After reading this via email, my friend Russ Bredholt (a consultant) shared this with me and I told him I'd share it here as it's pretty relevant information:
"Dr. Charles Ridley, who was at Indiana University then, produced some research that shows that one of the biggest challenges of revitalization is getting the right match between a pastor capable of leading and a congregation willing to change. The two aren’t always aligned. Dr. Ridley’s research indicated that most congregations were comfortable as they were."
This resonates. I think one of the hardest mental challenges for me as a pastor hoping to lead a congregation in revitalization has been questioning (1) is it working or not, (2) if not, is the problem with my leadership, and (3) what can I do about it? When your first pastorate outside of youth ministry is a church in need of revitalization, it’s a bit hard at times to answer those questions. The process of attempting to measure success/failure is very difficult at times.
Our church has gone from a congregation running in the 20’s/30’s to running in the 40’s/50’s. We have become markedly younger and more diverse. I think we utilized the stage-first model initially and now have been trying to foster both-and. Some of the language God gave me was to plant a church within a church. So we have invested significantly in our young adult community in this way. My husband and I have lived as intentionally as we know how in terms of personal evangelism and discipling others. In the midst of this 8 year journey for me as pastor, the church has survived both the pandemic and more recently a facilities crisis. Yet the question remains of whether or not this revitalization journey has been enough. It feels like the church has a revolving door. I ask myself pretty consistently if I am the right person to lead the church into more than sustainability but into true, missional thriving. I would love to know if it’s common for pastors in revitalization contexts to struggle with those kinds of questions!
wow, Pastor Amber--this is compelling sharing from you... thanks for offering it. Neat to hear some of what's happening. I would imagine most every revitalizing pastors would be asking the same questions and having similar struggles unless some radical massive change happened which was undeniable. The revolving door thing is certainly true many places-- in my church planting days that's where a lot of my pain in ministry came from. Hard!
This sparked some reflection on my part today that led me to some encouraging conclusions (I think). Maybe one of the dangers those of us aiming to lead in revitalization can face is thinking the end goal is about revitalizing a local church—when really the goal is revitalizing the Church. When the goal is seeing a local church revitalized, our focus is on that particular congregation remaining and thriving. While that’s a wonderful and most desirable outcome for revitalization effort, it’s probably too narrow a definition of success. What if revitalization efforts lead to new disciples made and missional leaders raised up who, for a variety of factors, end up being part of advancing the mission in other ways, places and contexts. Even if the local church which was central to those revitalization efforts doesn’t exist in 20 years, the revitalization efforts will still bear lasting and multiplying spiritual fruit. The Church and the mission saw increased vitality. This perspective shift helps me focus on the one, the small group, the neighbor… it means a revolving door isn’t necessarily a negative thing—because it may be what’s best for the Kingdom in the big picture! I know these aren’t revolutionary thoughts, but I feel like they sank deeper in my spirit in a helpful way after prayerful reflection prompted by your article today. :) So thank you!!!
amen... well said. One of the churches I planted stopped having services and I grieved that a bit at the time, but over time came to realize (as so many years have passed--about 25 years now) that the PEOPLE were the point all along... and many of them continue to be vibrant disciples to this day and reproducing in the kingdom, etc. The CHURCH is not the organization or building, etc.
As the associate pastor at our 350 person church I was approached by a small (40ish) person church in our town about coming to be their pastor. We considered offering an adoption model but after an interview it was clear they weren't looking or ready for that approach. After consulting with my lead pastor and our board we offered to provide what we termed foster care. Foster Care has at it's heart the strengthening and restoration of the recipient so that they can go on to a healthy life. I would go over with a small group of folks (13 I believe it was) to jump start revitalization. There was no expectation that I or the folks who came with me would return to the original church but if it didn't work, adoption might have been the next step. After 2 and a half years I can say the church is healthy and growing, averaging 150 in worship with a combination of "own who we are" and "stage first" models. The excitement of revival has led to more and more inviting to the point that our quandary now is whether to split into two services or try and expand our seating.
Thanks for this. I was pastor of a small rural church that experienced revitalization while I was there.
Two threads of reflection: one, with upcoming generations smaller than Baby Boomer generation, there are practical implications - I hope church leaders can remember the population reality doesn't mean that the Church has somehow failed, or is on the way out. There will be some likely painful adjustments. The population might not support 120 congregations in a region; maybe it supports 80, but the Kingdom of God worldwide isn't shrinking (quite the opposite), and the Holy Spirit isn't done here, either. The ministries and labor that sustained those congregations - that labor wasn't wasted. The Holy Spirit doesn't waste anything.
