The Church tends to look to larger congregations as the flagship churches of the future. They have the denominational clout. To pastor a large church is the dream “call” of many a professional leader. Large churches have land and facilities to die for! They have professional staffs to take care of things that volunteers take care of in the small churches.
But large churches are few, only about 5% of all congregations.
If you study the statistics, you’ll see that many large congregations are struggling with giving and attendance, too. I noticed during our Ambassador visits, that one of the congregations listed as having about 400 in average attendance in the denominational yearbook had only about 30 worshiping on the spring morning we attended. Why? we wondered.
In a small church with an average attendance of 30, everyone knows that attendance is down because Mrs. Miller is ill and the Jones Family is on vacation!
Decline is a bit harder to notice when a congregation of 1000 loses half its members as compared to a church of 100 losing 20 members. But the decline is there, too.
Still, we tend to try to mimic the very few large churches. We may be missing the foundational work that is happening in small church communities and their importance as anchors of the faith in the shifting tides of demographic change.
Tomorrow’s church leaders are just as likely to come from the small neighborhood churches as they are from the corporate or megachurches—perhaps more likely. They will have had “on the job” training!
A lot of this has to do with why people choose the church they join in the first place and why they stick with it when the rewards are generally personal. No glory—at least not on earth.
The article by the Rev. George Clifford presents a common church problem from a management perspective.
What are the best uses of church resources for the overall mission of the Church?
How can we solve the problems of small churches while satisfying professional leaders and their personal career goals?
The article discusses
The cost of maintaining church property
The career desires of clergy
The payment and lifestyle expectations of clergy
The efficiency of church size
Missing from the discussion is sense of what church life means to the faithful and how this alone is an asset to the Church.
Church leaders persist in their belief that all congregations with a qualified pastor and following the prescribed liturgies are equal.
The attitude:
Go ahead. Close small churches. Members can easily find another church to attend.
Except they won’t. Statistically, most members of congregations forced into closure become unchurched.
Lay people look for more in a church than a place to sit on Sunday morning.
Church managers, out of compassion if nothing more, should consider the effect on existing Christians.
Such a discussion would likely include:
A sense of betrayal
A feeling of being used and discarded
Profound disrespect
A sense of abandonment
Challenges of faith
A sense of being useful to the kingdom only for what we contribute, while having little control over the use of our contributions.
The advice of clergy to “join another church of the same denomination” is to clergy a problem solved.
To laity it is a problem (or problems) created.
Congregations are communities. There are reasons why people affiliate with smaller churches (and most churches are small). These come under the umbrella of “belonging.” Small churches are places where individuals can have an influence, where they can be known for their skills and not just as an offering or attendance statistic. They can feel acceptance among few when they would feel lost among many.
The Promise of Practical Solutions
The second part of the essay promises practical solutions for reversing decline. It actually assumes that facilitating the demise of small congregations is the solution. It references a blog post about downsizing—but applies the concepts of downsizing to parishicide. The ideas about downsizing might actually apply without the death sentence attached!
The article correctly identifies that the major challenge of small churches:
to stay connected to their changing neighborhoods or
to rebuild the connections that were probably lost during extended periods of time following leadership that failed to address the disconnect while it was happening.
In other words congregations have to make up for lost time. They must find leadership that may not exist among clergy who are hellbent on helping churches die, supposedly to protect resources. The Church as a whole is losing resources that might needed to reach “the world.” This includes people as well as property!
The author then correctly identifies pastors as important agents of change as compared to regional staffs. It goes no further. It totally overlooks laity.
This is where TEC’s relationship with ELCA Lutherans could benefit them. Theoretically, Lutherans value lay leadership. Theoretically.
How the Problems of the Episcopal Church Are Influencing Lutheran Tradition
Lutherans now consider themselves in full communion with The Episcopal Church—despite a full page of disclaimers at the end of the document that outlines the union. There are three problems with the implementation of full communion.
Lutherans come to full communion with a congregational polity. Congregations own their property. The Episcopal tradition follows the Catholic tradition of diocesan ownership.
