09 Feb Five Strategic Initiatives
I have identified five stragetic initiatives for my term, and I would like your feedback on them, either through the comments or using the Contact link on the right:
1. Implement and encourage an atmosphere where multiplication of leaders and churches will be considered as normal.
2. Encourage Spiritual Formation and Renewal within the churches of the United Brethren in Christ
3. Actively equip churches and pastors for effective ministries.
4. Develop a plan to identify and retain those who are being called into fulltime Christian service.
5. Discover, evaluate, and articulate the perceived brand image of the Church of the United Brethren In Christ.
These five initiatives will comprise the areas that I consider priority issues and in which I will spend the majority of my time.
These were adopted October 4, 2005, by the Executive Leadership Team after some discussion. Now I would like to open the discussion of these five initiatives to a wider audience across the church.
How do you think these ought to be fleshed out? Or maybe you take issue that these are the areas that need priority attention in our denomination.
Talk to me, church!
Ed Gebert
Posted at 22:09h, 11 FebruaryI’ve got to admit that #5 intrigues me. Should the brand image be any more than what the brand image of “Christian” is supposed to be?
Jim Bolich
Posted at 15:23h, 13 FebruaryBishop,
Thanks for initiating this discussion. I’ll limit my comments to two areas for now.
Concerning #3 – Training for effective ministry is something this country has an abundance of. However, I suspect that taking advantage of that training…and, more than that, applying that training…are areas in which many of us are weak. I believe increased accountability is required here. I am not a seminar nut, but I think we have a greater issue here. We have collectedly decided that ordained elders must read and attend workshops. Therefore, we must. To do otherwise is a violation of both our Core Values and our ordination vows. Now, I’m not promoting a heavy hand, but if we, as pastors, will not do what we say we will do, we have major problems.
Concerning #5 – I believe this is a significant need. I am UB by choice. Let me explain what I mean. Ten years ago I was looking for a denominational home. I investigated the UB church and became excited about being part of the kind of people our Discipline describes. Over the past 10 years, I have been disappointed to discover that our actions often betray our writings.
I have also discovered that many of our people describe the UB church in terms of what we are against. Yes, we stand against some things. I’m glad we do. But what about the things we stand FOR? The Core Values describe a wonderfully rare fellowship (for example, committment to evangelism AND social concern). Those things should be celebrated. Maybe it shouldn’t be this way, but perception is important. Image matters. Thank you for pursuing this goal.
Well, there’s my two cents. I’ve probably been too coarse. If so, I apologize. I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue.
Alan DeCristoforo
Posted at 18:21h, 16 FebruaryI’d like to direct this to item #2. That of Spiritual Formation and renewal in the UB church. Since the end of Christmas I have been teaching on some of the “I am” statements of Jesus. The class, which meets as our Sunday Eve event, is open to anyone. I have noticed in the class a desire to go deeper into the Christian life than they have been. When we are looking at the various things Jesus said about Himself and His relationship to the Father, we have seen how we are to be included into that relationship. We started by looking at Peter’s Confession and asking “Who do people say that Jesus is?” and we will end with the transfiguration and God answering Who Jesus is, “My Beloved Son”
The thing I have noticed most is that the people in the class seemed unaware of the depth of the relationship between the Father and the Son. And they were also opening to the reality that Jesus has called each one of us to eneter into the same relationship with the Father that He has.
To me that is the basis of Spiritual Formation. To come to the realization that we are called to live the life of a Christian as Jesus led it. And that the idea of that is not for “Special” Christians but for each one of us.
How do we get across to the UB Church that we are called to live an incarnational life on this earth?
That’s my comment.
Tim Hallman
Posted at 19:53h, 16 FebruaryRon,
The five initiatives seem like good ones. I look forward to reading more about how you are going to bring them to life.
Two comments that I want to make now.
