong serving culture that is widely recognized by the local community.
- Provides opportunities to serve those in need.

All of these drivers are important. The question is: which have the greatest impact in terms of what people are looking for in a church? The answer to this question should be of great value to us in evaluating our ministries and increasing our effectiveness.

So,
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT FROM THE CHURCH?
Here are the results from the survey:

1. Spiritual guidance has by far the biggest impact on people’s satisfaction with the church. At 54%, spiritual guidance dominates the other categories. These are the things that people want.
2. Belonging is also a powerful driver of satisfaction. Belonging accounts for almost one third of the responses as a primary expectation.
3. The influence of accountability/impact and ownership on church satisfaction is limited. These categories, though important, have far less impact than spiritual guidance and belonging.
4. Serving did not emerge as an influential category. Though important, the fact that the church provides opportunities to serve does not seem to influence people’s satisfaction with the church. The reason for this is that satisfaction is driven by what is important for personal spiritual growth.
5. The drivers of church satisfaction are the same for everyone, no matter how long they have been Christian. No matter where they are on the continuum of faith, spiritual guidance is equally important.

In conclusion, spiritual guidance is the primary driver of church satisfaction; belonging comes a strong second.

Now we must ask,
WHAT DO PEOPLE NEED FROM THE CHURCH?

The authors examine data from the churches that have experienced significant growth in order to determine what actually works. They then ask, “Is there a difference between what people want and what they need?”

Which of the sixteen drivers of growth is most needed in the life of a local church? Their findings are as follows:

1. Spiritual guidance and accountability/impact are the church’s most significant drivers of spiritual growth. Although the results vary slightly over the spiritual continuum, generally speaking, the desire for spiritual guidance predominates. It appears that people do, actually, want what they need! This is encouraging. People really do want to deepen their relationship with Christ. As they grow as Christians, accountability and impact become increasingly important.
2. Serving and ownership are important contributors to spiritual growth. Although not identified as a significant contributor to church satisfaction, serving does help Christians to grow. It is an example of something that people need from the church even if they don’t acknowledge it.
3. Belonging is not a driver of spiritual growth. This is an example of something that people want but don’t necessarily need in order to grow spiritually. It is important because it provides the environment in which growth can occur, even though it does not, itself, contribute to growth.

In conclusion, spiritual guidance is both what people want and what people need from the church. If we can only do one thing incredibly well, it should be to focus on spiritual guidance. If the budget will not allow us to do everything, this should still be our number one priority.

Marx Gospel

Here's an interesting snippet from Justin Phillips' book C.S. Lewis In a Time of War which traces the development of religious broadcasting on the BBC during World War Two. Lewis was representative of a new breed of commentator developed by the BBC, in a deliberate move away from simply broadcasting worship services. As a lay person, he was specifically charged with presenting an apologia for the faith in terms that ordinary people could understand.
The BBC had been formed with the Christian faith as one of its core values. John Reith, the creator of the Corporation, was a deeply religious man who saw radio as a civilizing force in Britain. In the entrance hall to Broadcasting House, in London, an inscription (translated from the Latin) reads:

This Temple of the Arts and Muses is dedicated to Almighty God by the first Governors of Broadcasting in the year 1931, Sir John Reith being Director-General. It is their prayer that good seed sown may bring forth a good harvest and that the people, inclining their ear to whatsoever things are beautiful and honest and of good report, may tread the path of wisdom and uprightness.

At the rear of the entrance hall the biblical metaphor implicit in the dedication is made explicit in a magnificent sculpture called The Sower, by Eric Gill. It is the Word of God that is to be 'broad cast.' It's purpose is to improve those who listen.



So, here's the surprise - only one third of the listening public had any real interest in hearing religious themes on the radio. One third approved of Christian influence in broadcasting; one third were uninterested; one third were antagonistic.
Younger Evangelicals today often speak as though the middle of the twentieth century was some kind of heaven on earth, and that the vast majority of people were sympathetic to the Christian faith. It seems that the rot began far earlier than many have realized. Here's one other interesting piece of evidence: it was ascertained that, of one group of men entering the British army, only 23 percent knew the meaning of Easter. "One bright youth," writes Phillips, "thought Mark's gospel was written by Karl Marx, author of Das Kapital."



