The Black Lives Matter movement is interesting in that it rises from outrage and desperation.

It shouldn’t take bullets aimed at unarmed Black youth to get attention. But it has—only after decades of lots of good people looking the other way.

I am going to share our experience in the Church on this topic. Maybe it’s unusual. I hope so.

There is a chance that it is not unusual—that it is subtly characteristic of decades of behavior that no one in the Church likes to talk about. Little things happen. No one pays much attention. Even if we notice, there is a tendency to stay quiet. The people involved are basically good people. They may have been acting within custom or may not have thought things through.

Our congregation was (and technically may still be, who knows?) part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

In a recent study, the ELCA ranked next to last in diversity with only the National Baptist Convention slightly below them. We are 96% White and the National Baptist Convention is 99% Black.

The ELCA has been pushing for diversity for several decades. The quota system for the Synod’s Assemblies encourages additional representation for the 4% of minorities. Attend a large gathering of Lutherans and you can easily get the impression that we are very diverse. But our diversity is largely separate but equal. Most congregations are 96% one color or another.

Some of this is intentional.

There is a disconnect—probably because in our desire to prove achievement we look for useful statistics.

There is also a need to seek credit for and control change. It serves administrative purposes better to report that  we started a Black congregation with 100 members than it does to say ten Black members happened to join ten previously all-White congregations.

True diversity is far more likely to be achieved organically—in increments far less impressive statistically.

Our congregation has a great deal of experience working with diversity. It wasn’t always easy. Resistance in the congregation was NOTHING compared to resistance from our denominational leadership.

Gossip in the Church may be more powerful than the Word of God—in the short term, anyway.

The gossip in our denomination, which spent decades eyeing our endowment funds, was and remains that we are a racist congregation. In other words, we deserve their actions taken against us. In secular society it is called “playing the race card.”

I could tell a dozen stories about our history of diversity which began in the 1940s. It wouldn’t make any difference. Our history is told through synod filters. We are racist if they say so.

So I’ll tell only one. It remains a touching, sorrowful memory.

Our congregation was growing very quickly and included strong diversity. The recent growth spurt had a ten-year history. One family joined, then another and another. Their influence started to grow and in 2006-2007 about 40 Black members, many of them with East African roots, joined our congregation.

This raised eyebrows at the synod level. Leadership had triaged our church long before as not worthy of attention. As one bishop had told us in 2001, “We’ll leave you alone. You’ll die a natural death in ten years.”

In 2006, the newly elected bishop, who had worked with the previous bishop, seemed to have accepted this assessment. She announced soon after election among clergy that she intended to close our Church. We heard through the usual channels—church gossip.

Her plan was premature. The ten-year waiting period was not up. The evidence of our growth was spoiling their plans to triage and close us.

Muscle-flexing began.

First the Background

On November 1, 2007, the bishop met with our council. She seemed to be determined to prove that our black membership had been corralled at the last minute as a Hail Mary attempt to ward off inevitable failure.

She started the meeting with a rant about us being adversarial (not a bad word, by the way). We pointed out that it takes two to tango. At last she settled down. She had requested a list of our members, which we provided, she reviewed the list and commented, “A lot of these names look African.”

Then she made a remarkable statement with roots firmly in 1950s thinking.

“White Redeemer must be allowed to die. Black Redeemer, we can put them anywhere.”

Was she really saying that Black people cannot wisely choose a church for themselves?

Yes. Our oldest black members shared after the meeting that a synod representative had visited with them 10 years ago when they joined and suggested that they would better fit in elsewhere.

I think the explanation for this comes from their interest in placing pastors. They see Black congregations wanting Black pastors and White pastors better able to serve White congregations. Their interest was in fitting clergy pegs in congregational holes. Diversity demands different thinking from everyone.

But back to that meeting. Our bishop now decided to prove her point. She decided ask each council member how long he or she had belonged to Redeemer.

Her jaw was about to drop.

She turned first to one of our Black members. She answered, “Ten years.” The next, “Eight years.” The next two, “Seven years.” We proved that our membership had grown steadily—not overnight.

We left with the bishop’s promise that we could work with a synod staff member.

As our council crossed the parking lot, we broke into song. Progress!

We heard nothing from our bishop until mid-February, when we received a letter that she intended closing our church.

Closing our church had not been discussed at the November 1 meeting. The promises made to us at that meeting were all broken.

From the Mouths of Babes

This was all the prelude to the scene that remains etched in my mind.

