First, let’s define the difference between the “Vertical Church” and the “Horizontal Church.”

 

The Vertical Church developed early in Christianity’s history. The Bible gives advice and talks about the qualities of leadership, but the rules of the Church as practiced for centuries are man-made—popes, cardinals, bishops. monsignors, pastors, laity  (or any denominational equivalent) were ordained by men, organizing the only way they knew how. When Christianity was developing, top-down was the societal norm in government, business and even in family life.

 

Vertical thinking is all most people in church leadership positions know! Their paychecks rely on them being good at it. They are often truly surprised when the authority they safely assumed is no longer automatic.

 

Time, patience—and money—for vertical structure are running out.

 

The Horizontal Church is emerging. It is the product of worldwide restructuring of how people think and relate to one another TODAY. Leadership is learning that top-down management stifles creative energy. It is growing more and more difficult for CEOs to give orders and compete in the marketplace with their products and for good employees.

 

The fuel for this shift in thinking is undoubtedly the internet. Today, when creative thinkers are told NO, they simply go online and figure a way to fulfill their dreams without the traditional structure that looks out for itself.

 

The Horizontal Church will bring new ideas and energy to a religion that is struggling for relevance in today’s society.

 

But it won’t be easy going for a while. The Church is entrenched in being Vertical. It will be difficult for church leaders to accept that the future of the Church will be stronger if they let go.

 

It is obvious in a study of statistics that the Church resonates best with the elderly–people who grew up with top-down, vertical power in their lives. Younger people, say 50 and down, have made adjustments in their lives. The older end of this spectrum either made adjustments in their fields or struggled to find a new field where they didn’t have to adjust. (Could that be the reason for so many second career seminarians?) The younger spectrum has known nothing but horizontal thinking. Church makes little sense to them.

 

The Horizontal Church must let the laity in—and not in a token way.

 

The church recognizes the shift in thinking to some extent. Here is a quote from a church leader.

“…the church has largely trailed corporate America in styles and patterns of leadership. While we’re still practicing an authoritarian style of top-down leadership we copied from corporate America in, say, 1950 or so, much of corporate America has moved on to embrace a more collaborative, engaged kind of leadership. These old patterns of leadership in which we’re often stuck are not sufficient for the leadership tasks at hand.—Amy Butler, Senior Pastor, Riverside Church, NYC

I’m Weak Like You

This writer goes on to describe what she feels must become the norm in the Church. She calls it Vulnerable Leadership. Pastors lead by sharing their failures. “I’m weak like you. Let’s work on our weaknesses together.”

 

Perhaps I see a problem here because I have been self-employed most of my life. Really self-employed—not like pastors who claim self-employment but who get a monthly paycheck with benefits. I know that vulnerability is not a strength. The self-employed learn early that customers may show empathy but they won’t hire you for their important jobs if there is any chance you will be focusing on your health or personal struggles.

 

A Vulnerable Pastor makes the first job of every congregation to heal‚ starting with the pastor. The result? A clique of dependency. Stronger church members, who might be raring to take on ministry challenges, will be perceived by those in the clique of dependency as a threat to the social order. The neighborhood will soon see a Church that is not for them, because they don’t fit into the clique of dependency or they will catch the vibes of tension between the clique and those who don’t fit into the clique.

 

A Better Way: I’m Strong Like You

Vulnerable Leadership may have its place, but younger church people are likely to view it as condescending.

 

WORSE: It misses the strength of Horizontal Leadership. For Horizontal Leadership to work, the approach must be “I’m strong like you. How can we work together?”

 

This shift in thinking will empower people who are chafing to make a difference in the world — and who can make a difference almost everywhere but in the Church!

 

Build on strength—the gifts of the Spirit. Be bold. Be strong. For the Lord God is with you!

 

Strong people can show compassion! Model it. Teach it. But lead from strength of character.

 

I urge church leaders, dabbling in Horizontal Leadership styles for the first time to:

 

Lead from strength. Put your best foot forward.

Expect and encourage laity to do the same.