Second, I spent three years as a part-time licensed local pastor (appointed, not elected - I was also their third woman pastor) of a very small rural church that experienced significant revitalization while I was there, even in a tiny bypass town (no grocery store).
An anthropological/cross-cultural lens strongly shaped my approach. I decided to think more like an investigative missionary. I can't emphasize enough culture shock between growing up in the Big Ten (where there are four seasons a year) and moving to oven-like north Texas, where few know the difference among Wisconsin, Michigan, or Minnesota.
With that approach though, decline halted; the church stabilized; then some good things started growing and some external metrics started bouncing.
For me, one of the most important metrics would be what happened after I was gone. I didn't want seeming vitality that only lasted during my tenure. So one of the things I'm most proud of is that the church not only didn't close (it'd been on the chopping block), it didn't only stabilize - it's still going today, ten years later, and some of the investments I made in drawing out local leadership bore fruit well beyond my address change. Personality-centered revitalization is easier than prepping soil to grow good things after you're gone.
There were some factors beyond my control (for instance, it was small, but I didn't detect toxic antagonists dominating the direction or driving others out, as one sometimes encounters).
Entering the pulpit 10 years after college, I also reached out to some folks to be a scattered, remote prayer team as I entered a local ministry setting. I'm so glad I did.
Partly as a read of the local culture, I also chose to be brutally honest a few times in the first year and name what they feared (closure). Ranchers, farmers, vets, and teachers appreciated the frankness.
It was a ranching/ag community: I made sure I was out sweeping the sidewalk or helping weed flowerbeds or going along on the women's retreat (they were so excited to have the pastor along 😁).
I made some missteps, as every pastor does, but people will forgive a lot if they sense you genuinely care about them.
Around 10 years?ish ago, I wrote this about that rural revitalization. Several things really shaped my posture: my experiences as a pastor's kid in small rural churches; your Dad's wisdom from college classes; and a couple cross-cultural seminary classes I mention.
I really believe if a church's culture isn't toxic, every small congregation has the opportunity to experience the joy of identifying its unique loaves and fish that God is smiling and ready to receive, bless, break, and feed others with. Don't give up if you can't be the church in town doing the helicopter Easter egg drop! You don't need to be that church. What *do* you have? Learn to see it, name it, value it, and offer it.
This is super helpful and a way more healthy way to engage in these situations than a lot of people walking into it I believe. It's kind of embracing the "fish out of water" effect some have in going to some revitalizing churches. Recently I talked with a pastor of a church in a small rural town that he called "not really that rural--they have a stoplight here"--he had grown up in a place without a stoplight--so he thought of it as a real town. He wouldn't need this kind of approach as he knows the culture back and front likely already. But I think a LOT of people need this kind of cross-cultural approach. Well said!
In what you’ve observed, does a church ever go through the restart model without ever fully realizing that’s what they are doing? I’m 11 years in at a rural church that’s been in a very slow revitalization. I’d say we’ve pulled from a few of the models on this list (primarily both/and), but looking back, it may have been more of a restart than anything, as there’s only about 8-10 people left from the original core when I started. We’ve turned the corner and are much closer to sustainability today, but I wonder if it would have been helpful to see ourselves as a restart from the beginning.
Thanks for reading and sharing your story here, Kirk. You might be describing a different model than the ones I outlined. Perhaps it's the "Slow Burn Restart" where everything changes, but slowly over 10 years instead of 10 months?
I’m involved in long term pulpit supply with two churches. The smaller one runs about a dozen or so. They think what they need is the right pastor to thrive. If I read them correctly. I’m 73, and don’t have the drive I had at one time. Or the charisma or strength of personality to lead them to implement needed changes. I strongly suspect my presence is just forestalling the inevitable. District leadership seems more inclined to close the door and move on, something they are oblivious to. I was lead pastor of a church that ran (mostly) in the high 200s with several high points of way beyond that and a serious drop during and after COVID. We never averaged less than 200, however. This is my first experience with a truly dying church. I agree, it is a big challenge, involving internal issues probably not even recognized by the church themselves.
Thanks for your post, strangely enough I am encouraged by it.
thanks much, John. And thanks for your faithfulness in sometimes discouraging times. Great to hear of your history and what you're up to at this current task. Loving the people and preaching in those places is an honorable ministry!
Very helpful experienced thoughts here, Paul. They track with what I've heard others share about those matters too. Thanks for writing your thoughts down.
After reading this via email, my friend Russ Bredholt (a consultant) shared this with me and I told him I'd share it here as it's pretty relevant information:
"Dr. Charles Ridley, who was at Indiana University then, produced some research that shows that one of the biggest challenges of revitalization is getting the right match between a pastor capable of leading and a congregation willing to change. The two aren’t always aligned. Dr. Ridley’s research indicated that most congregations were comfortable as they were."
