Good Reads

Can't believe I've let a month go by since my last post!

I wanted to call attention to two books I'm currently reading, both of which so far appear to be great reads for church leaders. And they're not Christian books.



I don't want to jump the gun on either work, but they are both really good in two very different ways. The Organizational Champion takes a new view on leadership. While we typically think of leaders as those in charge of an organization, author (and Arkansas native) Mike Thompson argues that organizational champions can be found in any number of areas. This is especially encouraging for those of us who are not in a shepherding role of a church or ministry, but nonetheless want to be a part of positive change, efficiency, and growth within. And though this book is not aimed at church leaders, it provides a framework through which leaders and change agents within any organization can gain ideas, inspiration, and motivation to take initiative.



The Present is an allegorical exchange between a young and old man. The old man, playing the role of sage instructor, encourages the young man to focus on the gift of the moment. While I am (in some respects) a planner, I too often forget about opportunities I have in the here and now. Most people I'm around seem to do the same thing. What would happen if those leading our churches and the ministries within those churches recognized the power of the immediate tense? What more could we accomplish with our time and how much more effective could we be? The Present, through the power of narrative, presents readers with the fact that the present does not change, allowing us to put all of our energy into it rather than planning for and worrying over it. The present is now, so we are free to do something with it now. A great word of encouragement in the midst of an ever-changing culture.

So what are you reading now? Many books exist with great information on leadership, motivation, and organizational change. If you are a church leader, it would do you good to be reading one.

How Great the Pain of Searing Loss...

This has been a tough week for me. Two of my favorite shows went off the air. Their series finales were shown on Sunday and Monday nights. I'm speaking of Lost and 24. No more Jack Shepherd. No more CTU. No more Smoke Monster sightings or digital tick-tock commercial breaks. No longer will I hear Sawyer's insulting quips, Chloe's ridiculously bad acting, or either shows uncanny ability to make me eager to get to the next week. They are done. And I am all alone.




Not really alone, per say. I'm actually one of millions affected by the ends of both. These are two of the longest relationships I've had with shows, both of which I began in my first year out of college. I've watched every single episode. I am fully invested in every major character, and it almost feels like losing someone who played an integral part of my life. Of course, I'm being dramatic. Life will go on, other shows will take their place, and each actor will go on to other projects. While I and many others will argue that there may never be a show like Lost or 24 again, it will be ok. We will survive.



It's incredible how hard it can be to lose something so ingrained in our everyday function. Either show was a normal topic of conversation among friends. Both contained thematic elements I'd casually reference with others whom I knew watched. One of my buddies even checked into his honeymoon suite under the name Jack Bauer. Now that these programs no longer exist, there will be an adjustment period for many. And this time I'm not being dramatic; literally, we will have to adjust to our new reality.

Change is a difficult thing. I say that as someone who welcomes new surroundings, ideas, and people. I don't typically like routine, I can't stand monotony, and I absolutely abhor life without progress. So while I enjoy change, I know it's not easy. In fact, change is one of the hardest things for churches to endure. Anytime individuals have a constant (nice Lost reference) removed from them, it regularly takes a while for life to settle down. Organizations are made up of multiple individuals, in many ways subscribing to a group-think mindset. Once again, the adjustment is more drastic because the change affects many. Because there are multiple types of changes that churches must deal with, I'm going to focus on one in this post: when one of your own moves away.

I hate losing people. It's hard when people leave over conflict or differing preferences or any other reason you could think of. But when people move away, its almost harder because they want to go to a new city or new job, but not a new church. They are sad and you are sad. And it gets worse if they are people who had many responsibilities in the church. I write this with someone in mind.



At the end of the summer in 2008, Epoch Church had to go through this very thing. We lost Justin and Robyn Bourlon, when Justin took a new position with Kraft in Rogers, Arkansas, located 3 hours away. They had both been there from the beginning. Justin had left a church he was attending to be a part of the start-up, and Robyn became a part of the church immediately after she moved to Little Rock. They become engaged and married while they were with Epoch, Justin headed up our finance committee, they were small group leaders, etc., etc. It was a hard loss. Oh, not to mention that Justin was and is one of my closest friends. Several others in the church were in the same boat as I was. It was incredibly difficult to have been such a big part of their lives, for them to be such a big part of ours, and to know that there were several roles that needed filling in a church without a lot of resources.