Full communion means next to nothing to laity, most of whom are inclined to get along with neighborhood churches without permission of church leaders.
Those disclaimers are never read.
What does Full Communion with The Episcopal Church Mean to Most Lutherans?
Very little to lay people. A great deal to clergy.
Clergy gain a deeper pool of churches from which to catch the next call.
But the leadership style is very different from Lutheran tradition—and that waning tradition is actually a Lutheran strength. The Lutheran tradition empowers laity in mission. It also is foundational to fostering a clergy that is empowered to speak up within the Church when they see wrong-doing.
This article avoids any discussion of laity as being involved in any way but submitting to prescribe failure.
The Battlefield Is Property Ownership
The differences in leadership styles is incompatible with the Lutheran view of property. Remember, Lutheran congregations own their properties. Episcopal congregations generally do not. Property equals power.
The divergent polity regarding property ownership could resolve in one of two ways.
Episcopal polity could change to give laity more control over their property and mission. Not likely. Those with power don’t give up power willingly.
Lutheran polity could change to give the regional expression more control over property. This is against the founding documents of the ELCA but it is a huge temptation.
In fact, this is part of the emerging mission strategies of some Lutheran regional leaders, who are taking advantage of “full communion” status. Unsuspecting lay people think they are still Lutheran—that they still own and manage their congregations. They may have been duped into giving away their traditional rights.
Here are a few of the strategies being employed by some ELCA synods. 2×2’s parent church, Redeemer Lutheran Church in East Falls, Philadelphia experienced each of these in the last 15 years.
The regional body will innocently suggest to a small church that they accept mission status. If congregational leaders are not familiar with Lutheran polity, they will be tempted to accept financial help, not realizing that they have given the regional body control of their property—forever—even after outside help is no longer needed.
The regional body with equal innocence, will suggest that the existing church close so that it can reopen. They will tell the congregation that this will allow a fresh start in their neighborhood. They won’t mention that it also puts the property under regional control and removes any vote or say of the existing congregants. The existing members with their knowledge of Lutheran polity will magically evaporate in the regional body’s eyes. They will find new people to work with—people who don’t know Lutheran polity.
The regional body will tweak their constitutions, which limits the ability of synod leaders to intrude into congregational governance. Tweak by tweak, the constitutions will be rewritten in violation of the founding agreements between the synod and congregations. They will claim rights to property under circumstances that they alone define and assess. Without an outspoken clergy and laity, this strategy will succeed. There is no mechanism in the ELCA to check the power of regional leaders. Secular courts refuse to get involved in church issues.
One final step. If congregational leaders do not immediately comply with the demands of the regional body or bishop, they will be removed from their positions—not by the congregations that elected them but by the regional bishop who doesn’t have that authority—but who is not likely to be challenged. This may be accompanied by removing the congregation’s voice and vote within the Synod Assembly—wholly unconstitutional, but likely to work. The only prescribed avenue for redress of any grievance is controlled by the bishop.
These strategies seem to have started with the acceptance of “full communion” with The Episcopal Church. Lutheran leaders naturally crave the powers enjoyed by their new peers.
Faced with similar challenges, Lutheran leaders are tempted to practice the same autonomy of the Episcopal tradition—a tradition foreign to the most of the people they serve and who support them.
Let them read this article. They will notice that the Episcopal tradition doesn’t necessarily have answers despite their greater power. Lutherans are ceding their strength—an informed and active laity/clergy—for the trappings of power that no longer work.
There was a day when employers held employees and entire communities in a stranglehold. The owners of the company that employed most of the people in a village had huge advantages—and they used them. They paid the workers. They also owned the stores where the workers shopped. They were certain of getting almost every penny they paid to their workers back. It must have felt good while it lasted.
Then came unions.
That type of thinking grew out of European feudal society. Indeed, it is difficult to break away from the Middle Ages, especially in the Church. That’s when the church structure we practice today was solidified. With a few little blips—like the Reformation—it has resisted challenge. Even the Protestant denominations are tempted to revert!
