Equip: Change the method, not the message, Part 2

Last week, I introduced Frank, a church member from the 1940s who moved away and returned after 70 years. When he came back, he didn’t recognize his church. He had expected everything in the church to stay the same, but a lot has changed in 70 years.

For pastors, other church leaders, and the church itself to last, they must learn some hard lessons. One of the most difficult ones is, a structure or activity can be good, meaningful, and effective without being permanent.

We have to be able to adapt, even though adaptation requires sacrifice. It can be hard to let go of something we created, especially if it once flourished and is connected to memories of people we love.

Trying harder isn’t always the solution

I’ve seen it happen several times. Pastors who were called by God and were well-trained struggled to continue the techniques and methods they were taught. When effectiveness declined, they worked harder and doubled down on what they believed was “the right way.” Eventually they became exhausted and burned out.

The problem was not that they lacked dedication, but just the opposite. Because of their dedication, they invested all they had in methods that no longer carried the mission well.

When a method that used to work stops working, we rarely question the method first. Instead, we too often blame the people. We say they do not value the church like we used to, that younger generations will not commit, or that people simply are not interested in spiritual things anymore.

Sometimes, there may be truth in those observations, but faithful leaders also need enough humility to ask whether the problem might be the way we are trying to reach them.

A perfectly good digital file is of little use if we insist on handing it to someone on a floppy disk when they no longer have a drive that can read it. The message may still be exactly what they need, while the method we are using to deliver it no longer connects.

Different people, different ways

In a remote village in the mountains of western Honduras, I learned we are not inextricably tied to our own ways of doing things.

My friends and I had the blessing of connecting with a couple of churches there. We returned year after year to build and strengthen our relationships.

We were honored to be present on the day the people in Santa Elena held their first worship service in an actual church building. We shared the Lord’s Supper together, but they didn’t use the same kind of bread we do. We sang, but none of us from Texas had ever heard those songs. We prayed together but not like we were used to. There, everyone prays out loud all at one time.

As we worshiped together, I realized the “right” way of doing things in West, Texas, is not the right way of doing them in a Honduran village. We do not do church the same way, but both congregations worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24). Similarly, the “right” way of doing things in the past may not necessarily be the best way to do them today.

That is why we need to distinguish carefully between what is essential and what is adaptable.

What’s the goal of adaptation?

We should never compromise biblical truth in order to fit comfortably within the culture, but neither should we cling to outdated practices simply to prove we are different from it.

When Paul warned believers not to be “conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2), his concern was the world’s way of thinking and living, not the use of tools and methods that happen to exist within the culture.

Our convictions must remain distinct even when our methods change. We adapt the nonessentials so we can faithfully carry out the unchanging mandates of love and mission.

To be clear, I am not arguing newer is better, old is ineffective, or being contemporary equates to being faithful. I am not arguing in favor of change as much as I am arguing against refusal to adapt.

Many of our old methods still work beautifully, while some new ideas are foolish. Some innovations are driven by trend-chasing or marketing rather than mission.

Change is not our goal. Faithfulness is.

Questions for evaluation

So, here are some good questions we should ask ourselves when evaluating our current methods:

1. Is this biblical or simply familiar?
2. What was the original purpose of this method?
3. Is it still serving that purpose?
4. What does it communicate to people now?
5. Would changing it compromise a biblical conviction?
6. Are we still doing it because it serves the mission, or because letting it go would be painful?

The message vs. the method

The gospel is still the gospel. Jesus is still Lord. Scripture is still true. People still need grace, forgiveness, hope, community, and the transforming work of God in their lives. Our mission has not changed. But the ways we carry that message have changed, and they will keep changing.

Maybe that is the distinction we need to keep making. The digital file is not the flash drive. The message and the method are not the same thing.

The gospel is not the program, the schedule, the music style, the building, the newsletter, the offering plate, the committee structure, or any other method we have learned to use along the way. Those things matter, but they are not the message. And if we truly love the message, we must be willing to love it more than the method.

Frank was not wrong to love the sanctuary, the hymns, or the King James Version. Those things had carried the gospel to him in his youth. He was just mistaken when he confused the method with the message. If we can keep learning to hold our methods loosely and our message tightly, perhaps we can be so faithful even Frank would approve.

John Crowder is the senior pastor of First Baptist Church in West. The views expressed in this resource article are those of the author.