When you believe your customers have no real choice, either because they’ve signed a long-term contract, or the technology locks them in, or they’re stranded in Fargo with no other options, you’re likely to drift away from delighting them.
When you believe that people are stuck in their seats, it’s not essential, it seems, to keep cajoling them to stay there.
And while you might be correct that this particular customer is locked in, it doesn’t mean she doesn’t have friends, colleagues or a blog.
Word of mouth and recommendations don’t come with a lock-in feature. Generations change, and if you’re here for the long haul, there is no lock in.
Seth’s words complement our posts on replication and mission by the book. The replication process, touted by regional bodies as innovative, is really just a last-ditch effort to recreate ministry models that are failing at a slower rate in other neighborhoods.
Of course, the failure is first assigned to the laity. There is something wrong with them that can’t be fixed.
Shutting churches down and reopening them in the same form with different people in the pews and pulpit is actually an admission that professional leadership has failed. “Let’s let the people who have failed to lead for decades take control. They must know what they are doing,” is flawed church-think.
Healing (reconciliation) is too much work.
The Church doesn’t understand how neighborhoods work.
Links to the past don’t disappear because the Church held a service proclaiming their demise.
Go ahead and change the name. You can bet the neighborhood will call it Old Trinity or Old St. John’s for decades.
The Church is creating terrible word-of-mouth ministry — the kind of ministry tactic that spread the Gospel to the farthest reaches of the known world within a century or two back when there was no other way to reach people.
The lasting impression the leaders of the ELCA (its greedy bishops and spineless clergy) create in the neighborhoods where they swoop in, lock doors, confiscate assets and punish their life-long supporters with lawsuits is not a billboard for the road to Christ.
Here’s what the neighborhoods think when they pass the locked doors every day.
The Lutheran Church—ahh, yes. They’re the ones who sue their members and threaten their livelihoods and exclude them from participation with other congregations.
The next thought is not going to be
“Let’s join.”
Listen to Seth. Just because we are locked in—or locked out as has become the new ELCA’s protocol—doesn’t mean we don’t have friends, colleagues, neighbors and a blog.
The ELCA way makes sense only to clergy who believe in their own isolated power. When you include the people of the church — the ones who put money in the offering plate each week, the ones who sacrificed a productive lot to build a building, the ones who show up every Sunday for decades, teaching and singing and serving — then it is wanton foolishness.
Remember, the WAY that is taught to us within the walls of the church includes standing up for what we believe.
Last night was Christmas Eve and the doors to our church were locked by the Southeastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
O Holy Night! Love and Joy Come to You. Let earth receive her King. Noble words were being sung in other SEPA Lutheran sanctuaries.
We gathered around the soup pot as we so often do at Redeemer. (Still)
The ladies of Redeemer once supported our ministry with monthly soup sales. A rich beef vegetable soup was produced in Redeemer’s kitchen which we were renovating so we could cook more soup.
Redeemer lives as long as those soup recipes live. Last night I enjoyed Lutheran soup for 25th Christmas Eve.
On 21 of those Christmas Eves, we also went to church.
God and sinners reconciled.
We’ll gather again this morning for Christmas breakfast. But not in our church.
We’ll be back in church on Christmas Eve when the hymns people sing actually mean something.
Meanwhile, I suggested we change the name of the soup. Lutheran Soup just doesn’t sound good anymore.
During the six years of Bishop Almquist’s term, during which SEPA was all but absent in its relationship with Redeemer, the Rev. Claire Burkat was making a name for herself as an assistant to the bishop.
She had a success of which she was particularly proud. She worked with a failing church and devised a plan. Synod would close the church with its aging members’ cooperation and reopen it weeks later with a new name.
In 2006 in her early days as bishop, Bishop Burkat came to Redeemer eager to replicate the experience which had been so successful (by her reports) before her election. In truth, it was too soon to tell if the mission strategy was actually successful. There were no statistics to support whether or not it was a good idea.
We have checked the current statistics of this congregation. They are not impressive. Membership seems to be under 50. About half the statistics of Redeemer in 2007.
