When Is a Church at a "Tipping Point"

When Is the Church At A Tipping Point?

(A “Mashup” Discussion)

Definitions:

• Tipping Point: “In any organization, once the beliefs and energies of a critical mass of people are engaged, conversion to a new idea will spread like an epidemic, bringing about fundamental change very quickly.” (W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne, Tipping  Point, Harvard Business Review, April 1, 2003)
• Mashup:    “A distinct spreading ideas. “ A “marriage” or “mashup” of ideas from two different realms to convey a new message.                                                                                                                           

                When is the Church at a "Tipping Point"?

Recently I attended a meeting where Dr. Matthew Spalding, author of " We Hold These Truths--Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future".  Dr. Spalding told the story of an American patriot, Captain Preston,  who was interviewed long after the battle at Concord.  He was asked why he was willing to fight and die if needed.   'I never saw any stamps'. What about the tax on tea? ' I never drank a drop of the stuff; the boys threw it all overboard.' It must have been all of your reading of Harrington, Sidney, and Locke on the principles of liberty?  Never heard of 'um. We read only the Bible, the catechism, Watt's Psalms and Hymns, and the Almanack.'  Well, what was it? asked the interviewer.  What made you take up arms against the British?  ' Young man, what we meant in going for those redcoats was this:  we always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to.  They didn't mean we should."    Captain Preston was free and wanted to continue to live in freedom, rather than be controlled and governed by a remote elite.   As Dr. Spalding indicates this was understood as both "political self-government" as well as "moral self-government".  They believed "political self-government" was only possible if  each were able to govern themselves as individuals, families, and communities.  The choice was between freedom and external control.

In this era we use the term "freedom", but in those days the term “freedom” translated into the idea that an individual could do anything he wished.   They used the more definitive term "liberty.”  In the Founders' view, "freedom must be understood within the context of constitutional and moral order."  "Liberty means the rightful exercise of freedom, the balances of rights and responsibilities.".

Not everyone at first wished  to "fight or die" for this liberty.  There was initially great opposition to joining in this struggle for freedom. But after Washington “crossed the Delaware” with 2400 men to defeat the undefeated British, his army grew to 17,000 practically overnight.   In Malcolm Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference" he defines a tipping point as  "the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point."   "Tipping points are "the levels at which the momentum for change becomes unstoppable." "The success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts" .   The little things he cites include people who "link us up with the world"  i.e. those that can "connect" and bring people to gather.  One individual he cites for this is Paul Revere--the rider that warned Concord.  

In our current political debate on Heath Care, we have similar themes being played out.  For example, we have what some would call a  remote ruling elite in Washington that is intent on controlling the personal health choices of the American people  for "the greater good".  The choice is really simple:  Do the American people wish to live in freedom and govern their own lives or do they wish to be controlled and governed by a remote elite.  Philosophically, the choice is the same that confronted Captain Preston.  Even though the dictate  or "law" has been passed by the current ruling elite, it is still unknown whether it will stand.  It is fair to point out many sincerely believe that our government can and should make the decisions concerning our individual health care in the interest of providing what is best for all. It is not the purpose this discussion to determine the “rightness or wrongness” of this debate.  It is to examine the dynamics of the choices. Have we reached the "tipping point" in this country where there is a "critical mass, a threshold" where the majority of the people opt for the government to control major aspects of their personal lives--from cars, to financial institutions, to energy, to school loans, to health care, to........ whatever.  At present 60 % of the people get some assistance from the government--with health care  this will go to 70%.  47 % pay no income taxes at all.  Are these numbers sufficient to cause a “tipping point” ?  

From a different perspective, the health care debate has generated noisy and massive opposition to a government imposed system.  It is clear from all polls, the majority of the American people have opposed this initiative both before and after its passage.(“56% of likely voters favor repeal.” “ A majority has favored repeal every single week  since its passage.”- Rasmussen Report, Sept. 6, 2010)  In our democracy, the American people have the power to reverse the decision of our elite Congress  in the elections of 2012 and 2014.  Has the opposition to government imposed health care reform reached the critical mass or "tipping point" where repeal can occur? 

