4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

Commentary on Other Web Posts

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.

08 Jan 2017

Challenges for Online Thought Leadership in the Church

shutterstock_118312096

It isn’t easy following online Christian forums. Carefully crafted blog posts can quickly be reduced to babble when the comments begin.

 

A few posts ago, I addressed some issues raised online by a blogger associated with Christianity Today. I wrote the post on the 2×2 platform because the Christianity Today platform requires either subscription or registration to comment on the site. Multiple attempts to register failed.

 

I have significant experience with and therefore, I hope, something worth saying. In order to join the conversation, I had to address the topic on my own platform. A decade ago this would not have been possible. Pronouncements from church leaders could go unchallenged. Challenge will be a characteristic of the surviving Church. It may take some getting used to.

 

The dechurched are an important topic. The dechurched outnumber the churched.

 

Today I revisited the post I referenced a few posts ago and read the thread of comments that I could not join. I would have been surprised at the forum’s caustic tone if I hadn’t already noticed the tendency of religion blogs to get nasty quickly.

 

As one commenter noted, a nerve was hit. But the commenters took off in unexpected directions effectively derailing the topic.

 

How did this happen?

 

There was no agreement on the premise of the blogger’s topic. Readers were defining the key topic (the dechurched) differently.

 

Lesson to be learned: lay the groundwork for the discussion carefully.

Why does the Church have problems communicating on the web?

 

There are bigger lessons to be learned. Communicating on the web is different from the customary communication channels familiar to church people.

 

The Church is accustomed to operating in its own world. Dialog is characteristically peer-to-peer or pastor-to-parishioner. Some clergy rise to a level of respect that gives them extraordinary authority. Their words carry influence.

 

Laity, on the other hand, have a difficult time influencing. Call it the stained glass ceiling. All of this is normal in Christianity. It’s how things have been for centuries.

 

The Wild Wild Web lets everyone in. The potential for evangelism is magnified infinitely. However, it calls for new communication skills. Online religious writers must nurture the dialog. Less preaching. More teaching and listening.

 

Bloggers must recognize that everyone can access and read their posts. You may intend to reach clergy about parish problems. You may think that your audience has basic agreement. But on the web, your audience is much wider. You will be reaching clergy with diverse backgrounds. And another thing . . . When you take the discussion online, your parishioners can find the discussions. Write and engage accordingly. This is a good thing. We can learn a great deal from one another.

 

Lesson to be learned: Write as if your post is being read by a diverse audience—including the people who populate the back pew on Sunday morning.

Why are church bloggers so touchy?

 

For the first time, the laity have the ability to participate and initiate church dialog. They have been excluded from church dialog for a very long time.  Perhaps clergy have some unwritten protocols for discussion. Laity will be unfamiliar with any such protocols. Laity will use the protocols from their experience, which have been established with longer experience with the web.

 

Let’s look at how this well-intended post got derailed.

 

The post was about ministering to the dechurched. The commenters couldn’t agree on what dechurched means.

The writer offered a definition.

By “dechurched” I mean people who were at some point either briefly or for a long time involved in a local church, but have not been active for several years.

 

Seems specific, but there is room for interpretation from readers who aren’t on the same page.

I read this from my experience. I imagined people who had been seriously hurt by their involvement in church—not just those who drifted.

Other commenters determined that the dechurched were — are you ready for this — Democrats. In the midst of a hotly contested presidential campaign, they saw political implications where none were intended. They saw the dechurched as actively in opposition to the Church of their experience.

In short, some writers saw dechurched as instigators while others saw the dechurched as victims.

 

The editor considered some of the comments to be grossly off topic and an abuse of the platform. The commenters thought they were on topic—or at least, in their experience, an extension of the topic. In the absence of a well-defined common ground, there is ample room on both sides for misunderstanding.

 

His only remedy was to threaten to block their participation.

 

The discussion quickly became defensive and smart-penned — opening the door for more misunderstanding. All this on a topic that was exploring divisiveness in the Church.

 

Here’s where the Church can learn from earlier adopters of the internet.

 

The online community calls persistently nasty commenters “trolls.” This view is dangerous in church dialog—especially on a topic that by nature is addressing division. Every dissenting comment should not be categorized as coming from a troll. Some may be the very dechurched people you hope to reach.

 

Dissent must be allowed. There must be a way of welcoming dissent while keeping the dialog helpful and civil.

 

The blogger/editor can set the tone. If the editor responds with sarcasm (difficult to interpret in writing), it will provoke.

 

Best Practices in Community Management

Here are some best practices in the business world for encouraging multi-sided dialog.