As a long-time Sunday School teacher I have noticed that children often form important and unique bonds. Sunday School teachers are independent adults in their lives. They create a safe place to ask about things that for one reason or another might not be easy for them at home or school. If their parents seem to be troubled, they don’t want to add to the trouble. They might feel vulnerable with authority figures in school and surrounded by peers.

It is the Sunday morning after our congregation received the troubling letter from our bishop.

There are two representatives of synod sitting in our sanctuary as worship begins. Their presence has all on edge. They are not present for any good reason. They had shown their cards. Worship was awkward from the get-go and it was about to become even more so.

It is time for the children to come forward for some special time together. I led that part of the service and it had evolved into a mini-Sunday School.

The youngest children—all of them children of our African members—came forward. They were not their usual spirited selves.

They had been attending our church long enough that we had a good rapport. They knew I always chatted with them a bit, talked about the gospel, sang a song and prayed together. They were always eager participants.

The vibes this morning were different. The children were troubled. Their trust was such that they paid no attention to the rest of the congregation. They needed to share and didn’t wait to be asked. They were bursting with concern.

It spilled out. A letter had come and the letter had made their parents cry. “Daddy was crying.” They knew it had to do with Church—their church. These children had been worried for days.

Moms can cry. When children see their fathers cry, it is truly upsetting. Their security is threatened. They wanted to talk about this. But two of the people behind the upsetting letter were sitting rather smugly right beside them—an arm’s length away.

How was I to change the subject? I wanted to talk about their concerns but not in front of people who had made us enemies. One of the children had an arm in a sling. I diverted their concerns by asking about that. I didn’t feel good about it. The children deserved answers. We all did!

Our visitors were oblivious. After church, one of them said simply, “Nice children’s sermon.” (It was about Peter’s dream that revealed the need to open mission beyond the standing traditions. I couldn’t make this up!)

Clueless.

So we understand the frustration of those who cry for justice. On this day, none of us mattered—Black or White. If we don’t serve the purposes of Church leaders, we may as well not exist. Sadly, it was not an isolated instance.

With this experience, it is hard to take seriously denominations as they take up the “Black Lives Matter” banner now.

Other churches can tell their own stories. The frustration is not going to go away.

photo credit: Tanzania, girl in primary school via photopin (license)

Measuring the Yawn

If those delivering the Sunday morning message could measure the results of their message, would it change the way we tell the Good News?

This question came to mind as I read a post in my inbox this morning. The post was written for an audience of meeting specialists—the kind that book hotels to run seminars, train their new hires, or celebrate a corporate milestone.

5 trends shaping the future of meetings by eHotelier.

The first of the five recommendations is a little scary. We may no longer be able to hide that yawn!

The hotel industry is preparing for the adoption of technology that will measure the engagement of meeting attendees. Sensors will measure things like heart rates, eye movement and stress levels. Those sensors (things) will report the findings in real time to meeting presenters so that they can make immediate adjustments in how they are communicating with their audience. They are using what is called the Internet of Things. Things (sensors) are participating online along with people.

I doubt this will ever relate much to church. We haven’t yet found a way to measure and react to a yawn—or fidgety children—or sneak peeks at smartphones—or waning attendance!

But we should pay attention. Today’s preachers are increasingly dealing with changed expectations. Today’s churchgoers are experienced audiences. We spend tons of time every day practicing. We watch TV, where story lines include action or a big laugh at measured paces. Then come the ads that have been carefully tested before airing. Some are crude. “Buy now, and we’ll  double the offer.” Some are sophisticated: the only color is the yellow Cheerios box. Some prey on emotions: Silent Night playing in the background as photos depict abused pets. All are calculated to do what the presenter intends.

They’ve studied us. They know us. They can predict what we will do if they communicate with us effectively.

So, what about today’s church audience? How do we know if our message is having any effect?

We usually bypass this question for one reason—we don’t have any way to measure.

There may be a second reason—we don’t plan to make any changes regardless of what we learn.

Soon, the rest of the world will be using technology to guide the delivery of their messages.

Maybe it’s time we took some steps to do the same.

The 2×2 publication, Interactive Preaching for Advent, adopts an approach to preaching that responds to today’s expectations and mindset. It gives suggestions for each sermon topic that engage during the worship service and continue engagement online.

Here’s a sample. It’s a sermon that teaches the scriptures regarding the Magnificat. It engages visually, orally and encourages participation and post-worship action. It also provides links and online tips which users are welcome to use in their social media. The book also has a private web page where purchasers can download additional resources related to the sermon to use in their congregation’s social media.