One may ask, what in the world do the above political discussions have to do with congregations today?  What are the similarities between the themes of the American Founding and even of the current Health Care Debate?  They are, in my opinion, more similar then one might contemplate at first.    I wish to examine what happens when a "traditional" but not overly conservative church (of Christ) is lead to be a truly "missional' church.  For our purposes a “traditional’ congregation is one that is conservative in its worship practices.  It adheres to the order and forms of worship first solidified in the first part of the 20^th century.  It may have accommodated technology into its services –things like Power Point, etc, but does not use “praise teams”, adheres to a capella music, and considers the Lord’s Supper a solemn, silent occasion.   The services are usually highly organized, relies on “programs” , may even have “ministry leaders” , a few central figures are used, and there is a rational emphasis.  Bible knowledge is emphasized whether at the church building or in small groups.  

According to Allen Hirsch “a working definition of missional church is that it is a community of God’s people that defines itself, and organizes its life around it real purpose of being a agent of God’s mission to the world.”(Alan Hirsch, “ A Working Definition of Missional Church” 11 July, 1997. see www.theforgotten ways.org).  Other characteristics will be evident as this discussion proceeds.

 Allen Hirsch in "The Forgotten Ways" also says the following is necessary to transition from a traditional church to a missional church:  there must be an "interpreting of the denomination's foundational values in the light of the mission today”; “a calling of  the denomination away from maintenance, back to mission”; have a visionary leader who "can build alliances" with those that desire change; leaders who "encourage signs of life" and "raise up a new generation of leaders.. from the old";  to "ensure the new generation is not 'frozen out" by the old"; and the leader "must restructure the denomination's institutions so that they serve missional purposes." 

All of the above means massive change from the maintenance mode of the traditional church. 

So we have the theme of massive "change" just as in the Revolution.   The additional theme of the Founding in American Revolution was "liberty" vs.  "tyranny".  The theme of the health care debate is freedom vs. rule by an intellectual elite.  Or it can be put in the terms of freedom and liberty vs. promised security.  How are these themes similar or different from those in transforming to a missional church?  To determine this we must identify some of the "players" in transforming to a missional church.  Let's start with the Revolutionary analogy. 

In the American Founding, we have the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 declaring: “ The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people”.   This in turn was derived in part from the “religious view of covenant theology.”   One could substitute congregation as follows:  The “congregation” is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social and religious compact by which the whole congregation covenants with each member and each member with the whole congregation.  Their religious covenant with God forms the basis for this voluntary association This in no way implies that members of the congregation determines whether a person  is a “Christian”, but does recognize that  members bond together voluntarily.   And, just as in our Founding, some form of governance is instituted ( for practical purposes if for no other), but as in Founding these “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”   Some “push, back” might be encountered here by indicating that “elders” responsibilities and authority in the churches of Christ are defined by biblical authority.  But, even here, elders are not initially appointed ( in most cases ) without the consent of the members i.e. “consent of the governed”.

Fast forward to the present.  William Bennett recently wrote :  “Our country seems to be in the midst of an identity crisis, divided, confused, and adrift. Change is the watchword of the moment… Everything is moving forward, despite a general sense among us that we are entering uncharted territory.  Nevertheless, there are increasing call for America to get back to its first principles—to reset its compass, so to speak—as a way to give direction to our rudderless politics.”   This can be applied as follows: The church of Christ seems to be in the midst of an identity crisis, divided, confused, and adrift.  Change is the watchword of the moment…. Everything is moving forward despite a general sense among some that we are entering uncharted territory.  Nevertheless, there are increasing calls for the church to get back to first principles—to reset its compass , so to speak –as a way to give direction to our seemingly rudderless policies.    

With the above as a background, where does the “mashup” of the ideas of liberty vs. tyranny  or freedom vs. security and tipping points apply to congregations today?  In Revolutionary times there was the King and Parliament, their adherents the Loyalists , and in the colonies  there were also Patriots. In the case of the Patriots they believed they had fundamental rights which  had been forbidden from interference by the Crown in constitutional documents such as the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Right (the text of which was recognized by Parliament in the Bill of Rights 1689), and other fundamental documents.  In the case of the King and Parliament, they believed they could dictate the rules under which the Patriots should live---whether they consented or not.  The Patriots called the citizens back to the freedom of their constitutional documents.  The Loyalists adhered to the dictates of the King and Parliament.  