Nevertheless in 2006, the experiment was touted as a promising innovation. Bishop Burkat was eager to replicate it and add another “success” to her résurmé.
The problem was Redeemer was not at all like the congregation that had agreed to pioneer this technique.
Remember, SEPA had walked away from Redeemer six years before and their memory was that the congregation consisted of a dozen old ladies. Their waiting game strategy should have been ripe for implementation, in Bishop Burkat’s view.
Things had changed at Redeemer. The elderly members who had met with Bishop Almquist had in fact gone to their heavenly reward. But there were now three times as many Redeemer members as when Bishop Almquist had released us from synodical administration—and that would soon double. Our members were mostly young families, most of whom had joined within the last ten years. Many were Tanzanian immigrants, but there were other new ethnic backgrounds new to Redeemer’s membership as well. Bishop Burkat even suggested removing the Tanzanian members to create statistics to justify the strong-arm tactics she planned to implement. Some had been members for a decade, some had been born into our community. This was (and is) insulting to Redeemer’s Tanzanian members as it should be to every Lutheran. As one young Tanzanian member noted at the time: SEPA is big on ministry to the Tanzanians — as long as we stay in Tanzania. (The statistics presented to Synod Assembly by the trustees excluded the Tanzanian members.)
Redeemer’s interest in working with SEPA was to build on its success. SEPA wasn’t listening. They knew best.
Closing Redeemer and reopening it under a new name was the only plan they would consider. Why?Their way gave them control of the congregation’s assets.
Here we go again! Mutual discernment at work!
Bishop Burkat made this proposal. She would close the church down, have a grand closing ceremony, and reopen it a few weeks later. Renaming the church was key to this strategy. There should be no confusion that the old church was dead and gone. The new name had to meet with her approval. Oh, and the current members would not be permitted any leadership roles. From where the new leaders were to suddenly emerge to take control of our ministry was not made clear. Meanwhile, Synod would reign with no one to answer to — hardly the Lutheran way.
Of course, this was offensive to a congregation that had worked hard to recover from the mess created by Bishop Almquist — and was succeeding.
The first proposal was the church should close for two weeks. That became six months by the time they saw us in court.
Well, in 2009, Bishop Burkat finally got her way and has control of Redeemer’s property. It has been locked to Redeemer and the community for three and a half years.
Redeemer remains active through 2×2 Foundation, waiting for the day that the Lutherans of SEPA recognize that maybe, just maybe, they were part of a big mistake.
The strategy of replicating one success in a different neighborhood has been disastrous for both East Falls and SEPA. Redeemer bears the popular blame, but SEPA with its selfish policies is responsible. Bishop Burkat defends her actions, citing the process of mutual discernment.
Once again, the definition of mutual discernment is “comply or goodbye.“
2×2’s previous post addressed how the interests of a regional body can hinder mission. Here’s an historical example.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and its relationship with Redeemer, East Falls, provides many interesting illustrations of how the structure of the ELCA, intended for good, actually impedes creative ministry.
Its attempt to structure itself interdependently quickly becomes crippled by the reality that the regional body is dependent on congregations funding its budget, heavy with salary obligations and an expensive, outdated infrastructure. Meanwhile, congregations must meet their own budgets and support the regional and national bodies.
Years of hard work and “mutual discernment”
Bishop Burkat talks of years of working with our congregation under her leadership and that of her predecessor. She calls the process “mutual discernment.”
Sounds good. Only it didn’t happen quite that way.
There were more years of neglect than of working together.
There were so many hidden agendas that mutual discernment was impossible.
Attempts to ignore the wishes of the congregation were routine.
With interdependence comes the jockeying of self-interest. Congregations may be unaware that the synod has self-interests. They may assume that the synod has their interests at heart.
Meanwhile, the regional body expects the unquestioning deference of congregations.
Mutual Discernment at Work
Redeemer was always a small but self-sufficient congregation. SEPA did not support Redeemer financially as many people have been led to believe. It was the other way around.