In the last 24 hours, I have read two posts that have a connection. One is from the Baptist/UCC tradition and one is from the Episcopal tradition.

The first post I read with skepticism. Hard to believe!

Here’s the first link.

Vulnerable leadership can be a powerful tool for building Christian community. But can pastors go to far?

(I’ll get to the second post later, but note at this point that it answers the question asked in this headline.)

 

This post presents a theory being discussed on seminary campuses that pastors can lead from a position of vulnerability.

 

In most cases this means that a pastor should talk about personal bouts with depression/mental illness, drugs/alcohol, infidelity, or personal or career failures. Sharing is caring.

 

I saw this in practice a year or so ago and couldn’t believe my eyes and ears. I happened to visit a church that was voting on a pastor.

 

The experience was surreal to my outsider’s eyes. The congregation, about to vote on a candidate, was listening to a sample sermon that was highlighting all the candidate’s problems, which were a bit alarming! I didn’t stay to learn the results of the congregational vote, but read later that the call was approved.

 

A friend with an Episcopal background told me this was a current leadership strategy. Apparently she is right.

 

The Church Is Looking for Wounded Leaders

There is strength in revealing vulnerability to be sure. It takes a strong person to exercise that strength well. The writer of the Vulnerable Leadership doesn’t spend a lot of time exploring that. She dismisses it with an odd air of acceptance.

 

“Jesus and his example and all that.”

 

Coming from vulnerability is not inherently bad. But coming from vulnerability into immediate acceptance as a leader is fraught with potential problems. It’s the leadership—the use or potential abuse of power and position—that congregations need to consider.

 

The Compassionate Nature of Christ

The post contains a list of seven reasons clergy think this is a good idea. They suggest it follows the compassionate example of Christ. Perhaps we should remember the compassion shown for Judas who succumbed to his vulnerability despite being in the presence of the ultimate mentor every day.

 

In reality, the seven objectives create a minefield in congregations that assume the candidates presented to them meet higher standards.

 

Good leaders put other people first. Given the nature of human frailty, this is all but impossible for the vulnerable.

 

Misery loves company and all that.

 

A Camaraderie of Pain

Sympathy is an opiate. Vulnerable pastors will find sympathizers. The idea proposes that congregations and clergy work through problems together. But the Church should not forget these things:

• A pastor is paid.
• A pastor is the voice of the church.
• A pastor has authority.
• And yes, a pastor has power.

 

Power in the hands of the vulnerable is dangerous.

 

How Can Church Leaders Think This Is A Good Idea?

The answer may lie in the current vulnerability of today’s denominations. When threatened, hierarchies find comfort in a rank and file that won’t add to their problems. The Protestant tradition promotes independent thinking and conscience among its clergy. But today hierarchy is threatened. Vulnerable clergy are more likely to follow their superiors without question. But how can the Church impose the same conformity on the laity?

 

Lay leaders are responsible for their congregations. While most members go about their personal spiritual journeys, lay leaders accept the burden of caring for the whole. Their job is not to protect the pastor! They are in a position to see problems developing and are conscience-bound to do right by their congregation. They have no desire to hurt anyone or expose a pastor’s problems any more than needed—but that is likely how the story will be told by a vulnerable pastor.

 

A change in leadership may be the best solution when things are not going well. Changing pastors is divisive by nature. Unhappy pastors can leave at any time. Unhappy congregations must vote. It gets ugly quickly.

 

Vulnerable leaders, who feel challenged (and more vulnerable) are likely to surround themselves with sympathizers. Sympathy is an opiate. Finding support beomes the focus of ministry. The congregational atmosphere can become cult-like. Result: a damaged congregation.

 

A Strategy that Puts Lay Leaders at Risk

Lay leaders gain status in their congregations when they consistently sacrifice for their people over time. They are tested over and over. Presenting congregations with vulnerable pastoral leadership puts these important and long-standing relationships at risk. It is a prescription for trouble.

 

The second post I read that day, makes it clear where this leadership strategy can lead.