If you like this approach, let us know. We’ll create more resources like it.

photo credit: (351/365) Sleepy before Santa via photopin (license)

HOLACRACY 6

Life Under One Big Umbrella

As I read and thought more about Holacracy I started remembering how church used to be.

I was sitting on the board of a Lutheran social service agency during the 1980s. I was young then—late 20s, early 30s. I didn’t realize it then but I was on the cusp of the dismantling of much of church culture. I was part of it. I’ll blame it on my youth.

It was the age of consolidation. The board talked often of consolidating services, likening themselves to big box stores. It was the wave of the future, we were certain. Business was doing it. Government was doing it. School systems were doing it. Why not religious social service agencies? Everything would be under one big umbrella. Big is better.

The pursuit of big led to teaming with government for funding. This resulted in divorcing the social service mission from church mission, a sacrifice we were willing to make in our mission to serve more people—or to be big.

We may have lost something vital to mission—engagement with the people who provide passionate funding, who conceived the concept of social outreach with God’s love centric.

The move corresponded with the widespread establishment of development offices. Each social service agency, seminary, etc. created a development office that puts its cause before the churches and lots of other people as they seek support. This task becomes more difficult as the only access to congregations is through the hierarchical structure.

Engagement is a valuable mission tool, but opportunities for engagement have been lost in efforts to consolidate.

Consolidation sounds so organized and efficient. But does it work in church life?

Opening the Big Umbrella Shuts Out the Light

Here are some big changes within my lifetime in the Church.

The heart and soul of the church was the Sunday School. The Sunday School movement was independent of denomination. Sunday Schools typically had their own bank accounts, budgets and officers. Often the officers of the Sunday School were people who never were considered for church council membership. You could belong to the Sunday School without belonging to the Church.

The Sunday School was a cultural magnet. It embraced more than Sunday morning. It was also a social club. Within the Sunday School there could be several classes, each with its own leadership. I remember the Loyal Mizpah, the Mr. and Mrs. Class, the Helpers Class, etc. Each with its own identity. They met Sunday morning but also had their own social calendar.

But then, one by one, churches across the country thought about those separate bank accounts and those separate leadership structures. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to consolidate everything under one big church council umbrella? As a result, we recreated the hierarchy our ancestors had fled.

And so the band wagon rolled through the church doors and various church organizations climbed on.

• There was the Luther League. This was being enthusiastically dismantled in the 70s, replaced with some vague concept of youth ministry. Youth ministry never really took off. Luther League remains a fond memory for those older than I. Luther League channeled youth into church leadership roles.
• Women’s and men’s auxiliaries—each with its own governance and budget. They did a lot of mission work.
• Sports leagues which often ended up being the ecumenical arm of the church. That’s how Christians of various denominations in the same town came to know one another—in friendly competition.
• Special cause groups: Temperance groups, for example.
• There was even someone in charge of maintaining the Cradle Role!

Consolidation led to the loss of engagement. Church people crave intimacy. That may be why most churches will always be small. Big Box churches fill some needs but not all.

Today’s “small group” ministries concept attempts to revive some of what we lost, but is hard to close the big umbrella. We still have that sense of ownership and control that we were seeking back in the 70s and 80s. The current attempt to revive the Church with small group ministries is like learning to walk again. It’s awkward because we are now accustomed to the big umbrella and the control that goes with it. Small groups need autonomy.

Today there is a new word for the way Church became structured as it developed in the New World. Holacracy.

The core of holacracy is the creation of circles of engagement. Circles within circles.

As I recall, some of those church small groups called themselves circles. The members within those circles could remain within those circles or drift into more engagement with other circles. The circles provided multiple ways for people to engage—and typically engagement throughout the Church grew as a result.

People may have identified more with the circle than the congregation, but at least there was something in the circle that spoke to them and called them to action. Circles address specific needs. Circles give people a sense of ownership. We just have to hand them their own umbrella—let them be the bosses under their own umbrellas.

It might be a good idea for churches to talk with their oldest members who remember how this worked. They will enjoy the telling and the Church could benefit from the listening. Hurry. There aren’t many of us left!

photo credit: Master via photon (license)

photo credit: Feeding Time via photopin (license)

Just as in bowling, a wobbly headpin can cause all the pins to fall.