When the ELCA was created in the late 1980s, Redeemer had a part-time pastor who also worked in the Synod offices. Redeemer was seen as not likely to ever support a full-time ministry. Any part-time pastor filled the bill in their eyes—a pulse was the primary qualification. They were marking time.
Then Redeemer received a $300,000 endowment. Suddenly, there was an interest in Redeemer. Pastor Wm deHeyman left the synod offices to work more fully with Redeemer. He served Redeemer 11 years. (Synod represents that Redeemer had just short-term pastors. Not true. His predecessor served 7 years.)
Wm deHeyman retired in 1996. His last years were difficult and factions had formed with some rallying around the pastor.
Redeemer looked forward to a new start.
Bishop Roy Almquist proposed that the congregation call one of his staff members, Rev. Robert Matthias, for an 18-month term call as an interim pastor.
Redeemer cooperated whole-heartedly.
This was a tumultuous time at Redeemer for other reasons. There was a series of personal tragedies that impacted congregational life. A tragic death of one family’s child. Another family was wracked with grief when its youngest child was paralyzed in an accidental shooting. A third child and family faced serious issues. The families of four council members were in crisis. During this time, a newer member volunteered to help with the financial books as the treasurer was one of the affected parents. It was soon discovered that the volunteer was embezzling money. The crime was noticed and rectified quickly—within months—but it added to the congregation’s sadness. This incident is sometimes used today to justify SEPA’s interest in Redeemer, but at the time they took no action that indicated they had concern that Redeemer could not rectify this on its own.
What was SEPA’s response in the face of unusual tragic circumstances in a small congregation?
They walked away and left the congregation with no pastor for nearly a year.
Three months into the 18-month term call agreement, Bishop Almquist returned to Redeemer and asked to break the call contract. He had an assignment for Pastor Matthias in Bucks County.
Redeemer cooperated even though it meant its investment in Pastor Matthias was wasted. Naturally, the congregation was hurt. Why was Bucks County more important than the promise SEPA had made with Redeemer?
During this year, Assistant to the Bishop Sue Ericsson was meeting with the council unbeknownst to the congregation. She encouraged the council (half of whom were in personal crisis) to convince the congregation to close. A plan was drafted. If the congregation did not go along, the congregation council would submit resignations providing grounds for SEPA to take over. Mutual discernment was being dictated behind the scenes.
The congregation’s annual meeting, usually held in February, was announced for January.
Three guests were introduced, Pastor Matthias, Gordon Simmons and Rodney Kopp.
Some reports were made. At the point when the budget should have been presented, the congregation council submitted the resolution to close (drafted by synod). This had not been discussed in the congregation who thought they were holding a routine annual meeting. They voted to table the resolution for further study—a reasonable response. A congregation should study an important issue before voting!
On cue, council members placed letters of resignation (drafted by synod) on the table. They were swooped up by Pastor Matthias who announced the meeting was over and the congregation was under synodical administration. While Pastors Simmons and Kopp spoke to angry congregation members who were feeling ambushed (Pastor Kopp used the term “blind-sided”), Pastor Matthias left with the letters of resignation and the church books.
Pastor Mathias was known at the local bank. He and a former Redeemer treasurer visited the bank the next day and conveyed $90,000 to SEPA. SEPA asked our tenants to send payments to them. Mutual discernmentincluded trickery.
But paying the bills was the extent of synodical administration. Redeemer kept its offerings and there was significant money in savings available to the congregation. Activities at the church continued to be run by the congregation.
The congregation felt betrayed by their council and SEPA. The members who resigned ended up leaving, some after long years at Redeemer. SEPA had used them at a time when they were vulnerable.
SEPA refused to share the letters of resignation. We learned three council members had not resigned. Two pastors helped the congregation appoint members to fill vacant seats as is allowed in the constitution. Redeemer’s council continued to meet and run the daily affairs of the church and plan its own worship and mission which included an ambitious summer program, totally lay led.
Redeemer protested the synodical administration for a year.
