4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

Judith Gotwald

Can the Church Handle Diversity?

desperatefordiversity

Conflicting Approaches to Achieving Diversity May Be Self-Defeating

Achieving diversity has been a goal of many denominations for years. Despite the desire for diversity, it never seems to take hold except in small pockets of church life. Ironically, smaller churches often make progress that goes unnoticed and under-served as leaders look for larger churches to lead the way.

 

Large churches are often viewed as innovators. In reality, small churches deal with the people, issues, sensitivities, and prejudices in communities that face diversity issues head on. We are experienced. The problem we face within a denomination is that we aren’t showcases for success. We are just doing the work. Our work is of less value to the corporate cause.

 

The approach to achieving diversity has reached a desperate stage.

 

National offices encourage regional offices. Goals are set. Proposals requested. Grants made available—rarely to small congregations. Resulting quick fixes may be counter-productive.

 

Diversity to Meet Public Relation Needs

Numbers rules. Leaders can measure and celebrate random successes. Often, we can’t wait to see if isolated successes are replicable. One little success and the regional body can breathe a little easier at their annual assembly. Flash in the pan? Who cares?

 

Frankly, diversity is just one issue where regional and national leaders inhabit different worlds than small churches (most churches). The same goals, the same language may be adopted but not to a common end.

 

Small churches feel as though they are constantly on the receiving end of lectures on what must be done to achieve diversity. It does not go unnoticed that the lecturers have no track record of success. That’s the congregation’s responsibility. Lectures without help leave small churches to either accept failure or to to blaze independent trails.

 

Ironically, our congregation started to grow in diversity when we had NO pastor—at a time when we were all but ostracized from our regional body.

 

Years of criticism from the regional office without offers of help left us feeling insecure and unworthy. Actually, we were at our lowest when things started to turn around. We had a part-time pastor for just a few years who understood that it is difficult to welcome others when you don’t feel good about yourself. He helped build our self-esteem and confidence.

 

Meanwhile, our neighborhood was changing. We had to change, too.

 

We can explore the details of how we achieved this in another post.

 

For now, let’s look at how our efforts often clashed with our regional body. Having talked with other small congregations, we know this is a common issue.

 

Here is a composite dialog representing conversations with our regional leaders on the topic of diversity. What you read below is true, it just spanned 30 years and involved three bishops with a number of pastors as intermediaries and dozens of lay leaders.

 

OUR DIVERSITY JOURNEY

Characters:

  • SUE, a representative from the regional office. She is about to end a six-month interim assignment and is having a final conversation with lay leaders before starting a call process.
  • ROGER, the middle-aged congregation president who has been a member for about 25 years,
  • SIMION, an immigrant from Africa and a member with his family for about 15 years,
  • ESTHER, a senior member who has been part of the congregation all her life, and
  • DENISE, an African-American church member who has been part of the congregation for eight years.

 

SUE: Before we start the call process for your congregation, I’ve been asked by the bishop to advise your congregation to develop diversity.

 

ROGER: We have members from many countries and ethnic groups. We have a broad range in age and economic status. We are diverse.

 

SUE: We’ve had several congregational meetings in the last six months and the diversity turnout hasn’t been apparent me.

 

ROGER: They are not in a hurry to come to meetings initiated by the regional office. We’ve had bad experiences. You’ve worked with our governing board. Our governing board is representative of our diversity.

 

SUE: I know. I’m on your side here. I’m just the messenger from the regional office.

 

SIMION: So how are you describing diversity? What are you looking for?

 

SUE: We keep statistics about congregations. We usually measure Whites, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian, Native American—that sort of thing.

 

ESTHER: Last Easter we noted that we had worshipers with roots in six continents. I’d call that diverse. Developing a ministry that is attractive to just one segment of our changing demographics seems unwise. It’s like selecting what diversity is going to make us look good. That’s not who we are. Oh, there was a time when our church was White, primarily because our neighborhood was white, but we have changed as our neighborhood changed.

 

ROGER: One of our congregational gifts has been helping immigrants assimilate. Our congregation is now predominantly foreign-born or first-generation American. In fact, that was always true here—just with different native roots. Back then we were English and German. Perhaps our immigrant roots made us good at this kind of ministry. Now we are East African with a few Asian added to our older base. So it seems like we have met your challenge.

 

SUE: True, but your congregation is a leadership challenge. We are trying to find Black leadership for Black congregations, Hispanic pastors for Hispanic ministries—you get the picture.

 

DENISE: We are dealing with a new reality. Our neighborhoods were once homogenous and stayed that way for decades. I didn’t grow up in this neighborhood, but I grew up nearby. Nevertheless, I have felt welcome here. I see danger in developing just one ethnic outreach. Within ten years that ministry would fail because demographics have changed again!

 

SUE: We had a consultant do a study ten years ago and they reported that there was no longer a population to support our denomination in this neighborhood. The demographics just aren’t here. We advised you then to close but your congregation resisted.

 

ROGER: Yes, and now we are five-times larger than we were then. We felt then that we were here to serve our neighborhood regardless of historic denominational ties. Isn’t that what the Good News is all about? You see, you need changing demographics if diversity is your goal!

 

SUE: Well, our regional office has been working with the national office for some time to reach diversity goals. Most congregations are struggling with inclusion.

 

ROGER: We will be glad to help!

 

SUE: The national offices are willing to fund mission congregations for specific ethnic groups. It is partly about allocating staff. We have only a few pastors interested in serving small neighborhood congregations but we could use grants to start new congregations for them to serve. We just started a Pan-African ministry where your newer members would fit in. We are also hoping to start a Hispanic ministry. By the way, we are one of the few regional bodies who are doing this. We can be proud.

 

ROGER: We are proud! We have done this work successfully—without much help from the regional office. But it seems like our success is never good enough. Now you want to divide our congregation, taking our newest members and leaving us with an aging congregation. Next, you’ll be wanting to close us down. We’ve worked too hard to allow that to happen. Isn’t it better to have many neighborhood churches than a few big regional ministries?

 

SIMION: Please allow me to speak for one of ethnic groups in our congregation, We feel at home here. We are happy and involved. Our traditions have been honored. We like it here!

 

SUE: But you can help us make this mission a success. We need your leadership skills. Just think, Simion—you’d be a big fish in a bigger pond.

 

SIMION: I smile when you say Pan-African. Africa is three times the size of continental America. We speak hundreds of languages and have many differing customs. Do you really think we are all alike? I have never shared this with anyone before, but when my family was joining this congregation 15 years ago, we were visited by a representative of the regional office. He strongly discouraged us from joining this church. There was no mention of a Pan-African ministry then. He just wanted us to boost the numbers at a different church where he said we would fit in better. We chose to join here and we have not been sorry. We were the first members with East African heritage, but many of our friends and extended family have joined since. All our families, Black and White, are friends. Our children are growing up together—not just at church but also in school and in community groups. Roger and I have worked together to bring everyone into active participation. Now you want to label us as “different” and ask us to travel 20 miles to several times a week. What you are asking makes no sense. To tell you the truth, I suspect our East African members will find the suggestion insulting. We are able to choose a church without your help.

 

SUE:  I hope you can understand our point of view. We are looking at the bigger picture. The truth is we can’t find leadership to serve you. They know your history.

 

DENISE. They know our history? What about our history? Speaking as an African-American, your approach to diversity sounds a bit like “separate but equal.”

 

SUE: It’s not that at all. We want faster success. Your success would be more valuable if it fed into something bigger.

