The Rise and Fall of Starbucks
I have visited hundreds of Starbucks on the road in the last few years. I really did need all those caffeine jolts. Also, I like their atmosphere and the values pamphlets they keep in racks next to the cream and sugar.
The brand continues to expand at a rapid place, with something like 10,000 stores now operating in the US, and 3000 stores in 37 other countries. Starbucks’ influence can be seen in the many churches around the country that look like they used the same architect.
But I am also noticing some troubling trends recently in my coffee stops. The quality I have come to expect is faltering in some ways that are strikingly familiar to the dynamics of a ministry that is verging on decline.
1. The first thing to go is your self-talk: Entering a ‘Bucks in Tulsa early one morning, I overheard the crew talking pointedly among themselves about aspects of their training they did not appreciate. I was shocked. This was my first experience of hearing their personnel speak negatively about the company. But remember, we’re not in Seattle anymore. This is 10,000 stores later.
2. The next thing to go is your other-talk: In another store, I stood at the counter (alone) and waited to place my order while the crew ignored me for what seemed to be a very long time. Being used to friendly service delivered just as rapidly as humanly possible, the delay seemed to drag on forever. Two years ago, even one year ago, this kind of experience was unthinkable.
3. The last thing to go is your culture: One of the best parts of visiting ‘Bucks is listening to the baristas describe your order in the language of their tribe: “Skinny Mocha Latte Frappacino with a Shot!” Then I went into a store where the coffee priesthood treated their sacred language like a joke, as if mocking their own tradition. With the loss of the lingo, everything else about the experience (like the cleanliness of the store) suffered as well.
In between these visits, I had many positive experiences at Starbucks. But I am no longer sure that going for coffee will be what I think it should be. Something has been lost.
I want to suggest an implication for leaders: The most challenging part of staying on mission may be defending the organizational DNA that got you there.
1. The first thing to go is your self-talk: First Church began as an urban, campus-oriented congregation reaching out to the students and staff of a large state university. But as the leadership aged, their conversations began to include questions like this: “Maybe we’re never going to be able to have the kind of programs our families need unless we build somewhere else…”
2. The second thing to go is your other-talk: In its early days, First Church was known for its emphasis on relationships. Infrastructure was considered a distant second to friendship. As self-talk about moving to a larger venue increases, ministry infrastructure is developed in anticipation. In a year or two, more visitors are welcomed by greeters in the lobby, than are attending with their friends.
3. The last thing to go is your culture: Eventually, First Church dedicates a lovely new facility at the first exit on the new beltway surrounding the city’s suburban ring. Now in its forties and fifties, key leadership feels good about the evolution of the group from a down and dirty outreach center to a much more sophisticated enterprise with the kind of production values that suburbanites expect. All this is fine, but in the process, something has been lost.
If the Starbucks monolith is showing the first cracks, then no one is exempt from patterns like this.
Leadership means monitoring the extent to which our ministries are on mission and both nurturing and defending the traits that achieve that focus.
For Discussion:
1. What are some of the traits that keep ministries on mission?
2. Are there other patterns that emerge when the direction is drifting?
3. Do you know of a leader who has recovered from this trend? How did it happen?
This blog appeared originally in Monday Morning Insights
Welcome to the Reader Forum
Bookmark this article using Remarkable!
Off-Road Disciplines
In Off-Road Disciplines, Earl Creps reveals that the on-road practices of prayer and Bible reading should be bolstered by the other kinds of encounters with God that occur unexpectedly—complete with the bumps and bruises that happen when you go “off-road.”
See Earl on Google Video:
Earl Creps—a popular speaker and leader—is director of the Doctor of Ministry program and associate professor at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary (AGTS) in Springfield, Missouri. He has been a pastor, ministries consultant, and university professor. Along the way, Creps earned a Ph.D. in communication at Northwestern University and a doctor of ministry degree in leadership at AGTS.
What is Earl doing? View or subscribe to Earl Creps' Google calendar. Or learn how to contact him directly.
