4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

Commentary

Defining the Future Seminary

shutterstock_146283494Two seminaries are about to merge in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

 

The future of seminaries is a grim reflection of the state of the mainline Church.

 

The Lutheran Seminaries at Gettysburg and Philadelphia tried to merge when the ELCA was founded almost 30 years ago. The last few decades have been hard on seminaries as class sizes have shrunk. This may not be as problematic as it seems. The rate of church closures creates fewer positions for traditional pastoral service.

 

The temptation to merge for managerial benefits again arises. I hope it is not the typical mistake of failing to understand church math—where 1 + 1 often equals 0.

 

A few weeks ago, the Rev. Dr. David Lose, president of the Philadelphia Seminary, sent a letter asking for input on what the new seminary arrangement would look like. What do we expect from our seminaries?, the letter asks.

 

David and I come from the same ministerial heritage. We are cousins. That’s probably why I opened the letter from the seminary.

 

The request for input was a refreshing surprise—not the usual solicitation.

 

The agencies of the church are often isolated from the parishes that fund them. They have become better at defining their own needs then addressing the needs of the congregations. So I answered his request from the viewpoint of small churches.

 

Here’s what I suggested.
  1. Train seminarians to serve small congregations. The statistics show that as many as 90% of congregations are small (fewer than 250 members). The needs of small churches are different from medium or large congregations only in that we can’t afford more than one person to meet ministry challenges. It is always disturbing when I visit larger churches for worship and see as many as four full-time pastors working the chancel. Small churches are lucky to have a dedicated pastor for more than 20 hours of service a week. The chances of growth and success are practically nil. Yet most seminarians can look forward to serving small churches. Pastors need strategies specific to small church needs.
  2. Evangelism is a desperate need. That means pastors must be trained to work outside the pulpit. When small churches can call only part-time pastors, evangelism is rarely the priority. We need strategies to cross this hurdle.
  3. Train the laity. Frankly, with usually only part-time leadership, we laity usually hear that it is our job to attract members. If that is the case, we need the skills to succeed. We are not the same laity of 50 or 100 years ago. Most church members these days have college educations. Today’s job market increasingly requires graduate degrees. Many of these skills overlap pastoral skills. The internet makes theological information available to anyone. We no longer need pastors to educate us. The need is more to help us focus our skills, needs and insights as community.
  4. Develop an entrepreneurial mindset among clergy. It is foundational to evangelism. Congregations must create funding streams outside of offerings (my current project!). This is possible, but pastors need to create networks outside the Church, which leads to the next suggestion.
  5. Train pastors to interact in the world outside of Church. The Church tends to isolate itself in the community—an odd result of our nation’s founding tenet that the government cannot make laws affecting the church. The prohibition from working together with government and independent agencies is largely self-imposed. This has caused a loss of status for the Church in modern society. The early years of our nation found the Church at the forefront of service in society—creating schools, hospitals and service agencies. We have allowed the government and private non-profits to take over. They have easier access to public money. Church members who are inclined to lives of service find their efforts more effective and more valued outside of the Church. A loss for Christianity.
  6. Train pastors in church procedure. Congregations suffer when church procedure is not followed. Two of many examples: We had a pastor who insisted he could just add names to our membership roster without ever presenting the names to the congregation council as all constitutions state. Another pastor thought it was OK to call a second pastor with only the congregational council approval. Laity are always at a loss when poorly trained pastors take actions that are rightly challenged. Gossip takes over quickly. Most of it will spread without input from the congregation.
  7. Stress pastoring as much as theology. Train pastors to spend more time listening than preaching.
  8. Train pastors in modern ministry which is not likely to look much like ministry 50 years ago. They must deal with nonmembers as much as members if the Church is to grow.
  9. Every pastor must have internet skills to collaboratively develop the voice of the congregation (not their personal voice). No excuses! I suspect that the higher numbers of seminary candidates entering as second careers may be motivated by the desire to avoid the changes of the modern workplace. This is a loss to the Church that desperately needs to embrace modern technology for the sake of both mission and survival.

 

That’s the list I returned to the seminary, I would add the need to work directly with congregations to create recruitment opportunities.

 

What would you suggest?

