Hard Questions, Hard Answers

the-riddler A colleague took me aside recently and said, “You know, you’re upsetting a lot of people.” I looked at him and immediately asked, “Who?” Furtively, my friend said, “Well, you know, leaders in the church.” “Like who?” I asked, then added, “A lot?” He went on to name two people who have been unhappy with something I have said on the blog. We talked for awhile, and my friend said something that stuck with me: “You’re asking questions that they don’t have answers for. You’re making them look bad.”

Since when do Christians need to be afraid of tough questions? Yes, I know our history is replete with incident after incident of religious authority oppressing those who dared to question authority or challenge orthodoxy, but if we’re so all fired sure we have the answers, what is the threat of a few hard questions? Most of the great advances of humankind found their genesis in those who questioned “reality.”

I pushed my friend to identify the questions I am asking for which there are no answers. He hesitated. “You keep questioning motivation… and common sense.” I brightened. “That’s what I’m trying to do!”

“Yeah, but people don’t like that.”

Once again, I have to ask why. Being clear on why we do something is never a bad thing. Nor is using common sense in our decision making. I can see how people might get offended when their common sense and motivations are questioned, but the only problem occurs when people aren’t clear on their motivations or fear they have used poor judgement. Asking questions should be the safest, most valued practice in our church that we can imagine. There is no hope for us as a denomination if open, free exchange of ideas isn’t safe.

I have some serious concerns about why we want more churches. I have serious concerns about clergy leadership who are indifferent to a disciplined spiritual life. I question the viability of a denomination obsessed with numbers. I question how serious we are about acting on anything we “rethink.” I question none of these things to be adversarial, but to push the conversation to deeper levels. We should be launching new faith communities — that equip disciples to transform the world. We should be supporting clergy and laity leadership — to model the disciplined practice of the means of grace. We should care about numbers — the number of people we can serve. And we should “rethink” — but constantly, with integrity, and with the intention to change and improve. Questioning conventional wisdom and the status quo is essential for continuous improvement. But there are those who do not want to hear the questions.

I came across a great quote in Tim Hamilton’s graphic re-interpretation of Ray Bradbury’s, Fahrenheit 451 — “You ask why to a lot of things and you end up very unhappy indeed.” This is the motto of every totalitarian organization in history. “Why” is the question no one wants to hear, when the only answer they have is “because.”

What are the questions I think The United Methodist Church should wrestle with and strive to answer?

why do we need to make disciples?
why do we need to transform the world?
why is marketing more important than missions?
why do we believe that new churches will make us better than the churches we already have?
why do we think the next million new members will be better than the last million we lost?
why aren’t we more concerned about sustainability than short term results?
why are we so enamored with size?
why do we continue to produce so many resources and programs that fail to yield positive results?
why do we keep shifting focus every few years instead of focusing on our core and staying the course?
why are we so committed to preserving the institution instead of transforming the world?

I could go on and on. These questions barely scratch the surface. But these questions — and the time and energy it will take to answer them — don’t help us today. Hard questions require hard work to produce hard answers. We want help NOW. We are driven by a toxic blend of time and money — both in short supply. We ignored all the signs of decay until we have no time for long-term solutions. We are in a financial crisis that motivates us to cut costs and operate from a scarcity mentality. Forget what God’s will might be. Don’t talk vision. Count up the pennies instead, and frame our ministry in terms of what we can afford.

We are caught in a spiral of negative energy. What we aren’t takes more of our attention than what we can be. What we have lost obscures what we have left. Where we have been limits where we think we can go next. Who we’re not dictates who we think we can be… Why?

It has taken us decades to get where we are. It will take more than a few months to get someplace better. We must live with all of our past decisions — both good and bad — but that doesn’t mean we can’t make better decisions in the future. We are the body of Christ for our world. We are only limited by our vision, our imagination, and our leadership. If we aren’t where we need to be, we need to change those three things.

No good leader shies away from questions. No competent decision-maker is afraid of criticism. No visionary is defensive about his or her direction. Those who have confidence that what they are doing ‘”is good, and acceptable, and perfect” (Romans 12:2) welcome every opportunity to share their understanding of God’s will. When asking hard questions isn’t okay, watch out. It means the answer is that we’re in big, big trouble.