Add Earl's Journal to
Join The Leading Edge email list:
A free monthly e-newsletter from the Doctor of Ministry Director, Earl Creps. Offers articles, training opportunities, tools, as well as recommended books, websites and other resources. To receive The Leading Edge enter your email address in the form below or request your subscription by emailing dmin@agts.edu. You can download past issues of The Leading Edge as small PDF files from Resources.
I definitely agree! Since being a starbucks partner (what an employee is called) for a couple years now I have definitely noticed a dissatisfaction of partners. It is important for the future of not only Starbucks, but also the Church, to mentor people to carry on the legacy of the mission. Without creating enthusistically excited and committed partner and disciples, growth will be inhibted by disgruntled people inside of the organization (or the Church). What is percieved on the outside of what is going on in the inside will keep people far far away.
Very interesting article. I have always liked Starbucks, but prefer other shops with Free wifi. Anyhow. I can relate to your application to the church. I do see this
You know what? Thanks for identifying the elephant in the room. In addition, I agree with your observations about Starbucks. May I suggest another question for discussion? What values are betrayed by a heightened expectation of coffee culture but little to no expectation of coffee quality? How is the simplicity and power of the gospel similar to a cup of Peet’s coffee?
Of course a researcher of postmodernity would have to make a comparison w/ Starbucks! You’re eat up. :)
Question 1 – what are traits that keep ministries on mission? Persecution seems to do the trick in Acts. I do think the church has been pushed to the periphery in our culture and perhaps this will actually help in the long run. But other than this big generalization, I guess I could say that the trait of staying small and splitting may be a better option in ministries/planting. When your small you have no alternative but to go out and make disciples. I don’t see a whole lot of hope for corporations and megachurches at this point. They become too much about maintenance. So I guess I could suggest for planters to start small, split (naturallY) and keep doing this over and over again. It become a whole lot less aobut us this way.
I have to agree with John T. The size of mega-churches today are part of the problem. They create an air of expectancy in those who size-hungry, and create insecurity in the churches that aren’t as large. At my church now, we’re not huge, but we’re reaching a very difficult demographic. Not to mention extremely liberal culture. But I like it that way. It keeps the focus in the staff and the congregation at a razor-sharp point, because we realize that we have to stay on top of the game in order to keep on reaching our community. Focus is lost once the congregation grows beyond the ability to know the people attending. People talk of church splits in a very negative ligt and indeed many church splits have happened on a negative note. But if we could harness the overwhelming giving capacity as a movement, church downsizing and partnering could grow enormously. In effect, it would keep the impact large, while keeping the growth potential in new and old believers at an extremely high par. In other words, smaller churches with a partnering network could revolutionize the american church of today, without losing membership, and growth potential.
Quinn:
Interesting thought, “church downsizing and partnering could grow enormously. In effect, it would keep the impact large, while keeping the growth potential in new and old believers at an extremely high par. In other words, smaller churches with a partnering network could revolutionize the american church of today, without losing membership, and growth potential.” Got any flesh for them bones?
Quinn:
I’m on the board of a small church which also runs a mid-size private school. The school suffers from a lack of financial support since the church is small. A partnership with larger churches to support the school (which has students from many local churches) would make great sense. We have assets (great property and established school) which could benefit from funding. They should not be wasted just because our current church model is not based on huge crowds.
The difficulty is getting larger churches to invest in ministries that they do not control. If only people could grap that there is only one church…
No wonder I avoid Starbucks when I can. I prefer the smaller, ‘organic’ coffee shops.
However we have a Starbucks downstairs in the building I work with nothing else within 2 miles, so I do succumb to the ‘mega-coffee’ anyway at times.
Yes, my church I’m at is the flesh for those bones. We even have plans to launch a second church once this one reaches that point.
Steve, that’s the problem with most big churches and thus the reason I think many of them are doomed to be mediocre. Micro-management by any pastor, board, or staff, can ultimately be the death of any smaller organization that they give to. In my several years on this earth, I’ve seen it happen more times than I’ve ever seen micro-management do anything good.