 

  1. Keep the community rules simple. This blog has a community guide that is six pages long. That’s long enough to be ambiguous even if participants take the time to read it.
  2. The editor or moderator should address offensive commenters offline. Public whippings discourage diverse contributions. Privately, the commenter and editor might find there is a misunderstanding—maybe even common ground.
  3. Check ego. Assume commenters have strong opinions for good reasons and are not attacking the editor’s words as vindictive sport.
  4. As author or editor set the tone.  Assume the writer’s best intentions. Avoid sarcasm, which is difficult to interpret in writing.
  5. Be courteous to all. Lecturing some commenters while stroking those who applaud your view is creating a class system. Both should be done offline.
  6. Online religious bloggers should resist the temptation to censor—for their own sake. The unhappy serve a purpose in helping us define mission. Remember, many people have been excluded in church dialog for a very long time. Their venting may feed your future content. Officially censoring their view is reinforcing the hurt.

 

While the Church needs to develop best online practices, there is danger. If the protocols return us to the controlled forums that have defined the Church for centuries, the Church will lose the advantages of the web.

 

It doesn’t feel good to have your online arguments torn apart by commenters. But applause from the choir is not why thought leaders blog, is it?

22 Apr 2016

What to Do About the DeChurched

 

shutterstock_391747459

In this post from a blog connected with Christianity Today, Rev. Ed Stetzer gives advice for reaching those disenfranchised from Church. He calls them the dechurched. They tend to call themselves “Dones” (as in they are done with it).

 

He divides the disenfranchised into two categories. There are those who just never quite fit in and then there are those who have either been directly hurt by the Church or who have witnessed an injustice within the Church. He calls the latter “collateral damage.”

 

The Church can be a hurtful place. Stetzer admits this. Dealing with the hurt has always been a problem. It gets in the way of bliss, a feeling many associate with church involvement.

 

26_1The Church has difficulty with empathy. The interests of the Church often come before the interests of the people the Church cares for. This shortcoming has the effect of magnifying hurt. Those who feel the effects of greed, power, selfishness, and other human frailties end up feeling expendable. While the Church talks about a God that sacrifices for the lost lamb, there is a growing number of lambs left caught in the briar on the edge of the cliff with no shepherd to reach out to them.

 

What can be done?

 

Stetzer’s first suggestion is to palm the responsibility for the disenfranchised off on another denomination. Maybe hurt Lutherans can hear the gospel spoken from Baptist pulpits. He calls it multiplicity—better than duplicity!.

 

This is a plan of avoidance. It won’t work. It just removes the problem from sight. When churches create hurt, they create a challenge for everyone in every denomination. Expecting others to clean up our messes is a bad idea. People belong to denominations for reasons with pretty strong roots. The hurt already feel rejected by people who are part of their personal life stories. What chance is there among strangers?

 

His second suggestion is more convoluted. He suggests giving permission to the aggrieved to express their pain. A tad condescending—especially if there is no plan to do anything but let them vent.

 

He talks about helping them get past the perception that true Christianity hurt them as if the hurt didn’t really happen or they are errant in identifying the source. True Christianity wouldn’t do some of the things churches do. Yet they happen—and fairly frequently. Time to admit: True Christianity must involve facing shortcomings.

 

True Christianity comprises people who come with true faults. True Christians can do bad things. That’s why we open our worship services with confession. What we find easy to confess to God in memorized language is far more difficult than coming up with the words to apologize to our neighbors.

 

A problem church leaders face is that the hurt is often very public. Solutions offered, when they are offered, are often very private. See me during office hours. 

 

Missing from his post are some important points.

 

Reconciliation is a major imperative for Christians. Reconciliation starts with accepting responsibility. “Yes, we see you are hurt. This should never have happened to you. We slipped up.”

 

This conversation should be followed quickly with some of the most powerful words: “I’m/We’re sorry. How can we help?” Sometimes that’s all the disenfranchised are seeking.

 

Reconciliation requires accountability and an action plan.

 

I’m not seeing this in today’s Church. I don’t see pastors standing up to those within the Church who overstep authority, who bypass Church law, and who justify wrong actions with one-sided rhetoric. I see pastors, who surely know better, making excuses that make those who are hurting feel even worse. I can only suspect that they want to remain in good graces with church authority—at least the earthly kind. They add to the damage. There is nothing more hurtful than a conditional apology. “I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t have . . . ” or “This is wrong, but there is nothing we can do.”

 

Here’s the thought process of those who have been hurt within the Church.