Manslaughter charge prompts church to examine relationship with alcohol

An Episcopal bishop is charged with manslaughter for the death of a cyclist she is alleged to have struck while driving drunk. It wasn’t the first time she had driven drunk—very drunk.

 

The Church excused her frailties. Hush!

 

People were asked to vote on her candidacy for bishop without knowing that serious missteps had been forgiven.

 

The resulting damage is obvious. Will the Church once again brush the dust under the rug?

 

Advocating for vulnerable clergy puts the needs of clergy first. Poor stewardship. Poor leadership.

 

How many lay leaders are part of the discussion when these strategies are formed?

Here is an interesting Ash Wednesday post we are happy to share.

It asks interesting questions about the corporate need for atonement.

Lutherans are very big on the corporate nature of church, focused mostly on corporate worship. The church is the people, we like to say.

Bodies of people are just as capable of wrong-doing as individuals.

How do we repent for the wrongs we impose on others? How about the wrongs we impose on our own?

Good questions.

 

The first step might be to admit that churches make mistakes. BIG mistakes, sometimes.

Don’t just read this post. Take some time to answer it—in theory and action!

Do Christians Believe in the Resurrection?

I’m looking for proof! Not proof in the Resurrection. The Church accepts that, don’t we?

 

I’m looking for proof that church leaders believe.

 

There is so much talk in the Church about dying—especially dying congregations.

 

I don’t know one church governing council that meets monthly to talk about their death. They don’t consider themselves to be dying. They recognize challenges, but the people who are keeping the church alive aren’t subscribing to their death sentences. They rely on hope. They look to leaders for help. Often, they find none.

 

The people are frustrated that their work is unrecognized. What they hear from leaders is troubling. Our experience at Redeemer illustrates it:

 

In 2000, a bishop told us he had no intention of helping our congregation. “In ten years, you will die a natural death.”

Instead, we grew. Slowly. But we grew.

In 2006, we started to grow quickly. We returned to our regional body. “Will you help us now?”

It took numerous attempts to get an answer—and what a discouraging answer.

“It doesn’t matter what you do. The bishop intends to close your church.”

It was two more years before the bishop got around to implementing the plan made with no consultation of our members. Our church had accepted 49 new members in that time.

But the bishop’s envoy was right. Nothing the laity of the church achieved mattered.

We were on the synod’s death list.

That death list in the Christian church is long.  It is a topic frequently addressed on church blogs.

 

The focus attacks the church at its roots. Church members hear the stories of God’s love. They hear about how each one is precious. Then they are told by church leaders, that they don’t count and worse—they are causing church failure.

 

Where is this approach getting us?

 

There are prominent church leaders who make a living off of this situation. They create a theology around what they are doing—a dangerous and misguided theology.

 

Scriptural references are twisted from their original meanings to justify the point of view of the modern  “reformers” or “replanters.”

 

The truth is they can’t find much support for their approach to ministry in the Bible.

 

New Wine and Old Wine Skins

Mark 2:22

And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”

Old wine skins are not the people of the church. The old wine skins are the Pharisees and Scribes—the church leaders! This passage addresses the transition from Jewish practices that predate the coming of the Messiah.

 

This text should never be used to condemn Christ’s followers today. Yet, this is what we hear from church leaders.

We have to get rid of old memberships to replant churches. We have our own theory about that. See at left.

Nonsense.

We might pay more attention to a later verse in the same gospel.

Mark 9:42

“If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

Old Churches Must Die,
So New Churches Can Live.
It’s A Modern Resurrection!

The second foundational story of a modern church-buider’s theology is the Resurrection story.

You know the story: Christ died so that we can live.

Theologians change the story. Congregations must die so new churches can live.

You discourage the faithful to encourage new faithful!

Cock-eyed thinking.

Christ died once and for all.

We can’t repeat that miracle no matter how hard we try—and there is no need to!

A New Study Sees Value in Those “Old Wine Skins”

Now there is a study proving that some of the rhetoric of church leaders is worthless.

The “new” ways to grow churches are no better than the “old.”

