Recently, I was having coffee (of course) with an experienced church planter/pastor—he’s a very respected friend. We were discussing the many models, programs, and classifications of planting and revitalizing churches. A great edifying conversation.
We briefly touched on the topic of how church planting gurus utilize demographic data for missional engagement but have no concept of psychographics.
What is psychographics? In a nutshell, psychographics is detailed qualitative consumer market information. It is the results, opinions, activities, and interests of specified demographics.
In layman’s terms, psychographics helps to know what people enjoy, are passionate about, participate in, and love—it’s basically an Instagram photo.
Let me give you two of the most important psychographic information tools.
Activities
A psychographic view provides the possible ways and means in which a church may reach a demographic. One such way is by examining the activities that people enjoy.
For instance, I have demographic information (true story) about the county and town where my church is located. I have spent six years in a revitalization, here. The demographics, from census.gov, illustrate that the town has grown faster than the county—but the African American population has grown by an astounding 120%, while the Caucasian population has decreased by over 7%. What does that tell me? It tells me a lot about the people group I am reaching.
However, what demographics do not tell me is how to reach the new African American members of the community—and what they value. This is where psychographics comes in handy. Psychographics will show me what activities my community is passionate about—the online gaming, crafts, fishing, fortnite (if you have to ask, forget it!), football, surfing, kayaking, sewing, bingo, etc.
Psychographics tells me how people spend their time, not merely their interests. It’s great to know the socio-economics of my community, but if I don’t know the psychographic activities then I don’t know the community.
Attitudes
This psychographic analysis is very insightful. I, not only, want to know about the community’s passion, but I want to know their attitudes towards those passions. How does my community feel about President Trump may not mean much to you, and you may not care, but if the community strongly despises the President—probably my first missional outreach should not involve a “Trump 2020” booth.
What does the community think about Christianity? Adoption? Sports salaries compared to teacher salaries? What do they think their greatest social need to be? Do they care about environmental protection, recycling, or clean water?
Knowing the attitudes of the people that you are reaching is a major bonus. This is nearly identical to the Apostle Paul walking through Athens, making the summation, “I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’” (Acts 17:22–23). The people of Athens were passionate about their gods—Paul used their passions to reach them.
There are several other facets of psychographics that are very helpful, I listed the two that I enjoy researching. To me, activities and attitudes tell me how people “tick” and what motivates them. I’m going to provide some graphics below. Each of the graphics has a linked source—do yourself a favor and click on some of those links.
As far back as I can remember I have played team sports.
I was born with a competitive nature. I am the youngest of three boys. To survive, I was required to push harder and better. To be frank, I learned to loathe losing. But, I’m grateful that I was raised in an era when only winners received trophies.
While I surpassed many of my peers in natural ability, I hated to see them struggle. If my teammates didn’t produce—the team suffered. I quickly learned the effectiveness of teamwork.
Nearly every team sport has an individual that excels—but a team that wins utilizes a collective input and mutual investment.
The plurality of oneness
Surely, the phrase “plurality of oneness” seems like an oxymoron. And, sort of—it is. But within the realm of any fruitful organization should be a collaboration and unification of differing talents.
For example, the Apostle Paul manifested God’s design for the church—that there would be “apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). More than mere office titles, each of these five labels provides unique giftings and talents—for the whole.
The respective offices illustrate a plurality of oneness—teamwork.
Effective team building is not found in gathering similar talents, but diverse. As another example, think about football. Not everyone passes, or kicks, or runs, or blocks—yet each teammate’s unique skillset completes the whole.
Seeking diversity with clarity
Everyone knows that if you gather ten Baptists in a room, you’ll have ten opinions and a casserole. Yet, in all seriousness—team diversity is good—if done correctly.
In Paul’s “team-list” (above), while there is a uniqueness of talent, there is also a unified vision. When seeking team members, two essential foundations exist in building and developing a successful team.
We briefly examined the first—gathering a diversified group of people. Second, each of the team members must understand the organization’s vision. With vision, clarity comes succinct goal setting and completion.
When a diversified team collaborates with a unified vision then creativity, innovation, and goal setting help to reach specified key objectives. However, diversity without vision clarity is merely an opinionated fellowship.