Rate this:

18 responses to “Hard Questions, Hard Answers”

Questions for the Methoblog? « John Meunier's blog

September 7, 2009

[…] for the Methoblog? 2009 September 7 by John Meunier Dan Dick has posed a series of interesting questions that we all should wrestle […]

Reply
John Meunier

September 7, 2009

Larry, Dan will give you a better answer, but I do not see a conflict between saying a church needs a strong, sustainable foundation and being concerned that most of our church plant talk seems to focus on middle and upper middle income areas.

The foundation we need is based on a strong sense of the mission of the new church and a strong rooting in disciple-making. In a poor area there may have to be more creativity with “staffing” and denominational support might be more important, but the foundation is not only (primarily?) financial.

The argument over neighborhood churches vs. magnet churches is the same one we have in debates about neigborhoodl schools or Wal-Mart vs. local retail. Each has strengths it can build upon.

Reply
Examining the Links in the Chain – One Pastor’s Thoughts

September 5, 2009

[…] You can read the post here: Hard Questions, Hard Answers. […]

Reply
Joey Reed

September 5, 2009

Great post, Dan. While I’m always a big fan of finding new ways to do the ancient work of the church, I am rarely in favor of doing new things just for the sake of new stuff.

I hope to ask and answer some of the questions you listed, not only for myself, but for my congregation. I’d love to hear you specifically address some of these questions in the context of the denomination–maybe even garnering a few answers from The Powers That Be. I’m hoping beyond hope here, but I’d love to see something from those folks who are becoming more nervous about these questions! 😀

Grace and peace,

Joey

Reply
Sally

September 5, 2009

I read your blog “religiously” and am inspired and challenged by much of what you say. I appreciate your willingness to ask tough questions and a lot of the questions you ask are insightful and necessary. I am helping to plant a new UMC (we are celebrating our one year anniversary tomorrow) and we have asked and been asked the question “why” many times. Believe me when I say it would have been far easier to stay where we were and not to expend the resourses of time, energy and money on a new church but that is not what the area needed. In our culture of “new and improved” it is often impossible to draw people to “old and set in their ways”. Small churches which primarily make up our denominations need to take a hard look at themselves and ask the questions you ask.
why do we need to make disciples?
why do we need to transform the world?
why is marketing more important than missions?
These are important questions to ask and honestly answer.
We Methodists used to be really good at planting churches.. Churches that were planted in the early days of American Methodism were family chapels. People didn’t choose their churches, they were born into them and went there because the next church was a day’s ride on horseback. Now, with modern transportation, people choose to attend a church based on its appeal not on its geography.
Existing churches need to look at the history of the church AND at the changing demographics around them.
When our local shopping center realized that all the businesses were moving out to the strip-center on the highway you’d better believe that plans were immediately made to follow them out there. When new housing developments break ground you know that Lowe’s and Home Depot are checking the area out for a new store location. Things don’t stay the same in retail. Why then, do we assume that things will stay the same in church. When the Israelites were in the desert the Ark of the Covenent was carried about by the priest so that the people could worship during that time. When David and then Solomon made plans and built the temple things had changed for the Israelites and the way they worshipped changed with them.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not suggesting that every congregation pull up stakes and move. I’m just saying that every congregation needs to be willing to ask the hard questions and to be aware that in order to do effective ministry it may be necessary to morph a little and be flexible enough to adapt to the current environment. God doesn’t change but the way we do church might need to.

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  September 5, 2009
  
  Wow, rarely do people put such effort into their comments. The need to change and to do it with integrity is one of our biggest challenges. It sounds like you have been engaged in serious investigation and reflection on where you need to be in order to do the most effective ministry. What breaks my heart is when doing effective ministry is secondary to numeric growthn or a desire for something new and different. I think we need new churches, but I think they need to be launched on strong, sustainable foundations. Good luck with your ministry in your second year, and congratulations on the occasion of your first anniversary!
  