 

They believe in God and that the Church represents the godly. They pray to God for relief. When the Church turns its back on them they feel personally rejected by God. Why should they have to look for relief from strangers in unfamiliar denominations while the people they counted on to love them avoid unpleasantness? The disenfranchised feel rejected by the people who represent God. Why should they feel like they need permission to express their hurt? They will look to Scripture to find the Biblical response. They won’t find these remedies outlined. Of course, there are two sides to every issue, but in the Church, one side has a far more powerful voice. The legions of well-intended within the Church often never know about problems. There is little dialog. Breeding ground for discontent.

 Wouldn’t the True Church ache to know if there is something they can do to stop the pain?

The Church needs effective checks and balances. A private word of consolation from someone not directly involved and that will never reach the ears of the wrong-doers just continues the hurt. All too often such gestures are reported privately within church leadership and the complainer gets labeled by those who crave approval from those who created the hurt. The victim is further ostracized.

 

In fact, dechurching can be the desired outcome. One less thorn in the Church’s side. I heard one high-ranking church official offer to a hurting member no apology or discussion. “You need to move on.” All the responsibility for the problem was set squarely on the shoulders of the person with the least power.

 

If the Church believes its own message, it must accept responsibly for the disenfranchised. At the very least, open dialog.

 

Until the Church can truly accept responsibility, the numbers of dechurched will grow. They won’t mean to cause harm, but unaddressed hurts have a way of festering. They have families. Their families have friends. Friends have families. They have more friends. Now that’s collateral damage.

 

We are probably near the point where there are more hurting people shying away from Church than there are content and smiling Christians propping up the institution. We can keep on pretending fractiousness is the problem of the victims, but to what end?

 

The Roman Catholic Church spent years denying the pain of scandal and refusing to take responsibility. The image of the true Church was more important than the pain of the victims. Now they are seeing the only way out is to take responsibility. It is painful to be sure. But how many victims could have been saved with a more direct and timely response—by admitting the problems and treating the victims as children of God?

 

We need to learn from this.

12 Apr 2016

Hiring and Firing God’s Workers

This week’s Alban Weekly post, Courage Under Fire, by Susan Beaumont, addresses the unpleasant task of ending professional relationships in the church.

 

The sample scenario has a senior pastor fretting over a member of a team—a troublesome lay member, of course. A woman, naturally. You know how church women can be.

 

The article has the senior pastor as the sole determiner of this staff person’s value. In the Lutheran church, the congregation council would be making this determination.

 

There are very few churches in America large enough to have a team. Most congregational leadership teams are a pastor and a loyal group of volunteer lay leaders. Too bad. Can’t fire a volunteer!

 

Regardless, let’s look at Beaumont’s list of factors to consider. Note how they also might apply to congregations dealing with pastoral leadership.

 

Her keys points, shortened and rephrased:

  1. It’s someone else’s job to care for the emotional needs of the targeted staff person.
  2. The pastor as team leader cannot be both caretaker and supervisor. The roles must be separate.
  3. The payroll dollars of the church must be for mission and not for preservation of employee needs.
  4. The personal needs of the employee cannot trump the collective needs of the team.
  5. The readiness of the employee for firing is not relevant.
  6. It is not your job as the “firer” to be liked.
  7. No employee can serve well amidst conflict and anxiety. You are doing them a favor to help them move on.

 

These points are well taken.

 

Now let’s look at how they might apply to congregations and pastors.

 

Pastors are called and there is a tangle of red tape and polity traditions governing their comings and goings. In some denominations, the people paying the bills have no say whatsoever. Other denominations give the congregation this responsibility, usually through some sort of governing board. They have the responsibility for ensuring mission but often without any real control over professional leadership.

 

In the performance of their duties as a church board, they will face a sort of pastors’ “union.” It is formidable.

 

Clergy control church media and structure. If a dispute develops, congregations have no platform to present their case. Clergy have an ongoing relationship with church leaders and a platform for their causes. Gossip will reign. For decades. Or longer.

 

Church structure doesn’t like to admit that pastors can:

  • be difficult.
  • be ineffective in mission.
  • create tension and poor working conditions among the team.
  • rally personal sympathy and support within the congregation and cause division.
  • emphasize their comfort, emotional needs, and professional needs over the combined mission of the church

 

Lay leaders have the responsibility for the parish. They will live with the consequences as pastors come and go.

 

They should be able to follow the advice of Susan Beaumont. They should put mission and the health and spirit of the team (congregation) first. As Christians they should feel concern for church leaders but not make their emotional or professional needs the focus of their ministry. They should be able to make unpopular decisions.

 

But often congregations are required to protect their relationship with pastor above all else. Likability is more important than performance.

