A Facebook friend of mine shared a well-written blog from a longtime
pastor who started his ministry in 1984, in the early days of the so-called
"Church Growth Movement." Dr. Thom S. Rainier (a
respected former pastor who is now President and CEO of Lifeway Christian
Resources for the Southern Baptist Convention), entitles his article, “7 Ways
Pastoring Has Changed in Thirty Years” (see:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/7-ways-pastoring-has-changed-in-thirty-years-110044/
). After a brief introduction to what I
see as the context of his article, I will look at his seven points and give my
own assessment as to why things have changed in the ways he has described. I appreciate Dr. Rainier’s work in this
article and in many other writings throughout the years, and I credit Stan
Parker for bringing the article to my attention on his Facebook post.
The Way Things Were
I started in vocational Christian ministry almost a decade later than Dr. Rainier did, when the report card for the Church Growth Movement (CGM) had not fully come to light. I remember long conversations in my
seminary days with other students and pastors (and people who, like me, were both
students and pastors) about the love affair that Evangelical churches were
having with certain emphases in church life and the possible dangers,
theologically speaking, of that movement and those writers.
A handful of "successful" (in
terms of numbers) churches and leaders became beacons for new and/or
struggling pastors. These “successful”
pastors were shying away from reading pastoral theology or even from formal pastoral training and were instead
defining their roles in terms of secular CEOs.
Popular business school writers, like Stephen Covey, author of Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, became standard “textbooks” for this new generation of pastors, and writers who
emerged from their ranks sounded much more like Zig Ziglar (the popular
motivational speaker, who himself was a Christian and therefore found
astounding success in his publications sales) than like Luther, Wesley, or
Calvin.
Those of us who came a bit late to this party (early to mid
1990s) found ourselves already enmeshed in the struggle to find our identities
as pastors. Some of us chose writers
like Henri Nouwen, William Willimon, and Eugene Peterson (writers whose sense
of ministry tended toward the theological/pastor/shepherding approach), while
others flocked toward the likes of Bill Hybels, George Barna, and John Maxwell (Church
Growth Movement writers and pastors who embraced a “CEO” kind of
approach). In the short-run, those of us
who chose the former writers (the shepherding approach) found ourselves feeling
the pressures of non-conformity. Why were
we choosing to seek growth at a slower pace, instead of plugging in the latest
marketing tools and homogeneous growth unit techniques? Why did we still insist on prominently
displayed crosses, public reading of Scripture, mixing old hymns with the new choruses,
and not finding ways to make this treasure trove of Baby Boomers feel “at home”
so that they would give, attend, invite their plethora of Boomer friends, and
“get involved” with us?
Some of these
same pastors were “rising up the ranks” to become leaders on district and
global levels of mine and other denominational groups. A handful of these leaders were even elevated
to celebrity status and urged their own growing spheres of influence to immerse
themselves in the techniques and writers that helped them to produce the
numbers that made them a “success.”
Then What Happened?
Colleagues who chose the Church Growth Model early on often
did see some short term growth: emphasizing numbers can actually bring about
some numeric growth, at least in the short run.
However, many of those same leaders and churches have, over the past
thirty years, seen once overflowing sanctuaries diminish, and all of the debt
acquired in building “bigger and better and best” buildings and programs still
accumulating interest as smaller and less funded congregants are still
struggling on.
The reason? Many of
those who once funded and attended have either found better marketing
elsewhere, or they did not have a deep relational or theological connection to
secure their long term loyalty. Still
others (especially older Boomers) have abandoned these slick marketing-driven
churches and denominational groups for – of all things! – the more traditional
Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant mainline churches! It is as if these “older Boomers” (many of
whom are at or are approaching retirement) looked at their mortality for the
first time and said, “Is this all there is to my spiritual life? A few choruses and a ‘relevant’ sermon?”
Statistics now tell us that this group has become a large
“feeder” group for churches with unapologetic tradition in both liturgy and
approach. As one Catholic leader has
said recently, quoted by now retired Methodist Bishop William Willimon, “While
you many of you Protestant groups were trying to be so relevant, many of us were just sticking to the
ancient truths and practices that have worked for us for centuries. We figured that would be relevant again
someday!” And they were right.
Statistics also tell us that the children and grandchildren
of those who helped drive the CGM are either seeking more traditional and
“authentic” expressions of spiritual life, or are simply abandoning church
altogether (the so-called “nones”, which are a demographic of those who in
record numbers are indicated their religious preference as “none”). Those who are staying in church life are
seeking more traditional expressions, even if parts of their worship experience
may be called “contemporary”(what I have sometimes called, “Thousand year old
liturgy with bass guitars”). The same
spiritual shallowness that moved their grandparents and parents away from once overflowing
sanctuaries and auditoriums has caused this younger generation to seek out
smaller, more intimate communities where authenticity and spiritual/theological
depth are the norm. Whereas the CGM
generation’s mantra was thought to be: “Market to me correctly and you just may
get me”; this generation’s cry is more along the lines of: “Stop marketing to
me and just be authentic! I get enough
marketing every day!”
Ironically, even one of the leading Church Growth Movement
writers, marketing expert George Barna, has written in his book Revolutions that he sees very little
hope for the future of church life as we know it. I would argue that this is because the vision
of church life that he and others like him adopted and even help create was not
the revolution they thought it would be.