  Reply
  1. larry
    
    September 7, 2009
    
    Dan, how do you think demographics should factor into church planting decisions? What makes for “strong, sustainable foundations” for launching new churches?
    
    Your post previous to this one brings up indirectly doing church planting among the poor(er) – the quote used the phrase “low income non-starts.” That phrase got some traction in the comments people left, but it makes we wonder, based on your response here to Sally, under what circumstances would you favor church planting in poor areas if you want to launch with “strong, sustainable foundations”? It seems like church planters want the same things, so why plant a church where it less likely to be sustainable?
    
    The language of marketing and consulting clearly grates our ears from the standpoint of seeking to be faithful to Christ as our motivation, but can the people who speak and think this way help us be smarter in achieving the goals that you yourself indicate you want in church plants?
  2. doroteos2
    
    September 7, 2009
    
    Larry, my own research and experience into new starts indicates that satellite and multi-site facilities have the greatest potential for sustainable ministry. In the case of reaching and providing ministry in low-income areas, this means that a center for ministry with a constituency that cannot afford the ministry themselves. The ministry is no less important or necessary, but the tab is paid by the healthy parent. Wealth generated in a congregation is generated for ministry — not for facility, staff, tech, etc., but for outreach and mission. Too many (not all, but many) of our larger churches are upset at the idea that they should be expected to share their resources with other churches, ministries, or communities, but in a connectional system this should be an expectation, not a hope. Those who have should be using what they have to reach and serve those without. The driving numbers impetus should be number of people we serve and equip for ministry in the name of Christ, not how many people we can get to come to our church. I know of a small Baptist church that has met for almost 60 years in a home, never growing to more than 50 members at any one time. But this small fellowship works at soup kitchens, homeless shelters, area missions centers, building low income housing, thrift shops, orphanages, hospitals, etc. every day, and they serve literally thousands of people each week. Strong? Sustainable? Yes, to both, but church planters would not ever launch this church today because of its location, fiscal limitations, and low potential for growth.
    
    As to demographics, this is easy. Demographics are indicators that point us in important directions and help us figure out what questions to ask. Like temperature, pulse, and blood pressure are basic signs where changes signal the need to pay attention, so demographics monitor indicators that indicate changes in a community. They don’t tell us exactly what to focus on, but they give us a starting point. They should provide more questions than answers, and they help us form systemic, diagnostic, and strategic processes to find out what we need to know for a successful launch. For example (since this is something I have witnessed three times in The UMC) the demographics indicate a large increase in the Hispanic/Latino population outside a city center. The influx is middle-income, young adult couples, with the majority having a high school education, and they are buying homes which indicates stability. A new church plant is launched… and within three years the conference is propping up a struggling mission congregation that is only drawing a handful of middle-aged, low-income immigrants of Mexican descent. No amount of energy changes anything. Why? A number of reasons. The “Hispanic-Latino” population is actually an amalgam of 16 different Latino groups from South America, Central America, Puerto Rico, and a number of regions of Mexico — none of whom share a common history or culture. The predominant religious affiliation is Roman Catholic. Many of the second generation people have left the RC church and drift to other Christian churches. A large number of immigrants send substantial amounts of money home — either to support parents or to bring them to the U.S. A number of family members may pool resources to purchase modest homes. In short, good research into the constituency based on the demographics would indicate this is an iffy place to focus at best (for a self-sustaining church plant) but a great potential for a mission church. Making the decision based on the demographics (which is a very common occurence) is a mistake. Using the demographics as one diagnostic tool among many to help focus attention? Perfect.
John

September 5, 2009

How many in our churches really want to be challenged? Unfortunately, it seems in many cases, so many of us are willing to stay on board up to “here.”

Asking questions brings things to surface some might rather avoid. Where’s the growth/fun in that?

Thanks for the post.

Reply
Sky McCracken

September 5, 2009

Don’t stop, Dan. The questions need to be asked. The odds are many of our denominational leaders cannot answer the first question: “Why do we need to make disciples?” And many of our General Board folks seem to think that “evangelical” and “evangelism” are dirty words.

We are in big trouble is we can’t ask – and attempt to address – hard questions. Bravo.

Reply