Flashes in the pan. Neighborhood churches sense that already and look upon the advice of church leaders skeptically.

Maybe we should return to the Bible—the way it is written. Focus on love, service, caring, forgiving, reconciling, etc. These are the messages of Christ.

When we focus on love, we prove that we truly believe in the Resurrection.

OK! The headline is a stretch, but the issues in this South Carolina intra-church feud are the same issues that Redeemer (2×2’s parent church) hoped Pennsylvania courts would hear sometime between 2008 and 2011.

 

We didn’t fare so well in Pennsylvania. Our courts ruled that they don’t have jurisdiction in church cases, which leaves Pennsylvania denominations in a state of lawlessness. A final ruling contained this troublesome note: If the law were applied, Redeemer’s arguments have merit.

 

But the law doesn’t matter in Pennsylvania churches.

 

There are notable differences between the points made in this article and our long saga.

 

• This is a group of churches, not just one tiny church. They also included some of the diocese’s larger congregations. They had more resources than our little church! Click on the link in the article to download the 46-page ruling. Six of those pages list the 36 attorneys involved!)
• The stakes are greater — $500 million in property as opposed to $1 million, more or less.
• Their effort was clergy-led, which gave them more credibility in court. When both sides in the issue wear collars, judges can’t as easily talk down to laity involved.
• No volunteer members of congregations were named personally—a travesty that should shame the member churches of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA), but doesn’t.

 

Those are the major differences. There is much the same. If in six years, Pennsylvania courts had decided to hear SEPA vs Redeemer, we would have made the same arguments.

 

1. That our rights under Lutheran law were denied.
2. If you have the right to join, you have the right to withdraw.
3. That the internal review process within the church was biased to the point of nonexistence.
4. That congregational representatives are elected to serve the congregation—not the bishop.
5. That the history of our congregation and property ownership predate the establishment of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

 

Had our case been heard, we could have detailed the abuses and countered the arguments and claims of synod officials. None of that happened.

The Illusion of Justice

Our case was not argued in or out of the church. Our presentation to the Synod Assembly did not allow for questions and answers! We were already being sued by the Synod—so what outcome could be expected? While Redeemer was allotted a set time—about 15 minutes—we were not permitted to be part of the discussion afterwards The synod took the same amount of time and added 20 minutes of witnesses who were lined up at microphones. They spoke with great authority knowing they could not be questioned. This was so orchestrated that the synod admitted just before our presentation that they were doubling the amount of time for “discussion.” They had the “discussers” predetermined and knew exactly how much time they would take. The first person who came to the microphone with a question was told “time’s up.” Some of these experts on Redeemer were unknown to our congregation! Others hadn’t set foot in our church in 15 years! That’s how you settle a million dollar issue in 50 minutes.

 

Checks and balances? That’s the Synod Council’s job.  Elected to represent the congregations, they acted as an arm of the bishop’s office. Early on, one of our members approached one such elected representative and reported upon his return that he was met with a threatening tirade and couldn’t get a word in. This should trouble member congregations but most seem happy as long as they are left alone. The culture of bullying.

 

ELCA constitutions allow for a congregation to withdraw. The statute calls for such a request to signal 90 days of negotiation—which is what we were hoping for when we made the withdrawal request. Instead, we received a fax from synod’s lawyer that we could not withdraw because we were “terminated” by decree—a process not defined in the constitution. Church constitutions are worthless in Pennsylvania.

 

In fact, there was no vote to terminate Redeemer until June 2010—two years later—and it is still constitutionally questionable. Our congregation would have had a right to be part of the process and challenge this and other decisions under Lutheran law. We were denied representation or voice within the church during those two years! Under synod rules, this makes all Synod Assembly proceedings during this time and perhaps after invalid legally—but laws in the church do not apply.

 

There are many church property and governance cases in the courts. Lutheran and Episcopal cases dominate. Historically Lutheran and Episcopal polities are entirely different, but today’s Lutheran leaders crave the land ownership polity of the Episcopal tradition and use their “full communion” agreements to justify unLutheran thinking. But, as this case shows, the Episcopal tradition is crumbling. Perhaps we should be happy we are Lutheran.