 

As long as there are no moral issues, the pastor’s role is protected. Congregations can wither for years under the same pastoral leadership. Everybody likes everybody. No change will be sought (and no change will result).

 

Decline is accepted—even expected. All congregational reserves will be spent on a relationship that is pleasant but unproductive before change is considered. Then, it is too late.

 

Pastors will not want to serve a congregation without a well-filled coffer.

 

So what’s happening to the laity while everyone is happy?

  • Talented members leave with a sense of futility.
  • As things decline, murmurs of discontent start. Finger-pointing isn’t far behind
  • People stop coming because of the atmosphere. They may not be able to put a finger on it, but things just don’t seem right. This will be interpreted by clergy as a “change in demographics.”
  • Lay people who feel a responsibility for the future of the church are labeled as troublemakers. They may even be discouraged from leadership—seen as a threat to clergy.
  • The pastor will seek solace among the clergy. The denominational rumor mill is primed. Laity will be unaware that they are grist.

 

Should ministry fail, it’s the fault of the laity.

 

Pastors never fail.

 

 

 

11 Feb 2014

Telling Your Congregation’s Story

A Good Story Is the Heart of Evangelism

The Bible is full of stories. Jesus understood the value of a good story more than anyone!

 

There is a resurgence in the interest of good story-telling. Marketers talk about it all the time, but it is rarely discussed in congregational circles and few congregations understand that good story-telling is also at the heart of evangelism.

 

Here is a link to a blog written by a rabbi known for his consulting with Jewish congregations. They are struggling with the same challenges as we Christians. We can learn from one another.

 

Rabbi Hayem Herring features a guest blogger well-versed in marketing.

 

Mission, Marketing and Media Are Inseparable.

 

This is a frequent theme on our 2×2 blog.

 

We see congregations ill-equipped to share their stories. They may be great at re-telling the biblical stories. They may be spectacular at interpreting the biblical stories. But when it comes to telling their own story, they don’t know where to begin.

 

Problem 1:

Congregations rely on the pastor as storyteller and the pastor often does not know the congregation’s story nearly as well as the congregants.

 

Problem 2:

Parishioners rarely have the platform to tell their story. Some are natural networkers and could do a great job, but they have not been encouraged.

 

Problem 3:

Congregations confuse history with “their story.” They can point you to the website or a memorial booklet published at a key anniversary. These invariably recite key pastorates and building projects and organ renovations. These aren’t the type of stories that interest newcomers. The how and why of these stories — the stuff that interests people — are lost in the recitation of names and dates.

 

A congregation’s story isn’t all about the past. Your story is being written every day. You have an opportunity to tell it every time your congregation adopts a cause, reaches a new demographic, accepts a new member, sponsors a student, conducts a mission project or addresses a community concern.

 

Every congregation has a great story with a plot populated with colorful characters—some from the past, some still with us. Your members can tell you why their church is important. They can tell you what sets your congregation apart. They can tell you the congregation’s strengths and passion. They can see into the future.

 

But they are rarely asked.

 

Congregations need to hone the story-telling skills of leaders and members alike. We need to encourage our members to tell their story in any way that is comfortable for them. There should be little attempt to sensor or edit their stories. They must be genuine.

 

Allow your members to witness, write a blog post, speak before the next potluck dinner. Write letters to the editor of the local paper. Encourage them to tell their story on their personal social media pages.

 

Remember the past. Celebrate the current. Show the neighborhood that you are interested in the problems of the community. Talk about moving into the future.

 

People will notice. You’ll be seen as vibrant no matter how large or small you might be.

 

And this could make all the difference.

04 Feb 2014

Maintaining Order in the Social Media Age

waveSMHow Will the Church Cope
in a World with No Boundaries?

Today’s Alban Weekly post points to a major challenge in the church. Rev. Adam Walker Cleaveland gives advice to pastors on how to manage their social media presence when they move from one parish to another.

 

What will pastors do with all their social media connections when they move from one parish to another?

 

Well, most of them aren’t very active online, but perhaps that will change.

 

You’d think the answer might be simple. They do what we all do when we move. Make new friends. Keep the old. Check in at Christmastime.

 

The few laity who happen across this article might be truly puzzled. They might be surprised to learn that pastors are actually taught to cut off relationships and ties to their past. Be hard-nosed about it. Do not make friends within your parish. Do not communicate with them when you leave. Make a clean break. That relationship you thought you had—it was all business.

Perhaps this is why church leaders so easily advise congregations to grieve and move on when they want to close churches. They have been taught an inhumane approach to ministry.

 

The practice comes from a day when pastoring was a family business. The spouse (wife) and children were part of parish culture and would follow the pastor (dad) wherever he went. The kids would change schools. The wife would clean and decorate the new parsonage and start attending women’s meetings.