09 Apr 2016

“Follow Me” Means “Take A Chance”

 

Immigration made America great. How?

 

It might be in the genes. Scientists have identified an adventure gene. A gene that predisposes people to take risks. You could call it the “What if?” gene. (Its real name is DRD4.)

 

America was likely populated by people with that gene—whether it was Asians wondering what life might be like to wander east across the Bering, whites of various ethnicities heading west across the Atlantic, blacks arriving here not by choice but surviving to seek freedom, or today’s huddled masses lining the Rio Grande. A high percentage of the people who found their way here loaded our cultural gene pool with the “What if?” gene.

 

Here is a description of the What if? gene in a post written by Xiao.

 

The natural desire to explore is most intensely expressed in children, who aggressively form hypotheses in their minds and experiment. Can I place this block on another one without toppling over? Will I get the cookie if I cry or ask nicely? What happens if I hit the person who takes my toy, will they give my toy back or fight back? What if I hop over this fence I’m not suppose to; will I find new things to do? Such ruthlessly efficient hypothesis testing makes children natural adventurers.

And people who retain this adventurous trait in adulthood are the explorers. The ones who dare to venture into unchartered territories.

The ones who push human civilizations forward.

 

Christians seeking religious freedom were among the early immigration waves. They were the innovators and risk-takers in the Church at a time when it was risky to ask any questions.

 

Their dedication inappropriately labeled our country “a Christian nation.” We were a nation with a lot of Christians but never a Christian nation.

 

Lacking that gene leads to contentment—lives lived in the same town or job, among the same people. Perhaps the contented have their own gene—the rocking chair gene.

 

Without an influx of new blood, the percentages even out over time. The rocking chair gene grows and the What if? gene wanes.

 

 

Are we able to explore and take the risks that might move us in new directions? Or is the rocking chair gene moving us back and forth in the same place?

 

Christianity has prospered in America for a dozen or more generations. Is our gene pool now diluted? Does the population that comprises the Church have leaders with the risk-taking gene?

 


All Christian should ask these questions of ourselves. We should ask these questions before we call a pastor. We should ask again as we elect leaders. Will they forge a new direction? Will they create a lot of movement that gets us nowhere?

 

If we no longer have the risk-taking gene, we need to find new blood. Leaders who cannot accept risks are not leaders. They are rocking chair jockeys. The rocking chair gene would have kept Moses in Egypt. It would have kept the disciples in the Upper Room.

 

Jesus chose followers with the risk-taking gene. “Follow me. No questions.” Accepting the call, means accepting the journey. Sky-divers don’t dwell on the landing. They relish getting there.

14 Mar 2016

Dignity—A Return to Camelot

or the foundation of Christian practice?

respect

I subscribe to two theaters. I pay no attention to what’s playing. I go, take my seat, and watch whatever they offer.

 

I’ll read any genre, liberally mixing it up.

 

This week I was surprised to find the same theme jumped out in the theater I attended and the book I read. The play was August Wilson’s Two Trains Running. For two and one half hours, the actors portrayed people seeking dignity.

 

I had no idea what The Rowan Tree was about when I downloaded it. I like trees. The cover grabbed my eye. It was free on Kindle Unlimited.

 

I didn’t realize what the book was about until the last quarter of the book. The author, Robert Fuller, a mathematician and former president of Oberlin College, wrote the book to present his vision for leadership based on honoring the dignity of others. Dignitarianism.

 

Dignity is something we sometimes impose on others as we gloat in victory. Victors strive to impose dignity on losers as they demonstrate superiority. The Rowan Tree asks what might result if we thought about dignity before we conquer and as we negotiate.

 

We know dignity is desirable. But still we seek to use it as condescending victors.

 

The beginning and middle of the book explore interesting characters struggling with the changing moral perceptions of the post-1990 era. At first, the reader might think the book is about interracial families—or maybe about changing marriage customs or various international exchanges—but each of these themes is interrelated. At the end of the book Fuller states his theories clearly. His preaching is more thought-provoking than offensive. Putting dignity first in political, domestic and international negotiations might change the world climate.