HOLOCRACY 5

If the Survival of the Church Depends on Change
Change Must Come at Every Level

Four previous posts lay the groundwork for a discussion on Holacracy. (Links at the end of this post.)

Some focused on how the ideas are not foreign to Christian ideals—we just got stuck on hierarchical thinking and haven’t been able to budge.

The Reformation gave the Church a powerful nudge which corresponded with the discovery of the New World. The ideas of the Reformation became colorful threads in the tapestry of religious life in the New World. Makes sense—all the little frontier towns were well removed from the European centers of religious power.

But things have been static now for a long century.

We have drifted back to hierarchical thinking.

Mission relies on constant change, constant tension.

Hierarchy resists both.

The concepts of holacracy, formalized for business barely a decade ago, could help us crawl out from the rut.

Let’s look at holocracy. Here is a white paper published online by HolacracyOne, LLC, of nearby Spring City, PA  (holacracy.org).

Holacracy starts with the supremacy of purpose. Churches might substitute the word “mission” for “purpose.”

It defines purpose with the questions: What does this organization want to be in the world, and what does the world need it to be?

Sounds a lot like the exercise all churches go through in creating a “mission statement”!

So far, we are on the same page.

A cofounder of HolacracyOne says:

“Holacracy is not a governance process ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’—it’s governance of the organization, through the people, for the purpose.”

Early adopters mention that they were drawn to this organizational model as their companies grew. They noticed workers becoming less  effective with size. Hmm. Maybe that’s why most churches are small!

A characteristic of the model is the embracing of tension. Tension is the catalyst of change. I’ve never belonged to a church that was afraid of tension. They were more likely to fear the consequences if the regional body sensed tension.

I can’t tell you how many times in Church life I’ve seen important questions put to a Robert’s Rules of Order vote on a stage set for animosity. When leaders work for a majority they tend to stop caring about the minority. In their minds, they consider them the “enemy.” Getting out the vote opens the door for manipulation. The issues are lost. Church life becomes about winning.

In hierarchical structure, leaders have two advantages. They control the pulpit and church press. They also have access to every member.

Church leaders have serious disadvantages. They know only what very few people (usually pastors) tell them about a congregation.

Let’s say the local leader uses advantages to rally a vote and wins a controversial motion by a 51% majority. That leaves 49% of a congregation unhappy. They may be the hardest working 49%. Outside leaders don’t know that. It’s a numbers game to them. The less involved who show up for the vote will predictably return to the shadows. The biased vote was a sweet victory in the moment. But the whole congregation is now torn.

The Church is now divided Winners and Losers—Friend or Foe. And those labels tend to stick!

Holacracy uses the word “gaps” to describe “tension.” The gap is between how things are and how they could be. The gaps can be problems or they could be dreams looking for a foothold. The important thing is that holacratic structure embraces them when they are proposed—not after years of planting seeds, hoping someone will notice. It bypasses those rigged votes and levels the playing field.

Holacracy calls it “processing.” Here is the six-step process.

Keep in mind that holacracy calls for peer interaction—and peers include pretty much everyone. Executives and managers relinquish the roles of directors. A project can be proposed by anyone seeing a need or opportunity. Since no one is “giving orders,” all are open to finding ways they can help—possibly filling multiple roles. Authority is given to the person proposing the project. If the role proves too demanding it can be broken down into sub-roles, but the person accepting the responsibility for the sub-role has the authority for that role.

HOLOCRACY describes a 6-Step process.

How does the Holacracy Organization Chart look?

Well, it’s kind of a mess, much like modern life.

This visual is from the above linked white paper with some notes about how this might look to a typical church.

That’s all for now. It’s a big bite to chew. If this topic interests you read the white paper and visit holocracy.org, which offers trainings.

Here are links to previous articles in the series:

• In Post 1: The principles of holacracy, an organizational model that is growing in popularity, is compatible with the founding principles of the Protestant movement.
• In Post 2: Church structure as we have known it for hundreds of years might incorporate holacracy.
• In Post 3: Holacracy is not a new idea to religion—just an abandoned idea.
• In Post 4: The typical hierarchical organizational chart is reviewed.

photo credit: strike! via photopin (license)

One of the most fascinating things in life is human thought. It can be very similar. It can also be obdurately different.

We can agree on some things. It nice to see the sun now and then, for example.

But look at basic things like.

• Which side of the road should we drive on?
• Which direction should we read and write?
• What should an alphabet representing sound look like?
• What do we call the main meal of the day, supper or dinner?
• How do your pronounce “insurance” or “cement”?