Soon after, a newlywed couple in our church volunteered to lead a small group. They had agreed to take the first year of their marriage to not accept other responsibilities and focus on each other. They reached their 1 year anniversary a month after the Bourlons moved away, and they recognized the need existing in their church. A few months after this, a new couple began coming to Epoch who had moved to be campus ministers at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Several months later, our small groups expanded and they became leaders. Just before this, a recent college graduate named Sam moved to Little Rock and became active with Epoch. He was in the process of passing his CPA. Therefore, he was an obvious choice to lead the finance team. He accepted and has willingly served ever since. Flash forward almost two years since Justin and Robyn left, and we still miss them. We could still use them. But their absence led to a realized need among the community. People volunteered to take their place.



Do you know why muscles get bigger when you lift weights? If muscle fibers are strained enough, they tear. Through the synthesizing of protein, these torn muscles are rebuilt with the capacity to take on the load that was previously applied to them. Through this process of the body adapting, lifters get stronger. This is an accurate picture of what can happen in a church when volunteer leaders leave. Much like a pruned bush, a broken bone, or an over-worked bicep, churches can grow stronger through these instances. If Justin and Robyn had not left, who knows if that first couple would have stepped up to become small group leaders? Maybe Sam would have never been asked to join the finance team. The Bourlon's absence, from an organizational stance, may have been a positive thing because of the urgency with which people in the church recognized a need for more leaders.

Change can be a tough pill to swallow. But in this case, we clearly see how a young church had an opportunity to be strengthened by losing some of its key leaders. I am not suggesting that you should be happy when leaders go; on the contrary, I dread the next time I see a friend move off (or I move off myself). What I firmly believe, however, is that churches must view changes within their communities as opportunities to be strengthened. And if you've noticed, I have only focused on organizational structure - I've said nothing about the work of the Holy Spirit, who is far better at preparing us to embrace and grow during changing times than we could prepare for on our own. The next time your church loses someone crucial to its mission, take your time to mourn. Take your time preparing for what must be done to fill their shoes. But be excited over who will step up and carry the load. When a church follows God's direction, there is literally no limit to who He will use and how He will use them, and what He will accomplish with what He has.

In other words, change can be an awesome thing.

Diffusion of Church Relevance

In the 1980's, America was undergoing its own AIDS crisis, especially in San Francisco. One of the projects responsible for drastically slowing down the spread of AIDS in San Fran was called Stop AIDS (not exactly catchy, but whatever). The key approach utilized by members of the Stop AIDS project was small group diffusion. Stop AIDS employed outreach workers to set up small group meetings throughout the gay community to discuss ways to prevent the spread of HIV. At the end of each small group session, the leader would ask those who would practice these measures and organize a small group meeting themselves to raise their hands.



Stop AIDS trained over 7,000 small group leaders and reached over 30,000 people through small group meetings. In 1983, there were 8,000 new cases of AIDS. By 1985, there were 650 new cases, which is still 650 important lives, but a dramatic decrease of new infections (91%).

This is a case I've read over, analyzed, and studied on numerous occasions. Stop AIDS used a communication theory called Diffusion of Innovations, which was the theory I covered in my master's thesis. There are many different areas that this theory can/has/should be applied within churches. Most churches already indirectly practice this. Small groups, community groups, cell groups, or any other name you choose to attach, is small group diffusion. But when we say the word "innovation," we're clearly referring to a new idea. Church small groups are not a new idea - but using small groups to spread the gospel may be (at least in America).

I've heard of newer church plants in progressive cities employing this type of outreach. Bread & Wine Church in Portland appears to center themselves around small group meetings. Duke Revard, one of Bread & Wine's pastors, explains their approach this way: "Gospel Communities are the central rhythm of Bread&Wine. We come together because of the Gospel. We are growing up into a deeper understanding and application of the Gospel. We are taking the Gospel to the neighborhood/city/world through intentional missional engagement. I believe this is the most effective way to reach an increasingly secular society."

Those subscribing to the Diffusion of Innovation model would agree. In less-churched areas of the country, regular involvement in a Christian community is a new idea to most. But why would breaking down the idea of a thriving, growing, multi-media driven church to that of a decentralized, small group-based, simple approach be so effective in a metropolitan, cutting-edge city like Portland? If you asked Revard, it comes largely down to cultural relevance. "People in the increasing post-Christian Pacific NW see church buildings as an injustice," says Revard. He goes on to explain that many Oregonians see large church buildings and technological approaches as money spent on self rather than meeting needs of people. "Therefore, the attractional model has seen its day, and we have to adapt."