In what sense can this be applied to the church.  Loyalists are those who are loyal to the traditions and forms of the church as it has evolved from the Restoration movement.  This evolution has resulted in set traditional forms of worship and body life for most congregations.    Especially crucial is what is done in worship in a “formal setting”.  The “forms” used are extremely important—and must be followed with little variation.   The loyalists would follow the leadership as long as these “biblical examples” are adhered to.   In the case of the church “The Patriots” would be those today who call the church back to the founding theological principles of Christ and to those precepts embodied in scripture. 

 This founding theological principle is embodied in the Latin word “missio’ which means “sent” .  This, in essence, is a one word definition of “missional”.  The definition is evident from scripture: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing .  . . . 20 and teaching” (Mt. 28:19-20).  21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” (Jn. 20:21).7b Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.  8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment” (Jn. 16:7b, 8). The church is the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:27) and we seek to be “imitators of God” (Eph. 5:1). “The Father sent the Son, the Son sent the Spirit, and the Son sends us”  The church’s ecclesiology(“the form and function of the church”) should be derived from its missiology ( “the purpose of God and his people”) and its missiology from its Christology ( “The purpose and work of Jesus” ).  For the “patriots” of a missional church, “mission” is at the heart of the church’s purpose, not just some thrust in a foreign field.  “‘Mission’ is not something the church does, a part of its total program.  No, the church’s essence is missional, for the calling and sending action of God forms its identity.” --Missional Church by Darrel Guder.

Who in the church sense are the “ruling elite” in leadership.  This would translate in most cases to two groups: 1) the eldership and 2) those in the congregation who usually determine the direction of the membership whether a part of the eldership or not.   In many cases the “tipping point” is determined within the leadership ---not necessarily within the membership.   Remember that for a church to become missional one must have  the "interpreting of the denomination's foundational values in the light of the mission today; to "call the denomination away from maintenance, back to mission; have a visionary leader who "can build alliances" with those that desire change “.   This means the congregation will in all probability have hired a minister whose charter is exactly that—i.e. “to call the denomination away from maintenance, back to mission”.   So, we have the following players:  a) the visionary missional minister b) the eldership --  both loyalist and patriots in attitude and c) the membership with loyalists and patriots.  What constitutes the “tipping points” within these groups?

Within the congregation, the loyalist will undoubtedly object to any deviation from what they consider a “traditional”  worship service.  What “traditional” means depends on how steeped they are  in the unwritten, but real, worship “liturgy”..  Typical things that might be done differently in worship in a congregation transforming to being  missional are: a) Use of “witnessing” by both men and women in the congregation about what God has done b) Use of current video clips ( with music instruments or not) to illustrate sermon points c) Use of songs or other “communal” aspects during communion d) Use of “praise songs” e) Clapping or raising of hands f) “Off campus” bible studies on Sunday mornings or Wed evenings g) “Service projects during traditional bible study periods as well as other times h) And, in essence violation of the rule that the “formal worship” should be a solemn occasion. There will be some in most any congregation who believe there is a set solemn “ liturgy “ required for “formal worship”.  They will protest to any change.   These loyalists may be major financial contributors as well --- as they tend to be older and already financially set in life.   Within the congregation, this group of loyalists may also constitute an elite  set who control the affairs of the congregation, whether appointed as elders or not. Note that  none of the factors  is based upon whether any of the objections are biblical based or not. 

 So, one of the first tipping points is whether the support of the visionary leader will continue by the eldership or whether they will “ give in” to the negative inputs of the Loyalist group with the congregation.  This probably depends upon the following factors: a) How large is the dissenting group perceived to be b) How much financial influence do they have and c) How influential are those dissenting perceived to be. As this loyalist group becomes more numerous and vocal, a tipping point may occur where the visionary leader is purged and the congregation reverts to the loyalist tradition.  In this case, the Patriots in the congregation will note that their “freedom” in Christ has been abridged and may leave.   This may or may not result from a “church fight” before this and a resulting church split.  Remember in our American Revolution “We always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to.  They didn't mean we should."    This same desire for self governance ( through elders appointed/sanctioned  by the members) continues in the church.  This is particularly true when the Patriots  believe they are on the side of scripture.   It is equally true if the Loyalists believe they are on the side of scripture—though in the Loyalist case one would be hard put to find a true scriptural reason for the opposition.

