I don't like puzzles.  Over the years, my extended family like many others, will set up a table over the holidays with a puzzle to work.  This year was no exception.  My sister set up a table with four chairs around it and laid out a puzzle of a festive scene.  She asked me if I wanted to help and was surprised when I declined.  The reason that I don't like puzzles is that I see them as just another problem to solve.  I spend most of my time helping churches solve problems, and I really enjoy it.  I just want the problems I solve to be worth solving.  I just don't count puzzles among things that need a solution.  But...

As usual, this episode started me thinking.   I think that there is a lot that can be learned about ministry by examining how a puzzle is conceived, designed and completed.  Have you ever tried to work a puzzle without a picture?  It would not be pretty!  How about taking the pieces out the box one at a time and placing them in the correct location without any context?  It would be impossible.  I want this simple analogy to illustrate the importance of each part of the process using terms prevalent in both business and ministries.  This will involve the work of a Visionary, a Strategist, a Manager and a Worker which is in this case, a Puzzle Builder.

It all starts with a Vision by the work of a person or group that acts as a visionary.  A person who dreams up an image of the puzzle to be constructed and the number and shape of pieces it should have.  From this point forward, the vision will be represented by the box cover.

Next, a Strategist will devise an approach to take in order to make the vision a reality. 

• This will involve carefully understanding the vision (the puzzle box) and the challenges present in accomplishing the project.
  
• Decide how success will be measured.  (a completed puzzle on time)
• When will work begin and when should it be completed.
• Who should be involved in building the puzzle?  Skill level?  Abilities?
  
• What will the environment be like?  Table, chairs, lighting etc...
• What approach will be used to complete the puzzle?  Pieces facing up, edges first, divide pieces by color etc...
• Refer to the Vision as needed.

A Manager will then work to make sure that the strategy is implemented according to the plan.  This must be done with the understanding that all of the puzzle builders have other jobs to do and that this project can't be completed at the expense of those jobs.

• Understand the value of the vision and the importance of the strategy.
• Choose a suitable location and arrange for everything to be ready.
• Schedule people to work on the puzzle at the right time.
• Educate and train the puzzle builders on the proper methods to be used.
• Monitor progress and make sure that work is proceeding according to the plan. 
  
• Consult with the Strategist and Visionary as needed.
  

Finally, a Puzzle Builder will go about the tasks of building the puzzle.

• Understand the value of the vision and the big picture of the strategy.
• Understand their individual role and responsibility.
• Perform their assigned tasks and complete the puzzle.
• Consult with the manager as needed.

You may notice that the vision and high level strategy is present in each step along the way.  I believe that job tasks must be performed by a person with an accurate context of the bigger picture.  By making this clear at every step, the puzzle (your grand initiative) will be completed.

I realize that this is making a big deal out of a pretty simple task and I know that no one actually goes through all of these steps to work a Christmas puzzle.  In addition, in many cases, the same person may perform one or even all of the roles mentioned.  I just wanted a good way to illustrate the differences in the carious roles of a project. 

At the very least, I have found a useful purpose to building a puzzle!

In a previous blog post "Attendance and the Back Door", I made a statement about closing the back door of the church which prompted requests for some practical ways to accomplish that task.  I am very concerned about this issue because we have far too many churches who are just churning people.  It is incredibly easy for a growing church to appear healthy, while leaving bruised and battered people in their wake.  This is because if you subtract a 20% back-door rate from a 40% visitor connection rate, you are left with a 20% growth rate which appears healthy!  I think it's tragic.  Just so I won't be picking on the growing churches, I have seen just as many churches who have had the same attendance for years, but the faces are constantly changing.  Where did they all go?  I would like to think that just found another church that "met their needs".   Unfortunately, I am scared to ponder how many have not just left a church, but have left Christianity altogether. 

As a point of clarification, when I refer to the back door, I am talking about people who made an initial connection, assimilated into one of main areas of emphasis of the church and made church a part of their normal routine.  I am not talking about people who have never connected into the life of the church.  If a person never successfully connects, then they just turn around and go out the same way they came in, through the front door.  Initial visitor connection requires its own proactive process and has a different set of dynamics.  I'll deal with visitor connection and initial assimilation in a separate post.

