Thanks for taking this on again; I believe it provides value to all churches to see what they may see but are not in the position to do thus taking the risk associated with being the innovator.

I would like to add that many times we celebrate the innovation of the successful when it is the innovation of the unsuccessful that can lead to others’ ultimate success. Failure can provide the framework and foundation for future success.

So what is a good measure of innovation? How can we support innovation as an industry?

jhook

Glad that Outreach is doing this again. And I think you’re the guy to spearhead it. Really appreciate the way you keep a pulse on what’s happening around the country.

Like others, I’m concerned about this becoming something other than an “innovative” list :) It can easily become a popularity contest or “who’s the biggest” or “who’s the hippest” kind of thing. Fortunately, I know you see through that.

I really think we need to celebrate innovation. We have a core conviction at NCC: there are ways of doing church that no one has thought of yet.

I think originality is the essence of innovation. I think we need to celebrate those churches that are doing things different. But the difference comes from their ability to exegete culture and incarnate the gospel message. That may be a branded sermon series or a creative outreach to the community.

I’ve always believed that the most innovative churches are the ones we don’t know about yet :) But this kind of conversation gets the church thinking in the right direction–toward the future.

Thanks,

Mark

(…I think it’s great to see and hear what others are doing in obeying their callings to reach their communities, and sharing that information is completely valuable and valid…)

so it wouldn’t be lost in translation.

My bad.

tony

You can be innovative and have a few flops or not be the biggest kid on the block. Apple is one of the most innovative companies in the world. So is Steve Jobs. neXt was a flop. Apple totally failed at the PDA. They are not the biggest PC vendor by a long shot. So innovation doesn’t always translate into a megachurch. You could be a niche player and be innovative. I suspect there are churches that run 200 that are more innovative than rapidly growing churches that run 2000 that are emulative.

For full disclosure, my title is “Innovation Leader”, and the word “innovation” sounds cool. But, it is rare that we (LifeChurch.tv) have true innovations. We are definitely experimenters as we look to find ways of being more effective in ministry.

Many times emulation or adaptation is more effective than innovation at connecting with people since you have a proven model to follow. But, I agree with Ken that these things should not be labeled as innovations…they simply are not.

Even if new…it is not only a technology, application, program, or teaching series. Innovation can also happen in less obvious ways…like in behind-the-scenes processes that people don’t always see from the outside. The most innovative churches are likely churches that are growing because of process innovation and they will be hard to recognize.

It is also important to note that it does not take big resources to innovate. Usually innovation happens inside of constraints (like no money, few people).

My two cents :)

Webster says an innovation is a new idea, method, or device. An innovative church must then be a church that introduces new ideas, methods, or devices. A successfully innovative church would be one that better accomplishes the great commission through their new ideas, methods, or devices.

Note: emulation is not innovation.

The first church to go multi-site was an innovator; the 100th wasn’t. The first theater church was an innovator; the 32nd wasn’t. Sunday School and Servant Evangelism were innovations when they started. Sermon series on Lost, 24, Survivor, etc. are not innovations at all — they are emulations. Purpose Driven Life was innovative at Saddleback, but not at First Presbyterian.

I’m not criticizing emulation. I’m just saying it’s not innovation. Emulation is perfectly fine, perhaps even wise; just don’t call it innovation.

An innovative church is on the bleeding edge of something — technology, staffing, methods, or whatever. They are doing something new and seeing great-commission results.

But I’d argue that the most innovative churches are those that are pursuing discontinuous change, i.e., not in a straight line from what they’ve been doing, in relation to themselves. Of course the disadvantage of measuring innovativeness this way is that it is extremely difficult to be discontinuous all the time (and retain any kind of coherence).

The primary model for the church in this kind of innovation may or may not cause a church to appear innovative. If all we do is what we’ve always done, we’re clearly NOT innovative. But if we are moment by moment following Jesus, who is always trying to reach an ever changing set of people, our pathway - from the perspective of someone not observing either Jesus or the group pursued - may seem purely chaotic.