Strategies, Plans, and Miracles

Last year, there was an interesting article in the Christian Standard about the Spire Conference. The article announced the conference theme: that churches and those who lead them have become experts at devising visions, strategies, and programming. However, all those things don’t seem to be working as well as many would hope, so churches and leaders are often churning (my word) through new visions, strategies, and programming, often to no good effect. The author states that while there is nothing wrong with programming and such, the problem might be that the church has lost “the wind of the Holy Spirit” in the rush to adjust programs.

The author makes the points that “the early church didn’t grow through savvy systems” and “in Acts, we see a church that had none of today’s ministry advantages — no buildings, budgets, or broadcast platforms.” I agree with this author in a sense. When we look at the Book of Acts and the letters of the New Testament, one thing that is curiously absent is even a passing reference to anything like what we call programming. Why is there nothing in what God thought we needed to know about the workings of the church that sounds anything like “implementing the latest strategies”

My late father-in-law was an active member and leader in a congregation for many decades. As an elder at a congregation in the late twentieth century, he had been involved with several ministers being hired and serving. He liked to say (he didn’t mean this to be insulting, just observational) that most ministers then had what he called “a bag of tricks.” He was talking about their church techniques and programs. His observation was that when a particular minister had used up this “bag of tricks,” he often was ready to move on to the next congregation. Whatever you might think of my father-in-law’s ideas about this, it shows how program-oriented churches have been for a long time.

Is it possible that Christians immersed in the American system of business have imposed that system on the church to the extent that the church got lost? This is not an attack on the way businesses operate. It is just a question that lingers around this kind of discussion. In other words, maybe everyone involved in a congregation should force themselves to abandon programming as a measure of the church. It has been the measure for so long that this is difficult even to imagine. As we think of things now, it might be difficult to “measure” a congregation apart from an examination of its programming. This wouldn’t mean that a congregation might not arrange events for various purposes, but perhaps we have made too much of this.

However, this is not quite what the author of the article wants to say. He is not proposing we think about church programming in some radically different way. His question is: “What if we’ve become impressively efficient at church operation while increasingly deficient in dependence on the Spirit? Is it possible we’ve pursued a mastery of ministry mechanics but missed the miraculous?”

Something is fascinating being proposed here, and the author’s point is clear: Church leaders make big plans, even good plans, but they don’t seem to get the desired results, so they frantically adjust those big plans, and they still don’t get the results for which they hope. As he puts it, “Today, many pastors (sic) feel depleted. We’ve tried everything—fresh programs, compelling vision, improved leadership—and yet the burden remains. Into our exhaustion, Jesus whispers the same invitation: ‘Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’”

It is not clear that the Scripture cited here from Matthew 11:28 has any meaningful application to frustrated church leaders. It seems to be talking about those who need salvation, not relief from frustration with church planning, but that is a minor point. The more important point is this author’s ideas of what is wrong and what is needed.

His thought is that we are focused on “what we can control” while we neglect “what we cannot control but most desperately need—the supernatural presence and power of the Holy Spirit.” Those things we can control face what our author says are insurmountable obstacles: a shift in attendance patterns, a decline in volunteers, and a change in spiritual rhythms. Also, he says there are problems of rising polarization, fragmented attention spans, and growing skepticism of institutional religion.

The author does not advocate abandoning institutions, planning, and programs. He makes that very clear. What he does call for is the addition of “the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.” Before we continue, let’s make one thing clear: every Christian and every congregation of Christians needs the ministry of every member of the Trinity. Also, a program that is attended by a lot of people who simply enjoy it is just a club. There is nothing wrong with a club, but we shouldn’t confuse church and clubs.

Where this whole proposal falls apart is the author’s attempt to describe exactly what his proposal would require and what it would entail. This article, if it were delivered properly, would probably come across as a very inspiring, dramatic speech, but like too many things said in some churches, it never explains how to do what it is advocating, or even very precisely just what it is advocating. Look at these examples:

“We need a fresh move of God.” What, exactly, is a “move of God?” It is one of those phrases that sounds inspiring, but no one knows exactly what it means because it can mean almost anything someone wants it to mean.

“We don’t need to try harder; we need to yield more fully to the Spirit’s leadership.” What, in specific terms, is “the Spirit’s leadership”? How would we know if the Spirit is “leading” a church’s programs?

“When we confess that our strategies aren’t enough, we create space for the sufficiency of the Spirit.” If we have a well-planned set of church programs, do we just need to have a prayer session and say, “God, our strategies aren’t enough”? If we do this and we create “space for the sufficiency of the Spirit,” will God cause our present programs to work?

This article illustrates something that has come up in the modern church. We tend to speak in inspiring words that are so general as to mean almost nothing. When the inspiration dies down, what is left are confused people. When you conclude, as our author does, with “the wind of the Spirit is still blowing,” what are you talking about?

As best as we can determine, this author is trying to say we need to make our big plans, but we need to make sure we add the last layer of “the sufficiency of the Spirit.” My best guess is that most churches have asked God to bless their efforts. Is this author saying that, when things don’t go well, they didn’t ask often enough or sincerely enough?

It could be that church leaders get too caught up in finding the latest and greatest programming. However, this author does not offer much in the way of what they should do beyond generalities. Those generalities are simply not enough. Perhaps this conference tried to explain all that, but we can only hope it moved far beyond these inspiring-sounding pronouncements to concrete actions that expand God’s kingdom.

* Kent B. True is the alter ego of Harold N. Orndorff, Jr., a retired campus minister who has taught college and seminary courses in the fields of apologetics, philosophy, ethics, and logic. Lately, he enjoys studying his grandchildren, who are very interesting ones and all. Contact him, if you must, at hnoii@hotmail.com.