 

ROGER: You keep coming back to viability. We are self-sustaining. We may not contribute much to the regional office, but they haven’t been helpful to us for most of the last 30 years. A few years ago, the regional office offered us funding if we would accept mission status. We learned that mission status comes with a forfeiture of property rights. We are not willing to do that. Besides, we have done well without taking that step.

 

ESTHER: Part of our history is meeting challenges. I have the longest history here. I know that pastors you send us are often pastors who have failed elsewhere. The part-time pastors you send us are well into retirement and do not have the energy to do what needs to be done in a growing church. When there are problems, their side of the story gets circulated in the regional office.

 

ROGER: Yes, larger churches have choices. We are given ultimatums. Accept this pastor or else.

 

SUE: So you understand what I mean by history.

 

ESTHER: We understand that history has more than one side and gossip is not history. A few years ago, a seminarian visited us on Sunday morning. I chatted with her after church. She said she was hearing so much negative talk about us in seminary that she wanted to see for herself. She said she was impressed. One thing she noticed was that we had young men actively involved in ministry. She said many of the congregations are largely older women.

 

ROGER: Our resilience in working with less than adequate leadership has been a strength. We developed strong lay leadership skills. Let’s get back on topic. Let me understand what you expect of us now. You want us to attract diversity and feed the members we attract to your regional ministries. Right?

 

SUE: We have the resources to offer a better experience.

 

ROGER: You have the financial resources. We are not looking for financial resources. We are looking for specific skills and qualities.

 

SIMION: If we cooperate and your Pan-African mission succeeds, it will be at our expense. Are we sacrificial lambs for a new diversity policy? You will always want our ethnic members to feed into regional programs. What we have achieved here may be slow, but it is organic—not forced. It feels right to us.

 

ESTHER: Why can’t you find pastors? We’ve found qualified pastors who are comfortable working with us. Let us call one of them.

 

SUE: You don’t seem to be willing to do undergo the studies needed to issue a call. Again, part of your history.

 

ESTHER: We just went through six months of interim study with you.

 

ROGER: Sue, please look at this from our viewpoint. Retired part-time pastors don’t have longevity. Six months of interim ministry every few years is disruptive to our mission. Visitors—and we always have visitors—don’t want to join churches in limbo. Your approach to staffing our ministry is straining our lay efforts.

 

SUE: The goal is stability. We want things to go smoothly when you finally call a pastor.

 

DENISE: If pastors have some vision of a stable ministry where 200 people are on the same page in supporting one vision, dream on. Urban neighborhood ministry cannot be stable. You can’t attract diversity without change. My family has experienced all of this first-hand.

 

ESTHER: One thing I got out of the last six months working with you is how much we were doing well. I love our church. I’m glad to see us moving into the future. It hasn’t always been easy. But our people are comfortable with our new members. Our lives are intertwined—just like they were 50 years ago when we were all related.

 

SUE: All this is well and good. Bottom line, you are too small to support a regularized call.

 

SIMION: We are on the verge of being significantly larger. We accepted forty new members last year. Twenty the previous year. Your plan would undo all our progress.

 

SUE: You are mavericks. What works for you makes the regional office uncomfortable. Here’s how the system is supposed to work. We are supposed to identify candidates and present them to you for congregational approval.

 

ROGER: But that isn’t working for us. You haven’t presented us with any choices. For the last ten years, we were often without a called pastor. This didn’t seem to concern you. We discovered that when we weren’t devoting half of our income to funding a pastor, there was money to use in more creative ways. By the way, the pastors we found on our own tell us they have been trying to contact the regional offices and can’t get a return call.

 

SUE: They aren’t following procedure. Let me be blunt. We need to see more people of color. That’s where the grant money from the national offices is going. That’s how and why we are starting regional churches to serve specific ethnic groups.

 

ROGER: Well, we’ve applied for grants. Remember the In the City for Good grants? We received a nice rejection letter every year, but that didn’t stop us. I know we don’t get recognition—partly because we often don’t have a pastor to represent us.

 

SIMION: That’s not entirely true. We were invited to submit a report detailing our ministry efforts to the national church. One of our long-term supplies told them about us. Three of us have been working with one of our volunteer pastors to describe our ministry.

 

SUE: I didn’t know that. I’d like to know who you are working with in the national office.

 

SIMION: I’ll send you our report.

 

SUE: We aren’t making progress here. Let’s step back and start the conversation over. My time as interim pastor is coming to an end. What are you looking for in a pastor?

 

ROGER: We want a pastor who can love our community and who is comfortable working with people who speak English as a second, third or fourth language. We want a pastor who can help develop an online presence that will continue our outreach. We want a pastor who can be an ambassador for us within the denomination and help us undo the “history” that seems to taint every interaction we have with the regional office. We want to be a Christian presence in our vibrant neighborhood. Basically, we want a pastor who can lead with compassion, empathy and love as we grow to become something new.

 

ESTHER: I heard that our bishop is working with one of our neighboring congregations even though they are a different denomination.

 

SUE: That’s true, They asked for our help and since our denominations are in full communion we felt we could assist.

 

ESTHER: It seems like you are helping them while discouraging us. Hardly seems fair.

 

SUE: The issues are unrelated. We just don’t have pastors who want to serve in neighborhoods like yours.

 

ESTHER: It’s the same neighborhood as the other congregation you are working with. And we are far more diverse than they are.

 

SUE: All right, I’ll be honest with you. I enjoyed my six months with you. You have great people and extraordinary lay leadership. Even so, I’ve been fighting in the regional office to keep them from closing you.

 

ROGER: None of us is surprised. It was obvious to us the entire six months. Perhaps that is why the turnout at meetings was often poor. You saw it as lack of interest. It was lack of trust.

 

ESTHER: Is there some reason why we can’t call one of the pastors we know can work with us? They are qualified. They graduated from seminaries in our denomination. They are responsible for the last two years of remarkable growth. They want to be here.

 

SUE: Write a resolution. I’ll present it to the bishop. But don’t get your hopes up. In truth, I’ve been asked to approach your ethnic members directly to ask them to consider attending other churches. If the Pan-African Church, doesn’t suit, we can make other suggestions.

 

ROGER: Tis is SO not OK. We’ll have a resolution to you within the next ten days. But it looks like we have wasted the last six months.

 

POSTSCRIPT

In 2008, our synod attempted to force our congregation into closure. In the report they drafted to present to the synod assembly, the reported our membership as 13—the number of white members—excluding 62 members of color and various backgrounds who had joined in the most recent 15 years. Courts refused to hear our case, citing no jurisdiction. Black and White, we were all locked out of our building in September 2009. Our property was sold. Our sanctuary is now apartment buildings. Our educational wing was torn-down and is five townhouses. The Hispanic Ministry never took off.

Here We Go Again: History Revisited

sadHave you noticed Washington commenters are increasingly referencing history? They are reminding us that we’ve seen chaos in government before and managed to right the course.

 

True! We have seen abuse of power and flagrant disregard for the constitution and rule of law before.

 

In the Church.

 

Similar stories are commonplace in our denomination (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America-ELCA) but none more dramatic than the history of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) and the little, self-supporting congregation—Redeemer in East Falls, Philadelphia.

 

Washington is following SEPA’s playbook.

 

We know the drill.