As post-modern and anti-establishment as this approach sounds, the foundational purpose is to bring the Gospel to places and people where it is absent. If we go back to the previously mentioned diffusion of innovation theory, a specific criteria exists that new ideas must adhere to in order to be adopted. These 5 major characteristics are as follows:

1. Relative Advantage - There must more pros than cons to the new idea over the old idea it seeks to replace

2. Compatibility - It must meet the demand of the population to which its being introduced

3. Complexity - It must not be complicated to understand and apply
4. Trialability - It must be tried before one must commit to or make a decision about the new idea

5. Observability - Positive results of the new idea's adoption must be recognizable

1.With regards to introducing the idea of Christian community to the Pacific Northwest, Bread & Wine appears to have provided an innovation with the right elements to be adopted. A church community based off of small groups with the mission of being servant leaders in their neighborhoods holds appealing advantages to Portland's culture as opposed to the centralized church building model.

2. A culture already engaged in social justice issues (feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, eating healthy) is compatible to a church that seeks to accomplish the same thing.

3. Having never been to Portland, I can't say this definitively. However, I've read the blogs, the books, and asked the questions. People in this part of the country are already looking for ways to stick it to the man and stand up for the little guy. Portland neighborhoods are full of people wanting to do good for others. Showing the community that this is Christ's desire too bridges a perceived gap that exists between human rights and Christian spirituality. The two should overlap, and Bread & Wine makes this a foundational tenet.

4. One thing that most smaller churches are great at is welcoming guests. Its hard to imagine a church with a Gospel community emphasis being anything less than welcoming to people who want to see what they are about. In a way, church communities are in a constant state of trialability.

5. This is the kicker. People will not continue with a community if they perceive their lives to be better off without said community. Many improvements may not be tangible. However, salvation, discipleship, biblical training, service opportunities, and neighborhood renewal result in noticeable results.

Bread & Wine's approach is working. In March 2009 they launched their first gospel community. Flash forward a little more than a year later and they are preparing to add their sixth, each consisting of 10-12 people. For those keeping score at home, that's a 500% growth rate in 14 months in a post-Christian, anti-American church culture. Clearly there is a work of the Holy Spirit going on here that cannot be seen, tasted, touched, or strategically planned by man. But there is a lot to be said for the structure of Bread & Wine and their approach to embrace the culture of Portland in order to bridge the perceived gap between followers of Jesus Christ and a thirst for social justice and genuine community.

As the idea of belonging to a church is being diffused throughout downtown Portland, many more people are likely to join these gospel communities. That's what typically happens when new ideas enter the early adoption phase within a population. Church planters in other American cities should take note of this new approach and pay attention to the model of small group diffusion. While no one can guarantee the absolute best practice for planting a ministry, social and cultural trends should be practiced. In many cases this is happening, and Bread & Wine is just one example. As the Church becomes more innovative in its outreach efforts, connectedness to its external community, and response to social concerns, I believe even post-Christian circles will realize its relevance.

Community

Remember that episode of Friends when Rachel takes up smoking? She had just gotten a promotion with Ralph Lauren, but her boss and a co-worker would make all the decisions when they would go out on a smoke break. To ensure she wouldn't be left behind, Rachel picked up a cigarette and pretended to puff like a pro. Smoking was portrayed poorly on that show, and Rachel's character admitted to her friends that she hated the very smell of cigarettes. She simply didn't want to be left out. Smoking was the only way to ensure this would not happen, so she adapted herself.

I'm part of a church that puts major emphasis on community. I don't mean we all live in the same part of town (not sure if that would be more cool or more cult), but that we try to instill the idea that church should go beyond the corporate and small group gatherings. The Church at Rock Creek has a great saying: It's More Than Just Church...It's Life. That's a powerful statement, and one that can be a double-edged sword.

When you try to do church this way, there is the risk of hurting feelings. If a group of people who are all part of the same church get together, it's probably going to be seen as a church-related function. In one way, this is unfair to do, as a church should not be judged by the actions of a small portion of its population. On the other hand, a church is the people, and if we are really trying to view our life as community-based, even the smallest of get-togethers are technically a function of the church.