One, there doesn’t seem to be much emphasis on conversion growth for churches. Maybe that is implicit in the statements regarding church multiplication and effective ministry. Maybe when you flesh out your initiatives more, this will be more clear. Church multiplication and effective ministry doesn’t automatically mean conversion growth. Conversion growth is where the really cool stories will come from.
The second comment, if we want to change our DNA, or come up with a new brand image, what kind of emphasis should be placed in recruiting non-UB people to join our leadership ranks? We won’t get much different DNA by placing different UB people in different places on the bus. That is a good strategy, getting the right people on the right place of the bus, but that is not the same as changing our DNA. Should we be recruiting from large healthy churches to join our ranks? Should we be recruting from healthy seminaries for trained pastors to join our ranks? I know that you are interested in doing this kind of recruiting, I just wonder if it should be more explicit in the initiatives.
Thanks for posting the initiatives and soliciting our comments.
Tim
Tom Blaylock
Posted at 03:16h, 28 FebruaryHi Bishop, I have been mulling this over for a little while and decided it was time to put in my 2 cents. First, I want to acknowledge that these initiatives are critical – especially if you have discerned God’s leadership and are passionate about them. I, for one, am ready to roll up my sleeves and play my part.
Now, here is my question: do we go at all 5 of these initiatives at the same time with 1/5 of our time, energy, and resources? Or, are some more urgent than others? If we focus on any one in particular first, will growth in that area prepare us to tackle a different one? How will we know when we are making progress – what are the milestones?
I would love to hear a discussion that breaks this wonderful strategy down into bite-sized pieces with leaders who will be held accountable, time frames, and designated resources. I realize that this may sound like we are taking God out of the equation – but it could also mean that once we worked through this process we understand our need for God in a whole new light.
Keep up the good work on these initiatives – this is a great beginning!
Michael Thompson
Posted at 20:16h, 02 MarchI must admit that I am a bit nervous about the final point. Perhaps it is my ineptitude with leadership lingo, but I have yet to understand how “brand image” connects with the kingdom of God. Furthermore, might one see this concern carry-over into #1, where once again measurement of success is relegated to increases?
I realize that the early church boom is often considered the template here, but perhaps we cannot always dictate size increase with the activity of the Spirit. Many megachurch movements stand as testimony to that today. Understandably, church leaders desire growth and success. . .but success defined by whom?!?
It appears that this list is a good start, but too often church leaders have left my concerns unguarded and have (once again) positioned themselves in a place where success by worldly standards is the only available option. #2 is the most admirable of those items listed, but is that necessarliy compatible with the remaining goals?
Brennan Manning recounts this dialogue with another churchgoer in which the man said, “We just had an incredible time of spiritual revival in our church!” Another man asked, “Really? How much has your attendance increased?” The reply, “It went down 500!”
Tom Blaylock
Posted at 15:21h, 03 MarchI believe Michael has made a very good point. Faithfulness and fruitfulness do not always equal numerical growth in the short term. I would much rather see us embark on a strategy that leads toward long-term, sustainable fruitfulness than one that jumps on the bandwagon of the latest growth strategy that boosts our numbers for a few months or years but then leaves us right back where we started (but more discouraged and exhausted than ever).
However, I also believe that some “short-term wins” are very important also – I think it’s a both/and deal. The idea that comes to mind for me is “first fruits” – those early, undeniable evidences of God’s activity in and through our lives that are indicators of something greater yet to come. The UB needs some first fruits, as do all groups. But we are probably at a point in our history where we need them more than most. Why? I think primarily because we need the confidence that God is indeed at work and is active in the process of making us a blessing to the world.
And this is where I start thinking about “brand image” (maybe too corporate of a term for some, I would love to hear some suggestions of other terms that link our minds less with the board room and profitability and more with the mission of God). What is our brand image, or another way to ask the question – what is our identity (both within our group and as perceived from the outside)? Are we a people of mission? Or are we a group just trying to maintain and survive? Are we more concerned with our needs being met or with how God wants to meet the needs of others through us? “Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it abides alone…” What are we willing to “die” to in order for the back-from-the-dead fruit of God can emerge from our lives?