 

The characters in The Rowan Tree are remarkable in that they are all privileged and civilized. They are kind to one another as they seek to find themselves in a changing world. The story is set 25 years later than Two Trains Running and takes us into the future. The racial divides are less rigid. The characters make mistakes. They disappoint one another. They make peace with unusual grace. They manage to put others first. It’s hard to find an antagonist!

 

Both works point out that honoring dignity is the most profound change agent. In Two Trains Running characters in a black neighborhood diner in 1969 seek personal dignity—while walking all over other characters. Each has a different role in the community. The levels of indignity vary in the beginning of the play. The oppressed waitress senses the Civil Rights Movement means little to her. A mentally challenged man was taken advantage of ten years before and can’t let go. An ex-con wants to avoid returning to jail but can’t find work. The most successful character, the undertaker, insists on dignity as he buries the members of the declining neighborhood.

 

Dignity. What a concept to consider during this election year as our future world leaders try to gain power and influence by humiliating one another! If this is how we treat colleagues with similar goals, how do we negotiate with those with fundamentally different ideas?

 

Church has its politics too.

 

Combine the messages of Two Trains Running and The Rowan Tree. Like it or not, acknowledge it or not, getting our own way is part of church life.

 

We preach a gospel of love but we are tempted to first carefully calculate what’s in it for us. We think about how we can keep what we have and calculate how we can get more. We protect our own dignity over that of others. This is often disguised as stewardship, legalistic dogma, tradition, church order, respect, authority—all kinds of things.

 

It is part of the placement of pastors, the distribution of resources, and the closing of churches. The end is often decided before negotiations begin. Sometimes the negotiations never begin. Dignity, imposed more than practiced, is often nothing but legitimizing bullying tactics. The fate of the congregation and its members are collateral damage.

 

Yet, the ideas of dignatarianism are rooted in Christianity. The leper, the prostitute, the centurion, the king are all equal in Christ’s eye.

 

Something to think about.

 

Afterthought: The rowan tree holds a special place in Celtic tradition. 

 

When we silence ourselves long enough to listen to the rowan speak, we hear her message: “look deeper, see through the object before your eyes and you will encounter visions into the worlds beyond the one you physically know.”

13 Mar 2016

5 Lessons Churches Can Learn from a Pop Star

lights

I was reading a blog post this morning about Justin Timberlake and how he successfully transformed his career from his boy band days to solo artistry. The post points out five things Justin Timberlake did right in marketing his image. It struck me that the lessons Justin learned as he matured as an artist apply to churches.

Here are the five points from this article that churches should consider. There is an important common thread. As he changed and the world changed, Justin Timberlake recognized that his audience changed.

1. Constantly Adapt

If the Church had made a habit of changing centuries ago, the need for change today would not be so traumatic. Sadly, the Church continues to bank on its ability to stay the same while the world around them spins off into

  • new social structures,
  • new family structures,
  • new economic structures,
  • new educational structures,
  • new leadership structures, and
  • new communication structures.

Those seeking comfort and stability can count on Church being the same—same music, same robes, same imagery, same language, same message. Unfortunately, it is increasingly directed at the same people—and they are growing fewer.

2. Engage Your Audience

This, I think, may be the Church’s biggest challenge. Even today, with communication so easy, the Church relies on top/down communication. Preachers preach. People listen. There is one preacher, at least, per church. There are hundreds of lay people. But the voice of the laity is filtered—first within the parish and certainly at every other layer of church involvement. That creates a structure that resists change. Change agents are rarely accepted and approved to have a voice within the established structure. These structures show no signs of willingly changing on their own.

We still rely on people coming to us—Sunday morning is best. Online forums are “pay to play” or carefully monitored. Assemblies are rare and participants are vetted. The old will accept this. That’s the way Church has always been. The young will say “huh?” and move on to organizations that allow them a voice.

3. Don’t Work Alone

Here’a another challenge for the Church. The Lutheran denomination, for example, is purposely structured to be interdependent. Sounds good. But it doesn’t work very well. Congregations tend to be isolated, working with the interests and talents of their one senior leader. Other leadership must complement the top leader. To cooperate with leaders from other denominations or service agencies would challenge the authority structure.