The day for change has come. There is no stopping it. But it is not the change church leaders look for. They want to find ways to keep the Church structure as they know it going. They have been running a “company store” for centuries.
People are no longer limited by geography to live and work. When they are unhappy, their griping has a larger audience—the world.
Church members are discovering other spiritual outlets and communities. They are a new source of energy and spirit that can augment the Christian message if not dismissed automatically as a challenge to the faith.
The reaction of the vertically structured, “feudal” Church is to do what they’ve always done—throw around some weight. “If you don’t do what we think you should do, we will take away that grant we promised. If you still insist on doing things differently, we will limit the choice of pastors available to serve you. If that doesn’t work, we’ll show up on your doorstep with a locksmith.”
OK, the last one is a bit extreme, but it happened to 2×2’s sponsoring church, Redeemer Lutheran in East Falls, Philadelphia!
The first two happen often.
These strategies are growing weaker and weaker. They live where fear allows them to live—and so they will be around in some form for a while.
But people of faith, who have a strong spiritual foundation will challenge them. Today, we all have access to the world.
That’s going to make the Vertical Church nervous. They will take for granted that the purse strings they are pulling tight will be magically refilled by compliant parishioners. It will surprise them that people can give directly to any number of causes that resonate, without having their gifts filtered through denominational hierarchy. They will assume that church members will cower in fear and that they will not have the time, talent and resources to stick to their sense of mission without the traditional controls of leadership and money.
All Over A Washer and Dryer? No, It Was About Power
Here’s a story from Cincinnati, Ohio, that proves it. An arch diocese withdrew a grant to buy a washer and dryer for an approved outreach project in an attempt to rein in a woman overstepping leadership boundaries in a different arena. In the old days, this would have been quietly effective. People would have been kept in their place. In the old days the Church controlled its media. However, a number of news outlets and Facebook publicized the arch diocese’s actions. Support dollars began pouring in.
What will happen next?
Church leaders might examine the value of the project they were content to scuttle in relationship to their desire to silence an independent leader. But by taking an extreme measure at the outset, they are far more likely to dig in their heels—even when it defies reason.
More posturing and muscle-flexingis likely to result.
That was our experience here in East Falls, Philadelphia.
It takes a while to understand that money is not the only currency. Love works magic!
As for what is next with Lydia’s House—the organization that the Church sought to whip into shape: they shared the donations with similar organizations. Many benefited when the denied contribution would have helped just one. That’s the power of the Horizontal Church.
2×2 has a good collection of posts on this topic that have been buried by more recent posts on different subjects. This summer we have slowed down our postings while we work on a major re-launch this fall. This isn’t easy! We miss creating content!
One reason is to find ways to make these older (but still valuable) posts more accessible and useful to small church leaders. In the end, the wait will be worth it!
Social Media is a powerful evangelism tool. This article reviews the varied uses by a few congregations.
Enjoy and employ!
Feel free to add your Social Media ideas by commenting here. They could be helpful to others!
Today’s post is more personal than usual. In this case, I think my unique life experiences have something to say to the whole Church.
I grew up in an intricate web of pastors’ families—my father, numerous uncles, all of their wives, and grandparents going back to the 17th and 18th century boats that brought us here work in ministry. There are a few denominations represented at our family reunions these days. Mixed marriages.
I am content to be a layperson. The forefather of my denomination, Martin Luther, saw laity and clergy as being of equal importance. Perhaps we need a reminder.
As a family member of all these pastors, I grew up listening to clergy. Ministerium meetings were held at our breakfast table, so my infuences went beyond family. In my professional life, I worked with lots of pastors from three major denominations. I am comfortable in both worlds.
My father always served small churches in rural areas and small towns. His first two parishes were in very rural, Bible-belt Pennsylvania. My parents went there as newlyweds. I lived there to the age of four and am blessed with an unusually good memory for my early childhood.
