Saturday, October 14, 2006

Peter Drucker and the Megachurch

Several days ago I got around to adding the capability to track visitors to this site and how they got here. Near as I can tell most visits are from friends and family. But I have noticed some folks who got here by searching for something on Peter Drucker.

Drucker is often the whipping boy for critics of the megachurch movements. They see leaders of these megachurches - two well-known examples being Willow Creek and Saddleback - using techniques taught by Drucker to grow huge churches that are more business than church. Drucker was also known to be an advocate for megachurches, seeing them as the next step in the life of the church at large.

Drucker was wrong about megachurches. They may already be past their prime. But he was wrong about them whether they're past their prime or not.

Still, what he taught was, in itself, not the problem. They asked the right question. They got the wrong answer.

Peter Drucker was known for three basic questions that he said every organization should ask of itself:
  1. What is our business?
  2. Who is our customer?
  3. What does our customer consider as value?

The first question doesn't apply only to for profit entities. Its essence is to ask: what are we about? For a church, its "business" is doing the work that God called it to do. I don't think there's any major disagreement on this point, in the broad sense, between megachurches and their critics.

The problem comes about in the second question. The wrong answer of the megachurches and most of the church growth movement is that our customer is the person in the pew, or the person we want to get into the pew - Unchurched Harry or Sally. If that's the answer to the second question then the only logical way to answer the third question is to go ask them what they want, what they value, what will get them into church. This is good old market research. Quite frankly, the Willow Creeks and Saddlebacks did their homework, found out what people wanted, gave it to them, and have crowds of people flocking through their doors. Whether those crowds are meaningfully Christian, that is, whether or not they have a deep conviction of sin and saving faith in Jesus Christ, is a matter of much debate.

If they have the wrong answer, what is the right answer? Our "customer" is God. This is something the Reformed branch of the Reformation understood well. When they set out to reform worship, they needed a guideline. They saw in Scripture that God is jealous for His own worship. He only may be worshiped. He may not be worshiped in any visible representtion since no man has seen Him, and therefore any image is false by definition. He seeks after those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth. He punishes those who worship falsely. The Westminster Divines had it right when they concluded that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. This is what God wants from us, what He values.

Peter Drucker's questions, used rightly, lead to the historic regulative principle of worship, and to the realization that it is God whom we are to please, not ourselves, not even the unchurched. We find what pleases God in Scripture. This is where we should be doing our "market research." God's Word sets boundaries for our worship according to His desire, but also allows for flexibility within those boundaries (e.g., we should sing praise to God, but how many psalms, hymns or spiritual songs we sing is not dictated, nor is a given style). God's Word insures that He is pleased, that He is glorified, and that ultimately He is enjoyed forever.

Labels: ,

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Drucker and the Ancient Church

Another Druckerism stuck in my brain: "It's better to get the wrong answer to the right question than get the right answer to the wrong question."

I was reminded of this by Carl Trueman's post at Reformation21.

I originally wanted to attend seminary to get a theological degree that might lead eventually to Ph.D. studies on the early church. I decided to get an M.Div. because in the early church fathers I saw men who, with only a few exceptions, were both gifted scholars and pastors. I figured an M.Div. degree rather than an MA in theology or historical theology would give me better insight into the world and thought processes of the church fathers.

I didn't really know what I'd do after all that education. I reckoned I could figure that out later. Pastoral ministry and teaching seemed equally possible - or even better, both!

But as time has passed and, ironically, the M.Div. gone to the wayside as I try to complete an MA, I have become convinced that my call is to pastoral ministry, in particular to planting a church. A big part of that realization has been the work I've had the opportunity to do with some of our church plants in our presbytery. Another big part is the realization that the historic truths of the Christian faith are valid for any generation in any age, even this squishy post-modern or post-foundational age. The quote Carl Trueman gives reinforces that belief. Those truths need to be preached with boldness, rather than seeking after new language or forms simply so that they might appeal to the post-modern spiritual consumer.

Rather than asking how do attract postmoderns into our churches, we should be asking how those ancient spiritual, biblical, truths answer the questions raised by postmoderns. Will they listen if we don't "package" the answers just right? I think they will. Who doesn't want to hear the answer to their question?

Whether it's The City of God by Augustine or Machen's Christianity and Liberalism, Christian truth is valid and relevant, and speaks to the world around it. How can anyone read either of those works and not see how applicable they are for today?

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Jargon

Recently I decided that if church planting is in my future, and if seminary graduation is around the corner (possibly, possibly, in May), then I should start preparing for it. So, I've been visiting web sites, looking up books and articles, trying to find resources related to planting a church. I figure that if I can whittle away little by little at the pile of stuff I've found I just might learn something over the next several months or so. And it'll have to be done little by little since I'll have my regular classes to focus on in the meantime as well.