So, perhaps things were not as rosy in the 1930's as we have imagined. Of course, they could have been worse. The young man could have thought that Mark's gospel was written by this guy.

Temple of Hate?

There's been a lot of trouble at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, since the death of their much-loved minister, Dr. James Kennedy last year. Most pastors could have seen it coming. Churches grieve, just like individuals do. No matter that they appointed an excellent communicator in Tullian Tchividjian, the grandson of Billy Graham, as their new pastor, or that 91% of the congregation voted for him. Some members didn't like it. They didn't like the staff members he brought from his old church, which merged with Coral Ridge. They didn't like the fact that he preached in a sports jacket and tie instead of in clerical robes, unlike his predecessor. They didn't like the new music he introduced. They didn't like that he was not as forthright in political matters. So a small group of members, by some accounts numbering only six, began a campaign to oust the new guy. Sadly, one of the six was the daughter of James Kennedy. How much of their misplaced concern was motivated by grief?



Last Sunday a congregational meeting was held at Coral Ridge, overseen by denominational officials (the church is a member of the Presbyterian Church of America). 400 people voted to have the pastor removed, but almost 1000 wanted him to stay. He's decided to do so, but he will have a lot of fences to mend. The instigators of the attempt to remove him may face church discipline. How sad. A fine young pastor almost has his ministry curtailed. He could easily have thrown up his hands and gone to work for a para-church organization. I'm sure the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association could have found a spot for him! And a great church has suffered damage that will take a generation to heal.

One of our neighboring churches recently lost its senior pastor. He had been there for over 25 years, I believe. Sensibly, the church has decided to employ "an intentional interim." I asked a colleague about this unusual phrase. Apparently it is used to distinguish the job from "an unintentional interim," which is what Tchividjian almost became. Churches need time to heal following times of trauma, even when that trauma is nothing more sinister than a retirement. Coral Ridge would have been wise to have spent longer healing following Dr. Kennedy's death. It would have helped them to avoid some of the problems they have encountered.



I read about the congregational meeting, and its results, in the attached article from the Sun Sentinel. There's an interesting video in which one of the elderly members, clearly distressed, says that Dr. Kennedy was the only man to fill that pulpit. Maybe so, brother, but he no longer can.

One of the many comments attached to the newspiece caught my eye. Someone wrote, simply and starkly, "Tear down this temple of hate!" Presumably the author was expressing his anger against one or more of the political or moral positions championed by Dr. Kennedy and Coral Ridge over the years - maybe the illegitimacy of same-sex relationships, or the anathema of abortion. To the author of the comment, Coral Ridge stood for everything that was hateful, forever interfering in the lives of others, telling them how they should live and whom they could love. The current dispute must be confirming his prejudices. Certainly, he is no more likely to attend Coral Ridge now than before Dr. Kennedy's death. The witness of the church has been damaged by internal squabbling. Only the devil laughs.



Is this how the world really sees us? Is the place I know as an oasis of hope, a sanctuary to which all may come, really so hateful? Is it true that the church, which has love for the loveless as an unnegotiable core value, seen in such a terrible light? Unfortunately, yes it is. I don't think this means that we should change our message to accommodate those who disagree with us; but maybe it does mean that we should try a little harder to love one another, and to show it.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fort-lauderdale/sfl-coral-ridge-b092009,0,1727138.story

Storm of Steel

I picked up Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger the other day, which is a first hand account of his experiences in the trenches during the First World War. It's interesting to be able to view the war through the eyes of a fairly ordinary German soldier. Not long ago, I read an account of the battle of Combles, from an Allied perspective, so it's fascinating to see the same events unfolding from an Axis point of view.