I just read a book about medieval history in the fourteenth century. It discusses the problems in developing clocks and adding them to the multiple palaces being built by that era’s royalty.

Clocks are machines and do some things very well, especially repetitive and measured things.

Here was the problem.

An hour in medieval times did not represent sixty minutes made up of sixty seconds. Back then, the day was divided into daylight and darkness. Each was given equal measure—twelve hours. The available daylight or darkness was divided by 12. Therefore a daylight hour in May in northern Europe was longer than a nighttime hour. Vice-versa in December. The same span of time on the same day closer to the equator would vary.

It is outside all modern experience to think of an hour as anything but sixty minutes long, yet an hour of varying measure worked for the people of that time. Things only changed when they needed to change. Machines needed an hour’s duration to be fixed.

Which ideas taken for granted today will be obsolete tomorrow?

Is the Church prepared for thinking that might create fundamental change — not so much in what we believe but in how we work together and act out our beliefs?

Our congregation encountered divergent thinking when we began welcoming immigrants. Our newer members (from several countries) viewed time very differently. Starting times were relative. It was expected that people would show up within an hour or so of an announced time. It was interesting to see the children who were picking up American ways fuss with their parents.

• “No one’s coming. Let’s go home.”
• “They will come. Go play.”

And they did come!

As we first encountered this problem, a pastor decided the answer was to start at the appointed time regardless of who was there. That will teach them. It just made everybody feel bad. We ended up starting our service with a hymn sing. We’d sing two or three hymns as people gathered. It didn’t matter how many people were there and most people were there by the time we started the call to worship. This worked well. It became tradition.

There were other hurdles. Newer members tended to enjoy longer events—all day as opposed to the American event attention span of two hours tops. We compromised. Events were planned for three hours and people were welcome to stay for fellowship all day if they liked.

Choir work was another challenge as newer members didn’t rely on reading music. The director would explain, “This is how it is written.” The new members would look at one another before answering, “But this is how we sing it.”

Our congregation was patient and flexible with the process of welcoming differences—more so than our regional body.

Their view was that congregations have life spans. A time to be born and die, the population staying static in its composition. We were told this by our bishop, who clearly thought our congregation’s time to die had arrived regardless of how our membership was growing. If we couldn’t be the same white congregation with English/Scotch and German roots, it was time to die. There was no denying the changing demographics.

We didn’t use the changing demographics as an excuse to lock up and move on. We worked with the demographic changes. We still are.

The issue seemed to be finding pastoral leadership that was comfortable dealing with a group as diverse as ours. There was no one, we were told—repeatedly. Meanwhile, our members found several qualified pastors willing to work with us.

This showed us something. The Church is unprepared for diversity and is developmentally still in “separate but equal” thinking.

The Church may be equally unprepared for other changes their members face daily in today’s society. The problem may be that we skipped the 20th century and are lost in the 21st century. Time stood still for a while. And now small churches are paying for it.

photo credit: nur wenige Stunden via photopin (license)

A New Broom Sweeps Clean

Happy New Year!

A time for forgetting the past—or is it?

There is a lot of talk about dealing with unpleasantness as if declaring a new year will make dirt disappear. Everything can be rosy. Just get out the broom and start sweeping.

Funny thing about sweeping. It’s a job that is never done!

There is really no avoiding the work. You can hire a cleaning person—or handle it yourself. You can’t sweep it away.

Yet, some leadership gurus premise their theories for building churches on just that. Church replanters in particular espouse methodologies that eliminate problems. Although I hate to mix the metaphor, they usually call it baggage.

Here’s their typical strategy for dealing with church baggage:

• Close a troubled church for six weeks or six months—or seven years in our case.
• Tear down signage.
• Lock the doors.
• Change the name.
• Allow none of the former members leadership positions if they happen to show up at the church in their neighborhood. Some are very clear—allow them presence but no voice.

These theorists treat church members as servants of a cause. They don’t want flawed people. They want an easy road.

That’s not a biblical model!

Sweeping problems under the rug is creating a full-time challenge. To resolve the mixed metaphor—baggage is too big to sweep under the rug. It must be dealt with.

Here’s a short quote from an article by Dennis Bickers, a pastor of a church in Indiana.

I remember my first church business meeting as a pastor. A proposal I made, which was in line with one of the priorities the church had given me, was firmly resisted by every person in that meeting. I went home wondering what I had gotten myself into.

A few minutes later, one of the church matriarchs called and explained some history in that church that caused such resistance.

