The dangers of inviting too early

I like it when someone makes a similar point that I did, but much, much, better.

A few years ago I wrote a post about the need to Pick the low hanging fruit when launching a new ministry. The folks at Youth Leaders Academy make a similar point here, but with some tremendous warnings.

To sum up, they warn newbie youth leaders to exercise caution in reaching beyond the walls of the church before you've securely established the founding group.

i throughly agree with the points made, especially the subtle message sent to those attending surrounding their worthiness as participants.

Let's face it, who wants to feel that they aren't (insert insecurity here) enough, thus the leadership needs to pursue others?

I think caution is needed when it comes to the timing of actively inviting others into a new group. 

First, they need time to develop and get comfortable in who they are.

How can you effectively invite someone to something when you yourself aren't sure what it exactly is, what it stands for and what it will look like regularly?

Second, as the saying goes, you need to earn the right to invite. 

Usually, we apply this to the invitee. You need to develop a relationship with the person your inviting in order for the invite to be most effective.

But, you also need to earn the trust of those in the existing group. You need to reassure them that, no matter how many "others" might arrive, they are still valued and they will always be cared for. In short, someone else won't get their attention or appreciation.

Finally, you need to give a new group time to develop. It needs time to set a cultural foundation and identity. They need to know who they are and what they're all about.

Otherwise you can destabilise a group still trying to find its feet.

These are the hidden dangers of the premature invite.

Do we even consider boosting the ministers pay packet?

I'm fully aware that what I'm about to propose, in most ministry contexts, is pure fantasy. After all, how many churches are meeting their church budget, never mind exceeding it?

But, in the unlikely or fortunately blessed occasion that the bottom line is in the black, does a church even consider giving the minister a one-off raise?

I write one-off raise because many denominations advise how much ministers get paid through the means of a stipend and how much their salary goes up annually, usually by CPI, often determined by a larger governing body.

But, if the church is going through a time of growth - numerical, financial, or both - and it can be attributed to the minister, is it worth, at least, entertaining the option of rewarding the minister for the fruit of his/her labour?

I pose this question off the back of this financially themed post which points out the awkwardness minsters face in regards to bringing up financial matters, including raises.

So, what would happen if a church decided - on their own - if the budget was, say, $10,000 ahead at the end of the financial year, to give the minister a $5,000 blessing?

How would it affect the wellbeing of the minister?
How would this change the mindset of a minister who has had previous secular work where bonuses were available if you meet or exceeded quotas or expectations?
To what degree would the minister feel encouraged, appreciated and supported, three areas where ministers can be particularly vulnerable?
How would it affect the way a minister's family, especially spouse, viewed the church?

Again, I know this might be a complete pipe dream, but I'm curious if this option is even explored by any treasurers or finance teams since, in most other employment settings which most people would be immersed, the "leader/boss" would be eligible for a performance based bonus.

Why can this not, on occasions, happen in the church?

The lasting legacy

Forgotten or replaced...

Programs.
Activities.
Resources.

Chances are, everything you do in ministry - given enough time - will be forgotten or replaced.

So, if it's not the programs, activities or resources which you leave behind, what is the enduring legacy someone has in a church?

It's the people.
It's the relationships you forge.
It's the God-moments you helped facilitate.
It's the memories.
It's the influential conversations you were a part of.

These are someone's legacy, which will not be forgotten or replaced as the years drift by...

All welcome to what exactly?

If you type "church signs" into the search box on my blog you get a lot of results. Sometimes I've raved about the good use of a church sign, but mostly I've ranted about how they are misused, offensive or confusing.

Now I want to take a swipe at the most common sign outside churches...

WORSHIP AT (insert time here) ALL WELCOME

Being thoroughly involved in the workings of the church, I have a fair idea what this will entail, even if I'm not totally assured which worship preference it might focus on.

But, what does an outsider think will await them?

What, to a seeker, is worship?

What does it look like?
What does it involve?
What does it ask of those who attend?
How long does it go for?

These questions are not answered by the generic church sign.

Nor, I think, are they it designed to be.

Invitations to church are far, far, more effective when done relationally, face-to-face. This allows the invitee to ask, and have answered, these nagging questions.

But I wonder, how many churches feel that their generic church sign is a means of effective outreach?

Sadly, for many churches, it might be the only outreach they have...

And, even sadder still, it's almost totally ineffective for the vast majority of those outside of the church.

Do you want to lead the superstar of the church?

Earlier this week I wrote here how every activity of the church, ideally, should be branded and guided by the church-wide vision/mission statement.

But, I wonder how many ministries, secretly... or not so secretly... want to be the superstar of the church?

How many ministries want to be THE THING which their church is known and renowned for?

Admittedly, I've wanted this in the past.

I've wanted our page of the website to be the most visited...
I've wanted our attendance to be the biggest...
I've wanted our activities to be the most exciting...
I've wanted our programs to have the most impressive advertising...

But this, obviously, isn't the most productive mindset.

A far better thought is for your ministry to be an extension of the church, not seperate or an added "bonus".

But, this requires a humility which, I'm willing to admit, I've struggled with in the past.

A humility to not be the superstar...
A humility to be a part of a united team...
A humility to desire for and share the victories of the entire church...