To be honest, apart from a certain Teutonic orderliness, and some differences in temperament, there is little to choose between the experiences on different sides of the divide. There are patches of almost lyrical intensity when Junger is suddenly assailed by beauty in the midst of destruction, like when the larks begin to sing over the detritus of war. There are also rare snatches of rather plodding humor. There are even a couple of occasions when the exaltation of battle makes Junger appear impervious to the bullets and deadly shrapnel falling around him. But most of the time, he is either bored out of his mind or scared out of his wits. Sudden violence is always only a split second away. Death is commonplace. Just like on the other side of no man's land.

The irony of Junger's war is self-evident in the name of his Hanoverian regiment. They were known as the 'Gibraltars' because of their staunch defense of that British possession at the end of the eighteenth century. Across the bloody fields of Flanders, old allies exchanged artillery ordinance; young men from Mannheim and Manchester laid down their lives for competing ideals, rival empires. Divided by ideology, or at least by the intransigence of old men, they were united in suffering, and in death.

It is sobering, and instructive, to witness war from the vantage point of the other. There would, perhaps, be fewer wars if men could see one another not in caricature, but in terms of common humanity.

Death of a Denomination Part 2

Perhaps I should explain the "pro-Muslim" comment from my last post. The preacher who visited a URC and expressed the sentiments that went down like a lead balloon, was reacting against what some have called the Islamization of Britain.

This is not the place to go into a debate about multi-culturalism, so I will confine myself to observation. I need to make sure that you do not see these comments as racist. They are nothing of the sort. They do, however, reflect a radical change in the cultural landscape of Britain.

My old high school, Billinge, no longer exists. It was, at one time, the most successful State-run secondary modern institution in Blackburn. In terms of results, it was second only to the private, Royal Grammar School. Billinge is now for Islamic students only.

St. John's school, which my grandmother attended 100 years ago, which was run by the adjacent parish church, has been replaced by a huge mosque.

Instead of flat caps and shawls, Blackburn town center is now full of asian gangs, and women in full-length chadors or burqas. Whalley Range, which I often visited as a child, has become a ghetto where white faces are rarely seen.

We visited Tesco, a large grocery store, driving past another huge mosque. Inside the front door we were greeted by a large sign proclaiming "Happy Ramadan." All of the check-out girls were Moslem. All wore Islamic clothing.

I visited Blackburn Cathedral, which was empty. A display at the rear of the church showed photographs of staff members, including one of a young Pakistani woman wearing a hijab headdress - a liaison to the Muslim community.

In church on Sunday morning, at Trinity United Reformed Church, the minister suggested that we should use Ramadan as an opportunity to pray for our Muslim neighbors.

White flight has taken those who can afford it to the suburbs, or to neighboring small town such as Clitheroe. Blackburn is, as a rsult, almost unrecognizable. One interesting thing I noticed in the indoor marketplace: most of the stalls were run by Pakistanis. Many of them were selling Islamic clothing. Of those stalls still operated by white people, the majority sported Union flags, or flags of St. George, almost as though they were asserting their nationality in the midst of an alien culture. None of the Asian-run stalls bore English flags.

Then, when we returned to Texas, I got a letter from Lloyd's Bank, where we still maintain an English account. The letter was to inform us of changes in banking charges. I noticed that there were categories for Islamic students and graduates, and that those forms of banking are based upon Sharia law.

Yesterday, booking a flight from England for my mother, I noticed that one of the choices for mid-flight meals was 'Muslim'.

How has a minority become so dominant is such a short space of time? Multi-culturalism brings many benefits. I live, happily, in a multi-cultural community. But when one culture sets out to dominate another, and is not coy about declaring its intentions, then it is suicide for the host to fail to protect its own cultural heritage. Secularism seems to have no answer for the rising tide of Islam. No wonder Europe is beginning to produce its own radical terrorists. If the current disparity in birthrate continues, and if immigration from the Indian sub-continent does not diminish, then cities like Blackburn will be bastions of Islam within a generation, and non-Moslems will be reduced to dhimmitude. This is not a prospect I relish.

Death of a Denomination Part 1

A few weeks ago, when we were back in England, my mother gave me a copy of 'Reform', the national magazine of the United Reformed Church, my old denomination. It disturbed me no end. Over the next couple of weeks I'd like to extract a few sections from the magazine and discuss how things seem to have changed.