People stop coming to a church for many reasons, but the biggest factors are the lack of close relationships and the lack of meaningful service.  This situation opens the door to a perception among unconnected people that the leaders are apathetic towards their situation.  Identifying the factors is the easy part.  Doing something about it is a bit harder.  In this post, I would like to share what I believe to be the top 7 ways to close the back door of the church.  I want this list to be practical, so in order to set the stage, I want to talk a little bit about attendance.  Every church I have worked with of substantial size has lamented the inability to capture worship attendance. They are right.  It is virtually impossible to get accurate individual attendance of worship services.  We're not talking head counts, but attendance that shows who was or was not present.  That does not stop churches from trying!  I just don't see inaccurate attendance as good stewardship.  If you can't trust your attendance numbers so that you can confidently follow up with absentees, then it is a waste of time.

1. Measure what is Measurable -   While worship attendance is hard to capture, adult small groups classes are relatively simple.  Children's activities are the simplest of all since security issues require us to keep accurate records anyway.  So, measure what you can measure.  Yes, you will get push-back from some of your established groups, but if you give them some context, you will get their support.  By context, I mean that they have to understand that the issue is bigger than their group.  If you show them that you are trying to be good stewards of these people who are your responsibility, they will usually get on board.  Ask them to help you be faithful with your responsibility.
2. Catch people on their way out of the back door. - One of the fundamental mistakes that I see churches make is to focus on what has happened in the past.  It is not that looking back is not of value, it just won't help you get anyone back!  Gone is gone!  Think of it this way.  If someone gets upset and you recognize that they are about to leave, you can intervene and smooth the situation.  But if that person leaves, gets home and settles into their favorite chair in front of the TV, what are the odds of getting them to come back?  Not very good are they?  It takes a person about 4 weeks to move from "I don't think the church cares about me" to "I know the church does not care about me".  Catch them on the way out and this can be prevented.
3. Know who you expect to attend. - In order to know who was not in attendance, you have to know who was supposed to be in attendance.  This sounds simple but it is often counter to the way that churches have kept their records for years.  This means that you are going to have to do some work to keep class rosters clean enough to know the difference.  For example, a list of 100 kids who missed the past three classes is too large for you to effectively contact.  In reality, there might only be 5 kids in that list of 100 who have been attending in the past few months.  These 5 kids represent the 5 families that are on their way out the back door!  This is the information that you desperately need to know, and it is so often buried in the attendance reports of the church. 
4. Use the right people to reach out to them. -  In a group setting, sometimes the problem is a disconnect between the group itself and the person who is leaving.  In this situation, the group leader is not in a position to help the situation.  This where the church staff can be very effective by helping people find a place where they fit better or acting as an intermediary to rectify a dispute.  Make sure to offer a graceful way back in.  I think that people don't want to hurt anyone's feelings and think that the easiest way to solve a problem is to just leave.  If they are assured that it is OK to try a new group or a new volunteer position, that might make all the difference.
5. Focus on Families - For the most part, children do not attend church on their own.  So, if little Johnny has not been to his 4 year old sunday school class in 3 weeks, it is a very safe assumption that Mom and Dad have not been there either.  Since it is much easier to track children and students, use that information to prompt your efforts toward the families of those kids.  This is particularly true of a family where the parents are not active in any other area than worship.  Let the ministry area try to reconnect the individual, but treat a 3rd or 4th time absentee as an opportunity to connect a family.
6. Build retention mechanisms and processes. - Mechanisms are just ways to find out who is leaving.  This can be in the form of reports from your attendance records.  It can also be from feedback from people in the church.  You have to establish some policies on what kind of attendance pattern will trigger your retention processes.  In some churches, this might be 3 absences in a row, while others might use 4 or 5.  Just make sure to stick to what is happening rather than what happened!  Your processes are the methods you put in place to make sure that those who are identified are contacted and assisted.  This might include phone calls, e-mails, letters, texts, Facebook notes or any other method of communication that would be effective.  These contacts have to be personal.  No matter the form of communication used, sincerity and authenticity will be of the utmost importance.  If people in the church trust that you have good processes to follow up with people, I have found that they are much more willing to share information with church leaders.  They will not share information with you if they don't think it will make any difference.  
7. Build processes for the major emphasis areas of the church. - The difference between good intentions and success is often determined by the presence of a logical process.  Constructed correctly, no one should ever slip through the cracks once they are identified.  This is the same thing that must be done in an assimilation process for a newcomer to the church.  The only difference is that it has to be handled a bit differently.  The processes you build will be logical steps that will lead to participation in that particular area of your church.  This might be connection groups, serving opportunities, leadership roles, spiritual formation steps or any other activity that you consider to be part of your "church core". 