In some cases the use of the term “missional” itself becomes an object of controversy.   This is engendered by confusion on what the term means.  Some conflate the theological concept of being sent to some of the radical cultural imperatives of the early “emerging church” movement.   This conflation has also been made by some leaders in traditional faith groups –not just the church of Christ. {A good history of the term and its many usages can be found at www.edstetzer.com/2007/08/meanings of_missional_part_1_1.htm  (See http://www.missionaloutreachnetwork.com/profiles/blogs/brief-survey-of-missional for use of the term within church of Christ universities ) Since the “missional“  term has now been used for some time ( both within and without the churches of Christ), rarely have those objecting absorbed the extensive literature on the theological concept of being “missional” .  (a Google search of missional returns 26,200 hits. )

A biblical based leadership (eldership) would study the scriptures with those who might be objecting to “see whether what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:1).  A humanly based leadership would either: a) ignore the objections b) listen,  but not give them any answer –biblically or otherwise c) try to convince them that things or not so bad or  e) not back up the minister for fear of offending these influential people.   One “tipping point” can occur when the eldership decides to publically back the missional direction of the congregation or not depending on the reaction of these objectors.  However, the “tipping point” of the congregational on the road to becoming missional will not have occurred unless the  eldership publically acknowledges the missional direction of the congregation.  And it will not have occurred unless they do a biblically study with the objectors.  Remember to be successful the leader must have been able to “build alliances” –beginning, I believe with the appointed leadership-- which in our case is the eldership.  Thus, the elders must have formed a team with the minister that the congregation can follow along this path.  And, members in the congregation must be able to see this support.  Otherwise, constant “sniping” of these objectors will continually undermine support--- and could even lead to a “tipping point” of return to a traditional loyalist congregation. 

Since, the eldership must have formed a team with the missional minister,  another influential group that should be “on board” as part of this team are the other ministry staff members of the congregation.     Another one of Hirsch’s principles for transformation is that the visionary leader “must restructure the denomination's institutions so that they serve missional purposes”.  The success of a missional leader cannot and does not depend upon his efforts alone. Thus, the eldership who have the decisive leadership function, must empower the missional leader to do this restructuring—or at the very least must explicitly partner with him to do so.   A passive role will not do.  If the congregation is one of significant size ( over 300 members who meet every Sunday in a single building and certainly for those in the 800+ size ) , it is virtually impossible to implement a missional strategy without supporting staff. ( A congregation of 900 needs 6 full time staff members and 3.5 half time members---McIntosh, G. 2000. “Staffing Your Church for Growth-building team ministry in the 21st century”. Grand Rapids: Baker Books) There must be staff who are able to “connect” visitors and those who place membership.  They must assist members in identifying their spiritual gifts and equipping them to use them for “works of service”.   There must be “systems” in place in the office that make all of these things work together.  There must be education and mentoring in how to use “third places” in an incarnation way.   In short, with our current practice of having a “preaching or pulpit minister” the missional minister can “cast” the vision and  “call the denomination away from maintenance, back to mission”.  However, he cannot possibly accomplish this alone ( and this is not leaving God out of the picture).  If he has no power to structure and lead staff ( and along with the eldership to replace non-performing staff) , then his efforts alone almost surely will not lead to success. If he is left alone, then “burn-out” will inevitably occur.  

This perhaps can bring the congregation to another “tipping point”.  Here the minister has received so little support from staff ( which really defaults to the eldership) that the tipping point is reached where the minister must do something different for his own health. This lack of support from staff can either be overt resistance or it can simply be that the staff does not have the skill sets necessary—whether organizational skills or  those required to identify spiritual gifts and equip the members.  This can occur even if there is significant membership support for the missional effort i.e. there has been “alliances” built “that desire change”.   