 

The Church has always been asking for the impossible. The practice has caused more hardship—cruel hardship—than it will ever admit. But it is “the way” of the church—opposite in many ways to what the Church teaches.

 

But now it is a “way” that is no longer possible. The spouse works (husband or wife). The kids are going to stay connected whether or not the move disrupts their friendships. They didn’t attend those seminary classes that taught the church social order. They are not obligated to take orders.

 

The practice attempts to make life easier for the next pastor. That’s church culture. The pastor must be able to stand in the pulpit and look across a totally compliant and mindlessly happy congregation. When trouble breaks a congregant’s bubble, he or she must know who to call. No options.

 

Oh, and that trouble can never involve the pastor.

 

That’s the system. Like it or leave it.

 

A lot of people are leaving it!

 

The view is insulting to laity. We are not putty in pastoral hands, waiting for the next shepherd to dote upon our every need. There is trust and a regard, but not a total dependency.

This view fuels church conflict. When disagreements arise, the pastors must hang on to authority at every cost. It is the laity’s role to “give.”

 

Pastoral relationships often depend on dependency.

 

Dependency depends upon weakness.

 

And so the Church as an influence in our culture grows weaker.

Here in Southeast Pennsylvania in the ELCA, we’ve seen our entire denomination fostering dependence. We come from a tradition that honors the contributions of both laity and clergy as equals. That’s the theory anyway.

Reality: Congregations are expected to comply with synodical wishes. If they don’t, the laity are labeled. Disrespectful. Adversarial. Resistant. We need only question. We don’t even have to disagree!

 

This synodical view is bound to trickle down. If a bishop expects compliance, so too can a pastor.

 

All these decades or centuries of fostering dependent relationships are now rising up, gathering the force of a tsunami.

The tsunami called Social Media.

Pastor Cleaveland admits that Social Media is not a fad. It must be reckoned with. In typical pastoral thinking, he gives a “to do” list to keep things “under control.”

 

Odd. The power of Social Media to influence and expand the work of the church is enormous, and pastors focus on how it affects THEM.

  • Break your Social Media connections into lists that you can control.
  • Be sparing about your “likes.” Make sure there is a way for to disconnect from the people you were once eager to please. Find a gentle way to “unfriend” them. (The dangers of the “like” culture of social media are why we recommend blogging to Facebook, etc., by the way.)
  • Remember, this is for their own good. You are helping them grieve the loss of your influence in their lives.

Narcissistic? Just a little!

 

Really, pastors. It is quite simple to explain to your parish that you love them and will always love them. If there were problems, apologize. Mean it. Tell them that you will check into the church website from time to time. Let it go at that.

 

Don’t tell them that the reason you don’t “like” them anymore is because you are being paid to “like” someone else now.

 

All those needy people you are leaving behind will find others to love them and to love. It may be the new pastor. It may not! You won’t be able to control that.

 

Love is like that. You can’t corral it as much as the Church might try.

photo credit: Sunova Surfboards via photopin cc
03 Feb 2014

The Wikicclesia Church: Open Source Religion

2x2painting

 The Open Source Church: Our Future

This week’s Alban Institute blog post is written by Landon Whitsitt.

 

He opens:

At some level, the notion of a “Wikipedia church” —or “Wikicclesia”— makes a lot of sense, even if we have never thought of it before.

Wikipedia: The encyclopedia that anyone can edit

Wikicclesia: The church that anyone can edit

 

He poses some good questions to the Church. How do we leave the comfort zone that has protected us for a thousand years? How do we enter the modern world that simply does not value the things that have so defined Church?

 

This does not mean that the tenets of the faith are no longer valued. This is more about the structure that has grown around our beliefs—that the “keepers” of the faith need to be somehow “certified,” and all capable people without this accreditation need to exist in subservience.

 

The system played an important role in a world where education was not widespread. There was always a temptation to follow religious “snake oil” salespeople.

 

We could argue that this is always the case—always a danger. Today, snake oil salespeople (even religious ones) are more easily exposed.

 

This is exactly the idea that Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, builds on.

 

Predecessor encyclopedias spent a fortune finding experts to annually update topics they defined. Consumers spent fortunes making sure these valuable fonts of information were in their homes.

 

Wikipedia invited anyone to pose as an expert on any topic that interested them and let everyone else edit their work. They made the information available to all. For FREE!

 

The result has been a surprisingly accurate and amazingly timely source of information.

 

People take their areas of expertise seriously. They don’t want bad information out there.

 

Let’s assume people also take their faith seriously.