This is also true at the regional level. There is no true collaboration with other denominations or nonprofits. There is the ceremonial trip to Rome and endless councils for this and that with no real results. What we can do alone is good enough. But with waning support, we can do less and less. True, many congregations latch on to popular causes such as Habitat for Humanity. They, along with religious social service arms increasingly reach out to be part of government-supported causes. When we do this, we play by their rules—and lose our Christian identity, influence, and congregational support. After all, congregants know they can go directly to these agencies. (The agencies know this, too, and regularly bypass their regional bodies to court direct support from members.)

4. Differentiate Yourself

Church leaders comfort themselves as they go about closing churches with the rationalization—“There are four other churches in that neighborhood. They don’t need this one.” (One pastor actually wrote that to our church.)

It is probably a failing of all neighborhood denominational churches that the only difference is the regional body to which they report.

So how do congregations stand out?

They can provide a different worship experience, service experience, or educational experience. But then they have to communicate it—not just to their members but to the rest of their community.

Which brings us to the last point.

5. Make Yourself Consistently Visible

Consistency should be easy for congregations. We base our entire existence on the Sunday morning worship and fellowship experience. Many churches follow a Church Year which tells us what scriptures we will be reading on what Sunday every three years. We aren’t as good about making our strengths known. And yet, today it has never been easier.

If you have a web site, use it consistently.

If you have an email list, communicate regularly (with good content!)

If you choose to advertise, do so regularly.

Congregations must now evangelize to a generation (or two) that have not grown up in church. But they have grown up in and embraced the communication age.

Don’t expect them to come to you on Sunday morning. Find a way to go to them—consistently and regularly with information and spiritual offerings that resonate to the world they live in today and foresee living in tomorrow.

photo credit: Luringa via photopin cc
14 Oct 2014

The Horizontal Church: Part 2

Vector illustration of a wooden staircase
Why Church Size Will Mean Much Less in the Church of the Future

The Vertical Church values big. Big translates economically into more support for centralized services—one of the reasons the Church was structured vertically in the first place. It often ignores the reality that the effectiveness of church mission relies on community, which functions best on a smaller scale—and who today can do a great deal more on their own than they could twenty years ago.

 

Above is our infographic that describes congregations by size. It depicts this from the lay point of view. Clergy will be familiar with this terminology. You can find a lot written about it online from the clergy point of view. Clergy discussion usually centers on how church size translates to leadership style.

 

Less discussed is the economic significance. But it is surely on every pastor’s mind.

 

The playing field for congregations was more even when churches provided parsonages. This helped to contain one of the largest expenses in hiring professional help. It kept the leadership in the community. No commuters need apply. Almost any size church could afford significant help, sometimes by yoking with another parish or two, but often on their own.

 

Compensation packages today have put significant professional leadership out of reach for many — maybe even most congregations. Yet the small church continues to play a vital role in community—even as their status wanes.

 

Much of this disparity will disappear in the coming horizontal church. Even small churches will have wide reach once they embrace modern technology. 2×2’s mission is an example. We are about a dozen members who are reaching about 80,000 people at the first level of engagement each year. The expanding network of social media makes our greatest reach immeasurable.

 

We will face many challenges as the horizontal church emerges. Here are three.

  1. Attracting leadership that is savvy in the use of social media and willing to shift the focus of delivery of the Word from nearly empty sanctuaries to the densely populated online community.
    This requires skills many who are already in the ministry never imagined having to learn. Since seminaries today are attracting a large number of second career students, who also are new to social media, it will take a while to develop this mindset among church leaders. Congregations eager to start using social media will have to rely on lay leadership or wait—perhaps until it is too late!
  2. Creating an economic infrastructure for this type of ministry requires looking beyond the offering plate for funding.
  3. Prioritizing church resources differently. The structure of today’s church centers on church communities with property. Property is important but expensive. The horizontal church will have to find ways to make owning property economically sustainable or reconsider the value of owning property.

 

There are many other considerations, but this is enough as we start to consider the emerging horizontally structured church.

 

Here’s the big problem. As the Vertical Church begins to die (and this is already underway), leaders, steeped in tradition, will try to bolster the larger churches at the expense of the smaller churches. Haves and Have Nots. This is an economic necessity. Their survival depends on offerings that most churches cannot spare. Larger churches have more resources (at least for now). Leadership focus will be on placing their stable of clergy in churches who can support them and the hierarchy.