Pat Jones
Posted at 14:02h, 05 MarchWonderful discussions going on here. Michael and Tom have been hitting on what I believe is a barrier we have to overcome up front: perceptions about what we mean. When growth is mentioned, some cringe.The cry is that we are only concerned about numbers. But what does fruit-bearing mean if not some kind of increase? And what about the other view, that growth took place by subtraction?
I couldn’t agree more that subtraction is the first step to growth in many situations. Jesus told us so. The Father prunes, so that the dead is removed and the fruitful parts become even more fruitful. (John 15)
This brings me back to my favorite subject: health. Healthy families reproduce themselves and grow (numerically and relationally). Healthy plants grow and reproduce. Healthy animals grow and reproduce. God set the pattern. It is natural. So if we work toward health, faithfulness to God’s priorities and fruitfulness, growth is a given. But the growth is a by-product.
Pruning is an event that takes place at a point in time and leads to new growth almost immediately. It does not take decades. So let’s keep the discussion on health and mission and “leave the results to God.” He is the One who brings the increase. But since that is His stated goal, He will bring it.
Michael Thompson
Posted at 20:58h, 06 MarchI do not wish to be contrary on this point, but I wonder if it really is an issue of properly perceiving these objectives. It is interesting to me that my critique has sparked a response of why numerical growth is a good thing instead of turning the discussion toward the essence of spiritual growth within.
The emergent church has raised a number of good perspectives on this point. For instance, why the church? And this is where denominationalism – in spite of its many wonderful qualities – can often lose itself in a sea of administrationalism. How many times do church leaders corner themselves between maintaining numerical and financial stability and growth and thus abandon the thrust of the gospel?
This is my primary concern. So, I believe that I perceive the statements correctly, but would like to think that I’m also reading beyond them into implications that seem to cycle through so many ‘new approaches.’ The primary question needs to be, Why the church?
Any answer beyond ‘because people need a savior’ runs the risk of shifting the primary emphasis and focus of our divine charter. I understand that this will raise many issues regarding the ability to maintain a presence coming from numerical and financial growth, yet I still suggest that such things are beside the point of moving a church. So perhaps I will always be a bit nervous to enage in such conversations as this, but perhaps more individuals ought be as well.
Again, this is not intended to be an accusation but rather a futher clarification of my concerns for another shot at new leadership.
Mike Dennis
Posted at 14:43h, 08 MarchGreat discussion items! I look forward to having time (after I finish up several papers for my grad classes) to thoughtfully respond to the Bishop’s intial post.
In the meantime, I offer this: Michael’s thoughts spurred this question. Why do we believe that “spiritual growth is inward”? The more I have learned over the years about Jewish thought and custom, the more I understand that Jesus and his disciples would be puzzled at us separating the inward and the outward. If what I have learned is correct, spiritual maturity, character, etc. cannot be divorced from what we say, do, or how we live. We live “inside-out”.
With that more wholistic understanding of spiritual growth, why would a discussion of numerical growth or financial growth (though I am not sure who brought up the issue of finances) be considered “outside” of the topic of spiritual growth? Why would an intangible, subjective “inward” spiritual growth have greater meaning? Why is one better than than the other, why does one element have to preclude the other?
Consider – is it somehow less spiritual to see more people accept Christ? Is it less spiritually mature to see more people sharing their faith? Is it less spiritual to see more people giving sacrificially? Aren’t these numerically notable?
To elevate any “measurement” to a scriptural standard is sinful, I agree. To focus only on man-made success leads in dangerous paths. I agree there, too. I also see divorcing God-given increase and accountability as being equally dangerous. Spiritually, the outward without the inward is empty. The inward without the outward is nothing at all. Or so it seems when I read James comments on faith and works.
Michael – I pray I have not come across in any way attacking you or being disagreebable. I think you offered a great post. These comments are merely the thoughts and questions that your thoughts helped inspire.