 

  • PR attacks that create doubt among those who want to believe their leaders and know little about the topic being discussed.
  • Truth twisted until little fibs become bold, outright lies. Truth is of little value when the prime goal is to build support for the impending abuses of power.
  • Jockeying of key leadership positions to guarantee leaders are in lock-step with the bishop.
  • Battles to control Synod Assembly procedures. Rewriting rules, if necessary. Ignoring them if you can get away with it (and they can!)
  • Boasts of accomplishments that wouldn’t withstand scrutiny—if anyone was tempted to ask questions and have their loyalty doubted.
  • Letters to supporters painting any opposition as personal attacks on leadership (when the personal attacks were the other way around)

 

SEPA repeatedly practiced the ecclesiastical version of the Saturday Night Massacre, making a sham of the call system just as the current president makes a sham of the confirmation process. We saw it three times.

 

  • Pastor Matthias signed an 18-month term call and the bishop removed him after three months. He was needed in Bucks County. A year later, the same pastor who should have still been OUR pastor used his familiarity in the neighborhood to visit our bank and withdrew $90,000—check written to the synod without the congregation’s knowledge.
  • Pastor Muse met with bishop’s office with no representative from Redeemer and was gone in 10 days—20 days short of the constitutional requirement.
  • Pastor Mutashobya, whom we had formally asked to call, had a meeting with a synod representative and never stepped foot in the church again. During his seven months with us we had accepted more than 40 new members. One of the first things Pastor Mutashobya did was meet with the new members and read to them the constitution.

 

In a fourth instance, the reverse happened. SEPA insisted we issue a call without the support of either the congregation council or the congregation. “Approve this call or there won’t be any pastor for a very long time.” The bishop demanded repetitive votes, giving up only after the third failed vote, rather like the recent health care votes.

 

The pesky laity don’t fall so easily. Most will run for cover. SEPA counts on that. But then there was Redeemer. Usually, the synod is in and out before people know what they are agreeing to. Bishops refer to this as things “going smoothly.” But Redeemer had experience. There were attempts to seize our assets every 10 years from formation of the ELCA. We know the tactics and strategies. We’ve seen synod leaders infiltrate our congregation council, looking for the weak links. A synod staff member actually wrote letters of resignation for our council. The congregation was unaware there were any issues. Bribes of various sorts sealed the deals. Clergy found new calls. For the laity there were tangible bribes—a computer or two, a gravestone, and a set of tools—for cooperating council representatives.

 

Bullying threats follow when bribery doesn’t work.

 

Young people watch and form their faith as they see “Stand Up for Jesus” reduced to a T-shirt slogan.

 

Revenge is sweetest when it is most complete. Vengeance is theirs!

 

In Washington, wayward staff are fired in the most humiliating ways. In the Church, you can’t fire volunteers. But you can make tough on them and their families. You can belittle them in private circles, No one needs to know.

 

SEPA sued our members, some of them personally, in cases that dragged on for six years. There was never any attempt to resolve issues peacefully. Every decision was the most aggressive imaginable. It still amazes me that SEPA clergy accepted as proper a visit to the congregation for the first time required a lawyer and locksmith.  This outrage should have been stopped by synod council before it happened—but a good number of the synod council came along for the show.

 

The congregation’s resistance to such behavior was taken as a personal attack rather than what it was— the elected leaders acting diligently to represent the congregation who elected them. Doesn’t this sound like reaction to the failure of the healthcare bill? If you don’t support the party, you won’t be reelected. If you aren’t up for reelection, we’ll find other ways to hurt your state.

 

All this fancy footwork—and to what end? Not the good of the congregation or the neighborhood. Not  the good of the synod (ask for an accounting of the costs of six years of litigation and the loss of almost all mission assets in Northwest Philadelphia). Not the good of other clergy and congregations who were afraid to speak up and now face the same likely future. “Time will tell. Time will tell.”

 

The only winner was a bishop who could carve a notch in her gun handle and boast of her successes. No one notices that the stated goal: ministry in East Falls was a total failure.

 

Yep, we’ve seen it all before. Learn from our experience. It will get uglier before it gets better. The strategies of bullying leaders is predictable. We know what it takes to stop them. A little backbone. That is starting to happen in Washington. Unlikely in a regional office.

 

There are two huge differences between the national leadership chaos and church leadership chaos. The courts DO have jurisdiction and the authority to correct the course in national issues. In the church, the checks and balances are all theory. It’s a regulatory honor system that is only as honorable as the players.

 

The second difference is that more people care about their nation than they do their church.

 

As our president likes to Tweet: SAD

The Year 17 Is Year for Reformation

martinlutherpro500

 

It is 2017. For Protestant Christians—Lutherans in particular—it is the big 5-0-0.

 

500 years ago Martin Luther stood up to the religious and political authorities of his day and changed Western civilization.

 

He lived at a pivotal time. Technology was opening doors. Information once accessible to only the elite was about to become available to anyone who could read. Luther made sure the scriptures benefited from the revolution. He took it upon himself, without official permission, to use the technology for evangelism.

 

Had he used technology to do what the Church had always done—present the scriptures in ancient languages—he would have wasted a huge opportunity.

 

Fast frame ahead. 2017 is 1517 on steroids.

 

How will Church fit into the world our children and grandchildren will inherit? How will the Church adapt to new possibilities? Will we see God in technology?

 

The strategy of most church leaders for the last fifty years was to increasingly follow corporate trends — consolidate assets and activity in a few user-friendly settings. Spanky-looking large plants with parking lots. Paid staff for every identified need. Symbols of success.

 

Corporate America seeks to get the most and make the most of whatever they can get their hands on. Inevitably, the elect few profit most. Philanthropy is secondary and often used to enhance public image.

 

Corporate America rarely sets out to serve the most needy in the toughest places.

 

The corporate approach to religion works about as well as the corporate approach to politics works.

 

Following the corporate model slowly affects denominational thinking. Size matters. Servant leadership, the Christ model, deflects rom a mission of prosperity and abundance. Protecting the roles of the professional leaders, who see themselves as CEOs, is necessary for the survival of the corporate church. The conscience-driven disruption that created the Reformation and marked the first centuries of Protestantism has little place.

 

When decision-makers benefit personally from group decisions, progress suffers.

 

A New Reformation

What would a Reformation look like in 2017?

 

Here’s what we know about Church from 2000 years of experience.

  • Large churches have never caught on. Most people belong to small churches.
  • Large churches are difficult to sustain. Even megachurches rarely survive the first charismatic leaders—who typically withhold millions from offerings for their own enrichment.
  • Large churches are more expensive to operate than small churches. Corporate CEOs expect healthier salaries for over-seeing larger operations. Ambitious pastors have difficulty embracing servanthood. Standards change.
  • Despite the concentration of resources, effective mission range remains local. Unlike corporations that can spread influence, establishing satellites all over the world, the focus of large churches is site- and region-centric. We dare not grow beyond geographic constraints—even though that is entirely possible in today’s interconnected world.

 

The Church in the Information Age

The internet is game-changer the Church fears.

 

The Information Age is leveling of authority. Hierarchy isn’t what it used to be.

 

The Church fears technology with good reason. Congregations using the full power of the internet could outgrow their regional offices. What will happen when congregations don’t need them—when the pastor of a small congregation has more influence than elected bishops? What happens will happen when laity take religion online?

 

A token nod to technology results—encouraged only so far as it helps us stay in our comfort zones. The result: A donation button on the home page of static websites.