First, a word of background. The United Reformed Church is a union of Congregationalists and Presbyterians. I remember watching the service of union in the 1970's on a television at the front of the church I grew up in (very daring at that time - quite an innovation). It was never a big denomination, but it represented the historic Reformed witness in England and Wales (it has since united with Scottish Congregationalists, so now has a presence north of the border). The URC came into existence during the rising tide of ecumenism that swept British church life in the 60's and 70's. The expressed aim of the denomination was the visible unity of the church. Although its leaders had drunk deeply at the wells of Protestant liberalism, the church was still fairly orthodox. Many of the little churches and chapels that dotted the landscape were actually quite evangelical. They were the inheritors of Victorian non-conformity: decent people who loved their church and were not afraid to sing, with gusto, the hymns of Wesley and Watts. Some of those places of worship had been in existence since the expulsion of Puritan clergy from the Church of England in 1666. I remember preaching in a thatched chapel in one of the villages near Cambridge, in the early 1980's. The heritage of faith within those walls was almost tangible. Simple faith bowed its head before the mystery of the incarnation; the Bible was handled with reverence; Christ was glorified.

Increasingly, however, over the years, the leadership of the denomination became more and more liberal. In my experience, the local churches remained traditional. But at the national level, decisions were taken that moved the church more in the direction of the United Church of Christ in the United States. In fact, looking at denominational publications nowadays, the influence of the UCC is obvious. There has been a subtle reversal of accepted values. Justice issues and environmentalism seem to have taken the place of the proclamation of salvation.

In her editorial in the May 2009 issue of 'Reform', Kay Parris tells the story of a visiting preacher coming to her local URC. Apparently, the man did not understand the culture or theology of this local church. He spoke up against evolution, the "gay lobby", and the "Muslim lobby". He congratulated them for standing up for what they believed in.

One man stood up and, with his teenage daughter, left the building. Others remained, "paralyzed by a blend of horrified fascination, social conditioning and the knowledge that the respected member who had invited this man to our church had done so in good faith." After the service, no one shook his hand or thanked him for his message. Parris was appalled by what she had heard. The man's attitudes, she said, could explain why people might want to annul their baptism or refuse a visit by a hospital chaplain. "Surely a progressive denomination like the URC needs to take opportunities to explain publicly what it is not, as an essential aspect of promoting what it is."

Frankly, I'm appalled, not by the visiting preacher but by the reception he received. When did the URC announce that it is a progressive denomination? Who made the announcement? When did the inheritors of a muscular faith decide to become limp-wristed? Has the lamp-stand been removed? And what do we learn from these changes about what may lay in the future for the Presbyterian Church (USA)?

Words That Explode

I read an article recently by a famous churchman from a previous generation. W.H. Elliott was a Church of England cleric who, among other things, wrote articles for The Sunday Pictorial. His homespun wisdom and popular style endeared him to many. His words are still worth reading, even though they seem to come from a different world. Elliott died in 1957.

In an article entitled Words That Explode, contained within a book of reprints called Workaday Religion, Elliott complains, goodheartedly but seriously, about the prevalence of swearing. He finds it childish and unbecoming, a blight upon society that adversely affects our children and offends womankind (to use his terminology). He wonders whether the women should not be the ones to put a stop to it, at least by recovering the common courtesy of men not swearing in the presence of women. And then, towards the end of the article Elliott comes out with a word of prophecy: "It may be, of course, (that swearing is) one of the signs of a nervous, outworn, and decadent civilization." No sooner has he had the thought than he dismisses it. Surely that cannot be true.

We recently returned from a visit to England. The place has changed immeasurably since we moved, sixteen years ago. I will have something to say over the next few weeks about the sorry state of my old denomination, the United Reformed Church. But for the moment let me express the opinion that society has become harder, more cynical. There seems to be an absence of joy. Admittedly our experience was in the economically depressed North, but even there life used to possess a sparkle. When I grew up, in Blackburn, I was expected to be courteous and respectful. Now, that seems to have disappeared. On our recent trip I grew tired of reckless drivers, tail-gating then pushing their way passed; I cannot remember the number of times I witnessed a young person deliberately refusing to yield the pavement, elbowing their elders out of the way. No one holds doors open any more; there were no friendly greetings in the street; everyone seemed to be scowling at the floor. But what struck me as much as anything was the abuse of language. Men, puntuating every sentence with expletives is one thing, but when you hear mothers speaking to their children in the same way, and infants seemingly unable to talk without polluting the air with the foulest of language, then you know that something has changed.