I had not been there long enough to know this story, but with that information I was able to revise my plans so that they were later accepted.

This pastor recognizes that lay people are vessels filled with valuable knowledge.

I wish I had had his wisdom about twenty years ago when I ran into a similar situation.

Our congregation had a bad experience with our regional body. I was not active at the start of the problems, but I was involved in the eventual resolution. Trust was very low. As part of the two-year saga, our regional body had required us to meet with a consultant who ended up to be an agent of the regional body’s interests. We had felt used and betrayed by the consultant’s use of our honest interaction. She had seriously twisted and edited remarks to support the regional body’s position. The memory was still fresh.

We had a new pastor who proposed a weekend retreat. He recommended a church consultant he knew to lead the retreat. I tried to facilitate this for the sake of our new pastor, who I knew was dealing with a tough situation. We all were!

Newer members were willing to give it a chance. Older members, more familiar with the conflict, were suspicious that a retreat led by a church consultant was inviting the fox back into the henhouse. I argued that WE were engaging the consultant this time‚ not our regional body.

I shared the reason for the resistance with the pastor. We went ahead with the retreat. Key leaders did not attend. Those who attended, I among them, enjoyed it. It seemed to help the new pastor. It helped us get to know the newer people. A week or so later, I got a huge “I told you so” dropped on my head. The president of the church council received a letter from the consultant, thanking us for using his services. The letter included a copy of a report he had sent to the regional body. The report was not damaging in itself, but the fact that he reported things that we had shared in confidence revived and deepened our collective sense of betrayal. And yes, it led to more problems.

Lay leaders with experience are valuable. Those “I told you sos” are powerful defenses.

Baggage is experience. Experience is the root of wisdom. Leaders who insist on “no baggage” fresh starts are not eliminating problems. They are creating new ones.

So what do churches with “baggage” do in this new year?

Christianity, after all, is all about dealing with baggage.

photo credit: Church Door (B&W Version) via photopin (license)

HOLACRACY 4

In Post 1: I looked at how the principles of holacracy, an organizational model that is growing in popularity, is compatible with the founding principles of the Protestant movement.

In Post 2: I mused about how church structure as we have known it for hundreds of years might incorporate holacracy.

In Post 3: I looked at another example of a Protestant faith group that uses principles like those of holacracy.

Today’s Post

Why the current structure of most churches fails small churches

Here is a graphic that describes common church structure based on my experience as a Lutheran. We use words like congregation council and synod. Other denominations use different language for similar concepts.

Here’s the basic idea:

This structure worked for a long time.  It found its way into constitutions.

Good-bye to the 19th century

My first clue that it might be time for a change came about ten years ago. Our urban neighborhood congregation was beginning to attract a number of immigrant families. We did our best to fast-track them into active engagement in church life. Many of them were already familiar with Lutheranism from their home countries, but they weren’t necessarily familiar with things Americans take for granted.

Our pastor met with the new members and read the congregation’s constitution. I was tending the children. I could hear the discussion, but I was not taking part. I noticed that the group was very engaged and were asking good questions.

The pastor read the clause that references Robert’s Rules of Order as the mandated guide for meeting procedure.

One of the new members asked, “What’s Robert’s Rules of Order”?

I realized that what is common in American life is not necessarily recognized worldwide. There might be other methodologies. (The author of Robert’s Rules of Order was a major in the U.S. Army in the 19th century. His work has not always been well-received and has been frequently revised to answer objections. Even this standard is not set in stone!)

This was to be our experience a few years later when Robert’s Rules of Order was widely ignored in our dealings with our regional body—another affirmation that Church standards were failing us as members—and our leaders as well!

Our experience was a sign of the times, perhaps. The fast pace of change spawned the holacracy movement in business.We needed a more efficient change to involve people and compete with the rest of the world.

The same years within the Church have been characterized by frustration.

• There is dissatisfaction among leaders, considerable congregational conflict, and dismal statistics with both attendance and giving plummeting.
• The losses are nearly across the board, with larger churches often reporting greater statistical loss but are still able to meet basic budgets.
• The graying of church leadership is even more pronounced than the graying of church memberships.

Smaller churches have had to scale back in leadership, which tends to also lead to a scale-back in services and witness.

This leadership crisis has presented few innovative answers—and some of them have proven to be successful only short-term—abandoned without fanfare within ten years.

So let’s look at why the hierarchical structure isn’t working.