 

The Failing Corporate Model

Modern church failure is difficult to understand. The very first congregations—with little in the way of hierarchy—managed to spread Christianity across several continents within a few hundred years! Early congregations in the New World anchored struggling families through settlement, wars and the Great Depression. Shouldn’t we thrive with today’s affluence?

 

The Church cannot sustain the corporate church model. What comes first in corporate thinking? Salaries, benefits and property. Congregations slowly table mission, education, and social justice as they struggle to meet these insatiable expectations.

 

Failure is associated with small congregations. Statistics reveal that even large congregations are in decline.

 

Breaking the 200-member threshold is a popular but failing benchmark. This goal supports Church as we knew it. It takes the contributions of 200 members to sustain one pastor and keep one plant. The 200-member goal is designed to achieve stability and comfort.

 

Make Way for Micro-ministries.

The survival of Christianity may rely on doing a 180.

 

Stop pursuing large. Start pursuing innovation.

 

Micro-ministries are inspired and fueled by the passions of a few.

 

Micro-ministries aren’t new. The gospel was first spread two by two. Word of mouth served early evangelists well. Home churches are the biblical model !They managed to reach every corner of the known world within a few centuries. Small groups of laity started the Sunday School movement of the 19th century.

 

Today’s popular small group ministries are the tip of the iceberg. These tend to serve special interests by age, gender, or some common concern such as divorce, child-rearing, significant loss, illness or addiction.

 

But the potential to serve in small groups is just as vital as having needs served by small groups.

 

The need to control hampers micro-ministry. “But we don’t have anyone to lead that interest,” is likely to be leadership response.

 

We are leaving our comfort zone for a new frontier. We don’t know how to train leadership or monitor results. Who will be responsible?  How will offerings be collected? Who will get the credit?

 

Christianity grew from micro-ministry. 

Martin Luther was particularly interested in family nurturing spiritual formation. He wrote the Catechisms as teaching tools. Modern-day Christian families struggle to keep the faith in a secular society. A new Reformation would revive family faith.

 

Empower family leaders and you empower the church.

 

Luther challenged leadership. Today’s church leaders are insulated from the people they serve. Seminaries concentrate on filling clergy positions. Regional bodies create and monitor those positions. There is order in this. But it is not an order for the Information Age.

 

Most dialogue in the Church is professional to professional. The voice of the laity is but a whisper in leadership circles following this model. Since laity have a great deal to lose and very little influence, it is little wonder that younger generations feel a disconnect.

 

Laity were once far more influential. The church in early America was strengthened by lay leadership planting churches in plots carved from cow pastures. They sent for pastors from the homeland only when they could afford it.

 

Micro-ministry would empower individuals to use the resources on thousands of small projects as opposed to plugging congregations into national or regional programming equipped with logos and slogans but little wiggle room for innovation. Some will fail. Some will grow. Success will depend on networking.

 

Micro-ministry would create networks of similarly impassioned people using powerful modern communication tools. Participants will not necessarily live nearby or follow comfortable rhythms of traditional church life. Using technology your Church will be open 24/7.

 

This can’t happen as long as church leaders foster an expectation among a dwindling following that the primary objective of Christian community is propping up yesterday’s Church.

 

Those who embrace technology soon learn the power of cooperation—working with others. Other ministries are not competition.

 

Need an example of micro-ministry? This website, 2×2 virtual church, is the project of very few. We stay faithful to Lutheran roots although we exist entirely outside of Lutheran structure. There is no clergy oversight. Our website reaches more people every week than the largest churches in the regional body serving our area. Reach is worldwide. After six years, our website is beginning to attract bloggers looking for a platform to share their micro-ministry interests. We’ll be featuring these bloggers this summer.

 

Nurture the small and expect big (surprising) results. The future of mainline denominations depends on its ability to serve the least.

Time to Revisit the Cost of Discipleship

DietrichBonhoefferWhat we are seeing today in top level leadership is what happens when independent thought is discouraged—when top leaders make outrageous decisions, confident they have enough lemming supporters to subdue any resistance no matter how appropriate.

 

Insecure leaders want assurances of loyalty beyond the vows or oaths taken upon accepting their positions. They want personal loyalty. They are prepared to make examples of any who dare to say something as innocent as “Wait a minute. What are we doing? Is this a good idea? Is this what our supporters elected us to do?”

 

I’m not writing about leadership in Washington, D.C, I’m writing about the Church.

 

The type of leadership we are witnessing in Washington mirrors denominational leadership in some branches of today’s Church. We’ve lived it in the ELCA. We’ve read of similar events in other denominations.

 

All denominations have constitutions and bylaws. There is rarely a need to reference them. No real checks and balances exist. There is a huge chasm between the professional Christians the people who support them.

 

Rank and file clergy fear recriminations of “leading resistance.” No court wants to uphold church rules.

 

Expeditious but self-defeating.

 

Laity are raised to follow Christ. We are taught the sacrifices of Christ and the saints that followed. We are taught the same is expected of us. 2000 years of civilizing our religion, ironically leaves us vulnerable to our own internal inquisitions.

 

The usual prelude to any ecclesial decision, controversial or not, has pious words about prayerful discernment as the driving influence. Maybe so. Maybe it just deflects from the alternative facts and shady maneuverings that follow. Leaders, who might know better, calculate their political standing before deciding silence is golden.

 

Silence endangers the entire structure of church. Decisions are made with key factors being the needs of clergy as priorities. We hear the work of the FBI may now be compromised as FBI employees will surely weigh the impact of their actions on their ability to make a living.  Often, congregational decisions are made with key factors being the impact on clergy.

 

In Washington, we need a patriot or two that can lead without considering the effect on their personal lives.

 

In the church, we need clergy to represent the gospel and the people they serve—their congregations—and not their career paths. Imagine this—a member of the clergy willing to sit up nights drafting a scholarly treatise enumerating the wrong directions the church is taking and posting ideas publicly—perhaps on the door of a prominent church (1517) or on the internet (2017). Incidentally, these types of actions are most effective when they come from within. Outsiders are too easy to ignore.

 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Lutheran minister, wrote The Cost of Discipleship as Germany inched toward disastrous policies. He would die eight years later  in a concentration camp. Every catechism student should be urged to read it several times in their faith journey. But if leaders show no indication they understand grace comes at a cost, having lay leadership with passion will only cause trouble.

Fishbowl Thinking: Part 2
The Resurrection Story Should Not Excuse Church Failure

Для Интернета

Every Congregation Has A Life Cycle

Last week I started a series intent on exploring language used by clergy that goes unchallenged because it is shared only in sympathetic and often sycophantic leadership circles.

 

Yesterday’s celebration of Easter brings one of the most prevalent and dangerous “buzz” ideologies to mind. It is featured in a major church blog. Making the most of the Resurrection season, Alban Institute reposted a blog from 2006. (Alban Institute: From Birth to Death: Exploring the Life Cycle of the Church).

 

Church leaders love this topic. It fuels the movement to close small membership churches. This is an important topic. 80% of all churches are considered small churches.

 

The movement started out with the best of intentions. Many churches struggle with changing demographics—a new norm. Church isn’t set up to deal with change. Church life concentrates on “settled” populations and long-term pastorates. Now, homogenous communities are breaking apart. The thinking complemented corporate trends of the times. From the 1960s on, consolidation was all the rage in education, business and among service providers. But church is different.