 

Can the church trust this “open source” culture?

 

The Church may have no choice.

 

Our new age of empowerment is exposing the flaws of the Church that have long been hidden by the cosmetics of tradition. A lot that defines church is no longer needed.

  1. The expenses of maintaining it are crippling.
  2. It is increasingly less effective.
  3. We are finding better ways.

 

Redeemer has unwittingly been an experimenter in the Wikicclesia concept. We set out with no other motive than to be the best Christian community we could, using the resources we have, while under attack from the very church that chartered to nurture us.

 

We learned that the way we traditionally “do church” is very limiting. In fact, it is turning off the modern faithful who find more fulfilling ways to live their faith.

 

As we used the internet, doors opened for us. Small as we are, we found we are able to make a huge difference.

 

The old way of doing “church” is all about pleasing others, doing things approved ways, showing  team spirit, supporting the system that provides clergy and publishes hymnals and curricula—and works hard to maintain. Nothing wrong with any of this. It is just reaching the end of its viability.

 

Many churches today will never be able to be effective as Christian community “the old way.” That doesn’t mean they cannot be active in mission and serve Christ and be viable in the modern world.

 

The ways of measuring Church must change.

 

The challenge to the Church is to find ways to grow in the 21st century, not to find fleeting ways to sustain the Church of the 20th century. We will never return to that time. That doesn’t mean there are not halcyon days awaiting.

 

Our experience may point the way to the new Wikicclesia.

Presenting Redeemer’s 2013 Annual Report

 

We present our 2013 Annual Report, which is only a glimpse of our very active ministry.

 

AnnualReport 2013

 

Read it and you will see that while banned from Church membership and structure, faith filled the void in exciting ways.

16 Jan 2014

The Value of Visual Worship

annunciationWe Live in A Visual World
But Worship Mostly with Sound

Often our worship traditions are based on state-of-the-art thinking or at least what was state-of-the-art decades or centuries ago. Unfortunately, traditions sometimes become so embedded that we don’t realize that the reason we did things the way we did them 50 or 100 years ago is that this was the best we could do with the tools available at the time.

Stained-glass windows served an educational purpose in the Middle Ages when few could read and the worship service was conducted in Latin for people who didn’t speak Latin (another example of tradition outliving any value by centuries). Window artisans outnumbered printers back then. Other way around today!

In the New World, we kept creating stained glass windows because they were the state of the art in the lands of our heritage. They are still beautiful but they are a bit limiting. Our visual expectations are much different today. And while some traditions (Orthodox, for example) value meditation on imagery, that has never caught on in other denominations. We like our attention focused on pageantry.

There was a time when hymnals were the church bulletin. A church bulletin from the 1950s typically had little but a the bared-boned order of worship. No one expected much from a mimeograph machine. (I used to watch my preacher father make the stencils and attach them to the cylinder and crank away.)

Around this time church publishers realized they could add to the visual experience by publishing colored bulletin shells with an ad for a national church program on the back. (Designing them was my job back in the 1980s.) By this time, the mimeograph had been mothballed and photocopying became the norm.

By the late 1990s, color laser printing became more affordable and available. New printers could handle different sizes of paper, too. Many churches realized this is something they could manage without purchasing the shells. There goes a source of revenue for the national church!

Despite new possibilities, almost no churches are exploring the development of the church bulletin as a worship/teaching tool. (Redeemer was doing this!)

We live in a visually driven era. How things look makes a difference in how we learn, think and make decisions. Worship, however, still focuses on the ear. When churches say they are holding a contemporary worship service it usually extends no further than the choice of music. Everything else is right from the Middle Ages.

We’ve lived through the age of architecture being the visual communicator, to black and white printing, to pre-formatted color printing to the capabilities of custom-color printing and the exciting medium of the internet which encompasses word, image, and sound with unlimited potential and practically no cost! Really, no church has to print a bulletin anymore. Members can pull them up in cost-free living color on their smart phones or pads! But we are still telling people to turn them off during worship instead of using them to enhance worship!

Traditions are the priority. As far as visuals go, we are still preaching in Latin!

It’s time to consider how to communicate and express ourselves visually.

We worship the God who created the rainbow.

That’s why 2×2 features collections of images to accompany worship. It’s the tip of an iceberg!

Here’s a link that discusses the power of the visual in our decision-making today.

14 Dec 2013

8 Lessons Learned by David Fighting Goliath

This is part 2 of yesterday’s post about Malcolm Gladwell’s new book, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants.

Yesterday, we pointed to Gladwell’s observation that true innovation comes from the Davids who fight established practices and wisdom. We promised examples from our experience today.