Many, not all, large churches are selfish. They’ll cover it by saying that they just want to make sure their investments are wisely used, but really, they just want another ministry under their umbrella. Yes, that’s a blanket statement, and yes, there is some bitter feelings behind it. Those bitter feelings aren’t for any specific venture I myself have done, but because I’ve seen it ruin some close friends of mine over the years. Some, not all, pastors want power just like politicians. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I just think sometimes that we wrap everything in the belief that God won’t let His church become like that, but let’s be honest, folks. Pastors are human, too. I don’t hate those pastors that are like this, but I think they honestly believe that what they’re doing is right.
as a former barista, i remember thinking during my training, “If only the church was this organized!”...but my big concern with anything that successful is how do you keep it going and that question is similar to your first question…
1. i believe that ministries need to recast the vision but a vision that contours to the evolution of the community in which that ministry is planted…if a ministry cant do that, then it runs the risk of offering what worked in the past simply because it was successful…God-given vision is progressive and ready for the challenges of ministry however difficult they may be
2. one of the biggest clues to a shift in ministry direction is the self-talk among staff…negativity, infighting, glory-theft from God—all of these rear their ugly heads when the ministry starts to drift…there also tends to be an obsession with past success..since there’s nothing to look forward to, some choose to look back..
3. i have heard stories of leaders who’ve overcome the drift and broken through…my own pastor father suffered through a real dry spell with his church…the people were not growing and in fact were fighting anything new he wanted to do…but my dad just continued to be faithful and stayed true to making adjustments God was calling for…those who didnt like it were invited to find spiritual nurturing elsewhere…the gift of goodbye (thanks to t.d. jakes for that phrase) is something more pastors need to develop…sometimes the pressure to have the numbers compromises the need to change and grow…God’s mathematics sometimes require that we lose some folks to gain others…peace
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Most people equate “big” with more ministry. It’s not exactly true. And people moving elsewhere where they’re perhaps more evenly ministered to isn’t always a bad thing. I think because many pastors love people so much, they have a hard time thinking any other pastor could care for that person as much or as well. It’s almost a reverse insecurity. That’s what I was attempting to get across.
Your Starbucks observations are right on. I greatly anticipated the opening of a new store just down the street from my house, yet when it came, I was disappointed with the lack of personal ownership from the baristas. It seemed just like they had a job rather than a true partnership and interest in the company and the experience that the company provided. And since, during my visits to NYC I have noticed the same in some of the stores there.
This is similar with many churches, the over “professionalization” of ministry, relegated to the pastors and paid workers has I think caused the congregations to relegate the work and assume that it will be done for them. Many go to church to consume, not contribute to the ministry.
I think missionalgirl is right on with re-casting the vision which is dynamic and progressive, looking forward to God’s global transformation for his glory.
Maybe Starbuck’s like the church has changed because they have a different agenda from when they started.Much like the Emergent Church, acceptance and tolerance at any cost. When Magic Johnson becomes a spokesman for Starbucks and a global false gospel is preached in the churches,(not preached,forgive me that is too old-fashioned,)(we have very few actual Preachers left,or Shepherds for that matter) we will call them “Communicators” or “Leaders” that no one dares question their false teaching.(Almost sounds like you are following Hitler) So if the Starbucks employee doesn”t like the new diversity training-brainwashing or the Church member doesn’t believe in the new Emergent Theology, youcan be fired or quit(but leave quietly)This Emergent OOZE should have no place in theAOG or any other true Gospel church. This is an excuse for the Leaders to get to be and look like the world rather than mirror Christ.If this is your Church than I would say Christ’s Spirit has left the Building. Dr.Earl Creps, God will hold you accountable.
@Laurie
I suspect you are not as familiar with Dr. Creps’ writings as you should be. I have read his book, listened to many of his podcasts, and followed his blog for some time now. I have never detected a hint of heresy in anything he has said or done.
I would agree that elements associated with the “emergent church” make me uncomfortable, but that does not invalidate the need for changes in methodology (not theology). We need to change our culture, not our creed.
Current church leaders who do nothing but perpetuate organizations that are increasingly irrelevant and ineffective will also be held accountable by God, and likely with a less pleasing outcome.
-SHP (deacon in an AOG church)
Wow, Laurie… though I whole-heartedly disagree with you and your assessment of Earl and the EC, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask that you qualify your statements with specific examples. If you can’t do this, then I would seriously reconsider your own words.