Lancastrians always used to be known for their good humor, but now the stranger is greeted with curses that make your toes curl. I've heard it said that swearing is good for you, that it helps to relieve tension and can reduce pain, but I'm not buying it. Some people argue that it is only a change in social convention, and that it does not matter. But I think that it does matter. It is a symptom of the degeneration of society. Is it too simplistic to say that the charis of the Gospel has been replaced by the crudity of godlessness? Perhaps Elliott was right, after all?

Or, perhaps I should just get a life and buy myself one of these?

Azincourt

Azincourt (Agincourt in the US) by Bernard Cornwell is an account of the battle, fought on St. Crispin's Day in 1415, which has become one of the most famous in European history. The names of so many fields of battle have been lost, the combatants and their causes swallowed up in the amnesia of time. But Agincourt (as the English mis-spelt the name of the near-by hamlet) has become a romantic touchstone. Why?

Of course, Shakespeare helped. The famous speech, placed in the mouth of Henry V, has stirred the patriotism and the emotion of generations. I remember hearing that the captain of the England Rugby team, Will Carling, used it to energize and encourage his team-mates in their pursuit of glory (naturally, against the French). And the phrase, 'band of brothers' has gained a popularity of its own among those who probably have no idea that it comes from the Bard, or that it refers to conflict on the fields of Picardy. Even the notorious English two-fingered salute (not for polite company) is traced back, in legend at least, to the battle cry of the archers which claimed that, with just two strong fingers they would send their adversaries to the grave.

Azincourt is told through the lens of a common archer, Nick Hook. Cornwell took the name from contemporary records. An archer by that name did, indeed, fight for Harry, St. George, and England, (but that he endured a blood feud with a local family, or enjoyed a relationship with a beautiful French nun who would become his wife, is to be doubted). Nevertheless, Cornwell's skills enable him to weave a story that is at once both believable and bloody. Life was cheap in those far-off days. Members of the aristocracy could be ransomed, if captured, but commoners were expendable. Archers, in particular, were hated by the French. Ordinarily, archers had no training in formal warfare beyond their ability, ten years or more in the making, to bend a fine yew bow and to fire a bodkin-tipped arrow 250 yards. To do so, an archer had to be able to pull back about 120 pounds, and aim without being able to see down the length of the arrow. A bodkin (the word means 'needle') could pierce any but the finest armor. At Agincourt, 5,000 English archers could shoot 75,000 per minute. No wonder the French suffered such an ignominious defeat. A combination of atrocious weather and English archers led to the decimation of their forces. Though outnumbering their opponents by at least 5 to 1, the French suffered a reversal that sent shock-waves around Europe. For many years thereafter the French called 25 October la malheureuse journee - the unfortunate day.

Why does Agincourt hold such a special place in the folk history of the English nation? There had been victories before (Crecy, Poitiers); there would be victories in later years (Trafalgar, Waterloo), but none would be against such overwhelming odds. Perhaps therein lies the clue. Agincort was an exceptional victory in two respects. First, about 6,000 weary English, Welsh, and Gascon soldiers, of whom only about 1,000 were men-at-arms, overcame at least 30,000 of the finest warriors of France. That in itself is good reason to remember, but there is another. Second, the three French armies at Agincourt were defeated by a king who led the field himself, and an army of ordinary men. Does this make it the English Yorktown? For maybe the first time the professionals, in all their pomp and splendor, were brought down by the farm-workers and country-bumpkins of the English shires. The soldiers of Harry's army were underdogs in more senses than one. Shakespeare, cleverly, caught this theme:

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother, be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap while any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

William Shakespeare, 1599