But how about the hurt feelings? Within any organization or community, there will always be those more sensitive than others. For those of us who are typically the "organizers" of a get-together, I think it's pretty selfish when we fail to include others whom we know would like to share an evening with us (and by the way, EVERYONE has left someone out or been left out before - therefore we're all guilty and should all be sympathetic to this situation). From this point of view, though difficult, the ideal approach to hanging out is to include everyone with whom you worship.

One problem of including everyone is that your group will eventually get so big that you can't go anywhere together as one. Waiting on grub for 2 hours because you need a table for 30 gets old. Additionally, it's unreasonable to expect someone will remember to call all 700 people they see in church every time there is a social gathering. Also, I don't know many people who's homes can comfortably seat their entire church. And finally, most of us are involved in more than one circle of friends, both within and without our church bodies. To invite everybody to a single gathering means we'll be putting people in a room who don't know each other and won't have anything to say to each other. That can be awkward. So from this perspective, it may be better if we don't always seek to include everyone we worship with to our gatherings.

The paradox continues.

I think back to Jesus, and how he had his group of disciples whom he constantly surrounded himself with. Sometimes he even retreated from large crowds to be with them. We have evidence of him spending more time with 3 disciples than the others, and 1 whom he might have spent the most time with out of them all. It's clear when we look at the life of Jesus that he did not play favorites, but he did have a core group he was close to.

Yet, a part of Jesus' ministry that we often miss is that he constantly spent time apart from his group of regulars. His disciples tried to take him away from a group of children - he stayed with the kiddos and illustrated a lesson his followers needed to learn about immeasurable faith. When crowds swarmed around him, he found a Rudy-sized tax collector named Zacchaeus and then grabbed dinner with him. He welcomed a prostitute to the table who came to kneel at his feet seeking to leave behind a life with no king. An outcast woman in John 4 needed water; Jesus had a long conversation with her beside a well, then sent for her to bring by everyone she knew so he could visit with them, too. He met up with a Pharisee one night who wanted to know more about this new birth Jesus spoke of.

Despite the fact that Jesus had a core group, Jesus purposefully made time for people he did not regularly hang out with.

What does this tell us about Jesus? What message about him does this remind us of? That he had love for humanity? Sure, a love that brought about compassion for the weak, healing for the sick, and purpose for the disengaged. That he sought to connect people? I think so. First, within his own original disciples he pulled together people from all walks of life. Some lowly fisherman, an educated accountant, a traitorous tax collector, a politically vocal Jewish patriot, and others. Then, he brought those disciples to people outside of their comfort zones - the sick and injured, foreigners, government officials, poor people, rich people, and everyone in-between. And what's more: Christ's disciples continued to interact with different groups after his death and resurrection.

So how is the church supposed to react and respond? Certainly community-driven churches must do a good job with spending time together outside of a building. In forming a community that is tightly knit, we must walk that fine line to where it does not become an exclusive club. And it must be made up of individuals who are willing to get outside of their core group to connect with others - perhaps even bringing these "outsiders" in to the existing core group.

What could happen if your community was made up of people like that? Not people who just want to hang out amongst themselves all the time, but people who are continually reaching out to others? People who are willing to miss out on an occasional night with their regulars to make a connection with someone else who needs their influence? I think we'd be surprised what would happen within our churches, and also within our personal lives. If we became people who sought to live within a community while also seeking those outside our community because we realize we are a part of a greater community - the Kingdom of God - where we all share in a reward none can surpass.

Let's re-visit that Rachel Green instance from earlier. In pretending to be a smoker, she faked who she was for acceptance into a group. Without such a forgery, she would have been excluded from certain activities. You and I have probably done this too. We pretend to like a video game, band, restaurant, or author just so we'll not be excluded the next time the group takes part in a related activity. Erving Goffman, considered to be the most well-known sociologist of the 20th century, believed in a presentational self, wherein people take on a certain image of themselves and portray that image over other aspects of their personality. While deemed normal to a sociologist, I believe such a presentational self dangerously threatens our ability to be genuine. The church, I believe, can facilitate the deconstruction of the presentational self. And if we are to live in a vibrant, authentic community, it's necessary for people to know that they do not have to present themselves, but rather to be themselves.

As a church leader, you can make an impact on the way people interact. Communication does not just play a key role, it is the key role. Below are a few brief tips in how to implement this deconstruction of the presentational self into your community-driven church:

1. Make a commitment to speak to someone you do not know at your church's next corporate gathering. Privately tell others within any sort of leadership position in the church to do the same. Organizations follow the example of their leaders.