Who should pronounce the announcements?

I've written here that any announcements made during a church service need to hit a significant portion of the congregation.

But the question remains, in an ideal situation, who should give the announcements in church?

I've been in churches where it's been the sole duty of the minister, a job reserved for the elders/"head" greeter or a task for anyone in the congregation who's willing to stand before the microphone.

By far, the later I'd the worst of these options.

Notices, like anything from the front of church, should be well planned and delivered well. 

But, the first option isn't the answer either.

Why?

Because, I think the invitation to be involved in an activity is more powerful if it comes from someone, ideally, who is familiar with the ministry and who isn't paid to attend.

Furthermore, this non-clergy delivery method unshackles the minister - who has enough things on his mind prior to the service - from being interrupted by late minute additions to the announcements.

Finally, and more sinisterly, this congregational leader fronted announcements frees the minister from the accusation of favouritism.

All falling under the same tag-line

I've worked at numerous churches which have had vision/mission statements or church-wide goals. Sometimes they have been useful and helped define what the church does. Other times they are barely known and have little visible impact on ministry aside from being a footnote on business minutes and the church advertising.

I've also worked at churches which have had ministries with their own separate vision/mission statements or goals.

Ideally, the later shouldn't be needed.

If a church has a dynamic, and importantly, impactful, guiding prose then any ministries within the church should all fall under the same umbrella.

This both sends the message that all ministries of the church are united and, from a youth ministry perspective, greatly advances the chances of a successful transition for young adults to be intergrated into the wider church.

Otherwise, the danger lies in a ministry running in, at best, parallel to the rest of the church and, at worst, travelling in an alternative direction.

You're doing WHAT in the hall after church?

"...and you're all warmly invited to join in a time of fellowship in the hall after the service."

If I'm honest, I don't know what the above sentence really means.
Now, I know what it looks like, but I'd struggle to give it a dictionary definition.

And yet, every slab of notices during a church service always ends with this cheery salutation.

But if I walked into a dozen churches and asked them to define exactly what "fellowship time after the service" was, then I suspect I'd get twelve different responses.

So, do we advertise this like it's a draw card?
AND, why do we think this would be appealing to visitors or those unfamiliar with church?

No one else has "fellowship" time anywhere else in their week...

Instead, they catch up over coffee...
They share how their week has been...
Heck, they "share life together"...

But, no one else calls this fellowship.

Furthermore, I wonder if this "time after the service" is all it could be and what the originator of "fellowship time" envisaged.

Surely the "inventor" of "fellowship time" didn't picture awkward small talk over pretty bad coffee or weak tea.
There was no grand dreams of chit-chat about the weather or the local sports team.

Instead, this time of "fellowship" is meant to be a time of mutual support, encouragement and bonding.

So, what if we branded this time what it could reflect?

Family time.

A time for the spiritual family of Christ to be together, just as relational families do...

A time to share, beyond the surface, in a safe place...

A time to invest in the lives of others...

This, I feel, is what we want to lift before others at the end of the notices.

It's just a shame we label it "fellowship"...

How often to we "read" the stories?

Cinderella.
Frozen.
Finding Nemo.
Sleeping Beauty.
Tangled.
Beauty & the Beast.

Each night I "read" my eldest daughter a story before she goes to sleep.

I say "read" because, without seeing the movies or overhearing the audio books, I'd have little familiarity with the actual fables.

Why? Because I've never actually actually read the words from the books. Ever.

Instead, I just describe what's happening in the pictures, roughly piecing the story together.

Most of the time things work out. 
But I've also been throughly lost during the virgin reading of some Disney classics.

I wonder how often we do the same thing with the bible...

How many scripture lessons are planned without actually closely consulting the bible passage?
How many kids talks?
How many youth group addresses?

How many times do we just trust that we're familiar enough with the story to just describe the pictures we've mentally formed?

I know that I've been guilty of it in the past. 

And, like bedtime, usually it worked out.

But, it's the hidden details which we miss, and ultimately rob those we're trying to communicate with since we're only patching the story together in our heads.

The fakest part of the church service

Ideally, everyone is authentic at church.

Ideally...

The reality is that we all, to an extent, fake church.

We put on false smiles.
We make small talk with people we wouldn't otherwise speak with.
We say that our week's been good even if our insides are aching.

And believe me, this includes, on occasions even more than anyone else present, those in front of the microphone.

But what is the fakest part of the church service?

I think there are a lot of strong candidates...
The responsive liturgy?
When prayers are lead from the front?
During the singing?
Listening to the sermon?
Morning tea/supper after the service?

I think the phoniest part of the church experience is...
The passing of the peace.

For...
How many people are truly extending wishes of God's peace during this time?
How many people would be aware that this is what they're being charged to do - not just say hello?
How many people can you sincerely have a peace-sharing moment with in the two minutes you get during a service and 15 second interaction with each person?
How many people, if they were going to take this seriously, would go to the person they have a fractured relationship with and offer peace?

I suspect that many people miss the powerful opportunity of the peace. I know I usually do.

Instead, we exchange surface level greetings and a moderately warm handshake.

Or, at least, paint on a smile and hope for the time to expire quickly...