It fell short theologically and relationally. So, it may not be such a bad thing that
churches and the pastorate have changed so drastically in the past thirty years
or so, and it may be great (not negative or disconcerting, as Barna seems to
think) – theologically speaking – that Barna sees little hope for his version
of church life to continue in the future.
This leads me to my assessment and reflection on Dr. Rainier’s timely
article in terms of the context I have tried to establish.
Addressing the Seven Changes
Thomas Rainier addresses seven changes he has observed in
the past thirty years that are essential for being a pastor in today’s church environment. I will address one at a time and then
conclude my article.
1) Thirty years ago, most people in the community held the
pastor in high esteem.
Dr. Rainier is correct,
but it seems that, based upon reasons I give above, we pastors are to blame more
than society is to blame for this. As I
stated, most of Evangelical Christianity thirty years ago entered into a
struggle for pastoral identity. Most of
the prominent pastors – and many who became influential denominational leaders
– opted to redefine the role of pastors and overseers in terms of CEOs, human
resource directors, coaches, and marketers.
Our society is overrun with these roles but has very few shepherds,
preachers, and spiritual leaders. By
abandoning or at least putting on the back burner the essential roles of the
pastor, the pastor lost his/her defining function: it was exchanged for roles
that “blend in”, and so, as Dr. Rainier rightly asserts in his article, “Today
most people don’t know who the pastor is. . . .” We as pastors forgot who we were, and so how
can we expect them to know?
2) Thirty years ago, most people in the congregation held
the pastor in high esteem. The same basic explanation given in number 1
above can be given here. I can add to
this, though, that ongoing pressures from the Church Growth Movement emphases
up and down denominational (and local) leadership chains to “produce numbers”
has led to reluctance in pastors to confront, correct, teach, or even establish
clear boundaries in church life.
Consequently, pastors lose respect for themselves and this becomes
contagious. I have sat with several former pastors - some now retired - who have confided in me that they are glad to be done with
ministry, because they felt as if they were always having to pander and
perform. Those who pander and perform
may be liked in the short run, but they are not often respected in the long
run.
3) Leadership skills are required more today than thirty
years ago. Here Dr. Rainier is a bit vague, but it seems that he means that we
cannot just preach and do pastoral care anymore and be deemed a strong
pastor. Again, the CGM moved the
pastorate away from personal, face to face care, and so I think he would be
surprised at how many congregations, according to some statistics, desire more
face to face care from their pastors! If
anything, the bad taste left behind by pastors who thought they had to simply
adopt a CEO model and steamroll their ideas through would indicate that a
secular approach to leadership would do more harm than good these days, and
that authentic, loving, initiative-taking care would go a long way.
4) Interpersonal skills are required more today than thirty
years ago. I don’t know if interpersonal skills are MORE necessary today than any
other day, but he is right in principle: relationships matter more than flash
or “success.” Dr. Rainier says that
pastors are expected to “relate nearly perfectly to everyone.” I do not agree with this at all. I think that the CGM has caused people to
tire of the “leader on the pedestal” approach and wants instead to, in the
words of Henri Nouwen, see a leader that is not afraid to be authentic and even
show his/her wounds to the congregation so that we might seek God’s healing
together. This authentic approach is better for the leaders, too. Just note how many Catholic and Protestant (including key CGM pastors) have had serious moral failures in the past three decades due to pressure to be perfect or near perfect in their leadership skills without first being authentic in their relationships.
5) Outreach was accomplished by getting people to come to
church thirty years ago. He is right on here! "Get the backsides in the pews or chairs" was
the mantra at the beginning and the summit of the CGM and in much of modern
Evangelical church history. Dr. Rainier
says that “now barriers must be addressed in order for someone to be receptive
to come to our churches.” He is right,
to a point. But I would go further. Growth now has to be seen as more than simply
coming on Sunday mornings. What happens
beyond Sunday in the lives of those who come (or who might come someday) is
much more valued today than simply counting people as “present” at a particular
service. Of course, we still need the
revolutionary act of gathering together, praising together, and breaking bread
together during times of intentional worship.
But these gatherings include preparation for “going”: the mission of the
Church in the world.
6) Thirty years ago, there were very few ‘nones.’ His is
correct here, of course. But, my
reasoning for the “nones” is given in the introduction. We must address them with authentic
encounters with Christ and His love, and not slick marketing ploys.
7) The internet and social media have made pastoring much
more challenging than it was thirty years ago.
This is very insightful on Dr.
Rainier’s part. Rumors can spread
quickly online. False accusations can
become more troublesome than ever.
Potential for abuse can be overwhelming due to the rise in social media
and internet access. However, there are
also opportunities to connect in meaningful ways with the rise of social media
and the web. We can know much about one
another – sometimes too much, perhaps – but never before has the potential to
communicate the Gospel been so great.
Conclusion
In some ways, this has been the most cathartic article I
have ever written. I want to say again
how much I respect Dr. Thom Rainier’s work, and I do not mean to play “gotcha’”
with his concise and well-written article.
What I do hope to point out is that the paradigm from which he has
written has a context that has done much to shape the way we as Evangelical
Christians view church life. That same
paradigm has also caused some of the issues that Dr. Rainier and all of us who
care about the Church and the Kingdom
of God continue to
wrestle with. May we wrestle with the strength,
love, and authenticity that God’s Spirit provides. And may we trust God to help us overcome the issues
that challenge the growth of God’s Kingdom – even if we ourselves helped create
those issues!