His parishioners were seasoned Christians accustomed to being responsible for their congregations and working with young pastors starting out and older pastors nearing retirement—the lot of most small churches. They were farmers and thought nothing of rising early for 4 am Bible Society meetings. Some work is best done before the cows are let out.
My parents admired them. “Think how smart you have to be to farm,” my Dad would say. “You have to know a lot of science—nutrition, botany, insects. husbandry, genetics, medicine, weather, chemistry, and technology. You have to know about construction, business, marketing and finance. Farmers rely on community so they must have social skills, too.”
My folks never talked down to any of them. And they grew churches wherever they went.
I was privy to many discussions between professionals. I was often shocked at how some pastors referred to their church members. They often saw them as obstacles to their authority. Their skills were subservient to their own. They had their own lingo. An “alligator” was a lay person lurking in some imaginary water waiting to pull the pastor into the water to devour him limb by limb. Just a tad paranoid! Not surprisingly, they were always fretting about how hard their work was.
More recently, I felt the sting of clergy judgment first hand. Six years of litigation stemmed from a simple disagreement which could have been resolved over coffee had respect in the Church been mutual. But respect was demanded and not returned.
Clergy are used to expressing this dark side in private. They see no harm. They are talking to colleagues, looking for sympathy and support. In this unquestioning environment, and with no way to verify claims, attitudes spread and bad things result.
Imagine what happens when these attitudes of superiority advance with pastors as they climb the hierarchical ladder.
For example, here’s a link from a pastor who has some good things to say. He’s not from my denomination so I don’t really know much about him. I was immediately struck by two things. He started his post by mocking a parishioner. This clouded my vision a bit for the second thing I noticed. He was giving good advice.
I had to overcome the “put down” in order to hear him. I think that is often the problem in the Church that relies so heavily on maintaining clergy and lay division of labor.
Why was it important to depict the lay person as uneducated? Was he trying to connect somehow?
Once a pastor views a parishioner as a double negative-spouting oaf, he just might fail to hear what the parishioner is saying—just as I had to work to read the rest of his post. That lay person’s counsel might have been spot on. He might even have been in agreement. He may have simply needed to be drawn out a bit. In a perfect world, he would have spoken more eloquently—if less effectively as a sound byte.
“Pastor, I have a concern. I suspect other members, whom I know very well, have the same concern. We hear what you are saying, but we worry that you are asking us to do things for which we have no experience or training. When you are gone we might not have the leadership to continue. We’ll end up feeling like failures. It’s a little scary, Pastor. I’m afraid your ideas will run off good members. We will be worse off than we are now. Let’s talk about this some more. Maybe we can find a better way—something we can start by taking smaller steps to build our confidence.”
But here’s a bigger problem for clergy and laity in the modern world.
NEWS FLASH! Discussions online can be read by anyone. You might be writing for pastors, but lay people might be out there googling the same key words. If there were no reasons to watch how you talk about church members before the internet, there is now.
Lay people are smart. They are diverse in their experience and knowledge. They are looking for places to serve where their efforts will be respected. Sadly, this causes many to leave the Church.
Clergy still hold tremendous power over congregations. Clergy gossip weakens that power. What clergy see as a cute, inside joke can do damage.
Granted, clergy have special skills. They worked hard to get them. They deserve respect. Like everyone, they feel unappreciated at times. But these skills mean little without the skills lay people bring as gifts to the altar.
We deserve respect, too.
My folks lived in awe of the farmers that empowered them in the early days of their ministry.
I wonder if that’s why Christ turned to the fishing communities of Galilee. They had to be smart people, too. They had to know weather and sailing, shipbuilding, net sewing, sea life, marketing and . . . . .
You are working on that story, sculpture, dance move, or painting. Suddenly, time means nothing. The art consumes you. You no longer care about eating or sleeping.
You are living in the artistic “zone.” It’s scary. And you are loving it. You know how hard it was to get here. You don’t want to leave. You might never get here again.
Artists enjoy being with people who understand. They form colonies. The modern word for this is “tribe.” Members of the colony or tribe understand that when you enter the zone, you won’t show up for breakfast. You’ll grab dry Cheerios from the box. You won’t stop to sleep or shower. You won’t answer that text.