But, perhaps the most critical “tipping point” is the one within the leadership i.e. the eldership of the congregation.  They are the decision makers who can make or break whether the visionary missional leader can bring about transformational change.  Kim and Rauborgne in  the Harvard Business Review article on  “Tipping Point” write that transformational change can only occur if leaders: a) “make unforgettable and unarguable calls for change” b) “concentrate resources on what really matters” c) “mobilize the commitment of the organizations key players and d) “have success in silencing the most vocal naysayers.”  In addition they must overcome the four most common obstacles for change: a) an organization “wedded to the status quo” b) “opposition from powerful vested interests” c) “limited resources” and d) “a de-motivated staff”.   Success depends on the focus of a “core group”.  “These are the people and activities that wield a disproportional amount of influence on what happens in an organization” (Art Kliener in  “Tipped for the Top: Tipping-point  Leadership” 6/8/04) , Inseed Quarterly). Without a doubt it is the eldership and pulpit minister that have the most influence in most church Christ congregations.   From the examination of the above, one can quickly conclude that without the overt backing and public leadership of the eldership, the pulpit minister alone cannot bring about this change.  With the churches of Christ, the pulpit minister usually does not have the authority ( positional or not ) to do what is required “on his own”.  This is true even if he is appointed the “senior minister”.   Only with the overt backing of the eldership in churches of Christ can the above be adequately addressed.

Eldership leadership  is a complex issue, but a critical one for a congregation undertaking the transformational change to become a missional church.  First, it is rare that a traditional church will make this decision.   In most cases, large urban congregations have or are experiencing some version of the “worship wars” that have beset not only the churches of Christ but other faith groups as well.    Part of this is the result of the impact of generational clashes.  The “baby-boomers”  and generations X and Y have entirely different world-views.  The modern and postmodern generations want different things of “church”.    Typically, the modern world-view is built on rationality and deals with forms, patterns, structure, doctrine, and facts.  The postmodern world-view is built on relationships, connectedness, belonging, and feelings. The elements that appeal to postmoderns include; hope, authenticity, the Spiritual and mystery, narrative, experiences, community, relationships, service, the “ancient”, and visual images/technology.   A fundamental difference is how  learning occurs for those with a modern world-view.  Moderns accept ““propositional truth” e.g. “the bible says…”.   For postmoderns, learning is done through experience and narrative.

The Tipping Point Leadership Model would state the need to address the above as follows. Tipping Point Leadership “starts by confronting the rank and file members of the organization with the harsh reality faced by its customers in their day-to-day life” ( MAC Partnership. www.macpartnership.com ) . The second step is translating this reality into a new “value curve” for the organization and  reallocation of resources. The third step is identification of key influences within the organization and the forth is creation of new alliances external to the organization.  Though stated in business terms, this certainly is consistent with Christians trying to bring Christ to the unchurched.   An understanding of the realities the unchurched face in their daily lives and how to address them is essential in opening a dialogue.  Of course this should not be an excuse for abandoning biblical principles.   In case one might be contemplating the gospel message should  be presented in the same way to every group, I would invite you to examine Peter’s address to the Jews on Pentecost in Acts 2 vs. Paul’s address to the Athenians in Acts 17.  The approaches and appeals are entirely different.

Initially the “worship wars’ centered on “music in worship” , but are in reality much deeper than that.  By and large,  the leadership in the churches of Christ  have a “modern” world-view.  This is normal as “elders” in the churches of Christ are normally “older men” who are steeped in the traditions of church “success”.   This means, that the eldership focuses as a rule on  attendance and giving to determine the success and health of the congregation.  One has only to look at what is overtly measured.  In smaller congregations attendance and the offering are “posted” on a board ( along with song selections) in the auditorium.  In larger congregations this is what is posted in the bulletins.  On the contrary, it is rare that individual works of service or spiritual attributes are even thought about being measured in congregations.  In some congregations, there is now a move to increase “spiritual formation”, but it is uncommon that any real definition ( biblical or otherwise) is formulated to “measure” what this means in practice.