 

Congregational Life Cycle started as an idea worth exploring. However, it wasn’t long before it was noticed that small churches often have endowment funds and valuable paid-for properties. Sometimes they have more cash on hand than the regional bodies. And that’s added an ugly dimension to a well-intended church strategy. Securing assets for the regional bodies became part of the goal. Yet few questioned the wisdom of leaders, and congregations weren’t part of the dialog.

 

The Alban Institute article reposted this Easter Monday dates to August 2006. It references other articles, also published by Alban Institute, dated 1986 and 1999. You see what I mean about how ideas circulate for decades unchallenged among church leadership?

 

plant itweb

Plant it. Water it. Watch it Grow. This was the theme of our regional body during the years they were challenging our congregation in court. We added a frame to illustrate our reality.

The buzz phraseology always starts with “Every congregation has a life cycle.” The five steps—Birth, Vitality, Equilibrium, Decline, and Death—will be glossed over, if mentioned at all. These articles rarely explore the shift from Vitality to Equilibrium or from Equilibrium to Decline. The focus is facilitating Death.

 

Church leaders are so immersed in the unchallenged ideology that they are taken by surprise when congregations resist. Laity and clergy, who are supposed to be working together, are suddenly adversaries. Issues oftenend up in secular courts that don’t want to deal with church issues. (There is a reason the Bible advises staying away from court).

 

Within the Church, published reports are always about successes: Dying Church Gives New Life to [some other faith community or community service] is the typical headline.

 

What happens to the displaced people? Who cares?

 

Clergy advocates reference two scriptures to support this trend. Ecclesiastes—a time to be born and a time to die—and the Resurrection scripture. You know the Easter story—about how Jesus overcame death so that we might live. Both scriptures are taken out of context and used in ways never intended. Together, they become an excuse for failure.

 

There are other scriptures that should be part of the discussion:

  • the Ten Commandments,
  • the book of Nehemiah and the rebuilding of the Temple wall with no support from religious leaders,
  •  the parable of lost Sheep,
  • “where there are two or three gathered in my name”—
  •  and a significant gospel admonition—Matthew 18:6. “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

 

Make no mistake. Legitimizing the “Congregational Life Cycle” as an excuse to force small congregations out of existence causes a lot of stumbling.

 

In fact, the Congregational Life Cycle has myriad scenarios. Some congregations exist for centuries. Others don’t outlive the first charismatic founder. There are all kinds of examples of ups and downs over the course of centuries. The five steps are not “givens.” If they were, who would put any effort into building neighborhood churches in the first place?

 

Nevertheless, our current bishop took a turn drivng this bandwagon before she became top regional leader. She co-authored an Alban Institute book in 2001 that advises regional leaders to allow churches to die.  In 2001, The Congregational Life Cycle was already an accepted concept. Her advice to regional leaders: Do not waste resources on congregations that will die a natural death in ten years.

 

Leadership is entranced by this idea of congregational death. It gives pastors permission to fail. They dutifully resist the temptation to waste resources on God’s people.

 

At about the same time this book was published, our previous regional leader followed her advice. (They worked in the same office/fishbowl.) It was the year 2000. He was refusing to help us find a pastor. He said, “Without leadership, your congregation will die a natural death in ten years,” Yep, he used the same words that would be in the 2001 book, Transforming Regional Bodies. Ten years of neglect was already part of a leadership formula!

 

Here’s the problem. In most Protestant denominations, resources belong to the people. How do regional bodies make sure the assets of small congregations aren’t wasted by small congregations spending their money on their projects (efforts the regional body is not supporting because they are waiting for death)?

 

The desire to control assets leads to “replanting” strategies. Replanters insist that all current members must leave their church so that church replanters can work “without baggage.”The people, who constitutional have a say in the use of congregational assets have to go.

 

Replanting strategies are another fishbowl topic to explore later.

 

The Congregational Life Cycle thinking as it focuses on church closures may have started with good intentions. However, after years circulating in the clergy fishbowl without challenge, the good intentions became one-sided.  Laity living with the consequences, have little voice. Rank and file church professionals are clueless at worst and apathetic at best—until their congregations are affected. No one revisits the decisions. Closed is closed. Too late to rethink.

 

The laity are dismissed with condescension. “They are grieving.” Clergy will plan a grand closing ceremony and remember to put tissue boxes at the end of every pew. There. The laity are taken care of.shutterstock_483934057

 

Our congregation lived through this thinking several times. We are true veterans. Grief is low on the emotional totem pole. Church leaders ignore the feelings of abandonment—years working not realizing that the regional body had no intention of helping you succeed, squandering of member efforts, the sense of violation, worthlessness, distrust, loss of faith, deep hurt and anger. Church closures have long-term consequences. Those consequences are not studied. The clergy find new calls and their is an expectation that laity move on just as easily. They are wrong. If limited to one word “betrayal” far outranks “grief.”

 

The Resurrection story is not about closing churches. There is no “Church Life Cycle” in the Bible. The Bible seems to like small. Scripture empowers individuals and small groups. (That’s where we took our name. Jesus sent disciples out in groups of TWO.) The only thing small can’t do well is support an unwieldy and ineffective hierarchy.

 

Most churches that have been dealt the church closure hand simply disappear. Affected members lose voice and status within the church, assuring that these management strategies will continue unchallenged.

 

But our congregation started this blog. We want the issues facing small churches to be discussed with laity as part of the conversation. Together, we might be able to solve some issues facing today’s church.

The Fish Bowl Leadership Model
and How It Needs Fresh Water

shutterstock_112114937

 

I have a unique viewpoint of the Church. I have been surrounded by clergy my entire life. I’ve lived with clergy, worked for clergy (of several denominations), worked with clergy (also of several denominations).

 

But I am also a lay person, content to be a lay person. Lay people are important!

 

The Church is perhaps the last relic of top/down power structure in the free world. The role of laity is to support clergy. Lay observations carry little weight.

 

I’ve been studying “church” as a lay person for decades. I’ve read dozens of books. I follow a few blogs written by clergy. I have provided decades of lay leadership to small congregations.

 

Last weekend I cleaned some bookshelves and came across The Once and Future Church by Loren Mead. This book was ground-breaking thinking in 1991. Twenty-six years later, the application of its wisdom has proven to be a challenge.

 

1991 was early in the societal revolution created by the internet. In just 25 years, we abandoned century-old societal patterns.

 

The Church, however, remains behind.

 

The 21st century is very, very different from anything we’ve seen before.

1. More people are educated at higher levels.
2. The pace of change is ever-accelerating.
3. Diversity in the secular world is the norm in most western population centers.

 

And then their is the big one—the internet. Wow! What is possible today that we never dreamed possible 50 years ago!

 

The church doesn’t seem to understand it. Even the writings of clergy advocates are rooted in hierarchical thinking, asking only—How can the internet help us do what we already do?  We just can’t get our heads around the potential.

 

What is stopping us?

 

Fish Bowl Leadership

Church leaders lead from inside a fish bowl. Leaders swim together and get along grandly in their glass encased world. They share similar experiences and ideas day after circular day.

 

That glass bowl muffles outside voices—in both directions. The curved glass distorts the view—from both directions.

 

As long as the temperature is right and someone sprinkles enough food in the tank, church thought leaders keep circling the tank, revisiting the castle and treasure chest they just passed, over and over.

 

In the fish bowl of church leadership, clergy talk to clergy.  The fish bowl is a leadership ecosystem that never quite connects with the outside world.

 

Laity are frustrated hobbyists who dutifully attend to the fish without the agency to do more.

 

Until now.