Creating key objectives for specific results
Why have a team at all? What is the purpose of a team?
Normally, a team is created because it outshines the effectiveness of what one person can accomplish. Therefore, a team should exist to achieve strategic objectives with specified results.
Recently, I read John Doerr’s book, Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation Rock the World with OKRs.It seems that “OKRs” are the new buzzwords. OKRs are objectives and key results.
To maintain a unified vision within the diversified team, write down realistic and achievable goals. Concurrently, the team should also log a measurable means of identifying how each objective is met (i.e. how do we know when the objective is complete?).
But remember, having a diverse group helps achieve a unified vision by utilizing each person’s talents, but each team member may have differing methods of achieving a specific goal. The purpose of writing down the objectives and key results allows each team member to be invested in the process and know when/how to move forward.
Think of a young child singing their ABC’s. My youngest daughter used to skip over the letter N, singing, M.M.M.O.P.
Did she complete her objectives? Not really. First, she repeated “objective” M, three times. She also missed “objective” N, completely. And, in the grand scheme of things, failed to sing the alphabet—the entire reason for learning the song.
However, I loved to hear her sing. And, when she got it correct—ice cream was always a good reward.
Celebrate the small victories
Everyone likes to be edified. Too many times organizations do not celebrate the little wins of reaching key objectives. When visible results are measured and the steps to fulfilling the vision come to pass, it is important to recognize a job well-done.
This last point is not a team building feature, but it will solidify validity and provide encouragement. Collectively celebrating is something every team strives to witness.
The Western church has been traveling along the highway of culture with punctured tires. With warnings from passersby, finally, the hazards began blinking as a testimony to the crawling headway of expansion. For years, a passionate plea from prophetic missiologists and the apostolic elite—the Church must pull over and change its treads.
Throughout the eighties and nineties, a call for Western and global church planting was being received—by some. Today, the message of missional engagement has caught on and with a millennial onslaught of hipster urbanization, the Church began birthing city-wide movements.
Along with the missional paradigmatic shifts, God-molded zealous individuals—the crazy and the called—the weathered, tattooed, past-soaked, ex-addicted, and grace-delivered entrepreneurial-type persons—to reach an unreached world—gladly answered the call.
Coupled with the crazed and called (or confused), more and more church planting networks popped up around America. Each network—with its devised models, programs, and assessments—concentrating upon the inevitable and highly anticipated— “launch.”
Some planters focused on raising funds, some centered on the social aspects of society, some others on music, others on outreaches with bouncy-house-packed block parties, and still numerous others on sending masses of people from one church to another city to create an “insta-church.”
While it’s not productive (or wise) to point blameful fingers as to what went right and what went wrong over the last ten years in planting—I believe it is essential to analyze and learn. Admittedly, I long and love the passion and attempts for any missional engagement to reach the lost.
Once, a woman complained to D. L. Moody:
“Mr. Moody, I don’t agree with your evangelism methods.”
Without hesitation, Moody responded, “I agree with you. May I ask what your methods of evangelism are?”
The woman quipped, “I don’t have any…”
To which Moody famously retorted, “Then I like mine, better.”
With that clarified, I believe the Western church has been planting churches in reverse—backwards. And, we can do better.
Planting in Reverse
Once again, let me reiterate, I love the fact that the Church is planting churches, period. I also believe that to effectively reach unreached cultures, the church will have to utilize a multi-pronged approach to planting.
There is no “cookie-cutter” approach to planting. But, there is one aspect which should be the center-focus of all churches, missions, and plants—making reproducible disciple-makers.
The Church may have changed her tires, but without reproducible disciple-making, depress the hazard button now and prepare for another blow-out!
We’re planting churches in reverse.
While an overall focus is beginning to shift, a more concerted effort and awareness are imperative.
When planters focus on core groups and launch teams, instead of Great Commission multiplication, it is certain that people-centered “churches” will form. Most church planting networks emphasize their programs and upon numerical gatherings than people? Not all—but most.