Several supply pastors led worship, including Rev. Harvey Davis. Our first Tanzanian members joined during this time. Bishop Almquist at last released the synodical administration. But he did not return the money for an additional year. At last, SEPA returned about $82,000, keeping some to cover their legal expenses. The fact that they were able to pay the congregation’s bills without depleting the $90,000 in two years, proves that the congregation was financially viable.
When the synodical administration was lifted, Bishop Almquist asked the congregation to call Rev. Jesse Brown. He was the only candidate presented. Bishop Almquist suggested a one-year term call.
Redeemer cooperated.
Things were fine with Pastor Brown, but at the end of the year he announced that he wanted to cut his hours to just ten per week, the minimum needed for him to retain his ordination credentials.
Redeemer did not wish to regularize a call with a pastor who wanted to provide minimal service. Redeemer agreed to extend the term call, but Bishop Almquist insisted it be regularized—or there would be no pastor for a very long time. Mutual discernment included threats.
Why was this a deal-breaker?
What’s the difference between a term call and a regularized call?
A regularized call can be ended by the pastor at any time with 30 days notice, but if the congregation wants to make a change, they must muster a two-thirds vote against a pastor. This can be very divisive, especially when a pastor is liked—as was Pastor Brown. Redeemer’s concern was his minimal level of commitment and what that meant to Redeemer’s ability to grow in mission. For Redeemer’s lay leaders, it was not enough that a pastor was “liked.” The congregation had to make progress. Redeemer’s leaders were looking wisely into their future. A regularized call would become problematic if Pastor Brown’s outside interests minimized the effect of his ten hours per week. Locking into a regularized call under these circumstances was not in the interest of the congregation, no matter how much the pastor was liked by individual members. In fact, it was likely to be a greater issue if the pastor was liked. The congregation’s leaders would be frustrated with lack of mission progress, while the more minimally committed members of the voting congregation were content. Redeemer was being forced to make a foolish decision that was predicated on the synod’s dismal vision for the congregation, which happened to have a healthy endowment, while they were operating with a deficit.
The congregation council rejected the synod’s proposal. Bishop Almquist asked for a second vote overseen by a staff person. That vote failed, too. Bishop Almquist deemed that the congregation should vote on the call — never explaining the wisdom of asking the congregation to vote for something the church council was against. That vote failed too.
If the vote hadn’t failed, it would have strained relationships between the council and the congregation. This was pointed out to Bishop Almquist, but he insisted on taking the issue to the congregation anyway. He was interested only in getting the vote that served his purpose—finding a call for Jesse Brown.
Bishop Almquist kept his promise. Synod ignored Redeemer for Bishop Almquist’s entire second term.
The congregation worked with Pastor Harvey Davis for three years until the pastor needed to retire. He was influential in attracting several young couples with diverse ethnic backgrounds and our Tanzanian membership continued to grow. Redeemer was becoming multicultural and was making significant innovations successfully. The ministry showed promise despite synodical neglect.
Let’s look a the motivations behind this history that is so often referenced as reason for Bishop Burkat’s actions a decade later.
Why was it important to SEPA that Redeemer’s call be regularized? Term calls are a constitutional option.
The synod’s interest in a regularized call solved some of its problems.
Pastor Brown could retain his status as an ordained pastor while he ran for public office and operated his own business on the side.
His minimal service would solve SEPA’s problem of staffing Redeemer.
Redeemer’s mission and interests were not really considered.
SEPA’s view of Redeemer was that its elderly population would die within 10 years. Minimal ministry would speed the process along. This thinking takes on signficant importance when the targeted congregation has assets and the regional body is operating with deficits. The regularized call gave SEPA more control over Redeemer and the fate it was tacitly seeking.
Declaring synodical administration gave them access to congregational assets.
After SEPA returned Redeemer’s assets, Bishop Almquist issued an appeal letter to all congregations for almost exactly the amount of money returned to Redeemer.
Redeemer had supplied SEPA with an interest-free loan.
Synodical administration had been used as a tool to benefit SEPA. Mission in East Falls was never the objective.
Lasting damage was done to Redeemer. Gossip created an unjustified cloud that hangs over East Falls to this day.