Pressure on attendance has been increasing in faith groups for some time.  Only 20% or less of the U.S. population attends “church” on any given Sunday. (www.religiononline.com; www.religioustolerance.org ) The churches of Christ are not immune to this trend (see the Christian Chronicle: “The Community Church Trend” Parts I and II ) The usual modern world-view response to this trend has been to adopt an intense “attractional” mode of worship  and service.  Basically, this is a "consumer” approach—if we will build it they will come.  If we ….  have the best preaching, have the best worship service, provide the best “programs” and  generally if “we will do worship” better our attendance will increase and our giving will increase.  The “community church” model is based upon these assumptions.  This model uses market analysis to profile the unchurched, uses a neutral name, provides a non-traditional atmosphere, uses the worship service to entertain, preaches “practical messages, and usually features music.   A “professional” service is used with a “worship leader” and a polished pulpit speaker.   Not much is expected of members other than attendance and giving.   Some churches of Christ have adopted some portions of this model in order to boost membership and giving.  The most common portions adopted include the charismatic public speaker, the “slick” professional service, and use of more modern music. Sometimes “praise teams” are employed.  Some have even adopted an instrumental music service. Some have adopted a neutral name.  Classically, elderships have accommodated the consumer tastes of the congregation by adopting a “traditional” service and a “contemporary” service  These changes to  appeal to the baby boomer modern mentality.  It also “attracts” members of the same faith group who are dissatisfied with their current congregation.  Unfortunately, this consumer approach also promotes “church hopping”.  In addition, though growing rapidly in the 1990’s, the community church movement and “seeker” friendly models of worship have begun to “lose steam” (see “Why Willow Creek and Saddleback are Losing Steam…. http://blog.ourchurch.com/2009/07/30/why-willow-creek-and-saddleback-are-losing-influence-while-north-point-and-lifechurchtv-are-gaining-influence/

).  With our population becoming more and more postmodern in world-view this approach entirely misses the majority of the totally unchurched. 

A few elderships in churches of Christ have begun to have an awareness that something is indeed wrong.  That awareness includes the fact that we no longer are evangelistic as a group--- as evident by the lack of the emphasis on evangelism within our congregations and the lack of baptisms from the community.   We are also diminishing in numbers in the U. S. This has been true since the peak was reached in 1980 according to Flavil Yeakly  There was a 4.1% decline in congregations and a 4.7% decline in membership from 2003 to 2009 ( Bobby Ross, “The Church in America Marked by Decline” , The Christian Chronicle,  Feb. 2009) 

The introduction of the attitudes of postmoderns and the unchurched are predictably introduced by newcomers to the congregation.  Or in some cases, the congregation might have a well read elder or leader who keeps up with what is happening in the religious world.  He may have even read Guder’s book “ Missional Church- A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America” or similar works.  Unwilling to adopt the “community  church” model,  elderships may “latch onto” the missional term in order to “do evangelism” and get more members into the congregation.  Lacking a real theological understanding of what it takes or means to transform a congregation, they  hire a minister to be the visionary leader and do this transformation for them.  The other lack of understanding is the tremendous length of time and energy it takes  to make this transformation.  At the very least it will probably take 10 years or more to fully make this transition. Think of how long it has taken some congregations to accept “kitchens” in the church building or the use of “gyms”. It reportedly took Jack Welsh  10 years to change the culture of GE.    One leader of a 700+ member congregation in the Dallas area charged with forming the strategies and tactics for such a transformation projects a minimum of a generation to make the change.

The above lack of understanding by the eldership  of: 1) the theology of a missional church 2) what changes must occur within the structures and practices  of the congregation for it to become missional 3) the support needed by the visionary missional leader charged with leading this transformation 4) the opposition by the loyalist within the congregation 5) the skills needed by supporting staff and the unwillingness to change staff when needed 6) the length of time necessary and 7) that the missional church model is not based on numbers, finances, nor on bringing the already “churched” into membership, leads to another tipping point.    

Fundamentally, this is a lack of understanding of what will  bring about a change in the values of the membership—this includes  Spiritual Commitment ( including giving).  It also is a mis-interpretation of what “church” is all about. The traditional church understanding of commitment is this commitment comes about by a baptized believer attending factually based bible classes  and listening to scriptural sermons.  True spiritual commitment is measured by : 1) ones attitude towards their faith (gives meaning and purpose, gives inner peace, is in every aspect of my life),  2) ones spiritual behaviors ( spending time in worship and prayer every day, forgiving those who have hurt them, called to develop and use their strengths, will take unpopular stands to defend their faith, will encourage others, will invite others to church, will volunteer to serve the community, will give financially) , 3) and ones satisfaction  in life.  According to a 2004 Gallop poll (   The Gallop Faith Practice-Growing Engaged Congregations Presentation, Princeton: The Gallop Organization), commitment does not come about by attending doctrinally correct bible classes and excellent preaching. .  Rather it comes about by Spiritual Engagement. Spiritual Engagement is defined by positive answers to the following:1) Am I valued; Do I make a meaningful contribution? 2) Do I know what is expected of me? 3) Are my spiritual needs being met ?4) Do I have a regular opportunity to do what I do best ? 5) In the last month have I received recognition or praise? 6) Do the leaders seem to care about me? 7) Is there is someone who encourages my spiritual development? 8) Do my opinions seem to count  9) Does the purpose of my congregation makes me feel my participation is important? 10) Aside from my family members, Do I have a best friend in my congregation?11) In the last six months has someone talked to me about my spiritual growth? and 12) Do I have opportunities to learn and grow?  Gallop research shows that congregation engagement ( by individual members) leads to spiritual commitment and spiritual health.  Those who are engaged as defined above are: 1) spiritual committed at 8 times as high as those that are not 2) Are twice as likely to be satisfied with their lives 3) Are 8 times as likely to invite others to their churches 4) Volunteer at least twice as many hours per week in their community and 5) Give up to 3 times as much money to their churches