The Tide May Be Turning

Regardless, cases since our loss have often sided with congregations. One case in Pennsylvania (Presbyterian) was being heard at the same time courts were refusing to hear ours—and the ruling was in favor of the congregation.

 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America take note. The tide may be shifting. It might be easier to read and follow your rules rather than asking secular courts to give you authority your congregations don’t give you. Member churches should look into just how much the last six years have cost you. What, if anything, did all the animosity gain?

 

One day the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America may have a presiding bishop that actually presides!

Langston Hughes was only 113 years old on Saturday. So much of this video speaks to our congregation’s experience on our 4th birthday (Redeemer’s 124th). Enjoy!

2×2 Celebrates Four Years

Groundhog’s Day may not be a liturgical holiday for most churches, but it holds special significance for 2×2 Virtual Church.

 

That’s the day, the remnant of Redeemer Lutheran Church, locked out of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, started its online ministry.

 

We are still finding our way in the fast-paced world of modern ministry. We’ve learned a thing or two along the way.

4 Years of Achievement

2×2 is entirely volunteer. Here’s where the last four years have led us!

 

ONLINE MINISTRY: Our posts include detailed primers on how congregations can approach an effective online ministry.

 

The biggest thing we learned is that as much as we strategize and plan, the web points us in directions we would never have considered without a broader platform.

 

INTERACTIVE TEACHING SERMONS: We’ve presented more than 100 ideas for interactive sermons—teaching sermons—team-building sermons—sermons that draw people together in ministry. These grew from our congregation’s teaching tradition. They are not word for word sermons but outlines of ideas for making theological points of the liturgical calendar memorable and creating an expressive, involved worship experience for all ages.

 

SLIDE PRESENTATIONS: We’ve published a couple of dozen slide presentations that can be used in the worship setting as bulletin images or blog posts or projected during worship.

 

WORLD REACH: We’ve reached out  and parts of the world have reached back. We’ve made ministry friends in Kenya, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, Great Britain and all over the United States. We now have as many readers in California, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia as we have in our home state of Pennsylvania. These are ministry friendships are not based on monetary support or any kind of oversight. They are ministries of correspondence, prayerful support, and sharing.

 

Readers of 2×2 have twice organized clothing drives and shipped seven huge boxes of clothing to a Christian mission church in Pakistan. This began with the news of the bombing of a Christian Church in Pakistan to which there was very little response. We had already been corresponding with Pakistani Christians, so we did what we could. We wrote about it—and our readers took it from there!

 

COMMENTARY: 2×2 comments on church and faith issues from the lay perspective—a viewpoint that is largely missing in both traditional publishing and on the web. Is it any wonder that an organization that relies on volunteer support but which continues to make decisions with almost no input from its constituency is struggling today?

 

VISITING: The Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the ELCA confiscated our property in 2009. They declared us closed but we kept our ministry going. Our mantra: We are not closed; we are locked out. We worshiped locally and visited other churches—80 congregations in two years!

 

We saw many common problems from a perspective rarely discussed in church circles—that of the members.

 

Church leaders often think that ministry problems are solved when a pastor is in place. Often pastors of small churches (and most churches are small) are already retired and assigned part time and short term. This is weight for the laity to carry. The vision and energy of one minister satisfies the denomination, but it actually stifles ministry. Members can go only so far without upsetting the fish cart. This resulted in our first book: Undercover Bishop. It is a look at small church ministry from the lay point of view.

 

Again, 2×2 is entirely volunteer. 

Our Future

2×2 will continue our online ministry with what we have.

 

We will develop more resources and find better ways of presenting them.

 

We encourage all small churches to start an active and giving online presence. We found that an online ministry, one based on sharing the Word of God, provides a compass. Guaranteed—it won’t take you where you think it will! But it is likely to be refreshing and exciting.

 

If we can help, contact us!