 

Leadership in smaller congregations (most congregations) will increasingly rely on laity who have little voice beyond their own community.

 

The shift to the horizontal church can be made peacefully,  but it is a dramatically different way of thinking. It is likely to come at a cost that will first hurt small churches but will benefit larger churches only short-term. Very short-term.

29 Jun 2014

A Remarkable Palm Sunday

10246426_10202895967336001_2754904152152544148_n 10176055_10202895967576007_4888172750327810463_nCongregation celebrates Palm Sunday history

A member of Redeemer was honored this Palm Sunday. Pastor Luther Gotwald helped to lead St. David’s commemorative Palm Sunday Parade in Davidsville, Pa. Pastor Gotwald (my dad) was St. David’s pastor for 20 years.

St. David’s was a small neighborhood congregation that was divided in 1965 when he accepted their call. They had a building with an educational addition within walking distance of most of the village.

Half of the congregation wanted to continue ministry in the existing building. The other half wanted to build a new building at the edge of town.

Many pastors might turn down such a challenge. These days, the prevailing wisdom is to assign interim pastors to work out problems so “called” pastors don’t have to.

Pastor Gotwald knew that controversy dealt with, not ignored, can lead to good things.

During his first year in Davidsville, Pastor Gotwald visited every member of the congregation. He did little but listen. “I never told anyone which way to vote. I just made sure every voice was heard.”

The congregation decided to build a new building. On Palm Sunday, 1966, the congregation marched from the old building to the new site, singing hymns all the way. Young people led the parade that day, carrying the altar cross and chancel accoutrements.

In the past 50 years (20 of them under Pastor Gotwald’s leadership) St. David’s has grown to be one of the largest congregations in the Allegheny Synod.

With development, the new building, opposed in part because it was on the outskirts of town, now sits once again in the middle of the village.

On this occasion, I asked my dad about each of the four churches he served.

He spent seven years serving a two-point charge in Northumberland County, Pa. Two small churches shared his time in ministry. Trinity, he said, didn’t grow while he was there, but he added that the church was filled every week. Grace doubled in size during his tenure.

He then accepted a call to another small neighborhood church in Emigsville, near York, Pa. The tiny church was bustling with activity. The church was located on a back street of the village. Pastor Gotwald led the church in considering relocating—an obvious need if the congregation was to change with the neighborhood. A plot of land had been donated. Plans were drawn. The Synod looked over the plans and nixed them. They wanted the church on a major road. The donated land was just off a major road, situated prominently on a hill, visible from the main road.

The lack of synod support doomed plans for growth. St. Mark’s is still a small congregation on a back street of a village that has now been swallowed up by York. Major businesses relocated nearby as did one of York’s major high schools.

That donated lot that could have been the new church home is now in the middle of all the development. Its steeple, had it ever been built, would dominate the view from the main thoroughfare.

Church “experts,” who had to have things their way, squandered a congregation’s best chance at growth.

In his retirement years, Luther Gotwald actively advocates for Redeemer. He joined the congregation in 2009 when his congregation in western Pennsylvania voted to leave the ELCA. He supported Redeemer’s mission plan. He knew something about growing churches and uniting congregations in mission.

When he joined Redeemer, he asked to have his clergy roster status transferred from the Allegheny Synod to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod. SEPA’s Bishop Claire Burkat denied his request.

No independent thinkers need apply.

Sadder things were to come. When Bishop Claire Burkat decided to remove Redeemer from the SEPA roster of congregations without consulting with the congregation, the congregation opposed her actions—as is their right. Bishop Burkat chose to sue the congregation and individual lay members (including me). Luther Gotwald sent letters pointing pastors to the Articles of Incorporation and constitutions, which forbid these actions. He was publicly ignored but sharply ridiculed behind the scenes. Go home, Yankee.

With nothing more mission-minded to do, the Synod Council of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (elected to represent congregations) wrote to the Bishop Gregory Pile of the Allegheny Synod. They were upset that Luther Gotwald was addressing an issue they were all avoiding—the treatment of Redeemer, East Falls. Most, if not all, signed a letter requesting Bishop Pile to officially censor Pastor Gotwald.

