Revitalization is appropriate for three categories of churches: those dying or already practically dead, those languishing and failing to thrive, and those growing and happening for the wrong reasons. For all three categories, revitalization is definitely possible. But it is not likely. Surprisingly, I think it is most unlikely for the last category, for those churches growing well or fast but for less than the best reasons. Nearly dead churches may be desperate, and therefore willing to throw themselves whole-heartedly at anything that smacks of hope. Languishing churches are still desperate, yet less willing to give up their own sureties and sacred cows to purchase authentic revitalization.
But the growing for the wrong reasons churches have the least likelihood of successful revitalization for the very reason that what they are doing is obviously working. They are in the gravest danger. They probably are in the greatest need of authentic revitalization from the standpoint of the reputation of the Name of Christ within society but have the least chance of recognizing this need within themselves. Everybody knows theses churches are growing because they are attracting ever more people and continually strengthening in resources and influence. And everybody also has an unnamable, unsettling feeling that this growth is too much based on attractionality and easy discipleship, and not enough on sacrifice and inconvenient mission.
Authentic revitalization requires multiple pieces to be in place. But two are paramount and must be first before all others. They are clear governance and contextualized mission. I don’t know that it can ever be determined which must come first. It is a chicken or the egg kind of scenario. It depends entirely, anyway, on the particular situation of the church in question. It seems that few have linked governance and mission. I can’t figure why. They are in fact inextricably interdependent. Without a compelling, contextualized mission, of course, any governance structure will be hopelessly self-important and self-serving. But without clear governance, the tack toward a clear mission can seldom be begun and can never be maintained. This is because clarifying a mission and holding to a line toward that mission requires gutsy, radical, painful decisions.
Clear governance can be reduced to two ingredients: decision-making processes and how accountability is maintained. Without clear, legitimate, flexible, and timely decision-making processes, gutsy, radical and painful decisions will seldom if ever be made. Without processes for practical, thorough accountability, either the follow up to these decisions will be defective or the decisions will be the wrong, or unbiblical, ones.
Although governance and mission are the two most paramount and first in priority elements of revitalization, they are not the hardest by far. (The one with that distinction can be explored in another post). Other important elements of revitalization include evangelistic strategy, methods of transforming accepted norms, the stuff of an operational base, and truly authentic leadership.
In what state are governance and mission at our church? We can do a quick check right here. Grab a small collection of thoughtful staff and volunteers in your church and ask: How arduous is it to make a risky or unexpected decision at our church, like increasing the church budget mid-cycle to seize on an unexpected ministry opportunity? What is our process and timeline for making smaller decisions, like replacing that aging stained glass window with a standard one? Are these decisions possible in days, or weeks? And what is our mission? Is it one that is specifically tailored to our zip code? Is it impossible without the awesome power of the Holy Spirit? The answers to these questions give us a start.
Commentaires