At all times in this conflict, Redeemer cooperated when it was reasonable to do so. It showed initiative, flexibility, and a willingness to accept change — all the things regional bodies look for when striving for transformation. But the congregation knew that Bishop Almquist’s insistence on a regularized call was not in the congregation’s interest.
Redeemer was consistently making choices that pointed them toward new and innovative ministry. SEPA was prescribing solutions that would benefit SEPA.
There are such things, you know. Mission Manuals. They tell us exactly how to start a church or revive a faltering ministry.
Frequently, mission is all about replication. We try to do the same thing that worked so well, perhaps just a few years ago, but in a different place.
We follow flagship ministries that succeed because of unique vision and herculean passion and try to pull off the same success with no unique vision and the part-time commitment of clergy.
At times we go so far as to attempt to import people into neighborhoods. That early “manufactured” success can be measured. It might attract the regional body’s interest and their investment (coin, time, or talent). Perhaps the statistics will attract some unsuspecting part-time pastor!
Why do we try to replicate—and call it innovation?
There is comfort in routine.
We know how to measure routines.
We know what to measure in our routines.
We already have the training to do things the old way and the training to do things in new ways might not exist.
Who doesn’t like a roadmap?
Neighborhoods are not the same. In decades past, there may have been more similarity and more stability within a geographic era. Church mission concepts are geared to such commonalities.
But neighborhoods vary greatly these days. Change used to be generational. Now it can be expected, especially in urban neighborhoods, within five years.
Look at Philadelphia. There are whole neighborhoods where virtually everyone is in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties with just a few toddlers in tow (Fairmount). There are ethnic neighborhoods that are shifting ethnicity (South Philadelphia, once heavily Italian, is now the home of Southeast Asian immigrants). There are collegiate neighborhoods (West Philadelphia). There are neighborhoods that are very mixed racially, economically, and socially (East Falls).
No amount of forcing will make neighborhoods stay the same. Congregations must learn this. So must professional leaders. We must also learn that a successful replication may have a life of only five years — if ongoing changes are not recognized as part of the mission model.
The act of replicating means that a great deal of energy and resources are devoted to recreating the same model. By the time all of the pieces are in place and showing the first signs of stability (if not progress) there are few resources or energy for initiative. Congregations may be locked into the leadership that brought them thus far but will not be able to take them into the Promised Land.
So how can the church foster innovation when so much thinking and resources are designed to protect the status quo or the initial investment?
If we want innovative ministries. we must stop measuring old statistics. New ministries can’t live up to them. But they CAN forge new ground and show impressive advances.
The day will come when you can apply the old measuring tools. But, if you wait for the old measurements to be in place before you innovate, nothing new will happen.
We can illustrate many of these points by looking at the recent history (15 years and counting) of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)’s attempts to do ministry with the people of East Falls. We’ll publish these separately. They are worth looking at if not for Redeemer’s sake (which would be welcome) but to learn what doesn’t work in the single-minded quest for transformation. There are many lessons to be learned from this one, largely misunderstood, ministry.
It’s all about innovation. It’s all about transforming. It’s all about reaching people.
Examine the Church’s actions:
It’s all about keeping a tight rein on the way things have been for years and years.
The Church is sluggish in adopting the evangelism tools of our era. Its failure in this regard lies in its need to control. It enjoys hierarchy. They’ve worked hard at it for so long! Therefore, people will take part in dialogue upon invitation and with appropriate monitoring only.
It’s a risk for the people in the Church to insist upon a voice. Those that make it to the Regional and National Assemblies are pretty well vetted by tradition.
The pope tweets. It’s a newsworthy event.
The pope does not follow. Now, if he did, that would be news!
The few churches adopting social media tend to be independent “non-denominational” churches. Is it a surprise that independent non-denominational churches reach young people while the mainline church has dismal statistics with the under-50 population.
Mainline churches start Facebook pages, but don’t really use them. Pastors start blogging and quit after six posts. They use LinkedIn but keep their profiles private. They don’t really want to connect. They want people to come to them. Sunday morning works . . . or call the office for an appointment.