2. Avoid hanging out with the same people every weekend night, and instead...

3. ...intentionally spend quality time on a weekend night with someone you are just an acquaintance with.

4. Repeat #3 in the near future.

5. Eliminate the phrase "our group." When we label ourselves as a "group", anyone on the outside becomes an "other". This clearly contradicts the New Testament model of a church body.

6. When organizing a get-together, tell those you invite that everyone is welcome. It's impossible for you to invite everyone, but bringing more people in on the invitation process will eliminate the exclusive group mindset.

The presentational self dilemma directly correlates to this close-knit community crisis. If someone feels excluded from a group (and receiving no invitation is a form of exclusion), the first thing he or she will do is stress over why they weren't invited. This leads them to the conclusion that there is something about themselves they must change, or that they must highlight something different in conversations. Such constraints keep people guarded, insecure, and fake - traits that cannot exist for authentic community to take place.

This is a convoluted issue, to be sure. And pastors, along with others in leadership positions, can do a great job of practicing an inclusive lifestyle, yet still have the problem of exclusive hang-outs and presentational conversations take place within their communities. What is required for disposing of this problem is a concentrated group effort, with a focused desire to eliminate exclusivity. It will start from the top down. The community must be continually reminded to break free from their comfortable "inner-circles" and include new people into their lives.

When our churches learn -- not just occasionally practice -- how to become a truly unified community, we will gain a better understanding of what our world needs. We will be a part of positive change because we were first changed, and we understand what it means to be a biblically-based community.

"They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer...They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those were being saved."

Acts 2:42,46-47

Systems, Machines, & Other Likeable Things

What do you think of when you hear the term "The System"?

How about the phrase "a cog in the machine"?

We don't view either of these phrases in positive ways. In fact, we usually talk about ways of "beating the system" and refer to company men as "just another cog in the machine."

Often times, we take this approach to organizations because we think of them as easily corruptible. And true, this can (and has) happened many times over. However, despite the many times corporate corruption has infiltrated groups that began with a good purpose, I believe the organization still has the best chance to bring about positive change. An individual can be a great champion and cheerleader, but he or she must have a supporting cast to carry out the mission. A cast where everyone has a specific task that is different, yet brings to life the over-arching goal. For this reason, it is a powerful thing to be a cog in the machine and a small part in a big system.

Take the human body, for example. The gallbladder is just one of many organs. It's one of the smaller organs, only 6-9 centimeters in length. We can actually live without this tiny organ, even though it helps us process and breakdown the food we eat. Yet, missing a gallbladder carries serious setbacks. People living without a gallbladder cannot eat large meals. Because the gall bladder secretes bile into the small intestines, which helps digest fat, people without one must instead eat snack-sized portions throughout the day. Eating smaller portions prevents the "dumping syndrome" in which food is too quickly transported from the stomach to the small intestines. So while the human body can continue living without this organ, the digestive system is at a large disadvantage in its absence.

The gallbladder is a part of a greater system - the digestive system, to be exact. The digestive system is part of an even bigger operating machine, which we call the human body. Within this body are even more systems, namely the circulatory, musculo-skeletal, endocrine, nervous, excretory, integumentary, reproductive, and respiratory systems. Within each system are many more parts, some of which are large, and some even smaller than the gallbladder. Because each system in the body is made up of parts working together to meet the same goal, it works. When even one part in this overall system goes down, the whole body suffers.

The same can said of organizations. Many systems exist within any given organization. These systems are made up of people and functions, and no matter which function people find themselves in, the work they do matters for the health of the organization.

Like any other organization, churches certainly have their systems. Teaching teams, worship leaders, small groups, outreach groups, mission teams, and finance teams are typical for most churches. They each meet specific needs within a church, and each are very important. And while any of these parts are capable of being corrupted, they are more likely to produce something beneficial for the overall system. More than just another cog in the machine, each part is THE cog for THAT specific function of the machine.

So what part do you play in your church? I write this assuming you play a specific role, as this site is for leaders. And if, in fact, you do play a role, how are you viewing your place in the system? How do you view the system?

General systems theory is a great framework for church leaders to consider. Through this framework, we see our churches as a group of parts working together for the same reason.

I mentioned many parts of this in my first post, but this theory is essential for anyone involved in organizational work. Therefore, it's worth repeating many times over. The system or machine can be a good thing, and it's an inescapable part of accomplishing positive change. What we must remember as leaders is to play our role in the systems we lead. We must put in our strengths and allow others to put their strengths into the same system. When we view our churches in such a way, we empower individuals with different abilities to be a part of the same goal.