For many lay people, church work becomes such a passion. Something grabs us, pulls us in. The call? Or does that happen only to pastors?
Church volunteers show up week after week. We work as hard for 30 people as we would for 330. We don’t stop to count. Every idea we hear during our secular week is transformed. “How can this help my church?” We live in the “zone.” The best the world can do (even the Church world) is to categorize us as somewhat “nuts.”
We know we could be making money doing something else—and that should be our motivation, right?
The Church counts on us. But it does little to support us. We are treated as unpaid employees. It is our job to sacrifice. We are expected to answer to all kinds of authority—the people, the pastor, the Bible (selected verses), even the public. Yet, we can work for decades and never be seen as knowledgeable or skilled.
The Church knows we will keep saying “yes.”
The Church probably doesn’t understand us. They mistake our loyalties. Our work is appreciated until there is conflict. Then they look for personal motives — We like the attention. We like power. Power? We’re making up for some inadequacy.
Nah! We’re in the zone.
Where do church volunteers go for understanding and support? Where do we find that sense of tribe? We are isolated and dedicated in our own congregations—many of them small.
2×2 understands. It is love—the biblical kind—that sweeps us off our feet. We are here to help.
Working for many years as a lay professional with various denominations, I often heard pastors complain of isolation. They are accustomed to being the “go to” people for advice. They rely solely on their training and their professional connections as sounding boards when the going gets tough. The possibilities are narrowed by who they know and the official positions of their denominations.
Pastors have their networks—peers, the monthly ministerium meeting, workshops and retreats, consultants, and in many ministry traditions, their families. Today there are online possibilities, but the church isn’t quick to the gate in adopting social technology.
All of these can be helpful, but they are vestiges of the vertical church. The advice received is all from peers with similar interests, experience, and training.
Yesterday, our congregation witnessed the horizontal church in action.
We had our usual Sunday morning coffee fellowship. We’ve been meeting like this for about five years and have deepened our relationships.
We sat at a round table with our pastor. The conversation was all casual—updates on our weekly activities.
And then an unusual thing happened. Our pastor shared a concern about his work as a pastor.
How often, I wonder, do pastors come to lay people for advice? How often are lay people truly welcomed to chime in?
We aren’t an official committee by any means, but collectively we have a lot of experience! Our pastor asked each of us individually for our opinions. Each of us gave our pastor our separate views, which represented our differing life experiences. The lay people were in agreement that the path he should take was obvious to us.
Our pastor seemed to be relieved and truly grateful for our input.
There is a lot of wisdom and talent sitting in the pews that is often untapped. I call it The Horizontal Church.
I thought about this a few days ago when I heard a pastor open his talk with “We belong to a denomination in decline.” I thought about this a few months ago when Thrivent, a fraternal financial savings arm of the Lutheran church, decided that they should reach beyond the Lutheran community to insure the foundation of their members’ savings. That’s a great spin for their aren’t enough Lutherans to keep us going!
I actually found both statements refreshing because they admit failure. That’s really hard.
Every congregation is proud — even if it might be suffering from low self-esteem. There is something in human nature that celebrates just being.
Sometimes our pride is merited. Sometimes, if we stop to analyze, we are proud of being pretty much the same as everyone else. Same play. Different actors. Different setting.
Regardless, it is great to share. The Church should do more of it. But we often start our boasting before the results are in. This is dangerous as there is also a tendency in the Church for congregations to jump on the wagon. We read of some initiative and we want to try it.
Sometimes church leaders are bragging before they learn that the initiative flopped.
I looked over some of the church “brag” sites. Our regional body has one—godisdoingsomethingnew.com.
It averages just a couple of entries a month. Most of the ideas are posted by pastors. Some of the ideas aren’t particularly new. Very few give any results.
How many people showed up for that first program?
How many people came back?
How remained involved after six months?
Were there measurable results of any kind?
Was it still in existence a year later?