 

The signature achievement of the current era is the shift of power. We see this in every aspect of our lives—entertainment, education, government, business, family and commerce. People expect to be involved. This is important for church leaders to understand. Future generations will never know a world where they couldn’t be involved. They will not be interested in sustaining a church that does not realize their potential.

 

Is it too late for the Church?

 

Change begins with challenging fish bowl thinking. Perhaps this year, the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation is a good time remember this has happened before.

 

But how? Where to start?

Let’s start small.

 

Here’s one example of fish bowl leadership thinking that has been around for a while and is rarely challenged.

 

I”ve heard pastors use this in sermons and at congregational meetings. I’ve read it in blog posts. Perhaps you have heard it too.

 

“Statistics indicate that most people become involved in church as a result of an invitation from a church member.”

 

This is usually presented to laity with the intent to inspire. But fish bowl leaders deliver the message unaware of how it sounds to the listeners on the other side of the glass barrier.

 

This is what they hear?

 

So, it’s our fault our church isn’t growing.

 

If pastors think they are empowering members by quoting this statistic they are wrong. They are guilt-tripping members while exonerating themselves of responsibility. At least that’s how it seems from this side of the fish bowl.

 

So let’s challenge the statement.

 

What does this statistic represent? How was the data gathered?

I suspect that the question was posed survey style. Something like this:

______

How did you come to join the church you currently attend?

  • I saw a welcome sign on the door.
  • I was born into a member family.
  • I was visited by a pastor.
  • A friend invited me.
  • None of the above.

––––––

We cannot tell from the answer if a pastor actually asked them?

 

Between 2011 and 2013, I and a few friends (some clergy, some lay) made a project of visiting neighboring churches. In three years and more than 80 church visits, only one pastor followed up. By postcard.

 

No doubt pastors use this statistic hoping to motivate members to be proactive in outreach. Do they know what we face?

 

Today’s laity feel pretty lonely. There are a lot fewer of us!

  • Frankly, we are embarrassed much of the time. Society has mocked “the church lady” for years.
  • The worship experience is alien to most of our neighbors and it isn’t PC to bring up religion in many venues.

Let’s assume people are better potential evangelists than pastors. How does church leadership help?

 

  • Does it model invitational behavior on Sunday morning and during the week?
  • Are members trained as evangelists?
  • Does it create an environment that members are eager and feel comfortable to share?
  • Is church involved in community to create the necessary opportunities for interaction?

Answering theses questions affirmatively is the responsibility of any church leader who expects members to be evangelists.

shutterstock_483934057

All of these require of leap of faith from the fish bowl.

This is the beginning of an extended look at fish bowl leadership and how it is silently toxic to church growth.

We’ll start with things to think about and see if some answers and strategies can be found to help us step out of the last two centuries and into a bright future.

 

BE ON THE LOOKOUT!
This summer 2x2virtualchurch is launching a companion website, Small Church Toolbox, a resource site to help small membership churches minister in today’s world. 

Wishful Thinking May Create Predatory Practices in the Church

30495682594_f41a96e609_b

Read this post, written by a church consultant.

 

It is well-intended but troubling.

 

Consultant Sarai Rice has benevolent interests for the congregations she serves. The love comes through.

 

She is probably unaware that her innocent musings feed dangerous Church trends. The trends make Christianity dangerous for laity.

 

Her rationale sounds good. But it encourages church leaders to think of congregational assets as their own. A slippery slope. We can’t know what offering-givers are thinking, but it is probably not to enrich hierarchy.

 

I’ve read similar posts from other church consultants. Church leaders enjoy relatively unchecked power. This magnifies the danger.

 

Ideas shape policy. Church leaders have power to make their dreams come true!

 

Some denominations have every right to consider the best use of congregational assets. Catholic and Episcopal traditions have long assigned property/asset ownership to the judicatory.

 

Not so with many Protestant denominations, including Lutheran congregations.

 

Lutheran polity assigns ownership and administration to congregation members. They can purchase and sell property. Even if a church decides to close, members have the right to dispose of assets following charitable guidelines.

 

For decades, maybe even centuries, this was unchallenged.

 

But this is the 21st century. The troubling economics of today’s more affluent world are difficult to understand. (That’s another post!) Regardless, encouraging church leaders to ponder how struggling churches should spend dwindling resources adds to challenges.

 

Regardless, encouraging church leaders to ponder how struggling churches should spend dwindling resources adds to challenges.

Guilt-tripping congregations who want to spend their resources on their  ministry is cripples potential.

 

This sense of entitlement tempts the breaking of commandments and the abuse of power.

 

But Consultant Rice probably thinks she is writing only to clergy. That’s where these discussions usually start and stop. Dedicated lay leaders should start reading the blogs of the people who shape the policies we end up dealing with.

 

Sadly this thinking is already an influence. Judicatory leaders judge congregations by THEIR  view of a congregation’s prospects. It’s natural that they weigh what’s in it for themselves. Decisions will be made that have nothing to do with the congregations in question. They will call it discernment. Prejudice might be a better word.

 

This affects how they lead. Why assign the most capable pastors to churches you have no hope for? Attitudes develop among clergy that a call from a small congregation is beneath them. Poor leadership only accelerates decline—in line with their vision. People who stand to benefit but who know nothing about the congregations in question assume power they were never intended to have.

 

Case in point: Suburban leaders look at urban congregations and decide they cannot thrive without parking lots. Makes perfect sense to suburban Christians who rely on cars for everything. Not so in the city! If they were just wrong, this would matter little. However, their view determines the allocation of resources/talent and the influence small churches have on boards, etc. Suburban church people start making decisions for urban members.

 

It doesn’t end there. Lay people may not be aware of the leadership concept “caretaker pastors.” Clergy know the term. Caretaker pastors are expected to do no more than care for existing members until resources fail and the church closes. Since this term is not used in the call process, the stage is set for conflict. Lay leaders wonder why the pastor isn’t doing what they expect a pastor to do! They aren’t in the plan. They are just paying for it.

 

When the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America was formed in the 1980s, congregations were promised control of their properties. But since then, bylaws have been added that are in opposition to these founding promises. (This would be illegal in the secular world.) They have listed conditions that allow judicatories to take control, but there are no standards to measure these conditions. Anything goes! Furthermore, they have added wording that allows them to administer a congregation’s assets for their own benefit. If a synod is running a deficit budget, an asset-rich, small congregation can kiss their ministry goodbye.

 

This post innocently feeds into current predatory practices.

Taking the property of others and administering it for your own benefit is the definition of theft.

 

Church consultants and pastors are accustomed to discussing issues in private clergy circles. But blogs can be read by anyone. Lay leaders, start reading the blogs which shape the church you serve.

 

Lay leaders with a vision for ministry in their neighborhoods need to beware. Other people want what you have. Church people have a way of making coveting sound noble. It’s not.

 

photo credit: Soren Wolf Serval via photopin (license)

What Small Churches Need to Know About Hiring Church Consultants

consultant

When things get tough—

  • when a pastor leaves without preparing the congregation,
  • when an economic recession plays havoc with the budget,
  • when demographics change but leadership strategies don’t,
  • when volunteers stop raising their hands,
  • when all of this affects attendance and offerings,

it is natural to seek help.

 

Often small congregations feel distant from their regional bodies—feeling off the radar—especially If they have had only part-time ministers for years and little interaction at the regional level.

 

Congregations seeking help are usually trying to find a way through a troubling time. That may not be what your regional body has in mind.

