I agree. Setting up a new “congregation” as you suggest may sometimes be the best move in order to reach a new demographic. To use marketing lingo that would be the might be the “purest” response in terms of responding to a “niche” market segment.

In regard to “postmoderns”: I don’t know enough about them to comment. As I understand “postmodernism” it posits that rational thought is subordinate to subjectivity. [At least that's my take-away of what Karl Barth says] I really don’t know how that plays out in terms of any institutional — or non-institutional — church setting.

I think one aspect of postmodernism is that it is impossible in principle to know truth and/or there is no such thing as truth. In this case, it seems to me that Christianity (whose bedrock is a set of propositional truth-claims) would be a hard sell.

I have not read Stetzer’s book so I don’t know how many — if any — of the “20 somethings” he polled are postmoderns.

Not to be contentious, but if the community does not understand the Gospel message we are proclaiming, there is a major problem. I’m not speaking so much with regard to music style or clothing, but to what questions we are answering when communicating the Gospel. It is my experience, albeit minimal, that most postmoderns are asking different questions, not less spiritual… just different, than what many evangelical churches are answering. We do need to listen!! But not for how to get them into church… rather, to find out how sin is affecting them and in what ways God is already speaking to them.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

PS – My answer to your problem in #20 above: Quit trying to make a local congregation bigger and plant a new one.

But they did not lay claim to final truth or anything. I found it to be interesting research and helpful conclusions.

But, I agree that a great follow-up would be research into young people the same age who are active and involved at church. That would make a wonderful companion piece.

When you are starting something from scratch you look at your target audience (which may be a subset of the total population). In your case, you are probably targeting “people of Islamic background in the Near East” not Wall St. Bankers or USA inner-city residents.

When you already have some “customers” then you have a more complex task. I think we would both agree that it “cultural trappings” may be a variable that can be adjusted in order to reach a target group. When it is the case that you have two target groups — one that are your current members and another in the community that you are trying to reach — then you have to do a tradeoff. Or at least you may have to simultaneously support two “niche brands”. I’ve seen this myself –up close and personal — where churches change things to reach out to certain groups (by way for example of certain musical styles) with no apparent cost/benefit analysis as to the total result. I think all would agree that the goal is to reach new demographic groups WHILE STILL KEEPING your current demographic groups. I believe that a systems approach has to be used not just looking at the margin.

Don’t try to be “all things to all people” or you will kill your brand.

You may want to check with the Apostle Paul and see if he agrees or if this one is syncretistic thinking ;^)

If communicating the Gospel in a way that makes sense to those in our communities is important to us, then we’d better find out how they view us, the world, God and themselves. Then go to the Holy Scriptures to figure out how God addresses these things. This is no different than the preacher who has deep insight into his congregation and preaches using relevant texts from the Holy Scriptures and illustrations that make sense to his audience.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

You are on to something!

It would be interesting to have a formal survey of “young adults” that currently DO attend church to see what they like and dislike.

Stetzer and Co. should survey the “young attender group” and compare/contrast the results with the survey from same age group that don’t attend.

I think there is validity to your analogy regarding car designs. People who like a certain car really make a significant “comittment” to driving that car. Why else would my wife and I pay $58K for a new Corvette and travel all the way to Bowling Green KY to watch them build them while taking factory delivery on our new car. We probably wouldn’t walk across the street to get a new T-Bird. [As you will recall Ford discontinued their "resurrected" T-Bird and I don't think there is much Ford could have done to woo many Vette drivers to their brand]

It was a “million years ago” when I took marketing while working on my MBA. As I recall, the way to keep your product going is to pay attention to your core constituency while adding “converts” at the margin. Don’t try to be “all things to all people” or you will kill your brand. You have to do a “cost/benefit” analysis when making changes.

One possibility is doing “niche branding” so you can attract new people without cannibalizing your existing customers. As far as I know this has only been marginally successful in the local church context.

Roger Simpson Oklahoma City OK

I guess I’m seeing this all backwards and will have to check out the book for myself. It would seem to me that the people who aren’t going to church is the wrong crowd to be surveying. I mean, it’s like doing market research for Ford by asking Chrysler and GM drivers what they don’t like about Fords. The flaw in our thinking is that if we make Fords more like Chryslers and GMs that we will attract those buyers. From my understanding of how product development and marketing works, this is a fast-track to irrelevance and corporate suicide.

I agree that asking people why they don’t go to church will help us understand people who are not going to church. I appreciate the guys finding out the information you posted. However, it doesn’t follow that the authors can derive a “How to” section from the findings of people who aren’t using the product. We don’t ask bald men how to improve hair care products. We don’t survey cat owners for their ideas on how to improve dog food packaging. So why would a survey of people who don’t come to church tell us anything about why people DO come to church?

Here’s the unspoken assumption – if we fix what is wrong with the church as identified by these various groups of non-attenders, then they will start attending church. Why do we believe this? I don’t have a belief that cat owners are going to buy dog food even if I take their advice on how to improve the packaging. Why would I think that the advice of non-attenders is going to enhance attendance? Even if we fixed everything that is “wrong” with church for this set, we still have not put in what is “right.”

I presented your review to my Sunday School class of college kids, and then I asked them, “So why are you here?” The overwhelming sentiment is that there was somehow a sense of obligation that they needed to be there. One or two voiced an interest in learning about the Bible and the newest student who was recently saved in the past year said he likes the people at church. Admittedly, this is a non-scientific poll, but i think it’s interesting to note that not one thing that brought them to church is addressed in the critique Ed & Co. level against the church.

Suffice to say, identifying what folks don’t like and wish we would do different is insufficient to create a strong, compelling reason for them to come to church. I think we are laboring under a delusion if we think “fixing” what is “wrong” with church will appeal to 20-somethings. Our chruch’s 20-somethings all recognize the “broken” things at our church, but that hasn’t prevented them from coming. Maybe we should look at why people DO come to church and put more of THAT in the service than what people who don’t come wish was there.

The best auto designs come not from non-drivers of the products but from the product’s biggest fans. Maybe it’s about time we surveyed the fans of church and see what they like most and give them mo’ better of that.

Thanks for the review,…. I may try to get this book in the near future. The statistics sound interesting and should be informative. Ed and the guys certainly push out a lot of stuff.

Blessings,
Chris