The above graphic does not address the national and regional structure. In our experience, the national and regional expression of the Church was of no assistance. We can only wonder if other churches have the same experiences.

We were left wondering if these expressions are worth the expense. Their primary function at the regional level is to oversee the qualifications of pastors and other rostered leaders and match them with mission needs—like an employment agency. Regional leaders know more about the pastors than they do the congregational leaders, creating an inequity.

We see the role of pastor being watered down considerably because many congregations cannot afford the mandated salaries. This results in a greater reliance on second-career and retired pastors who are eager to take on short-term commitments such as interim or bridge assignments. In our 80 church visits in 2011-2013 about a third of the churches were working with assigned interims and many more had minimal part-time leadership.

Does this mean small churches cannot be a meaningful presence?

Who’s the Boss?

Because commitments of part-time pastors are tied to salary levels often based on hourly rates, small congregations tend to develop a culture where laity pick up the slack. There is nothing in the constitutions forbidding this. In fact, laity are theoretically encouraged to support “the priesthood of all believers.”

But it does create tension when pastors want the full leadership power while serving only 20 hours or less a week.

Ministry today calls for a variety of skills. Congregations councils are responsible for finding those skills. Our hands are tied when we must devote all resources to one part-time leader. Looking beyond that one leader guarantees trouble. But progress is unlikely without it! Rock. Hard place.

This is not to debate that one side of this tension is right and the other wrong. It is simply recognizing that the tension exists— and it often hinders mission and leads to the type of conflict that results in closing churches unnecessarily.

Nobody likes to deal with tension.

But holacarcy recognizes the need for creative, disruptive tension and proposes a way to put it to work. It starts by addressing the question: Who’s the Boss? More about that in the next post.

But let’s move down the chart.

The congregation council in some form or other is also constitutionally mandated. It, too, is challenged by hierarchical structure.

A lot of the traditional emphases of the business arm of the Church have changed. Technology and cultural expectations are root reasons. There was a time when our denomination’s worship resources were used for nearly a century without much change. Then we started republishing hymnals every 20 years or so. Then we needed ethnic editions. Now, the internet makes printed music of the latest hymns available immediately upon release.

Education is challenged by modern family structure and schedule demands. We still work hard to encourage families to carve out time for some form of Christian education scheduled onsite—with less success. Work schedules and family demands vary greatly. There are work-arounds, but congregations must develop online learning models—a major rethink.

There is more overlap.  Finance needs to overlap with Stewardship. Stewardship needs to overlap with Witness/Communication. Fellowship is part of just about everything. And more.

How do these structured standing committees work together, especially when there are fewer people to help?

This overlap means waiting for the next scheduled meeting of other committees to get buy-in. The investment of time kills many a good idea.

The demands of structure overwhelm laity—who are volunteers and will look for more rewarding ways to spend their time.

Does that mean there is no hope for small congregations?

It may simply mean that smaller congregations need to find a structure that is more effective and affordable.

HOLACRACY 3

Reorganizing the Church to allow for change

“Holacracy aims to organize a company around the work that needs to be done instead of around the people who do it.”—Jena McGregor, Washington Post

Holacracy calls for serious restructuring.

The Church is all about structure. The temptation will be to dismiss its ideas because it’s not the way we do things. But historically Lutherans addressed these concepts ages ago—and abandoned them.

Post 1 addresses how holacracy fits into Lutheran tradition—at least how it used to be practiced. But there is another Christian tradition that practices many of the principals of holacracy.

Most denominations presume pastors are a given. Quakers have no clergy.

The Quaker tradition revolves around meetings. There are Meetings for Worship. Quakers gather in silence and wait for members to speak as they are moved.

There are also meetings for other purposes, including Meetings for Business.

My son attended Quaker School for 13 years. I’ve attended Quaker Meetings for Worship. I am less familiar with Quaker Meetings for Business—although my son talks about them. I had an early encounter with the Quaker system for settling disputes that was impressive.

My five-year-old son had a beef with his gym teacher in the opening days of kindergarten. He told me very little—only that he was never going to gym class again—ever.

I informed his classroom teacher that I thought there was a problem. She responded immediately—no time for things to fester and deteriorate. Three parties had a mini-Quaker meeting. My five-year-old. His 60-year-old classroom teacher. His Olympic gold-medalist gym teacher. I had to wonder if my little guy stood a chance! I was not present.

All ended well. Peace was almost immediate.