I have spent thousands of hours helping churches build connection, assimilation and retention processes.  As every church is unique, the processes are always slightly different.  The most important element is an acknowledgment that it is critically important to guard the back door of the church.  Church management systems (ChMS) today offer many ways to facilitate these processes, but they still require careful configuration and a very intentional approach to be effective.  I have a good deal of experience in these systems, and it is important to choose one that fits your needs and is flexible enough to work the way that you need it to work.

I encourage you to step back and critically look at the situation at your church.  If possible, bring in an objective third party to help you see what you can't see because of your proximity.  As I have worked with churches across the country, I have found that I can see both problems and possibilities  in a situation just because I am a little removed from the day to day ministry of that particular church.  I have been told many times by Pastors that their stress level was lowered considerably when they established good processes of connection, care  and retention.  This is not one of those problems for which there is no answer.  I believe that any church can guard their back door if they are serious about it.

I hope that this is helpful information.  Drop me a note if you want to discuss this further or use the comment section.

Just a few years ago, the biggest issue that faced churches when building a website was determining the primary audience and message.  Now, this is only the beginning, as the website has become only one of many online tools used in a communication strategy.  Churches routinely use  Twitter, Facebook, Blogs and websites along with the face-to-face messages to reach people.  While it is great to have so many tools, it does present a problem.  The problem with using the various modalities of communication is that it becomes hard for an outsider to get the whole picture of an organization.  For example, Twitter can be a great tool, but it is limited to only short bursts of text of 140 characters each.  There have been some creative ways that this has been used, but it is virtually impossible to convey a church's identity and message with tweets alone.  Sermons and teaching sessions are obviously longer, but it is not practical to go through all of the opportunities for involvement in every occasion.  This is where the website comes into the picture.  The website can and should be an easy next step for people who find the tweets or hear the sermon. 

The website needs to be an "information and communication hub" where people can find all the various ways that they can learn about the church as well as connect with other people who are involved. It can be a starting point, but it can also be more of a point of convergence from all of the tools being used.  Blog posts, tweets, status updates and "likes" can all be linked together via the website where the whole message can be shared.  For example, a person might read a Facebook update which references a blog post which links back to the church website.

The website also serves as a hub to re-enforce the messages that are delivered in face-to-face situations.  Through some strategic planning, the experiences of an event can be enhanced and extended with direct communication, discussion and other online resources.  The diagram below shows the interconnected relationship of the various communication mechanisms.

Week in and week out, Christian churches across the world dutifully take attendance.  This takes great effort from both paid staff and volunteers alike.  It could be said, sadly, that we are more consistent in taking attendance than we are at living as Christ followers. 

One might think that I am about to take issue with the unnecessary expenditure of effort of taking attendance, but I'm not.  My biggest issue is not that we are wasting our time with attendance, it is that we are wasting the effort by leaving the collected data on the roll sheets or in the church management system.  Bottom line is that it is impossible to close the back door of a church unless you create ways to catch people on their way out.  Gone is gone.  I am convinced that part of good stewardship in a church is to be faithful with the lives entrusted to those in leadership.  Please indulge me in the following train of thought.

• Attendance records are just attendance records until they are turned in to useful data.
• Data is just data until it is turned into a useful report.
• Reports are just reports until they are analyzed and turned into a plan.
• A plan is just a plan until it is put into action.
• Actions are just actions until they are managed to change a situation.

and finally,

• Changed situations are just... wait a minute... this is what we are after!