In order to grow, the Church has to let go.
Twitter has great potential for connecting. It doesn’t have to be time-consuming—although it can become an interesting place to spend some time! The connections possible in a few months of working in this medium could be AMAZING.
The results are predictable only in that they will change the Church’s outlook. They would start to connect with the people they dream of reaching.
We have not yet begun to dissect it. It is still raw. We are all grieving and cannot imagine the sorrow that fills the hearts of the community and families who loved the victims.
Soon every school will review its safety procedures—just as Sandy Hook school had.
This school was safe. It was isolated from urban streets and gangs and the things that first come to mind when we think of schools and violence.
The children weren’t poor nor were they “under-served.”
Security had already been addressed. The school doors were locked.
It didn’t matter. It didn’t matter in Sandy Hook. It didn’t matter in Lancaster.
When the tears begin to dry — if ever — the events will be analyzed again. President Obama has pledged reform. The age-old arguments will rise. The rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms will be upheld—and there will be another school shooting.
Why are schools targets? My guess: Schools are the nurseries of society’s social relationships. Mostly good happens there. When bad things happen, when the young first feel the sting of rejection, when the pain has sufficiently festered, it’s a place to return, literally and symbolically.
Most “senseless” crime begins with someone not caring enough to act. Someone not loving. Someone not helping. Someone not noticing injustice. Someone making us feel small.
Someone locking their heart’s door.
Locks make the people holding the key feel safe—and important—and in control.
There will be talk. There will be posturing. A law will be enacted which will have the same effect the current gun laws have. It will be called the Sandy Hook Law. There will be a ceremony in the White House. The victim’s families will be invited.
It might do some good.
In the end, nothing will change—unless we address our society’s communal sense of empathy.
Let us pray.
For the power to act, when our actions can do the most good.
What Happens When the Small Church Becomes Inconvenient?
There is a problem facing the mainline Church today. It is spoken of frequently among Church professionals—less frequently with lay people. (Maybe there would be a solution if we were all part of the discussion.)
The topic (although it is not stated this way) is “What to Do with Inconvenient Churches.”
That includes most of us.
What makes a congregation “inconvenient”?
Let’s look first as what makes a “convenient” church.
Convenient churches are those that have 150 or more at worship each Sunday. They have a pastor who has already served five years and has no desire to move on. The convenient church has a paid-for property and a growing number of members supporting the ministry from the grave.
The convenient church can send a good percentage of offerings to the regional and national offices. They can send year-end gifts to major church agencies and the denominational seminaries and camps.
When a convenient church calls the Regional Office, their calls are returned. The bishop is a familiar face to them and can be counted on to visit for special occasions. Seminarians look over the list of convenient churches with hope that they might one day serve in their alluring comfort and security.
The convenient church really has little use for the regional office. But the regional office needs them and the dollars they can supply. A symbiotic bond is formed.
The inconvenient church may have some of the same traits. They could have a good number of people. They may have a paid-for property. They may have a settled pastor. But something happened —or didn’t happen— somewhere along the line that made them damaged goods, flawed beyond redemption in the eyes of church leaders.
The congregation may be clueless about its reputation. It was probably shaped over the years in the clergy gossip mill until the mere mention of the congregation’s name brings muffled chortles and knowing glances.
It is likely that clergy were somehow involved in whatever created the inconvenient situation. They are in a position to make sure the other clergy get their spin. There will never be a forum to properly examine the history. By the time the congregation learns they are marked, it is too late. The Church just doesn’t have time to deal with them and the trouble it would take to turn things around. Inconvenient.
The result is condoned shunning. Pastors won’t want to serve them. Hierarchy, in their number one role as employment agency for rostered leaders, wants the people they see and work with regularly to be happy. The laity are unknown, novices in church procedures, and will be no threat. Out of sight; out of mind.
Yet most churches today fall into the inconvenient category, possibly from decades of dealing with an unresponsive Church structure.