Discipleship becomes an after-thought of what the church does, once people are gathered within it. While the Church may have seen a shift from the attractional model to the missional model—that was only a change in cheap tires, not in run-flats. As you can see—the discipleship after-thought approach is backward.
Reproducible Disciple-Making
There are key components to biblical reproducible disciple-making (Matt. 28:18–20). But instead of looking at the main factors (gospel proclamation, baptism, commands, etc.), let’s understand one important principle—disciple-making does not begin with a conversion.
Disciple-making begins with relationship. This is the current church’s major dilemma. As if in a dense fog and driving with the high beams on—the Church is oblivious to effectively navigating the culture highway.
Most church planters are (or should be) trained to build relationships. The problem is that most networks do not focus on disciple-making at the core of those relationships. Discipleship is placed at the end and not the beginning. How so—you may ask?
When the planter targets creating a collective body, known as an ekklesia (the church), the focus is already numbers centered, instead of people-centered. The planter becomes burdened with the mantra “meet more people…gather more people.” The conclusion, the planter will feel like a failure if they’re not gathering masses of people. Likewise, it is not foreign for the planter to wait to engage in any form of discipleship until converts are gathered, as the church.
Reproducible disciple-making begins the church planting process with relationship. I know, if you’re like me, you’re desiring application.
What does this look like?
The Application
If a planter is parachuting into a city (let’s say, a husband and wife team), the main focus should be on finding an “anchor trade” (a term I coined for New Breed). An anchor trade is an occupation that meets a community need and provides income. Most planters seek to find maximum income potential but will have minimum exposure to the community.
Think of an anchor trade as the proverbial “tent-maker.” Paul’s occupation was making tents (Acts 18), a need that nomadic peoples of the first-century required and utilized. Paul’s tent-making placed him in the center of the community, buying, selling, and making—an anchor trade.
While in the anchor trade, the planter begins the disciple-making process. The planter proceeds to find the Mars Hill of the community (i.e. Mars Hill=what do they worship?) For you and me, a community may worship football, craft-beer, cross-fit, coffee, LGBTQ, or eclectic art. It is the planter’s obligation, as Paul achieved, to find the Mars Hill and engage it.
Next, the planter becomes a reproducible disciple-maker by necessitating natural gospel conversations. One of my favorite movie scenes is from The Princess Bride. Inigo Montoya is frustratingly waiting for Wesley to climb the Cliffs of Insanity. As soon as Wesley is to ascend to the top, Inigo will challenge him to a sword duel. The entertainment happens when Wesley reaches the top and sits down to take a rock out of his boot.
Inigo Montoya impatiently prods him, “You don’t by any chance have six fingers on your left hand?”
Wesley humorously responds, “Do you always begin conversations this way?”
A very funny scene, but the church has been so methodically programmed to think in “Christianese,” or to “complete the sale,” that it has forgotten how to have natural gospel conversations—church planters are no different. The first words from planters’ mouths should not be, “Are you saved?” A question the unreached world has no concept.
Discipleship begins with natural gospel conversations—not at a person’s conversion.
Jesus called his twelve followers, disciples. These men did not have illumination, nor were they regenerated. As well, understanding and applying the gospel doesn’t make a person a disciple, either. Clearly, Peter had the gospel all wrong (Gal. 2:11) and no one would reject his disciple “credentials.”
As the church planter continues to work an anchor trade, knowing the Mars Hill, and engaging in natural gospel conversations, true relationships form—which in turn, establish life-on-life disciple-making. From life-on-life formulations, an ekklesia is formed.
Think about the two processes. There is a distinct difference between gathering, establishing, launching, outreach, and then discipleship programs—with anchor trade, Mars Hill, gospel conversations, disciple-making, and ekklesia. One is backward, and the other is in Great Commission order.
Knowing these two processes, the question for you becomes: which will you choose? Let’s just admit—making disciple-makers is difficult and tedious. It’s not glamorous or fun. It is pull over, down to earth, nitty-gritty, go through the trunk, find the car-jack, and greasy lug wrench-get-the-hands-dirty-tire-changing application.
Disciple-making is real life-on-life Christ living. But, if the church is looking for healthy multiplicative reproducibility, starting at relationships is imperative.