Lighthouse Trails Research Project has many articles on Emergent Theology.One such article, “Assemblies Of God Theological Seminary and Prof. Earl Creps Promote Contemplative Spitituality.” If our theology and creed are not changing than why is it almost every church in the AOG have become Members of The WillowCreek Assoc. or Members of PDL? Changing the names of churches, removing the denomination from their name/sign. No one knows what church they are even visiting. Many of the teachers,and writers associated with these (WC or PDL) are teaching another gospel.Why is it that New Age Theology has been given any place in our pulpits and platforms and everyone promoting all of these books and conferences. 1 Cor.6:14-18,about being unequally yoked.What fellowship can light have with darkness? Come out and be ye seperate? The emerging Kingdom of God on earth is here: One Truth,”yet many theologies,”One God,”yet many paths.Although they claim the message hasn’t changed, todays emergent Christianity is embracing a lot of the teachings of the counterfeit kingdom,being “transitioned away from Jesus Christ,the Rock of Offence, to the universal “Christ” who broadly accepts people of all religions and faiths in the purpose of unity.Truth becomes the sacrifice. The narrow way is out, the broad way is in. While Christians have slumbered, the new way of thinking has built up under the old foundation leaving the old to crumble without notice.It used to be that faithfulness to God turned the world upside down. Now faithfulness to the world is turning Christianity upside down.
“Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths,(which by the way does not mean mystical Eastern religious practices),where is the good way,and walk therein,and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said,We will not walk in them.”Jeremiah6:16
For a challenge to ever be considered legitimate, there must be knowledge of the thing or individual being challenged. I have yet to hear any semblance of knowledge as it pertains to Earl’s views or the reading of his book. Laurie, I can see your point of view clearly (as I was raised in that culture of church); however, you have not mentioned any conversation that you have had with Earl, nor have you given any proof that you have read Earl’s material. Therefore, your challenge carries no weight. Get to know the man and his message before you determine that his ways are evil and yours are just.
Laurie,
The fact of the matter is, christian polls are about as accurate as political polls, meaning not very. Also, I’d like to see that facts on exactly how many churches are actually joining Willow Creeks Association before I can accept such a baseless accusation. And if they are, so what? I’ve been to willow creek several times, and though I don’t agree with most of what they teach, they are on on many of their most important points. The argument is seeker sensitive versus not seeker sensitive as it applies to the way they run things. I tend to err on the less seeker sensitive side, because I think it’s pointless, but that’s an argument for another time.Honestly, and again, this is just what I take from your post, I think you are more concerned with the survival of AG theology, rather than with the church itself. I go to an Emergent Church, and I’ve never been taught anything that speak about, so how is it that you make these accusations without speaking to those of us who have actually been there and perhaps been led back to Christ through it? Magazine articles just don’t cut it. If you’re so passionate about this, then go to one of these churches. Check it out. If you still disagree, at least you’ll have ammunition to attack with. You just sound vicious right now. Sorry…
Oh, and by the way, I think welcoming people of different religions and/or creeds into our churches doesn’t mean we are accepting what they believe as another way. I think it is another means of evangelism by way of friendship. Jesus Christ IS the only way. But the way of Jesus was love and compassion. If I’m not mistaken, Jesus said to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength,” as well as “love your neighbor as yourself,” and these were his greatest commandments. It doesn’t say “just love other christians as yourself, because homosexuals, and mormons, and muslims, and buddhists, are all going to hell.” I don’t know. It doesn’t mean that they speak from the pulpit, but we’ve had several homosexuals and people of other religious backgrounds come visit our church and they always hear the Gospel. Most come back often. That’s proof enough for me.
I might venture to call that fruit. And if I’m not mistaken, Jesus also said that you will know a good tree by its fruit.
As I said before, real examples are proof. They are fact. You can see them with your own eyes. I believe that’s call “through the word of their testimony.”
But again, this isn’t a fight. I don’t dislike you or anything. I just think we don’t see eye to eye on this issue. And that’s okay. Just for the sake of intellectual honesty, please give some real examples of how this has affected you or your church specifically. If it hasn’t, then everything you say is baseless and mean-spirited.