This is the Lutheran church, the denomination that grew from dissent. We used to be proud of that.

They might have looked into things a bit before taking such embarrassing action on behalf of all the churches in SEPA Synod.

Pastor Gotwald left St. David’s to serve as the only assistant to the bishop of the newly formed Allegheny Synod, where part of his job was making sure constitutions were followed. He had also served for many years as the parliamentarian at Synod conventions. He knows church rules.

SEPA Synod Council probably didn’t know Bishop Pile succeeded Pastor Gotwald in service to St. David’s. He also succeeded the bishop Pastor Gotwald had worked with. These men have high regard for one another.

Bishop Pile was not pulled into SEPA’s hateful vendetta.

In the photo below, Bishop Pile is in the center and Luther Gotwald is on the right. Pastor Gotwald is still respected as a faithful, loving pastor, who occasionally takes an unpopular stand based on his experience, knowledge of church history, and ELCA constitutional structure.
The Church needs more pastors like him.

Great day in Davidsville, Pa. Congratulations, St. David’s—and you, too, Dad.

1013879_10202896010457079_2765294868205133546_n

13 Apr 2014

5 Key Performance Indicators for the Modern Church

What statistics will actually guide mission?

In the business world, executives and management talk about Key Performance Indicators (KPI). These are statistics that help measure success and engagement in their market. The use of Social Media makes collecting this information easy.

 

Here are some of the things executives learn from their use of social media. It took many in the business world a while to adopt new ways. It is now accepted as a business “must.”

 

It has been a game-changer for many—particularly small businesses.

 

We’ve also noted how the same information could benefit church mission.

 

Keep in mind that most congregations never consider this information when they plan their budgets and mission activity and for good reasons.

 

  • This information was once difficult to measure.
  • Most church leaders are not business-minded.

 

Return on Investment

IN BUSINESS: How many sales resulted from the expense of research and development, marketing,  staff, etc.?

 

IN CHURCH: How effective is our annual budget at achieving mission goals?

 

The church NEVER measures Return on Investment. Dare anyone ask: What return is your congregation getting for the money you are spending on salaries and property? We never ask, so endowments are eaten away with no attempt to figure out why. We just accept that this is the way it should be.

 

Measuring the money aspect of investment in ministry is off-putting to the Christian mindset. So don’t. Analyze your ROI with this question: Is our mission being advanced by our investment in salaries and property—the major budget line items of every congregation? If not, how can our investment (in time, wealth and talent) insure that mission dollars ARE advancing mission?

 

Purchase Funnel

 

IN BUSINESS: How long does it take for a prospective customer to make a purchase?

 

IN CHURCH: Let’s call it the Membership Funnel. How long does it take from a seeker’s first engagement with a congregation to membership and involvement?

 

We should not only measure the process, but how visitors first come to us. (We still rely on people coming to us, don’t we? But that’s another post!). At which point did prospects commit or drop out. Congregations need to know this to fine-tune their mission strategies.

Membership Retention

IN BUSINESS: Businesses know that it costs much more to find new customers than to serve old customers. They call it customer retention. They measure it!

 

IN CHURCH: A congregation needs to know why and how members are leaving. Existing members are both the financial backbone of the present church and and important to the future. That means more than adding to the endowment. It is legacy. New members will notice how old members are treated. And yet some denominational advice is to ignore the old members, close churches—and in our congregation’s case — lock us out.

Goal Completion Rate

IN BUSINESS: Did we make our projected revenue? Did we launch the new product in time?

 

IN CHURCH: Congregations rarely state their goals in concrete terms. Mission statements are pie in the sky. Yet, measurable, concrete goals are the only way to actually achieve lofty missions.

A pastor of an average-sized congregation once told me that he was aware that to “hold its own” his congregation had to accept at least ten members a month. If growth was the goal, they had to exceed that average.

 

Does your congregation have concrete goals?

Incremental Sales and Traffic Sources

IN BUSINESS: In the business world, these statistics break down the larger numbers. For example, if there was an overall improvement of 50% in sales, what percentage came from television ads vs print ads vs internet? Additionally, what percentage was on the sales of widget A as opposed to widget B?