 If we intend to fix the "back door problem" in our churches (and I hear this all the time in churches), we must make sure that we are measuring what is measurable, applying proper context and formulating good plans in order to act strategically. 

Now, let me be clear.  God causes the change in the situation.  We are merely being good stewards of those people with whom we have been entrusted.  That being said, do you want to close the back door?  Then guard it! 

Part 2 of Series: Leading the (Not So) Simple Church (view part 1>)

There are quite a few church models and concepts in use these days and my point in this article is not to promote (or bash) any one of them. The point I want to make is two-fold: Churches need models, and models are not enough.

Churches Need Models:  I have to wonder how many of the thousands of churches that have set out to become “simple” or “sticky” or “relevant”, have actually achieved this goal.  In my consulting work through recent years, I have spent thousands of hours in hundreds of churches of virtually every evangelical Christian denomination. I have found that the decision to change or refine ministry focus is not enough to result in missional success.  Many times, success or failure will be determined by what happens after the leadership retreat where the new direction was chosen.  I believe that a properly conceived model that is understood by the staff and congregants, and logically moves people and efforts toward agreed goals puts a church into a good position to achieve their mission.

It is important to understand the difference between a models and concepts.  A church model provides a systematic method of applying concepts to the various ministry processes.  A model is an illustration or map of the interconnected ministry processes in the church.  It should demonstrate the intended movement of people in areas such as connection, assimilation, evangelism, spiritual formation and responding to congregants needs.  A model will begin with the mission and vision of the church and it will have clear metrics for determining operational success.

A concept is an ideology or approach.  It is often confused as a model but concepts are not models.  I read a recent blog post by Thom Rainer where he commented on churches wanting to see the "Simple Church" model.  His response goes like this: 

"We struggle with that request because Simple Church is not a model. It is a concept that helps churches focus on disciple making that aligns with activities. And no church will ever “arrive.” It’s a process. It’s ongoing. There is no perfect example. There is no model church because there is no model."

The fact is, I like church models. (feel free to roll your eyes here) A model can clearly illustrate the intended flow of people, information and processes in a church and serves both as a filter and a reminder of what is supposed to be happening in a church. There is enormous value in church leaders critically considering all of the ministry activities and processes and then producing an illustration of how they all fit together.  hint: If your church is too complex to model, then it is probably just too complex.  Many church leaders have expressed to me that this process of creating their unique model was the most valuable part of our time together.  Its not easy, and I don't suggest this process unless you are willing to change!  It takes work to align everything, but it is worth the effort.

All churches have a model, but they don’t all realize it. It can be very formal, or it can be more organic in nature. In many cases, a church’s model grew out of a denominational approach to ministry. I don’t think that it is possible for a church to be intentional in their ministry if they do not formalize their model to a functional level. Chaos reigns in the absence of a consistent approach to ministry.

Models are Not Enough:  As valuable as models are, they don't produce good outcomes on their own. For example, the fact that I have a map in the glove compartment of my car does not help me get to a place I have never been.  Only the correct use of a good map at the right time will give the driver much of a  chance of getting to their desired destination on time.

The problem in many churches is not the model or concept, but in the implementation.  Poor ministry processes always hurt a church's ministry.  There are plenty of examples where God blesses a ministry even though they have poor processes, but I believe that our goal in church leadership and management is to be good stewards of that which we have been entrusted.  I am afraid that in many cases, the new approach to ministry never had a chance of success.

Next Article: Attendance and the Back Door

Series: Leading the (Not So) Simple Church - Part 1

It seems logical that it would be a simple task to implement a “simple” approach to ministry, doesn’t it? I mean, simple equates with easy, right? As many church leaders have found, the decision to become "simple" or "sticky" or even "relevant" does not necessarily result in the church reflecting that decision. The inspiration and decision to change anything in your church structure is merely the first step. The planning, execution and the way that change is managed will make all the difference.

I have the utmost respect for Thom Rainer and his model of “Simple Church”. I think that it is a very healthy process for church leaders to figure out who they are and ask themselves whether they have become too complicated and less effective. The Simple Church concept provides a fresh perspective on ministry that is great for creating a more intentional and focused ministry. I applaud any church that chooses to look at themselves with the willingness to change if necessary. This is critical because there are far too many churches who keep doing things the same old way until there is no one left to do those things with!