 

Puzzled lay leadership—often at odds, sometimes totally at sea—are tempted to look outside for help.

 

In come the consultants.

 

The Politics of Church Consulting

 

Congregations know their situations well. They may be less aware of how they are viewed by others, especially those they assume serve their interests.

 

It may be hard for consultants to see your congregation as anything but part of a trend of closing churches.

It may be hard for consultants to see your congregation as anything but part of a trend of closing churches. Spiritual/mission needs are tabled. Monetary and property assets are the focus.

 

Protocols and strategies to bring congregations to a decision to close are part of a consultant’s toolbox these days. They work with failing churches all the time. Sometimes, they are finding a way to make the best of failure. You may be just another congregation hesitating to face a dismal reality.

 

Read this recent blog post from a congregational consultant and notice the point of view and how often the congregation’s purpose is referenced as serving the needs of clergy and regional interests. Congregations are scolded for not giving up while they are viable! Looking toward their own sense of mission is depicted as selfish. Many small church lay leaders have experienced this ecclesiastic guilt trip.

 

Most churches entities—congregations, agencies, seminaries, and governing bodies— have a hard time with benevolence giving in today’s economic climate. Hungry eyes turn toward the weakest—most expendible in their reckoning.

 

 

Denominations face the same challenges congregations face. They need offering dollars and volunteers, but most of all they need to place pastors. Small churches compete for talented leadership and resources with fewer but larger, more resource-rich congregations!

Consultants, lacking vision for mission potential, are biased toward closing congregations as a resource protection strategy. Is that the kind of help you need?

 

How to Find A Consultant? 

 

Regional bodies can provide referrals. These consultants may be independent of the denomination, but they are likely to have some bias toward denominational interests that feed them referrals.

 

With parishes closing at record speeds, consultants are often clergy with no parish call. They talen additional training to serve as consultants known as interim pastors. (Some become interim ministers after leading congregations that failed.)

 

The advantage of having an interim pastor is they have close ties to your dominations. It is also the disadvantage. In many cases the interim minister is assigned with no congregational search process. They report to the regional body. Their role is different from pastoring! This can confuse lay members who may relate to them in the only way they know pastors. If you work with an interim pastor make sure your congregation is represented in talks with your regional leader. Insist that at least two congregational members attend any meetings. Make this expectation known from the start. While you are at it, try to have some say in the choice of interim pastor/consultant. (This was the recommended protocol when the interim pastor concept was developed, but it has been abandoned by some leaders. Read the writings of Loren Mead.)

 

Today’s congregations have another source. Professional church consultants are plentiful on the internet. How do you choose?

 

Do some research.

 

Know the background of the consultant. Are they familiar with your denomination or tradition? What is their speciality? Finance? Conflict resolution? Program Development? Mission?

 

Judge them by their website. If they understand the potential of the internet as a ministry game-changer, they will be using it!  Look for consultants that blog and demonstrate their understanding of parish issues from a congregational view.

 

Learn what they know about small churches. We are very different from larger, more corporate churches. Strategies that work for larger congregations can be folly in the small church setting.

 

Check their track record  

 

Check OLDER references.

How did  their advice play out over time?

 

Talk to more than one person in any church you approach. Concentrate on finding references from lay leaders. This might take some online research or even a visit to the congregation. If you find the church closed within a few years, beware. 

 

Some noted consultants have never served in the small church setting. They grew up in large churches, did their seminary training in large churches, and sought calls in large churches. Their vision of success is likely to be defined against large church standards.

Have they worked with small churches?

Did they ever serve as pastor in small congregations?

Did they ever belong to small congregations?


TRUE STORY: One church consultant boasted about success replanting a struggling congregation. She convinced the congregation to close—turning over all assets to the denomination and excluding existing members from decision-making roles. The denomination canvased the neighborhood to rally a founding membership of nearly 100 members. The church reopened under a new name with considerable pageantry.

The consultant was eager to replicate this success.

A congregation considering her proposal visited the congregation she referenced. They found, barely ten years later, its membership had dropped considerably and had an average worship attendance of only 20.

This consultant had served only one congregation—a large suburban congregation—for five years before beginning a consultant’s career.


 

Beware of what you say.

 

Point of view is a critical factor in working with a consultant.

 

Consultants look at congregations from a management point of view.

 

Your members are likely to be trusting and willing to share their passion for ministry. They will be surprised when their candor is interpreted in ways they never intended.

 


TRUE STORY: The regional body recommended a consultant to a small church where a pastor had recently moved on, leaving a divided congregation. The pastor had used his influence in the regional office. As a result, the congregation had become suspicious of their own regional body. In this atmosphere of distrust, the turnout for the meeting with the consultant was low.

The consultant saw a disinterested membership. The congregation knew that wasn’t the case but gut impressions are difficult to change.

The consultant was surely given some background about the church—from the regional body’s point of view, which they learned from the axe-grinding pastor.

The congregation was interested in reaching new populations in their changing neighborhood and asked the consultant for advice, eager for a fresh start.

Towards the end of the discussion, one church member sighed. She was 85 years old—a pillar of the congregation. She had unsuccessfully invested a lot of energy in healing the fractious relationship with the pastor. She was understandably tired. After her long sigh, she commented. “I just want the church to be here for me when I die.”

Of all the optimism expressed at the meeting, guess which comment headlined the consultant’s report to the regional body—and later, the regional body’s assessment of the congregation’s potential—and continued to be quoted for years. The spin, based on this comment, was that the congregation couldn’t see past their own selfish needs and should close.

The congregation that had asked for help forging a future felt betrayed.


 

Making the best use of your consulting dollars.

 

It is good to enter any relationship with a consultant slowly. If your chosen consultant is traveling to meet with you, consider having a first meeting with your governing leadership online (Skype, for example). This may eliminate travel costs and reduce the hourly billing.

 

Prepare your congregation for any meeting with the consultant. Provide a detailed agenda. Your consultant will then be working with a prepared and engaged membership. There is less chance of your congregation feeling blind-sided.

 

Make sure your consultant is working for you. 

 

Compare the work of consultants to the work of advisors such as coaches, physicians/therapists, or counselors. By tradition, and in some cases by law, they work for the entity that pays them. Consultants should be working for the congregations that pay their bill even if they are referred by the regional body.

 

This is often not the case.

 

If you want your work with the consultant to be confidential, make sure you say so up front.

 

Consultants Can Be Wrong

 

Consultants make mistakes. There is danger in following management fads. The problem: it is hard to recognize fads until time proves them wise or foolish.

 


TRUE STORY: A small church in the 1960s was busting at the seams with activity. A developer donated a few acres of undeveloped farmland sitting on a hill visible from the main highway just outside the village. The congregation drew up plans for a new larger facility. The regional body sent a consultant to review the plans. He nixed the plans saying the new building had to be on the main highway barely 100 yards from the donated land.

The church never relocated.

The community shifted. The congregation’s site, once prominently situated, is now a little-traveled side street. The donated land, still overlooking the major highway, sits in the middle of a huge housing development.


 

Consultants in the Modern Age

 

Make sure your consultant is living in today’s world.

 

Today’s small congregations are living at a time when much can be done with little. We should not despair. New opportunities abound.

 

Internet skills level the playing field. Many consultants discourage internet ministry. Why? Because many pastors lack modern communication skills. An understanding that the internet ministry is vital is lacking in Christian ministry. They cite ineffective results largely because skills are lacking. The internet, properly used, is a powerful ministry game-changer.