This resonates. I think one of the hardest mental challenges for me as a pastor hoping to lead a congregation in revitalization has been questioning (1) is it working or not, (2) if not, is the problem with my leadership, and (3) what can I do about it? When your first pastorate outside of youth ministry is a church in need of revitalization, it’s a bit hard at times to answer those questions. The process of attempting to measure success/failure is very difficult at times.
Our church has gone from a congregation running in the 20’s/30’s to running in the 40’s/50’s. We have become markedly younger and more diverse. I think we utilized the stage-first model initially and now have been trying to foster both-and. Some of the language God gave me was to plant a church within a church. So we have invested significantly in our young adult community in this way. My husband and I have lived as intentionally as we know how in terms of personal evangelism and discipling others. In the midst of this 8 year journey for me as pastor, the church has survived both the pandemic and more recently a facilities crisis. Yet the question remains of whether or not this revitalization journey has been enough. It feels like the church has a revolving door. I ask myself pretty consistently if I am the right person to lead the church into more than sustainability but into true, missional thriving. I would love to know if it’s common for pastors in revitalization contexts to struggle with those kinds of questions!
wow, Pastor Amber--this is compelling sharing from you... thanks for offering it. Neat to hear some of what's happening. I would imagine most every revitalizing pastors would be asking the same questions and having similar struggles unless some radical massive change happened which was undeniable. The revolving door thing is certainly true many places-- in my church planting days that's where a lot of my pain in ministry came from. Hard!
This sparked some reflection on my part today that led me to some encouraging conclusions (I think). Maybe one of the dangers those of us aiming to lead in revitalization can face is thinking the end goal is about revitalizing a local church—when really the goal is revitalizing the Church. When the goal is seeing a local church revitalized, our focus is on that particular congregation remaining and thriving. While that’s a wonderful and most desirable outcome for revitalization effort, it’s probably too narrow a definition of success. What if revitalization efforts lead to new disciples made and missional leaders raised up who, for a variety of factors, end up being part of advancing the mission in other ways, places and contexts. Even if the local church which was central to those revitalization efforts doesn’t exist in 20 years, the revitalization efforts will still bear lasting and multiplying spiritual fruit. The Church and the mission saw increased vitality. This perspective shift helps me focus on the one, the small group, the neighbor… it means a revolving door isn’t necessarily a negative thing—because it may be what’s best for the Kingdom in the big picture! I know these aren’t revolutionary thoughts, but I feel like they sank deeper in my spirit in a helpful way after prayerful reflection prompted by your article today. :) So thank you!!!
amen... well said. One of the churches I planted stopped having services and I grieved that a bit at the time, but over time came to realize (as so many years have passed--about 25 years now) that the PEOPLE were the point all along... and many of them continue to be vibrant disciples to this day and reproducing in the kingdom, etc. The CHURCH is not the organization or building, etc.
As the associate pastor at our 350 person church I was approached by a small (40ish) person church in our town about coming to be their pastor. We considered offering an adoption model but after an interview it was clear they weren't looking or ready for that approach. After consulting with my lead pastor and our board we offered to provide what we termed foster care. Foster Care has at it's heart the strengthening and restoration of the recipient so that they can go on to a healthy life. I would go over with a small group of folks (13 I believe it was) to jump start revitalization. There was no expectation that I or the folks who came with me would return to the original church but if it didn't work, adoption might have been the next step. After 2 and a half years I can say the church is healthy and growing, averaging 150 in worship with a combination of "own who we are" and "stage first" models. The excitement of revival has led to more and more inviting to the point that our quandary now is whether to split into two services or try and expand our seating.
This is a wonderful story of listening to what is really needed, adapting to the situation, and faithfulness on the ground. Neat to hear, James!
Well that's a decent summary of the terms in the chapter of my dissertation. It is hard work though. With a lot of patience needed.
well sheesh... if I had a link to your dissertation i might have put it in there ;-)
Got one for us here so some might be able to go into it more? I haven't read it.
I'm still writing it. It will be done in May.
nice! can't wait to see it... would love to circulate when done. godspeed!
Thanks for this. I was pastor of a small rural church that experienced revitalization while I was there.
Two threads of reflection: one, with upcoming generations smaller than Baby Boomer generation, there are practical implications - I hope church leaders can remember the population reality doesn't mean that the Church has somehow failed, or is on the way out. There will be some likely painful adjustments. The population might not support 120 congregations in a region; maybe it supports 80, but the Kingdom of God worldwide isn't shrinking (quite the opposite), and the Holy Spirit isn't done here, either. The ministries and labor that sustained those congregations - that labor wasn't wasted. The Holy Spirit doesn't waste anything.