In this series of articles, I will examine the following areas:

• Churches Need Models

• Moving from concept to implementation

• Managing the change process

 
Next step: Churches Need Models.

Proper understanding and appreciation of ministry silos is necessary to avoid the pitfalls.  Properly managed, they can help produce dynamic and thriving ministries.  Managed poorly, they will result in a collection of disparate ministries with little cohesion and uncertain direction.

I was listening to my Pastor, Dave Gibson, preach a sermon based on Titus 2:2.  (²Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.)  He made the point that we who are the Body of Christ are constantly “read” by other people and we either demonstrate Christ-like attributes or we do not.  This started a flood of thoughts in my mind and prompted me to take it a little further.  Sorry Dave, but I probably missed what you said after that!

Not only are we “read” but in a sense we are tasted and experienced by the world. I began to think about how a wine connoisseur evaluates a bottle of wine.  Terms begin to swirl like bold, vibrant, earthy, acidic and the list goes on and on.  Now, I am certainly not a wine connoisseur!  If not for the spell checker feature of my software, I would not even be able to spell it!  But I have always been amazed at people who had so finely tuned their palette that they could give a thorough evaluation of a wine from only a taste or two.  They can easily spot an inferior wine with very little effort.

In a sense, society has been trained to be an expert in making quick assessments of other individuals with which they come in contact.  The evaluation metrics that they use are not always fair and are inconsistent to a degree, but they can generally give a pretty fair analysis of a person given enough exposure.  Of course without the exposure, there is no evaluation whatsoever resulting in zero impact.  (note to self: expand in a different post)  It seems that a wine review can be broken down into three basic parts: the first impression, general characteristics, and the finish.

With this in mind, I offer the following possible reviews of a Christian by a people connoisseur.  This is certainly not an exhaustive set, but hopefully enough to make a point.

Review # 1 – Highly acidic on the tongue resulting in a very unpleasant experience.   I could not bear to finish the glass.

I cringe when I think of all of the times when I have made my first impression to a person in an ugly and offensive way.  Perhaps it was when I was made to wait an intolerable amount of time at the bank, or when I was cut off by a careless driver.  Whatever preceded my poor first impression, it does not begin to excuse the way that I represented my maker.  Bottom line is that when the first impression is poor, there is no reason to look further for depth.  Impression formed, forever ingrained, an opportunity lost.  Testimony delivered.

Review #2 – A bright presentation with great mouth feel.  Wine disappoints as it has no real depth. 

How easy is this? I can remember to be gracious to the waitress at the restaurant after I leave church on Sunday, but have I made any impact?   How many times have I had a chance to share my faith, or meet a need, or just demonstrate compassion and I have just gone about my business?  I am humbled when I am in the presence of someone who reaches out when I do not.  It is also significant when those who are facing incredible adversity or loss manage to use the situation to demonstrate God’s goodness to the rest of the world.  These are people of great substance.  I want to be one of those.

Review # 3 – A very robust presentation giving way to earthy tones with good depth.  Unfortunately, the finish is somewhat weak.

I want to finish well.  I really do.  I love to see people like my father who has never let up and keeps pressing on, preaching the Gospel and defusing difficult situations.  I am talking about people who work for the kingdom as long as they have strength to do so.  I also admire people who find a new way of serving the kingdom when life situations and circumstances dictate a change.  I want to be one of the people who get older and manage to see it as just getting nearer to the time that they can actually be with God.

Review #4 – Good first impression giving way to great depth and complexity.  Prevalent notes of grace, mercy and compassion leading to an invigorating finish.  Truly, a life to savor.

So I have to ask myself, Am I living a life that makes people want to take a further look?  And when they look closer, am I living in such a way the depth of faith is observed?  And will I finish my life in such a way that Christ’s message never dims?  One thing is certain; we give our testimony many times in every day.  We either act as an ambassador for God's love, grace and mercy or we give a hollow or distorted representation of our master.

So... what am I going to taste like today?