 

IN CHURCH: How many members came from attending programs? Which programs? How many were invited by members? How many were first approached by a pastor? How many learned of your ministry online? How many youth joined because of music or fellowship or a service project?

 

We can learn this information by engaging. Social Media facilitates engagement.

 

The information opens new doors for church analysts. The use of Social Media makes more information easier to collect. But still, most congregations limit their use of the internet to bulletin board/brochure-style sites.

viral mission

What’s Missing?

Add this one question to the list of questions above.

  • What is the connection potential of each member — old or new?

 

Connection Potential? What’s that?

 

The social connections of members are gold. Congregants are always encouraged to invite. But now congregations can engage congregants and others on Social Media.

 

Why bother?

 

Because your message will reach a vastly broader audience. You’ve handed members a powerful tool and you’ve expanded your evangelical power.

 

Consider this: If your members each have a circle of 250 followers they are in keeping with the average. Your members’ reach becomes your congregation’s reach. If you start to engage in ways that your members will be excited to share . . well, you do the math.

 

A church with 50 members is a small church, right?

 

Wrong!

 

Using very lowball figures:

 

If a congregation has just 50 members using social media and each of them has a following of 100 members (less than half the average) and each of them has a social reach of another 100 members, you have the ability to reach 500,000 people with every online post. You simply have to provide content that your membership will be eager to share.

 

Built into the use of social media is the ability to measure all the things you need to measure to be viable in the 21st century — no matter how small you are. So start sharing the Good News and learn how to achieve your mission.

Just for fun ask the members of your governing board how many followers they have on social media. Then ask your youth group the same questions. The statistics —and their potential—may surprise you!

Also just for fun – and to help your congregation break into social media: Talk to your congregation before worship starts about their role in growing the church. Invite them to pull out their cell phones, take a selfie with others sitting near them and shoot it off to their friends.

Some might protest. Their reasons will sound very valid in the thinking of twenty years ago. “It’s disrespectful.” “It’s distracting from the reason for coming to church.”

But it is welcoming and engaging. It communicates to your congregation that they can make a difference. A church we visited recently who did this had 500 worshipers in attendance.

So just maybe, it might help achieve mission.

03 Apr 2014

What the Alban Institute Did Wrong

The stunning news that the Alban Institute is closing deserves some attention in the Church.

The same fate awaits all top-heavy church structures. That includes most mainline denominations.

Learn from this now. Or learn from this later — and take your neighborhood churches down with you.

Alban was an institution that made it a calling to help congregations enter the modern world. It spoke to us of change and advised us on best practices. Then, it failed.

Perhaps the mistake it made was in believing its own advice.

2×2 has criticized some of the advice given by Alban writers, most notably the 2001 book, Transforming Regional Bodies by Roy Oswald and Claire Burkat.

That book talks about the natural life of a congregation, recognizing its waning days and even helping it along the way. In other words, it didn’t have answers.

And so the Alban Institute accepted its own demise—unable to get a foothold in the modern world, unable to strategize for its own survival, much less advise congregations. Staff and salaries ate away at assets.  $5 million in assets was whittled down to less than $500,000 in just four years.

This same scenario is already happening in countless churches across the country.

The Washington Post made the same observation we make: “…it doesn’t surprise me that they’ve been feeling some real stress,” Roozen [David Roozen, director of the Hartford Institute for Religions Research] said. “The electronic world isn’t the natural gift of religious systems yet.”

I often wondered why The Alban Institute was heavy on on-site seminars geared to clergy whose congregations could afford to send someone for a two- or three-day event. The same material could be handled in webinars and opened up to lay leadership as well as clergy. This would have expanded the base of support and helped congregations, including laity. But the help was always geared toward upper management in larger churches. That’s a very limited audience.

Alban Institute was in a prime position to develop this medium. But others—private consultants—ended up opening the door to the future. Congregations learned they could go directly to the consultants. Opportunity lost.

Alban Institute was also in a prime position to create community among church leaders of many denominations and faiths. That would have created a larger base of support and enhanced its authority. It barely stuck its toe in the social media water.

Most mainline denominations are following the same losing formula.

Alban Institute founder, Rev. Loren Mead, was a visionary in many regards. His successors failed his vision.

It’s not too late to learn from this.