This is how our churches will collectively change the world.

What to Say?

This Sunday marks a special day: Easter. More than Cadbury Cream Eggs or Chocolate Bunnies, Easter is the day the Church celebrates Christ's resurrection from the grave. And while Christmas is the day most of us get more excited about, what Easter commemorates is truly what separates Christianity from any other religion.

Easter Sunday also happens to be the day that church buildings are most packed. Attending an Easter service is as expected as watching the Super Bowl - while few people watch every football game during the season, just about everyone will sit down for the end-of-year extravaganza.

This leaves pastors with the tough decision of what to preach. Now largely, the decision is made by the Christian calendar. The message will likely focus on the death, burial, and ascension. But there is a decision as to what kind of take-away to leave the audience with. After all, some of those in attendance will not hear another sermon for 365 days.

By the grace and omniscience of God, I do not pastor a church. And since I do not have the responsibility or pressure of making such a decision this week, I will forgo using this little platform to suggest which direction to go. I will, however, list several ideas for pastors to consider as they prepare for this Sunday's message. Although churches across the world have many different structures and will use different formats, they will all (in some way) present a gospel message. By now, most pastors have probably finished the major points of their sermons; but I hope these points will be considered as the finishing touches are added.

1. What does the resurrection of Christ communicate to the world?

2. What does the resurrection of Christ communicate to the Church?

3. How does the answer to question 1 differ from question 2, and how do they compliment each other?

4. What does the message from the resurrection of Christ do?

Here is what I believe on all 4 questions. The fact that God would send his Son to suffer and die for the world communicates that He values every person in the world. The resurrection displays the power that accompanies this value, proving that God is a loving God. To those of us who buy into this idea, I've said nothing ground-breaking. However, those who have seen the extreme poverty and government-imposed injustice of 3rd world countries, experienced harsh judgment from a church, or witnessed hypocrisy from those claiming to follow Christ, often have a hard time believing in a loving God. The resurrection serves as an explicit reminder of the existence of such a being.

For question number 2, I believe Christ's resurrection reminds the Church, his followers, that we will be raised from the dead with Him one day. This life, with all its pain, misery, discomfort, and even its joy, will not overcome our need for Him, nor will our imminent last breaths overshadow what He will do with and for us in the end.

For question 3, of course both answers revolve around Christ's doing. The power connected to God's value on the created human race is the same for those who are in Christ and those who observe from a distance. But I believe an important difference is that those who are not Christ-followers will not experience the love this power comes from without turning to it. Therefore, while an individual's response can neither create nor destroy God's power, the openness of the human heart and the willingness of the human mind to embrace this phenomenon is required to one day experience the resurrection of Christ.

As for question 4, a lot. If we focus on the semantic meaning of "resurrection", we find polar opposites represented. Christ was dead (and beginning to decay), and then He was alive. What does this mean for a heart as far away from God as possible? For the Satanic ritualist? The murderer? The rapist? The pornographer? The gossip? The liar? The adulterer? All of these are far from God, yet none of them are dead. What about the Muslim, Hindi, Sikh, Buddhist, Taoist, or Jew? What about the agnostic or athiest? All of these hold a view of a non-divine Jesus, yet none of these are in physical decay. Christ has already overcome much more, but we often look at these situations and people of such different beliefs as lost causes. The resurrection changed everything, and it continues to change how we view reality. Linguistically, we can understand what is meant by "resurrection." Spiritually we can experience it for ourselves. And physically, we believe that Christ truly overcame death and decay to make hope possible for the world.

For those who will teach the masses this weekend, consider these 4 questions. However you choose to do it, clearly communicate the message God gave the world.

Reducing the Uncertainty of a Visitor

Uncertainty takes many forms and exists across many different arenas within any organization. While I haven’t spent any significant time comparing, I venture to say no real difference exists between uncertainty in a church or any other work environment. It is possible that uncertainty within a church could carry more emotional consequences, as people’s feelings are going to be more invested in a religious organization. Nonetheless, uncertainty is an uncomfortable phenomena whether in Christian or secular organizations.