One of the things that struck me while reading through some materials at lunch today was the prevalence of certain words and phrases that, quite frankly, strike me as so much jargon. Some of them -- "missional," "ancient-modern," "culturally relevant," "inter-generational," "cross cultural," etc. -- are probably useful in certain contexts at certain times, if well defined and understood.

But this kind of jargon seems to me to be too clever by half. One of the Druckerisms* that has stuck with me is, "It's better to be conscientious than clever." The point? Clever schemes tend to hold the promise of achieving something without the typical hard work of just slogging through what needs to be done. The conscientious person knows or finds out what needs to be done and does it. The clever person looks for the easier path, the whiz-bang solution. (This is how consultants make their money - packaging common sense in flash and sizzle!)

That doesn't mean that there can never be a better way to build a mousetrap. It just has to really, truly be a better way.

The work of the pastor, elder, deacon, lay person in Christ's church is to diligently do the things God has called us to do. We can try new things, to be sure. But we shouldn't let the false promise of a shiny new toy distract us from the hard slogging that is often what's needed. Being conscientious isn't flashy, doesn't typically attract a lot of attention, and probably isn't cutting edge, but in the end I think it is more effective.

Sometimes this church planting jargon seems awfully like a shiny new toy and I wonder: why can't we just do what we've been called to do?

* Anyone who took classes from, sat in on lectures with, spent time with or read books and articles by Peter Drucker collects a few of his oft-repeated sayings along the way.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Musings of a Bystander?

So. What's with the title?

The first part of the answer is in the Peter Drucker quote above. It's from the introduction to his autobiography Adventures of a Bystander.

Those who know or have heard of Peter Drucker would hardly think of him as a bystander. The man was tremendously influential. How can that be if the bystander, as per above, "has no effect except on himself?" Perhaps it would have been better put: "has no direct effect." Let's face it. Peter Drucker impacted a lot of people; he had a great effect on a lot of people.

But that effect was indirect. He had no mega-bucks consulting firm. He led no global corporations. He held no high government office.

Peter Drucker observed. He analyzed. He saw. He saw things that were already happening but that others hadn't seen yet. And then he shouted from the rooftops. He taught. He consulted. He wrote. All prodigiously.

Later in the introduction to his book, Drucker gives the comment an old family friend gave to him as a young boy, when he expressed a rather bold political opinion: "To watch and think for yourself is highly commendable. But to shock people by shouting strange views from the rooftops is not."

In reaction to this he writes: "This is the admonition the bystander always hears, for it is his lot to see things differently...This admonition is well taken. But I have rarely heeded it..."

Peter Drucker shouted his strange views from the rooftops. Many, many people listened and took heed, and the management of businesses, governments and public sector (non-profit) organizations have been profoundly impacted.

Now -- I'm no Peter Drucker. Nor do I have aspirations to be.

But his comments about being a bystander struck a chord with me several years ago when I first read them. I saw something of myself in them. Peter Drucker was a teacher. But I believe there is another appropriate profession for the bystander: preacher of the gospel. There is no other message so strange, shocking and unwelcome as the gospel of Jesus Christ. And yet, as one of my old pastors put it when dealing with a difficult passage in one sermon, "I didn't write the book. I'm just called to preach it." Or shout it from the rooftops.

And this is the calling to which I am convinced I have been called. A good preacher steeped in the study of God's Word sees things differently than others. John Calvin talked of seeing the world through Scriptural spectacles. And that, as Drucker puts it, is refraction, what a bystander does.

-----

The other reason for the title of this blog is that it forms the acronym MOAB. The Moabites resisted the Israelites as they sought to enter Canaan. For that, God cursed them - for ten generations no Moabite could join the Israelite assembly. And yet, Ruth the Moabitess, upon profession of faith to her mother-in-law Naomi, was accepted. More than accepted, since she became an ancestor of King David, and therefore of Jesus Christ Himself.

I am no Israelite (despite recently discovering one of my great-great grandfathers was Jewish). I'm a Gentile dog. But because I confess my faith in Christ I am now counted part of the people of God, a wild olive branch grafted into the cultivated tree, the wall of hostility having been broken down. MOAB reminds me of who I am (think of Paul's "Therefore, remember..." in Ephesians 2:11ff), and of what Christ has done for me.

Oh...and my mom's name is Ruth.

Labels: , ,

About me

  • Martin
  • From Orange, CA
  • Husband; Father; Son; Brother. Ruling elder at church. Loan Officer for Christian lending institution. Seminary student. I hope to be a pastor and plant a church in the near future.
My profile
What's Musings of a Bystander?
[ E-Mail Me ]
[ Sign My Guestbook ]