We’re trying!

23 Mar 2014

Alban Institute Announces Closure

The respected Alban Institute, founded in 1974 with a mission of helping congregations build their future, has announced that they are closing as of the end of this March—ten days from now!

Their consultants will now work independently. Their educational programs scheduled for April are canceled. Their publishing operation has been acquired by Rowman & Littlefield. They are working with Duke Divinity School to create an endowment with the remaining assets. The endowment would further their work in providing assets to assist congregations.

WOW! 

The experts in leading faith communities in their discernment processes for the future are calling it quits.

I sensed trouble when they discontinued their Weekly Forum. It just disappeared a year or so ago. They used to invite comments at the end of their posts and suddenly they provided no such options.

No problem. People have their own platforms for comments these days. And we used ours!

The Alban Institute was never good at social media. Their forum was moderated and comments were subject to approval. That often took days—which of course doesn’t encourage engagement.

Very recently I read that they intended to improve this and make forums available to program participants. More vetting. Now they are giving up on that approach!

In general, the Church doesn’t understand social media. Had Alban Institute mastered modern communication skills, they might not be closing!

In short, the trend makers had trouble keeping up.

This is a sign that traditional church structure is going to have similar problems.

I enjoyed reading Alban Institute articles, which were mostly posted to help sell books. Even so, I felt like an outsider. The forum was top-heavy with clergy as can be expected.

But that’s just it. Today’s church needs to empower laity — not as servants of clergy or church structure and not just to fund professional endeavors.

The church needs to empower laity to use their skills. All of their skills—without vetting every effort. Adult lay workers do not need to have their homework signed every night.

Lay people have many of the same skill sets that clergy are expected to have. They also have valuable complementary skills. Some lay people are great motivators and leaders. Some are great speakers and communicators. Some are financial wizards. Some are gifted teachers. Some have an eye for injustice. Some are passionate and compassionate caretakers.

But the structure of the church still insists that all of these skills be exercised under the control of an unwieldy structure and approved by people who have no expertise in the skills they are judging.  Sometimes this process is congenial and welcoming. Sometimes it is judgmental and exclusive. It has existed this way for a very long time.

But now people in the church have options.

Alban Institute’s announcement said that their stable of consultants and advisors would continue to be available, working independently. That’s the wave of the future!

Congregations will soon discover that they can serve out their missions better without all the structure, too.

21 Mar 2014

The Value in Being A Novice

Two Tips from Journalism School
that Could Help Church Leaders

Church leaders are groping for elusive answers to pervasive problems. Here and there a few bright stars shine but most are dimming.

 

Perhaps taking a journalist’s approach to problem-solving might be helpful.

 

I still remember a few nuggets of wisdom from my journalism training forty years ago.

 

One tip impressed upon us was to make friends with the secretaries—they know what’s going on and are often gatekeepers to people with answers who are harder to reach. Translation for non-journalistic ventures—the workers know a few things—important things—the good and the bad. Don’t ignore them.

 

Who knows the nuts and bolts of your congregation? The secretary? The sexton? The head of the women’s group? A retired, respected elder? All of these?

 

Don’t see them as threats to authority. See them as allies in mission—sources of helpful information. That’s probably how they view themselves!

 

Second, and more difficult for some, is to approach interviewees or news sources as a novice. This is hard! You see this advice ignored by TV journalists spoonfeeding sound bytes to their interviewees every day!

 

Allow your interviewees to be the experts. That way you’ll learn what THEY know, not spout what you know.

 

In short, adopt a beginner’s mindset. For real. Don’t just pretend. That comes off as patronizing for good reason.

 

Journalists find this approach empowers the source. By listening, they’ve given credit to the source—made them feel important—encouraged them. Result: they learn more than they expected.

 

What would happen in the Church if leaders listened to the people they expect to do the work?

 

What would happen if in looking for answers, church leaders approached questions as if they know nothing—not with a long list of traditions and rules?

 

As we approach the season of church assemblies and general meetings, take some time to listen. Avoid the temptation to play the expert. Be a blank slate looking for fresh ideas and the true reasons people are falling away from church.

 

Adopt a beginner’s mindset. Change may be around the corner.

13 Mar 2014