Vision Statement Mania (February 25, 2007)

Does a church need a vision statement?

The issue came up at our last business meeting, and so I thought it
good to write out a response to any who might regard my position on
the matter as disturbingly out of the mainstream.

I'll be blunt: ever since the early 90's when I first heard about vision statements, I have been baffled by the energy and zeal that churches have devoted to crafting them. In 15 years of studying for and serving in the ministry, I have yet to hear a coherent defense of them! But I know they are an article of faith for many. A fellow
student in seminary announced in class that he would not accept a call to a church that did not already have a statement. A district superintendent friend of mine told me that he spent 18 months in committee meetings crafting one for the church he pastored. In seminary I was told, to paraphrase Cowboy Woody in Toy Story, "If your church doesn't have one, get one!"

But I have always had a couple questions that have never been answered to my satisfaction. If vision statements are vital to the functioning of a church, why don't the writers of the New Testament ever instruct their congregations to create them? Saints Paul and Peter and James and John wrote many things to the churches, but they never pressured them to outline a statement of purpose. Maybe today it is wise policy to have such a statement - just as it is wise to have constitution - but then it should be clear that what is at stake here is prudent procedure rather than spiritual necessity.

My next question is, if church vision statements are a matter of good policy rather than biblical mandate, just when did they become so? The answer seems to be: very recently - here in North America in the 1980's, to be exact. That is when they came into vogue. Before that, somehow or other, churches got by without them. It seems to me that vision statement zealots necessarily believe that churches, for about 1,950 years, were rudderless, meandering and confused about their purpose. I deny this, of course. Chrysostom, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones and Ironside were men of clear purpose who led flourishing congregations without ever having bothered to craft a 100-words- or-less statement of mission for them.

I went online and googled "church vision statement" and got 122,000 hits. I read a few. A couple patterns emerge:

1) They are indeed recent. I'd love to see a vision statement from 1969, 1954, 1922, but apparently they don't exist. Again, nobody realized we needed them until yesterday, historically speaking.

2) They're dull. I'm not saying they're bad - nearly all of them are quite good, actually. I'm just saying that the eyes glaze over and the lids begin to droop after a very small sampling. What I'd love to see
is a statement that makes me say, "Now that's galvanizing" or "Oh no, I completely disagree with that!" Instead you get something like the statement below from Zion Christian Church. It's fine, nothing wrong it. I don't mind if you skim it though.

We seek to love God and worship him with all our hearts, to walk in integrity and godliness, to teach the Word of God with balance and
depth, to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ enthusiastically andlovingly with our city and out world, and to build a community of mature, joyful believers who will be empowered to fulfill their God-ordained purpose and ministry.

Fair enough. But isn't that true of every church? And just how many committee meetings did you need to come up with something (excuse me) so bloody obvious?

I'll tell you how a vision statement might intrigue me and prove valuable: if it is specific, geared to the purpose at hand, reflects the unique priorities of current leadership and expects to be revised when leadership changes. We can all agree on the basics - that we here to glorify God by proclaiming the Word and leading lives transformed by Christ etc etc. No need to re-invent that wheel. But the specifics
can get very interesting if we are explicit about them and hold members accountable to them.

The model that comes to mind is that of a basketball franchise or coach. Every basketball team has the same basic vision: to win games,win the championship, satisfy fans, etc. Boring. We already knew that. But different franchises and coaches have distinct, mutually exclusive approaches for how to be a winning team. For example:

Pat Riley: Must have a low post presence (Jabbar, Ewing, Mourning,
Shaq) or he does not coach the team.
(Old) Denver Nuggets: They'd score as many points as possible and try
to beat you 140-130.
Phoenix Suns: Run on every possession - even after a made basket.
Hank Iba: Tightly controlled, slow pattern offense like the old Soviet teams.
Chicago Bulls: Defensive intensity, team discipline, no felons.

Do you see what I mean? Every institution wants the same thing (basketball teams want to win games; churches want to glorify God), but they have different ways of trying to get there. Only the differences, the unique factors, strike me as worth the bother of articulating.

I doubt by now there is any question about the unique factors of my vision: my goal is that people of the church be hospitable to guests and meet together for prayer.