From the 1975 classic “WHAT’S GONE WRONG WITH THE HARVEST” by James Engel
Appeal to Felt Need — the Key to an Open Filter
Tom Bartlett assumed that his preaching and teaching would somehow fall on responsive soil. He did not take that difficult step of understanding the filters of the members of the audience. If he had, the effectiveness crisis might have been averted.
What is the alternative? Much insight can be gained from the parable of the soils (Luke 8:5-15). Christ saw great differences between those who would be receptive to what He had to say and those who would not. Much of the reason for the nonreceptivity of some soil is that the “worries and riches and pleasures of this life” choke out the seed of God’s word (Luke 8:14). Put differently, Christ is saying that filters are closed and there is no real response to anything said because of the absence of felt need. The existence of felt need implies the existence of an open filter. For one reason or another, the individual’s values, attitudes, and beliefs no longer satisfy. He is now in a stage of problem recognition and is receptive to solution.
Tom Bartlett was stunned to find that about 50 percent of his flock claimed to be in real spiritual hunger and that he had been largely unaware of the specific dimensions of this need. He had gone on Sunday after Sunday preaching his polished sermons while his people sat in their pews, largely unfed and, as a result, even hindered rather than helped in their desire to serve God.
We are referring to the spiritually hungry who are not having their hunger satisfied. Tom must face his responsibility and bring the Word of God to bear in its fullness at the points of need in the congregation. This is by no means easy in view of diversity within the membership, but there are some useful. steps toward solution that will be discussed in a later chapter.
This is not to advocate a weak, insipid message that merely appeals to present biases and sidesteps the penetrating truth of the Scriptures. But neither can the Word of God be used as a sledgehammer if people are not receptive. The agent of change starts where people are now and moves them toward a desired end point within the context of their existing needs, values, and lifestyles. As Ward Goodenough points out in his landmark book, Cooperation in Change:
But, one may ask, isn’t it possible to educate people to see things our way? The answer remains the same: yes, if they are willing to be educated; otherwise no.5
THE PERIL OF PROGRAM ORIENTATION
Tom Bartlett has a gift for preaching. He also spends much time in prayer as he prepares his sermons and tries to give the message the Spirit directs. But, as we have seen, Tom’s problem is that he really doesn’t know his people. True, he visits their homes and sees them at church functions, but he sees mostly the veneer, the masks that people wear. Underneath that mask are Christians, born-again people, who have needs, hangups, and real struggles in applying their faith. That is a dimension of his flock that Tom rarely sees. His messages, therefore, are polished and homiletically correct, but they do not communicate as they should! They are not speaking to felt needs and are falling on barren ground all too often.
Each week Tom must make decisions about sermon content. As Drucker points out, effective decisions start with an opinion as to what should be done but the correct decisions cannot be made until opinion is tested against reality. 6 In other words, Tom must be certain that his sermon content speaks to his people where they are and to their needs, in terms they can understand.
When the opinion about what should be done is not tested against reality, the decision-maker is essentially an “armchair theorist” and is guilty of program orientation. The result can be a strategy that is a solution to a nonexistent problem. Program orientation is analogous to a business firm’s designing a new product in a laboratory and then trying to coerce people to buy it through the exercise of advertising muscle. Although this may at times result in success, the more likely outcome is a sales disaster. A far better approach, the adaptive orientation is to begin with a study of the audience and the other elements of the environment to be faced and to adapt the organizational strategy to the realities of the situation to be faced.
The Deacon Board at First Church also contributes to effectiveness crisis by falling victim to program orientation. There is much activity for all ages, but there is seldom any comprehensive effort made to see if the program really is meeting the spiritual needs of the flock. Usually decisions are passed solely on untested opinion. And once a program is initiated, it rarely if ever is changed, except, of course, in the most minor of details. The result: smoothly running harvest equipment, except that there are no cutting blades.
Fortunately, Tom, Al, and others in leadership had sensed that things were not right, and therefore they authorized the congregational analysis. Pastor Tom genuinely wants to shepherd the flock, but he needs help. The Deacon Board needs help. The church truly is at a crossroads, but there is one major factor in their favor. The people also are concerned that their “walk does not match their talk.” The congregational survey showed that members have deeply felt needs and want help in remedying their deficiencies in the areas of prayer, witness, Bible study, family life, etc. They have not, for the most part, closed their hearts to change, and there is strong evidence of a pervasive desire of the congregation to be God’s people.
The great danger of program orientation is that it can quench the Spirit of God. For example, all too often the Board first chooses the Sunday school curriculum and then voices the prayer: “God, bless our decision.” This is almost like saying, “Here we are, God; catch up with us.” An exaggeration? Maybe, but this is the inevitable end of program orientation. It can quickly become man’s way and not God’s.
First Church is now poised to break out of program orientation and the result could be a revolution! The congregational analysis was a good first step. The leadership must now go through the demanding task of adapting all activities to the needs and requirements that were disclosed. This is not going to be easy, but there is no other way to restore the missing cutting blades.
In this book, we are endeavoring to provide practical insight into the dimensions of adaptive orientation. The first step is to understand people, and that is the subject of most of the remaining chapters. Later, we will face the issue of adapting message and media to the situation. The goal is to uncover biblical mandates for the church and the means for their fulfillment in a rapidly changing environment.
Leave a Reply