Elderships would do well to heed the above if they wish to improve attendance and giving.   The above elements of engagement are precisely those targeted in the missional church approach.  They compote well with what postmoderns value particularly authenticity,, narrative, experiences, community, relationships, and service.   If the eldership has not properly translated the challenges of its members ( as well as its potential members) into this new “value curve”, they are likely to fail in any transformation effort. The above also points out the need for a true team approach from the visionary missional leader, the elders, and staff.  Otherwise, no visionary leader can accomplish the above in a large congregation.

Though the decision to bring in a visionary missional minister may have been made in nominally “consensus” way, this does not mean that everyone in a eldership really “buys into” the concept.   Steeped in the traditional loyalist points of view of “church”, little patience may be exhibited if attendance and giving do not immediately “pick up” with the arrival of this minister.    A missional approach will also start incorporating elements of the community that “do not look like” the typical members of the congregation.  Normal traditional  benevolent activites become true opportunities to share the gospel in the missional thrust.  Outreach efforts to the community ( whether things like Habitat for Humanity, Celebrate Recovery, or others similar efforts ) attract many who are “different” from members who have been “in the church” for decades.  The younger postmodern generation who may be reached by “third place” activities also bring entirely new ways of thinking-----many wishing to experience the life of the community before committing to it.   Numerical and financial growth are necessarily slow during the first years.  It is only after a “critical mass” is reached within the congregation where the eldership  has “raised up a new generation of  leaders” that one can reasonably begin to see significant numerical and financial growth—though that should never be the focus. 

Forgetting that the redeemed body of church does not consist of “those that look like us”,  outreach to forgotten members of society is not valued.  But as Paul wrote to the church at Corinth: “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ^10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ^11 And that is what some of you were^”  A church that “seeks and saves the lost” will have those who exhibit the typical ills of their culture in their midst.  If the eldership discounts membership and inclusion by such members because they cannot contribute financially and targets those that can do so, one must question whether that is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord.  There is no precedence in scripture that I can find for targeting those they can give financially ( in biblical terms it would be “the rich”) . 

Inevitably, there will be a time within the eldership when a tipping point is reached.  This tipping point occurs with either the majority yields to the loyalist or patriot sentiment within the group.  If the loyalist group prevails, then the visionary minister will be let go or forced out with the reason that “ the eldership wished to go in a different direction”.  If the patriot view prevails, this will probably result in the resignation of the traditionalist elders.  In extreme cases, the traditionalist elders may lead a likeminded group to form another congregation ( another case of “we meant to govern ourselves).

There is another possible reason for a tipping point to be reached. With a modern worldview, the eldership will revert to “looking at the numbers”.  This will be particularly true if the congregation is large and have a large building debt.     Fear prevails.  It may be that there are no loyalist within the eldership that are traditionalist in their approach.  They may not be any who have any real objection to either the missional theology nor to what is done in worship.  But focusing on attendance and giving, they believe “something must be done”.  Instead of relying on God and prayer, those with the modern worldview turn to the business model planning and strategies that are used in the corporate world.   Instead of looking within themselves and their own leadership, they naturally look outward to the visionary leader they have brought in.  If this view becomes a tipping point within the eldership itself, then it natural that this eldership will want to cast an entirely different vision for the congregation—one that may play lip service to a missional approach ( or using the more common term “outreach”), but in reality is focused on the traditional measures of success –numbers and dollars.    In this case, one of several scenarios may play out.  In one case the eldership may ask the minister to “change the focus of his message –or abandon the missional thrust altogether.  In another, the minister may be asked to leave. 