One of the most fascinating theories within all of communication studies is uncertainty reduction theory. Its title is self-explanatory; this theory explains how strangers aim to minimize what they do not know about each other to determine if there can be mutual approval. Practically speaking, when I meet new people, I may ask them where they are from, what their hobbies are, their job, likes, dislikes, etc. (just imagine a conversation you’ve had with someone on a blind date). They will likely ask me the same thing. Through this conversation, I and this new person will determine if we wish to further have conversations or a relationship. If, by reducing my uncertainties about them, I discover that they are not people I particularly have anything in common with, I will probably not seek a relationship with them, nor they with me. While this theory is applied to interpersonal communication, I believe it can also explain why people choose to attend or not to attend any given church.

If you think about it, what I claim here is really nothing groundbreaking. When people visit a church, they are going to ask questions to people they come in contact with, take notice of the decorations, seating arrangements, building structure, attitudes of those they come in contact with, teaching style, music style, etc. They will have entered the church building with certain questions, and they will exit with answers to many of their questions, thus reducing their uncertainty about the church. From the information they take in, they will begin to form their opinion of the church.

Church leaders, however, cannot control individual’s perceptions. It is beyond unreasonable to expect to prevent every bad thought from occurring in the minds of visitors. Therefore, I believe the pressure to make sure anyone who visits absolutely loves everything about your church should be lifted. People are going to think what they think. Some simply have unrealistic expectations – expectations that NO church can meet.

That being said, I do believe there are several ways that church leaders can position themselves, their buildings, and their followers to positively reduce the uncertainty of those who are new to or visiting the community. For example, as most of us know, visitors usually do not come to be ignored, nor do they come to be the center of attention. I believe it is important for church leaders (any position of leadership) to be on the lookout for visitors – and this typically happens. But at some point, new people also want to be allowed to just take in their surroundings without being bombarded with the same questions over and over again. If you notice person after person coming up to a visitor, it’s likely that they would appreciate a break from having to talk or listen. This doesn’t mean you ignore them, but I think it does mean you should give them an opportunity to catch their breath before becoming another name they are sure to forget.

And what about the building? We can’t possibly re-decorate or re-position the interior of our buildings every week or to meet the preferences of every attendee. Rather, ask yourself, “What does our church set-up communicate?” Are you located in a downtown urban setting inhabited by hipsters, artists, post-moderns, etc? A suburb with young families? A college town with frat boys, intellectuals, and internationals? You can’t expect to get these people through the doors without something with which they’ll connect. What is the art style of your surrounding location? What is the area culture, heartbeat, vibe, and any other word you could include here? Match it (as long as it doesn’t go against scripture). Find a way to tap into what is already going on around your church setting. Doing so communicates that your community is not an elite group that requires knowing someone, being super spiritual, or even owning a bible to check it out.

In many ways, visitors may not initially connect with church leaders, at least if these guests are not Christians. And even if they mesh just fine with a leader the moment they walk through the door, they will likely find more “non-leaders” whom they are comfortable with. It is therefore crucial that those within your community who do not necessarily hold a leadership position in the church know how to positively reduce a visitor’s uncertainty. The main thing this really takes is the ability to say hello and be a friend. It is, however, important for non-leaders to know what the church stands for biblically, how they practice this, and what they offer the community. In addition to the knowledge this will provide a visitor, a non-leader who knows what the church stands for biblically, communicates (very loudly, by the way) that the church is based on sound, clear, biblical teaching. If a non-leader knows this, it means the leaders have done a good job conveying their message.

These are just a few examples of ways that leaders can prepare their communities for positively reducing the uncertainty of a guest. Below, I’ll provide the uncertainties most visitors have when they enter a church, as well as a list of things church leaders and non-leaders should do.

Uncertainties of Visitors
• Will I like the people?
• Will I feel welcome?
• Will I feel comfortable during the worship?
• What do they teach/believe?
• Will I connect with anything there?
• Will it fit my needs?
• Are the people genuine?
• Will I want to go back?

How Church Leaders Can Positively Reduce Uncertainty
• Be clear in your church’s view of God
• Introduce yourself to guests and try to learn something about them
• Do not overwhelm visitors with tons of information
• Find ways to tap into & engage the culture of your surrounding community
• Make church goals/values visible (stationary, web, etc)
• Teach those in non-leadership positions what your church believes and why

How Non-Leaders Can Positively Reduce Uncertainty
• Be a friend
• If a crowd has gathered near a visitor, give them space.
• Be genuine
• Know where your church biblically stands (if you don’t, ask your leaders)
• Know what the church offers the community