Was it just something to boast about?
An example we found in our church visits was our visit to Spirit and Truth Worship Center in Yeadon, Pa. The bishop had boasted about this initiative to the point that she suggested it be a model for our church. We saw no comparison to the conditions she described that led to the regional body closing the existing church, transferring the property ownership, and reopening a few weeks later under “new” synodical administration.
The church was empty except for a praise band rehearsal on the day we visited. We double checked. We had the right time. We’ll assume there was some good reason. Our visit alone would prove nothing and can lead to really wrong ideas.
The published statistics were more revealing. The ELCA Trend reports reveal a much different picture than that presented to us by SEPA leadership. See the screen shot of the Yeadon statistics below. SEPA was using this experiement as a prototype for success before the statistics were in.
We discovered that while the early statistics for this ministry were impressive, within ten years, the numbers were in serious retreat! That part hadn’t been shared with us! As it ends up, there were good reasons beyond instinct to refuse to consider following this course.
This experiment may have been well worth the try. It may have worth boasting about. But using it as a model for other congregations has proved to be short-sighted.
Knowing what doesn’t work is just as important as what does work—and it takes years to determine the cause and longevity of success.
Periodically, 2×2 posts its statistics. Periodically we shift gears.
This summer, we are overhauling our entire website, using statistics to guide our way. In the end, we’ll share so that all small churches can learn from our experience — all of it — the good and the bad.
SEPA Synod recommended Redeemer, East Falls, follow this prototype in 2006. Yeadon was a new experiment at the time. It looked promising! However, Redeemer recognized that the situation in East Falls was very different from that in Yeadon. Redeemer’s leaders rejected the idea, which upset SEPA leaders. But sometimes congregations are right. Statistics prove the prototype doesn’t work!
I was having breakfast this morning with a 2×2 reader in Michigan. She has been very active with 2×2, most recently organizing the relief effort for Pakistan—(which, by the way, will be an ongoing project).
She was looking over her email for news and commented that her church was aging and there is often news that another member died.
We had been talking earlier about “engagement.”The two thoughts started to come together. How do congregations engage with members and with prospective members? This is especially difficult for aging congregations, who have lost contact with the changing neighborhoods surrounding them.
Will changing the way we engage change the way we minister?
Our Ambassador visits to 80 congregations in the last few years were revealing. In most cases we entered the church, worshiped and left without anyone engaging us. People might have been friendly and said hello. Sometimes we were pointed to a guest book. Only once did any pastor write to us after we signed the guest book. That engagement ended with our response. We saw no intentional engagement plans as part of any evangelism effort.
It is the congregation’s job to keep the conversation going! If the ball is dropped, it is most likely our fault!
Engagement is so possible today on so many different levels. It could be transformational for any church.
In the business world, marketers use something called an Engagement Sequence. It details the exact steps they take to keep in conversation with people who show interest in their product or service. They know that it takes time to earn trust and confidence. The engagement sequence is designed to foster that relationship.
This was so much harder before the internet. But now churches can take advantage of this new capability.
The process is very intentional and can create multiple channels depending on the responses.
Prospect A shows interest in a product or service. They immediately get a first response which is followed with as many as 8 or more follow-ups spaced a few days or a week apart. Each response is triggered by the action taken by the recipient. The engagement sequence could divert an interested recipient to a different engagement track or keep them on their initial track. It all depends on the responses.
None of this is “engagement” is spam. The process is initiated and approved at every step by the recipient. If a prospect loses interest, they can opt out at any time. No harm. No foul. The art is in creating engagement that is helpful to the recipient — and isn’t that what mission is all about!
Does your church have an Engagement Sequence? Do you have a way of engaging with people who visit. What about online (which these days is the where people look when planning to visit)?
It is SO possible to engage with prospective members before they ever set food in church.
There is NO reason to wait for a second visit.
2×2 is starting to incorporate this tool as part of our summer reconstruction of our website. We’ll share what we are learning in future posts!
That’s why I enjoyed the post linked below.