Series: Organized Dysfunction - Part 2

In my first post, I made the comment that "Poor tactical planning resulting in flawed ministry processes marginalizes the effectiveness of far too many churches."  This of course begs the question of "What are ministry processes?"

Ministry processes are the steps taken to achieve the objectives of the ministry. This can also be described as the way we “do” church. There are processes for connecting visitors, caring for members, following up with absentees, planning events, communication and spiritual formation.  It is not a question of whether or not you want to use ministry processes, the fact is that you already use them.  They are intentional or unintentional as well as either effective or ineffective. 

Intentional or Unintentional:  Intentional ministry processes are the ones we design and execute according to overriding objectives.  In the absence of intentional processes, we inevitably develop ad hoc processes that fill the gaps.  They may "put out the fire" but they don't really solve the problem much less accomplish something great.  In order to be intentional, a leader must understand the objective and consciously move in that direction. 


Effective or Ineffective:  Obviously, if we are being intentional in our efforts, we want our processes to be effective.  Unfortunately, this is not a simple thing to achieve.  There are two levels of ministry process effectiveness.  The first is being effective within your specific ministry context.  The second is being effective in the context of overall church objectives.  I want to deal with the first with effectiveness within the context of a specific ministry.  Many churches are serious about following their ministry processes. Names are gathered, attendance is taken, reports are generated, letters are sent, contacts are made and meetings are held. Unfortunately, the end result does not always achieve the intended objectives. Even worse, many times success was simply impossible due to poor planning in the beginning stages. 

Having helped hundreds of churches implement various technology solutions, I have come to appreciate the difference between potential and real improvement in church processes.  Simply put, purchase decisions are made on the potential of becoming more effective, while the reality is that most will never achieve success.  The reason for this phenomenon is different in every church but I have seen several factors that are common.

1. Technology implementation is viewed as an issue of minor importance.  This is a misguided perception, but all too common.  If proper use and application of tools were not important, I would be able to build a house with the tools in my garage!  After all, they are the right tools.  The truth is that I could build something using my tools, but it would not be a house you would want to live in!  The correlation is that the implementation process will be the determining factor between success and failure.  Since technology is just a tool for a church to use, it is incumbent on the leaders to make sure that the tools are used properly and for the right purpose.
2. Technology implementation is viewed as a lower priority than all other ministry activities.  On the surface, this seems like a reasonable statement.  After all, it is the ministry that matters, right?  Well, yes, but if the implementation is never temporarily elevated to a high place of priority it will never be used effectively. Leaders must properly position the project as a temporary high priority so that there can be an actual improvement in ministry performance. Afterward, technology can go back to it's appropriate supporting role.
   
3. Technology implementation is not put in proper perspective.  Let's face it, change = pain!  People don't like change and they resist the hard work unless they see the value in the outcome.  The staff needs to know that the change is being made for the improvement of ministry efforts and not just to have the latest technology.  The senior leadership of the staff will either sanction the project by properly framing the intent of the changes or they will allow it to languish in obscurity.  Typically, all I want from a senior pastor on a technology project is for him to share his perspective of why the changes are needed with the staff.  The project requires his unwavering support of the implementation process and the intent to see it to the finish.  I like to think of it as similar to early settlers burning the ships on the shore so that everyone knew that going back was not an option. 
   
4. Technology implementation is led by someone with too little authority.  A good implementation plan will include tasks that need to be performed and accountability for those who have been given those tasks.  Many times, an administrative person of the staff has been given the unenviable task of managing the project.  How can they possibly hold a pastor accountable for their tasks?  The most successful implementations of technology always have a senior staff leader who owns the project to completion.

It all comes down to this.  If the benefit of the technology is never achieved, then all of the planning and effort was a complete and utter waste of time and money.  The worst part is that the staff had to go through the pain of change even though the benefit was not attained.  Most times, we just blame the technology and look for a new solution rather than admit that the implementation was a failure.  It is always humorous to hear people get excited about a cool feature in a new software program that existed in their old system!

There are many reasons to implement new technology.  I encourage churches to use as much care in the implementation as they did in the tool selection.  Technology can provide great benefits if it is used the right way, at the right time, by the right people, with the right training, for the right purpose.