The Clergy Killers’ DNA

I received an advertisement in my email yesterday pointing to a two-year-old documentary entitled Betrayed: The Clergy Killer’s DNA. It wasn’t spam. It was sent by a pastor.

 

I checked the link to the film’s website.

 

It costs $20 to view the documentary. I watched the trailer and read the discussion threads. I’m not about to invest in what seems to be a 90-minute pity party, aimed primarily at a clergy audience.

 

The trailer promises a one-sided look at church life. Pastor as victim.

 

The film addresses a problem that only clergy know about. There are, lurking in congregations, evil laity who are wired to make life difficult for clergy, They, and they alone, are causing clergy to forsake careers of service. They, although few, are bringing down the entire Church.

 

The Alligators Have Returned

I have been around this kind of talk all my life. Back in the 1970s the clergy called parishioners with dissenting views “alligators.” You get the picture. The alligator hangs in the water. Only its eyes can be seen. It is waiting for just the right moment. Snap! Its jaws are locked on the pastor’s leg, pulling him under—(and back then it was a him).

 

This documentary ratchets up the rhetoric. No longer alligators. Clergy killers. It’s in their DNA. Unredeemable!

 

Interestingly most of the testimonials on the documentary’s website recommend sharing it with other clergy. There is very little suggestion that this is a film to be shared with laity. Keep it in the club.

 

A Little Power Is Never Enough

Here is the reality of church life.

• Clergy control the rule-making process.
• Clergy control the pulpit.
• Clergy control the church press, whether it is the church bulletin, congregational newsletter or a denominational magazine or website.
• Clergy have their own “union”—other clergy to advocate for them and make sure congregations live up to denominational standards.
• Clergy control any grievance process, if there is one.
• Even in the conventions or assemblies, where lay people participate, the laity are vetted. Those chosen to attend and vote are usually in favor with clergy. That’s not a bad thing, necessarily, but it does create frustration for laity with less than mainstream views.
• Clergy are fairly immune from legal obligations in fulfilling promises. If courts get involved they are likely to lean toward the establishment, defaulting to the powerful. That old separation of church and state thing.

 

Yet, with all this one-sided power exercised in a downright cloistered environment, when leadership problems occur, the laity are somehow to blame.

 

2×2 has its roots in this inequity. We have experienced the resulting abuse of power.

 

Make no mistake. Church leaders wanted our congregation to die. They said so. They meant it! Lay members who might stand in their way were labeled before there was any discussion. We were personally pursued in court from 2008 to 2014. The killer DNA is not limited to laity!

 

The Lay Point of View

The laity could make our own documentary about our lot in the Church. Just go over the above bulleted list and replace “Clergy” with “Laity don’t” or “Laity aren’t.”

 

2×2 advocates for the lay point of view—many points of view, we assume. We are not clergy haters or clergy killers. We have career clergy in our membership.

 

We are part of the waning Lutheran tradition in which clergy and laity are regarded equally.

 

We, as lay people, want to serve within the Church to the best of our abilities (which are boundless). We see a structure that discourages lay involvement. The number of laity opting out far exceeds clergy dropout. It’s worth a documentary!

 

Good Leaders Solve Problems

The types of problems that lead to this documentary’s inflammatory rhetoric (as evident in the title) and the resulting fractious and divisive congregational conditions are in fact leadership problems—not laity problems. Leaders must deal with all sorts of people. If they can’t, their lives might be better spent in a different line of work.

 

Are the laity abusing their little bit of power? Or are they frustrated at not being heard? Are we worried that the Church we love is going in a dangerous or wrong direction? Is our experience unappreciated? Have our decades of devotion been for nothing? Are we tired of being limited to lives of Christian service as ushers and choir members? Do we see new strategies and innovation that maximize the skills of all? Or do we see pastors contentedly doing the same ineffective things, while the church is dying? Are we tired of seeing churches closed, land grabbed and members locked out, while pastors who failed to grow a church are quietly reassigned?

 

Perhaps we care enough to point out when we think policies are misguided or important needs are neglected or when the pastor is making bad judgment calls.