Ironically, the lessons we learned in our feud with the established church correlate with today’s post of the Alban Institute.

The post by Sarai Rice answers a frequently asked question. What are the emerging trends in the church?

Here are her answers with our corroborating experience.

1. A congregation’s identity does not equal its building.

Lutherans teach “the church is not a building.” This is not the only thing we teach that we do not believe!

Buildings are tools for ministry. Their financial demands can also impede ministry.

Our denomination desperately uses property as a weapon. Give to the regional body the way we expect you to give, or we will take your building off your hands.

This is in total violation of Lutheran polity. However, it is hoped that congregations will lack the will to fight.

People don’t go to church to fight, however righteous. Most Davids flee at the sign of trouble.

Our property was modest but had appreciated in an upscale Philadelphia neighborhood. That should be good news for the congregation. We had equity.

We planned a renovation project that would put our educational building to work in mission and which would provide a healthy income to support ministry.

But our equity was coveted by our denomination — not to benefit the neighborhood that provided it but to benefit SEPA Synod and its recurring budget shortfalls — (still a problem by the way).

Without our property, Redeemer was expected to disappear. Easy pickings.

Taking our building was supposed to be the nail in our coffin.

But Redeemer turned to home churches and after a year reached an agreement with a neighborhood ally for rent-free space. This had the benefit of strengthening our neighborhood ties.

We took our ministry online and learned a great deal about a medium that all churches should use, but almost none are. While our own doors are locked to us, doors opened all over the world.

With our experience in this new realm of ministry we would be in very good shape to conduct our own ministry in our own building for the benefit of the whole denomination.

But Goliath knows best.

We would add a Part B to this point.

A congregation’s identity does not equal its pastor.

This is somewhat covered in Rice’s next point.

2. Pastor does not equal a full-time position.

SEPA Synod seemed to be unable to work with our congregation without a pastor of their choosing in control. This too goes against Lutheran polity. The congregation is supposed to be part of the call process, but small churches are often given few or poor choices.

This expectation drains ministry. Valuable resources are spent on professional help who have little invested in the actual work.

Redeemer was told in 2000 that we had to accept the pastor SEPA wanted us to call or there would be no pastor for a very long time. The pastor they were recommending was upfront. He wanted to provide minimal service—just ten hours per week, just enough to keep his ordination status and benefits active. He would be happy. SEPA would be happy. Under the rules of a regularized call, Redeemer would be endlessly obligated with no promise of benefit.

Wisely, Redeemer turned down this ultimatum. But SEPA required THREE divisive votes before they stepped away from their demand. SEPA walked away. We were supposed to wither on the vine. Bishop Almquist even said, “In ten years, you will die a natural death.”

We found qualified pastors on our own and managed to grow.

In 2007, we presented a resolution to call one of them. We had worked well together for seven months. He had overseen the acceptance of 49 new members. Bishop Claire Burkat did not respond to our resolution. She met privately with the pastor and he never set foot in our church again.

3. Resourcing happens via drop-down menus rather than denominational staff.

The internet is a treasure that can be used by anyone.  “Even small congregations in remote communities know how to use search engines for everything from conflict management to curriculum choices,” Rice writes.

In other words, congregations don’t need to allocate great resources for help from the regional body. Regional bodies can and should downsize. This goes against our bigger is better thinking.

4. Group participation does not equal my congregation’s group.

Church members are loyal but not exclusive. Shunned by our own denomination Redeemer formed relations around the world. The amazing thing is that they have become intertwined. Denomination is never discussed.

Pakistan, Kenya, Sweden, Nigeria, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Boston have worked together in amazing ministry because they met us via our website. (None, except perhaps Redeemer, is ELCA!).

5. Worship does not equal Sunday morning.

Redeemer often meets on Sunday morning, but we also find reason to meet during the week.

6. Small groups and faith formation does not equal Sunday School in church buildings.

Redeemer follows the “meetup” concept. We have no place of our own but meet in homes, restaurants, trips, and theaters—even occasional bars.

7. Active membership does not equal weekly attendance.

Redeemer members stay in touch. We don’t have a church in which to take attendance, but we know that we have nearly 1000 people who read our website every week and participate in our various outreach endeavors. Our reach is broader than any other church in SEPA Synod that has a building.

We would add an eighth point to Sarai Rice’s observations.

8. Income does not equal offering plate.

Redeemer found ourselves suddenly with no church in which to worship and no offering plate to pass. Without a building or a pastor, we had little need to take offerings. But there were these pesky lawsuits (funded against us with our own money!). SEPA also threatened our members’ personal property. Money remained an issue. This is leading us down a new road to self-sufficiency. There is great promise in funding Lutheran ministry in East Falls with a combination of our school and a  mission outreach with entrepreneurial potential. We’ve laid good groundwork!