The five-year-old had his say. The gym teacher took responsibility for a miscommunication and apologized. The focus was on the problem—not on who was the boss.

This is the approach of holacracy. The focus is on the work, not the structure and certainly not on personalities.

This is worth exploring regardless of how difficult it may be for those who depend on church structure for status and income.

• How much talent lies dormant for fear of stepping on toes?
• How many ideas are unexplored because they don’t fit into a committee structure?
• How many people don’t bother with church because they don’t feel they can make a difference?
• How many members feel they have “assigned” roles and can’t contribute outside those roles?

To create change and foster innovation, today’s churches need to engage more skills than one pastor is likely to have. But the authority structure focuses on one leader.

The Lutheran Church was already addressing this leadership problem when it gave the highest governing status to the congregation council—not the pastor.

Many congregational members wrongly assume that the pastor or even the bishop is “the boss.” A great deal of church conflict stems from failure to define the role of pastor, assuming authority based on traditions of other, better publicized denominations.

Very messy indeed. The mess leaves us unprepared to face today’s culture.

Recent years have shown that world-changing innovations are more likely to come from the dorm room than the board room.

 

Church is not structured so that the voices outside of approved ranks can be heard. Laity tend to receive recognition for their ability to follow—not lead.

The attitude of the Church toward ideas that come from outside rostered leadership is a bit like Nathaniel’s smart-alecky biblical quip. “Can any good come out of Nazareth?”

The answer then and now is “YES.”

The challenge is to allow this to happen.

Small congregations should be hotbeds of innovation. They aren’t because they cannot afford to make waves and attract attention. They must allocate every available penny toward limited leadership. The regional body may have already written off the possibility of a future.

Holacracy is a structure that fosters peer-to-peer engagement.

The work is defined. Teams of people have freedom to do the work. They own the work. They have complete authority to accomplish goals. They report to one another not to determine if they have met some predetermined agenda but to report progress and get input from others.

We’ll start looking at the holacratic method in the next post.

The future of the Church does not have to be bricking up the neighborhood churches.

HOLACRACY: Part 2

Yesterday’s post introduced holacracy—a movement that is restructuring how organizations work together.

I suggested that the concepts may be exactly what the world of Church is struggling to find.

But how do we get there?

Holacracy is finding success in the business world because a few savvy entrepreneurs were willing to step away from titles like CEO and the accompanying vertical structure. They saw it hampering innovation. Fostering innovation makes you stand out among competitors.

In other words—there is incentive.

The Church talks about innovation but remains unprepared to invest in the concept. No incentive.

Tradition and constitutions define rules. (Holacracy has a constitution, by the way.) Leadership roles of bishop and pastor are guaranteed as long as congregational money lasts and people get along. Successful leaders keep people happy.

In recent years, the money is failing. When money is in short supply, tensions rise. People are not happy.

As congregations fail, church leaders have rewritten the rules to make sure money lasts longer for their benefit.

It is OK for congregations to fail, if the denomination benefits from failure. This isn’t made up. It is actually stated in training resources for church leaders. Don’t waste time helping struggling churches. Create a triage list. Spend time and energy on those showing more promise.

Self-survival is the only incentive. It is not survival of the fittest. The higher ranks of the Church are every bit as challenged as the congregations. Rather, it is survival of the most powerful. Service and Mission are off in the distance.

The Church of the near future is likely to be composed of denominational offices and the 40 richest congregations—a quarter the current size of our regional body. The roster of pastors will be similarly cut, although those remaining will be well paid. Affluence is the measure of ministry. All the buildings will be new or renovated.

One problem, pews are not likely to be full. The people of the 120 abandoned congregations spread across five counties will not drive to attend worship no matter how grand the parking lots or plush the pews.

The loss of neighborhood churches will challenge the ability of the surviving churches to effectively deliver in mission. They will have isolated themselves from the poor, needy and diverse. They will become social clubs for Christians who can afford the dues.

Failure to recognize the destructive nature of self-centered use of power sparked the Reformation. A refresher course every 500 years may be the ticket!

Just as in 1517, power feeds on money. The powerful will not easily revise their roles if it means ceding power and status.

This is likely to be the Church’s undoing.

Change is not going to come from clergy, seminarians or consultants. They remain heavily invested in vertical church structure.

I suggest we start by looking at what we already have. Examine that word in the ELCA constitutions that eludes us.

INTERDEPENDENT

What does it mean?

With that question in mind, take a look at this TED talk.

photo credit: Brick Filled Window via photopin (license)