 

Leaders—true leaders—can nurture congregations and overcome problems of leadership. That starts with mutual respect. Sometimes it is a simple matter of taking a few people aside, asking questions and listening.

 

Leaders with poor skills take problems to other people—ones who will be sympathetic—who won’t consider another point of view—parishioners who accept what clergy say as gospel. This will make the pastor feel better while it divides the congregation. In dire circumstances a poorly trained pastor will turn to other clergy who will never hear the lay side of any issues. But they might help make a documentary!

 

Clergy and Laity: Equal in Importance

The Church faces real challenges today. These challenges will not be met by enlisting only followers with blind allegiance. For one thing, they are going to be hard to find!

 

The stakes are high for most congregations—life or death for some. Congregations will not survive if laity are passive and yet that is what is expected of us. Congregations need parishioners who advocate for different points of view and aren’t afraid to address problems. And sometimes, not always, but sometimes—the pastor is part of the problem.

 

Clergy are stronger when influence is shared. The whole Church is stronger when we aren’t looking for excuses, calling names, and pointing fingers.

 

All Christians, clergy and lay alike, are called to discipleship or servanthood.

 

It wouldn’t hurt clergy to wear their parishioners’ shoes for a while.

 

Interview a few of us when you make the sequal!

 

 

An interesting article about the importance of worship begins with this illustration:

 

Kazimierz Bem, a UCC pastor, writes:

Around the year 1510, a delegation of Christians from Sudan, which had been recently overrun by Muslim conquest, went to the Christian Ethiopian court and begged the emperor to send them bishops and priests. The Christians remaining in Sudan needed clergy to lead worship, administer the sacraments, and teach the people. But the emperor refused, sending them away empty-handed.

With no Christian worship, within 100 years Christianity in Sudan became extinct and forgotten until the twentieth century.

The writer springboards into a lengthy discussion about the importance of worship as opposed to a modern emphasis on service.

 

I’m not sure the opening illustration is helpful.

 

You see, this is not 1510. Clergy are no longer leading communities that depend on them to read. Consequently, many of the rituals which this writer holds up as foundational — well, they just don’t make a lot of sense — especially to the overwhelming majority of people who are not growing up in the Church.

 

I argued 25 years ago, when Lutherans were uniting and revising their liturgical practices, that one little tweak, meant to convey one thing, would actually be interpreted to mean something totally different—actually opposite of Christian purpose.

 

In this case, the new liturgical practice was to invite laity to read the Old Testament and Epistle lessons, but they should then turn the Bible over to the pastor to read the Gospel. The reasoning was that the preacher would then segue seamlessly to the sermon. This would liturgically reinforce that the sermon is based on the Gospel. I argued that people would read this differently—that only clergy can read the Gospel. It wasn’t long before I heard the argument in a worship meeting, “But who is going to read the Gospel? Pastor Soandso can’t be here.”

 

Things that make sense to those who are deeply embedded in Church, just don’t make sense to those outside of Church tradition — most people.

 

And so I can’t help but wonder if back in 1510, had Sudanese Christians been equipped to lead worship and teach, would they have been more likely to find ways to keep sacramental covenants and Christian traditions alive without the Ethiopian emperor’s help?

 

It also raises another question: If Sudanese Christians had organized to serve, would they have been able to influence their Church’s destiny?

 

Would dedicated SERVICE have inspired them to keep worship traditions alive?

Or . . .

Would faithful WORSHIP have inspired service that grew Christianity’s influence?

 

It is a chicken/egg conundrum. Regardless of which side of the question you argue, the word SERVICE fits!

 

I suspect that one grows from another and that all benefit from education, which many congregations have all but abandoned. If people do not understand worship, it will drive them away from both worship and service.

 

EXAMPLE: A young woman who attended worship regularly came to members repeatedly with the same complaint. “We don’t spend enough time on our knees. We need forgiveness.” After a while, this young gal, who was always ten minutes late for worship, was starting to make people uncomfortable. I took her aside and went over the structure of worship — pointing out that worship begins every Sunday with repentance and forgiveness. “What you are looking for in the service takes place in the first ten minutes of worship, before you get here.”