 

When interviewing consultants, ask questions about internet ministry. Find someone with strategical social media expertise to ask the questions. If the consultant puts you off,  It is a sign that modern communications techniques are not part of their experience.

 

Finally, wait at least a month before you fill out any evaluations forms.

 

Have you ever had a service provider ask you to fill out an evaluation before they leave—before you know whether or not their work is any good? Wait until you’ve tested their advice before praising it!

 

A Little Pep Talk

Trust your instincts.

Remember. God encourages the small. Always.

 

photo credit: zeligfilm ESoDoc 2012 – Session 1 via photopin (license)

The ELCA’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

The congregation and the people of East Falls were locked out of God's House by SEPA Synod on September 27, 2009. A long and complicated legal battle has ensued.

It’s the Ninth Anniversary of an Ugly Day in Lutheran History

The disciplines of religion and history rarely mix.

First, theology gets in the way. Anyone can find justification for any whim by finding a crack between the lines of Scripture.

Then tradition gets in the way, followed by human nature. It makes life easier to just follow the leader.

Perhaps Christianity’s biggest failing is the tendency to never, ever revisit the past. New ministry initiatives are touted in the unchallenged church press. When they fail ten years later, no one notices.

Leadership gaffes happen every day on many levels. Even small missteps that appear to affect few can have long-term consequences. The Church won’t notice. Individuals and neighborhoods do.

Christians are suckers. We like to play nice. We like to believe that leaders have pure motives. It can be hard to tell.

Christians are sucked in by language. How do you question the proposals of leaders who preface every presentation with “After prayerful discernment”?

The Church rarely revisits its actions. Nothing new. The Crusades are still remembered as noble warriors gallantly fighting for the faith. Most were patsies for rulers, hoping success would earn status and land at a time when the common people had no way of achieving either. Result: Christianity and Islam are still at loggerheads centuries later.

Most church gaffes are more isolated and smaller—bad choices. They, too, can have long-term effects that go unexplored, thus paving the way for replication of bad ideas.

Here is the story of one such monumental gaffe. It is the story of the ELCA’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.

Take a break here and read the story.

In this true story, a bishop comes into office facing a financial crisis. Deficit spending has gone unchecked for years. Where can money be found when even affluent churches are no longer giving at needed levels? The Great Recession is on the horizon. Money problems everywhere! AAAUUUGGH!

Things could have been worked out except for the ELCA’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day. The bishop didn’t want to work things out. She wanted what this congregation owned—everything. Standing in the way were two things: Lutheran law and the membership of the targeted church.

Where were the clergy that should have known better? Where were other congregations that could be (and some have been) in the same position? Prayerful discernment steps had been taken and

Lutherans were primed with “alternative facts” and “fake news” that justified looking the other way.

It wasn’t for lack of time. The dispute was in the courts for six years with the ELCA shamefully using attacking church members individually.

Question: If two sides of a dispute engage in prayerful discernment and the answers are God-directed, shouldn’t the two parties end up working together?

The events of this day, moved the still new issue immediately in the courts. This created an “us against them” environment with leadership using every power to defeat a small congregation.

The six years of legal actions resulted in a decision which has the potential to overthrow all Lutheran tradition and jeopardizes all lay leadership:

RULING:Although the congregation was within its rights to protest, secular courts cannot enforce church law. 

This means lay leaders (of all denominations) are protected only by the integrity of leadership, which is not guaranteed by ecclesiastic electoral systems or the vested interests of hierarchy.

The result of this one day in church history puts every congregation and every faithful church member at risk if they dare to defy any decision of church leadership.

It is worth revisiting on the ninth anniversary.

PS: As a result of this decision, all members of Redeemer Church were locked out their building. The property was seized by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod and sold after standing empty for seven years. The popular, 25-year-old, Lutheran-related day school closed and the educational building was razed for townhouses. The sanctuary, never desanctified, is being gutted for apartments.

Ironically, the neighborhood is experiencing a renaissance. The property Lutherans provided at considerable sacrifice for mission and witness at the main corner of town is now gone, Mission for Lutherans in all Northwest Philadelphia is all but abandoned. Oh, and we started our online ministry which has a wider reach than most Lutheran churches that took from East Falls what is not theirs.

When Failure Is the Desired Option

Christianity is based on one single momentous and miraculous event. The Resurrection.

 

Christ died, once and for all, that we might live. There is no need to repeat this event—even if we could. What a gift!

Yet the Resurrection story has become the fundamental argument in church circles for—of all things—failure.

 

Here is a characteristic logical progression.

  • Every congregation/ministry has a lifespan.
    This may be true, but what does this mean? Some congregations have been around for centuries with all kinds of ups and downs. Some last a few years. Without an analysis of what this means, it is deflection designed to intimidate.
  • Quote Ecclesiastes 3. There is a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot. Sometimes a New Testament analogy is called upon—new wine in old wine skins. Christianity is the new wine.
  • Remember the Resurrection. Only by dying can there be new life.
    New life doesn’t always require a corresponding death. The miracle of the Resurrection is all about us not having to die.

 

The teaming of these passages creates justification for ministry tactics that otherwise are not biblical. The Bible condemns any effort to discourage the faithful. Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2.

 

The Resurrection and Ecclesiastes passages are about hope—realistic hope and miraculous hope. Belief in the miraculous should energize the realistic.

 

The arguments can be used appropriately. Take an article recently published by Rev. Graham Standish, “Why Some Ministries Need to Die.”

 

He argues that congregations sometimes need to look at the effectiveness of existing ministries. He never argues that change should be forced. Instead he argues that those who appreciate the ministries should take responsibility for their continuation and allow others to experiment with different ideas. Makes sense.

 

But the extension of the logic gets a bit dodgy. Read this post by blogger, Rev. Ed Stetzer, Some Churches Should Die and Stay Dead.

 

He argues that troubled congregations be helped along in their dying so that re-planters have better odds of success without those troublesome laypeople. It sounds very practical in a world where clergy and lay leaders rarely reason together. In truth, the arguments are attractive to replanters for one reason. They want no one standing between them and church assets.

 

Theory hits the fan when it comes to implementation. Sometimes congregations don’t agree. It gets ugly and hateful. Communities (church and neighborhoods) are damaged long-term. While clergy come and go, church members still live in the neighborhoods where the strong-arm tactics were employed. The Church rarely revisits actions taken popularized theories. It is easier to leave the blame for failure with church members.

 

Our congregation heard these arguments. Oddly, we were growing quickly, but our regional body hadn’t been around to see our growth. They were practicing intentional neglect. One bishop said, “Ten years without a pastor and you’ll die a natural death.”  His successor didn’t bother to check if that was the case or not! Both were blind to reality and hope by their own financial needs.

 

Church leaders buying into this cockeyed logic are betting on failure, squandering the sacrifice Christ made for all of us.

 

These arguments are lazy theology. They prey on trusting lay people. Regional bodies exist to assist congregations. That begins by listening. It continues by collaborating. It thrives on empowerment of lay leadership.

 

Denominations rarely revisit controversial decisions. They continue despite failure. The damage endures—mission opportunities squandered for decades.

 

Most lay people want to believe professional leaders know what they are doing.

 

Reality: Often regional bodies haven’t a clue how to lead in the modern spiritual zeitgeist, have failed to train the leadership for the realities of today’s ministry—and most dangerously—are struggling financially themselves.