Churches that have been abandoned by clergy in favor of more convenient assignments quickly get used to going it alone. If they are fortunate, they develop lay leadership. After a while, they assume every congregation has trouble communicating with the regional office. Every church gets appointments 11 months in the future.
Now the real problem comes in. Clergy may not want to serve these congregations but they definitely don’t want them to go it alone. The behind-the-scenes clergy prejudice becomes impenetrable.
The problem: no one wants to commit to service in these unpopular congregations.
The solution: create a team of pastors to serve them without commitment.
The team will be made up of retired pastors and pastors who don’t want the inconvenience of moving or readjusting their lives. Call them interim ministers. Have them report regularly to the regional office, so they know what’s going on without having to actually do anything about it. This isn’t far-fetched. It’s actually part of the rationale of regional bodies. The problems may have festered so long that no one wants to deal with them. Better to let the short-termer, uncommitted pastor take the blame. The priority is the comfort of the pastors!
Somebody needs to take the blame.
The “inconvenient” churches need help. A committed pastor has the best chance of providing that help, but it takes work. He or she may need to spend six months visiting every home. Someone may need to admit to some leadership failings. Reconciliation requires a little self-sacrifice. Remember the cross.
Inconvenient churches may need the services of a regional body — but they are not in a position to pay more than a token amount. That’s not all their fault. Their ministries have been neglected for years and that affects stewardship.
So in the world of Church, the attention goes to the congregations that don’t need it.
As long as funds are adequate, everyone can get by. But in difficult times, even the “convenient” deep-pocket churches may become needy.
Someone has to make up for the shortfall when the bigger churches can no longer support the hierarchy at the level to which it is accustomed. (Suddenly they have to do the same work with less money and fewer people — just like the inconvenient churches they failed to serve!)
That’s when the “inconvenient” churches become vulnerable. It has less to do with their ability to survive (they are used to struggling) than it does with the whole lop-sided system.
The “convenient” churches can now use their clout to insure their own survival.
The obvious answer to the hierarchy that has already distanced themselves from their smaller congregations: Close ’em down. Take their assets. Make life more convenient for the convenient churches.
It is quickly forgotten that the nature of ministry is to help the weak.
The religiously unaffiliated are now a force to be reckoned with—by the Church and by the politicians.
Politicians accustomed to measuring the religious right or the Roman Catholic vote, etc., before they draft their platforms have found that the most influential segment of voters is the growing group that affiliates with no religion. You know the type. “I’m spiritual but not religious” is their creed.
Add to the religious melting pot the Jewish vote, the growing segment of Islamic voters and religious “others” and you have a new political challenge.
It is far less easy to address topics that approach social consciousness like abortion, immigration and laws based on sexuality when you don’t know the creeds your voters adhere to.
It is probably a myth that voters adhere to church doctrine in the privacy of the voting booth. But now we have statistics to add to the confusion.
Should this worry the American religious?
A lot of mainline churches stopped taking stands on popular issues a long time ago, drafting social statements that are exercises in political correctness. Perhaps this has been the cue to the American religious to not weigh their vote against the teachings of any church.
There is now statistical evidence that Americans are thumbing their noses at any religious affiliation.
Join Bishop Ruby Kinisa as she visits small churches "under cover" to learn what people would never share if they knew they were talking to their bishop.
Undercover Bishop will always be available in PDF form on 2x2virtualchurch.com for FREE.
Print or Kindle copies are available on Amazon.com.
For bulk copies, please contact 2x2: creation@dca.net.
MISSION INSPIRATION OFFER
A visual and biblical guide to help congregations define their missions.
Contact Info
You can reach
Judy Gotwald,
the moderator of 2x2,
at
creation@dca.net
or 215 605 8774
Redeemer’s Prayer
We were all once strangers, the weakest, the outcasts, until someone came to our defense, included us, empowered us, reconciled us (1 Cor. 2; Eph. 2).
Be calm. Wait. Wait. Commit your cause to God. He will make it succeed. Look for Him a little at a time. Wait. Wait. But since this waiting seems long to the flesh and appears like death, the flesh always wavers. But keep faith. Patience will overcome wickedness.
—Martin Luther