Should SEPA ever rightfully return East Falls property to East Falls Lutherans, they would soon have a viable flagship church where they have created strife.

25 Nov 2013

Ambassadors Watch 60 Minutes

A New Look at David and Goliath

Malcolm Gladwell is pitching a new book, David and Goliath. If it is anything like his earlier books, (The Tipping Point and Outliers) he will change our cultural outlook with a fresh and statistical look at accepted wisdom and practices.


CBS’s 60 Minutes featured his new work today. Gladwell says that when large forces do battle with small forces there is a tendency to exaggerate the power of big and underestimate the capabilities of small.

This tendency is played out in the Church. How well we know!

The big and powerful Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ( SEPA / ELCA ) decided it was wise to flex its muscles in our Philadelphia neighborhood in 2006.

They were struggling. SEPA’s 170 churches just weren’t contributing the way they used to. SEPA’s budget was regularly running a profound deficit. They were strategizing not so much with mission in mind but with their need to maintain staff and pay salaries.

Someone thought up the idea of forcing smaller, debt-free churches into giving up on mission and deeding assets to them. They tried this a few times with little resistance. Then they chose Redeemer as their target.

Problem: It’s against their governing rules. Churches are not required to bequeath assets to the regional body unless they were begun as mission churches.

Solution: Find a way to make small congregations that are not “mission churches” into mission churches and then force their hand. Failing that, find a way to get the church members out of the way.

And so SEPA started using the word Involuntary before the words Synodical Administration in their constitution which had been tweaked from its first reading to be in violation of its incorporating documents. They gave it added validity with its own acronym. ISA must be legal!

Involuntary Synodical Administration is not found in the synod’s constitution. Synodical Adminsistration in the original constitution was permitted only with the consent of a congregation. The intent of allowing Synodical Administration was to help congregations not bully them.

No one was supposed to notice. And almost no one has! The practice of forcing churches to close for the benefit of SEPA became accepted. Everyone could wonder which church was next. Tread carefully.

In East Falls, the resources of 170 churches were pitted against the resources of a small neighborhood congregation and a handful of individual members that Goliath SEPA decided to attack personally.

The strength of SEPA was exaggerated. Eight years later the mission of one small church is still being underestimated.

It hasn’t been easy. Courts didn’t want to be involved in upholding church law. Neither did 170 congregations, the synod assembly, the synod council or the national expression of the ELCA with  law offices paid by congregations but working for the synods. Neither did very many individuals. Just turn the other way. Pretend to know nothing. Redeemer will get tired and disappear. The property can be sold. Rejoice! “Mission” accomplished.

SEPA took possession of Redeemer’s property in 2009 and locked out the members who donated the assets. There was no process, no negotiation, no mutual discernment, no thank you. Just bullying.

This brings us to Gladwell’s next point. When there is confrontation with vastly lopsided odds, the underdog is put in a unique position.

The underdog must innovate. Gladwell gives some examples of innovation coming from the smallest and most unlikely places. Each received so little regard from the establishment that they were free to re-invent. In some cases, they made enemies doing it, but were eventually accepted when egos stopped overshadowing results.

Interestingly, church leaders have been promoting innovation and change for decades. The bishop involved in this dispute even wrote a book about it—Transforming Regional Bodies. In this book Rev. Claire Burkat openly advocates that small churches should be allowed to die to preserve synodical resources.

But this doesn’t lead to transformation—just the shifting of resources and the eroding of mission.

The Goliath nature of the Church is unable to transform. It doesn’t appreciate its Davids.

Larger churches have no need to transform as long as their numbers can continue to support a couple of pastors and support staff. They define success even as they are starting to fail. Most large churches are in decline, too.

Middle-sized churches are preserving resources, hoping to reach the status of large churches or at least maintain church as they know it. Change might threaten their perceived stability.

Smaller churches have no luxuries. Many have minimal or inadequate professional help. Pastors seek calls in the larger congregations where they won’t have to do the evangelical work of building community. Consequently, each member of a small church plays a vital role in church mission. With less clergy oversight, they are free to experiment.

Redeemer was always a bit entrepreneurial in that regard. But without property, with no clergy, and while being entirely unwelcome in the ELCA, we forged ahead.

While SEPA and the ELCA pretend we don’t exist, we’ve accomplished a great deal.

We’ve become the church of the future, the church that can rewrite how small churches will survive.

Our next post will give some details.

24 Nov 2013