Second, I spent three years as a part-time licensed local pastor (appointed, not elected - I was also their third woman pastor) of a very small rural church that experienced significant revitalization while I was there, even in a tiny bypass town (no grocery store).
An anthropological/cross-cultural lens strongly shaped my approach. I decided to think more like an investigative missionary. I can't emphasize enough culture shock between growing up in the Big Ten (where there are four seasons a year) and moving to oven-like north Texas, where few know the difference among Wisconsin, Michigan, or Minnesota.
With that approach though, decline halted; the church stabilized; then some good things started growing and some external metrics started bouncing.
For me, one of the most important metrics would be what happened after I was gone. I didn't want seeming vitality that only lasted during my tenure. So one of the things I'm most proud of is that the church not only didn't close (it'd been on the chopping block), it didn't only stabilize - it's still going today, ten years later, and some of the investments I made in drawing out local leadership bore fruit well beyond my address change. Personality-centered revitalization is easier than prepping soil to grow good things after you're gone.
There were some factors beyond my control (for instance, it was small, but I didn't detect toxic antagonists dominating the direction or driving others out, as one sometimes encounters).
Entering the pulpit 10 years after college, I also reached out to some folks to be a scattered, remote prayer team as I entered a local ministry setting. I'm so glad I did.
Partly as a read of the local culture, I also chose to be brutally honest a few times in the first year and name what they feared (closure). Ranchers, farmers, vets, and teachers appreciated the frankness.
It was a ranching/ag community: I made sure I was out sweeping the sidewalk or helping weed flowerbeds or going along on the women's retreat (they were so excited to have the pastor along 😁).
I made some missteps, as every pastor does, but people will forgive a lot if they sense you genuinely care about them.
Around 10 years?ish ago, I wrote this about that rural revitalization. Several things really shaped my posture: my experiences as a pastor's kid in small rural churches; your Dad's wisdom from college classes; and a couple cross-cultural seminary classes I mention.
I really believe if a church's culture isn't toxic, every small congregation has the opportunity to experience the joy of identifying its unique loaves and fish that God is smiling and ready to receive, bless, break, and feed others with. Don't give up if you can't be the church in town doing the helicopter Easter egg drop! You don't need to be that church. What *do* you have? Learn to see it, name it, value it, and offer it.
https://worldmethodist.org/elizabeth-glass-turner-folk-religion-ford-pick-ups-how-a-missiological-approach-can-transform-small-town-ministry/
This is super helpful and a way more healthy way to engage in these situations than a lot of people walking into it I believe. It's kind of embracing the "fish out of water" effect some have in going to some revitalizing churches. Recently I talked with a pastor of a church in a small rural town that he called "not really that rural--they have a stoplight here"--he had grown up in a place without a stoplight--so he thought of it as a real town. He wouldn't need this kind of approach as he knows the culture back and front likely already. But I think a LOT of people need this kind of cross-cultural approach. Well said!
In what you’ve observed, does a church ever go through the restart model without ever fully realizing that’s what they are doing? I’m 11 years in at a rural church that’s been in a very slow revitalization. I’d say we’ve pulled from a few of the models on this list (primarily both/and), but looking back, it may have been more of a restart than anything, as there’s only about 8-10 people left from the original core when I started. We’ve turned the corner and are much closer to sustainability today, but I wonder if it would have been helpful to see ourselves as a restart from the beginning.
Thanks for reading and sharing your story here, Kirk. You might be describing a different model than the ones I outlined. Perhaps it's the "Slow Burn Restart" where everything changes, but slowly over 10 years instead of 10 months?
I’m involved in long term pulpit supply with two churches. The smaller one runs about a dozen or so. They think what they need is the right pastor to thrive. If I read them correctly. I’m 73, and don’t have the drive I had at one time. Or the charisma or strength of personality to lead them to implement needed changes. I strongly suspect my presence is just forestalling the inevitable. District leadership seems more inclined to close the door and move on, something they are oblivious to. I was lead pastor of a church that ran (mostly) in the high 200s with several high points of way beyond that and a serious drop during and after COVID. We never averaged less than 200, however. This is my first experience with a truly dying church. I agree, it is a big challenge, involving internal issues probably not even recognized by the church themselves.
Thanks for your post, strangely enough I am encouraged by it.
thanks much, John. And thanks for your faithfulness in sometimes discouraging times. Great to hear of your history and what you're up to at this current task. Loving the people and preaching in those places is an honorable ministry!
Replied at my blog (which I haven't used in a while, but might need a comeback). https://imitatiodei.org/a-reply-to-david-drurys-church-revitalization-models/
Very helpful experienced thoughts here, Paul. They track with what I've heard others share about those matters too. Thanks for writing your thoughts down.