 

This concept is taught in Catechism. But adults coming to Church today often skipped Catechism—and Sunday School—and Bible School.

 

When people first venture through the sanctuary doors, they are scouting, looking for something. They may not know what. For them, witnessing a Christian worship service is like watching a foreign language film with no subtitles. A medieval foreign language film!

 

This writer cites his ready response when worshipers complain that they aren’t getting anything out of worship. “Worship isn’t about you,”

 

He is wrong. Worship is a conversation with God. If people don’t resonate with what is going on, they are not worshiping. They are attending.

 

Worshipers who enter the sanctuary in listen-only mode will leave with a sense of exclusion. They are not likely to return.

 

Are they likely to suddenly find meaningful lives in Christian service? Probably not.

 

Which brings us to another question raised by this article and its readers. Is the Church being outgunned by the public sector in its ability to serve?

 

Next post.

This question is often raised, especially at this time of year when we are commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr. and approaching February, Black History Month.

 

It’s a puzzle to church leaders who view a congregation as one big happy family serving under the open-armed leadership of one theologian.

 

We crave diversity so much that we create our own Potemkin church view.

 

Our denomination boasts diversity. Hundreds of local Lutherans converge annually at the regional level. The Assembly Room presents a multicolored, multi-aged tapestry of people. But the representation is false. Representatives must meet the criteria of a quota system, which gives the illusion of diversity.

Our congregation made a project of visiting other congregations. We saw very few diverse congregations—maybe five percent—each of them fairly small. Most congregations we visited are either mostly white, mostly black, or mostly an ethnic group of some sort.

 

Very few have strong memberships under the age of sixty.

 

Our congregation had a unique experience with diversity. We grew without a called pastor—by forming relationships with several supply pastors and allowing the laity to adapt the worship and fellowship in ways that introduced new traditions without forsaking the old.

 

This is what we learned.

 

• Resistance to diversity often comes from leadership. We encountered some sadness from older members as things changed, but when they saw that they were not abandoned, they embraced the change.
• Leaders feel inadequate to lead people who are not like them. We were told flat-out by our denominational leaders that they could not find a pastor for us. They were looking for someone LIKE us. And we had already become diverse. Our bishop actually proposed dividing our united congregation along racial lines. “White Redeemer must be allowed to die. Black Redeemer . . . we can put them anywhere.” When both White and Black Redeemer resisted this idea, a locksmith was called.
• The structure of the Church precludes diverse growth. Such a goal requires an extraordinary leader who can leave behind personal preferences and embrace multiculturalism.
• Lay leadership is important to successful segregation. This requires a pastor that can share “power.”
• Small congregations can lead the way in diversity. It makes sense! Newcomers will not compete for influence with hundreds of people with obvious differences.
• The Church tends to close churches that are best situated to address diversity!
• If diversity is a goal—start promoting small congregations.

 

Today’s laity grew up in desegregated schools. We work side-by-side with people from all over the world. Clergy tend to come from church backgrounds, which are far less diverse.

 

If the Church is to achieve diversity, it must empower laity. There is precedent!

 

Saint Ambrose

St. Ambrose became Bishop of Milan, by public demand. He was a regional governor—a politician, Although from a devout Christian home, he was not a priest. He wasn’t even baptized!

 

The Church was far more influential in the fourth century society, but there were still some pesky pagans to contend with.

 

As governor, Ambrose was making a public appearance to quell a volatile situation.. Think “Ferguson.” His words were well-received.  A chant began—Ambrose. Bishop. Ambrose, Bishop.

 

Now that’s a call!

 

The Church, its back against the wall with the threat of violence, agreed. Ambrose was quickly baptized and given a crash course in theology.

 

Ambrose approached his call with humility, embracing the poor. He was able to change the Church of his time—and shape the Church of our time—because he had something the Church needed that the clergy of the time lacked—people skills. Like-ability.

 

Leaders with people skills—that’s what the Church needs today, especially if diversity is a serious goal.