Another option that might occur is just “to wait the visionary minister out”.  In this scenario, the leadership is unwilling to do anything directly ( perhaps because of patriot support for the visionary ministry within the congregation).  But simply concludes the minister will leave of his own accord if the eldership does not overtly support his missional thrust. Note that in all options, it is the minister that must change.  Such elderships do not ask themselves to change nor involve or request massive input from the congregation.  

It is the difficulty in bringing about a positive “tipping point” for creating a missional transformation  in existing congregations that is responsible for the “church planting movement” for evangelism. ( Research).   One aspect of the missional approach is the emphasis on creating true discipleship in members.  True discipleship results in replication and organic grow of members.  It is this “DNA”  that is dormant in existing traditional congregations.  And, it is almost impossible to “wake up” this DNA.  But, new church plants, though froth with their own set of problems, do not have this problem.  From the outset, members are mentored to use their gifts to reach out to others – and do not necessarily need “formal programs” controlled by the governing elite of the congregation to do so.  Instead, since growth is in their DNA they grow organically.   Indeed the fastest growth in Christianity worldwide is through church planting efforts.   This being a reality, perhaps a passionate missional minister would do well to engage in church planting rather than traditional church transformation. 

We started this discussion with the “mash-up” of the ideas of liberty vs. rule by an elite ( the Loyalist and Patriots of the American Revolution or the ideas of freedom vs. security ( provided by the ruling elite ) embodied in the American health care debate with similar themes and players when a traditional church is being transformed into a missional church.  We have examined some of the “tipping points” that can occur and the reasons for them.   What may we conclude if anything?

 First, the reason given by the American patriot Captain Preston when he said “we always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to.  They didn't mean we should” really does apply.   If sufficient numbers of the congregations become engaged in missional activities, then they will assert themselves to  “govern themselves”.    If on the other hand the traditionalist have sufficient numbers and leaders, they will “govern themselves” and the missional thrust will fail.  Within the eldership, the same sentiments and actions will occur.  The themes of freedom vs. security play out throughout the various scenarios given.   The visionary leader has the constant need for the freedom to lead and recast the purpose of the church to “seek and save the lost” .  He must have the freedom and support to “equip” and prepare member to use their gifts in works of service.  Though he cannot do this alone, the freedom and support to do through others must be available.  This freedom is nearly always opposed by the security of “doing things as we have always done them”.

Second, the reasons for a congregation being transformed or not are many and complex.  Even the scenarios I have stipulated are simple as usually there will be mix of reasons.

Third, creating a tipping point for transforming an existing congregation is exceeding difficult.  Not much has been said in the above about the Hand of God in this process except the statements about prayer.  Without a commitment by all players to rely on prayer and God it is unlikely such attempts will succeed.

Fourth, unless there is a true understanding of and commitment to missional theology by the leadership,  efforts are not likely to succeed.  Likewise, a true team effort by the eldership, visionary ministry leader, and staff is required. 

Fifth, a new church plant that has the missional church DNA from the beginning is more likely to succeed.

Where does this leave both existing traditional congregations and visionary missional leaders?  Does this mean that there is no hope for existing congregations to recapture the spirit of evangelism that used to be a hall mark of the churches of Christ?  I would suggest there is good news and bad news.  The bad news is some traditional congregations are certainly “graying” , dying out, and closing their doors.  Others are in the midst of a battle ( or if you will a Revolution of Loyalist vs. Patriots) the results of which are not yet known.  Others, have leadership that understands the issues in this discussion and are moving towards the missional model.  They may or may not have success.  The other good news is that there is a new generation of visionary, biblical based, missional leaders that will not accept either defeat nor mediocrity in a congregation they  serve.  Either these leaders will be supported or they will “move on” to plant truly missional churches.

With the decline in attendance and membership of traditional churches of Christ in the U. S. as well as that in main line denominations, the U. S. is probably approaching a “tipping point” where the church as we know it could slowly fade.  It will do so until another “Great Awaking” moved by the Holy Spirit revives our people.  On the other hand it is very possible that the Holy Spirit will ble^ss the Church Planting Movement,  Missional Church theology, or is currently working in some other manner.  For  ^{Acts 17}:^{26 “}from one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. ^27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.^” This could “tip” the U.S. towards another Great Awaking.

What are your thoughts on the above?