4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

Commentary

A New Year, A New Vision and A New Journey

This is the headline of an e-letter recently sent to the professional leaders of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America by Bishop Claire Burkat.

Bishop Burkat announced that she and the church were having an epiphany.

“The age of the mainline Church as many of us have known it has passed, and there is no blueprint for our journey in this next, rapidly accelerating age.”

The epiphany may have struck sooner and taken fewer casualties if Bishop Burkat had taken time to get to know congregations when she took office. Heart to heart dialog at the time might have helped her hear things we congregations were trying to tell her. We could have helped her lead. That’s the Lutheran way. Interdependence.

It has taken almost every day of her six-year term, but Bishop Burkat has discovered some things for herself.

“The most apparent changes in our congregations and denominations so far see us shifting our focus from relying on professional staff, planning programs, keeping-up buildings, and preserving institutions toward engaging people inside and outside our churches in spritual conversation, as well as creating caring communities, collaborative service, and collective discernment.”

Redeemer was trying to tell her that. We had forged our way, with very little reliance on professional leadership. We had fostered good relationships with neighborhood organizations. We had relied on the gifts of the laity. We recognized that God was at work in our community in a new and creative way.

Now SEPA has a new blog to share ministry stories of its member churches. Although the site invites us to Tell Our Story, we doubt that our story would make it past moderation. So we will tell our story here. Feel free to tweet or reblog or post it on God Is Doing Something Good Blog for us.

  • Redeemer had a growing outreach ministry to East African immigrants. They had found a church home in East Falls and were growing in participation and leadership. Redeemer of the 20th century had welcomed the 21st century, adapting our traditions—not forsaking them—to welcome many new people.
    Bishop Burkat and SEPA discouraged our ministry and locked us all out of God’s House.
  • Redeemer was concentrating on developing lay leadership.
    That need is the topic of Alban Institute’s Roundtable this week. Redeemer had been working at this for a decade. 
  • Redeemer had a plan to help immigrant families locate starter homes, obtain mortgages and make necessary renovations.
    Bishop Burkat and SEPA made this impossible.
  • Redeemer had a plan to pioneer congregational use of the web. The fact that we were locked out of our church home made this a priority.
    If you are reading this (along with our more than 100 daily readers) you have discovered our ground-breaking blog.
  • Redeemer recognized that our property, rented to a Lutheran Social Service agency, was contributing to a valued neighborhood ministry. This was a mission alliance that served a church agency, our congregation and neighborhood. If money were our sole objective, we could have rented our property for more.
    Bishop Burkat and SEPA’s interference put the agency in the middle of a property dispute. They chose to shut down their 25-year presence in our community.
  • With this long-standing mission project ruined by SEPA, Redeemer worked for a year to develop a school that would serve the community in a way which would also foster religious values.
    Bishop Burkat and SEPA evicted the school just as it was about to open.
  • Redeemer recognized that a neighborhood ministry to immigrants, while valuable and God’s apparent plan for us, was not likely to be funded from the offering plate. Neither would an outreach mission to college-aged youth and young professionals, also a large part of East Falls neighborhood. Both were obvious missions for any church in East Falls. We worked to develop alternate income streams using our assets.
    Bishop Burkat and SEPA sued us to obtain our property and endowment funds for their own use.

God continues to work through Redeemer.

In our excommunicated state, we began visiting other Lutheran churches. We started to see firsthand many common challenges. We are responding.

  • We are creating a model for a program that would help small congregations create an eductional outreach and reconnect with their neighborhoods. VBS-aid is getting inquiries from all over the coutnry. It’s an idea that could bring many benefits to the emerging 21st century church and to SEPA. It needs start-up funding.
  • Abandoned by our own denomination, Redeemer is forming new relationships with other Lutheran groups and other denominations. We are pioneering an educational model for congregations that would not be expensive and would create ongoing dialog and community—another good idea with growing support.

If SEPA hadn’t taken our money, we could fund our projects with our own money.

Bishp Burkat ends her missive to SEPA professional leaders:

“Let’s perceive this journey into uncharted territory as a great adventure. There will be dangers, and we will surely make mistakes.”

Bishop Burkat is right. Mistakes will—and have been—made.

It is not too late to admit that SEPA’s actions in East Falls were just that—a mistake. The art of leadership, especially Christian leadership, is to recognize mistakes and take actions to reconcile.

This is a leadership quality all churches must foster. Congregations must be free to make mistakes without hungry big brother/sister Church waiting to take advantage.

The road into the the future would be smoother if SEPA could admit their mistakes. Instead of counting coup on the neighborhood congregations, try respecting that God may be at work in ways you have yet to understand. That’s the value of an epiphany.

Redeemer may be SEPA’s most valuable congregation — and we’re not talking about land and endowments. Assigned an excommunicated status, declared to be dying, Redeemer has been trail-blazing.

It’s not too late to make things right in East Falls. We are ready for reconciliation. Are you?

As Bishop Burkat points out, “God is God and we are not.”

31 Jan 2012

Lay Leaders May Save the Mainline Church

Today’s post in the Alban Institute’s Roundtable is a fascinating study on a topic important to today’s Church—the role of lay leadership.

The article is an excerpt from a book, Scattering Seeds: Cultivating Church Vitality, by Stephen Chapin Garner (a pastor) with Jerry Thornell (a lay member).

The post begins with their New England congregation’s realization that professional leadership is an endangered commodity. Fewer young people are entering seminary. The number of second career pastors cannot keep up with the demand that is looming with coming retirements.

They answered the challenge by intentionally developing stronger lay leadership. The church grew. An unexpected result—their congregation sent seven members to seminary.

The authors talk about how the familiar visioning process never could have led them in the direction that ended up increasing their membership and helping to solve a denominational problem as well.

It all sounds familiar to 2×2. We found ourselves forced by a number of factors to rely on lay leadership. Had we relied solely on the recommended process of visioning and drafting a mission statement, we would probably still be holding special meetings to change a comma here or there.

Instead, we went to work. We addressed immediate needs and challenges. We prayed — a lot! We returned to the basics — making sure there was a quality worship experience, good preaching and hospitality. We took a few chances.

We relied on the talents of our members. When we were doing the work, we were more inclined to be invitational.

We gave ourselves room to grow. We cultivated a nonjudgmental atmosphere, allowing mistakes so that we could all learn together. We stretched. We maintained good relationships with supply pastors but were soon able to get by with minimal clergy.

The answer to congregational growth in challenging economic times may be in nurturing the laity — not in expensive hierarchical fixes.

30 Jan 2012

Looking for the Ideal Christian

In the secular world, businesses have a little trick they rarely discuss except among like-minded professionals.

 

They create “personas” — model customers. They spend good time and money doing this. They comb through stock art to find an image that looks like the person they want to serve or supply with a product. They may choose two or three ideal customers. The images are given names and a back story. They mount them on foam core and display them in the corporate lobby or board room. They start to talk about “Dakota,” “Trevor” and “Roy” as if they are waiting for them in the next room. They write their blogs and advertising copy with them in mind. Their product development revolves around these imaginary people.

 

Someone presents a new idea. The corporation asks, “What do Dakota, Trevor and Roy think?”

 

Can this help the church? Wouldn’t it table the Great Commission — to go out into all the world and preach the Gospel to everyone? Wouldn’t it turn the Church into an exclusive organization?

 

The fact is congregations subconsciously create personas. “We want families. They’ll help our church grow.” Will they?

 

To some degree, the congregational persona is as close as the mirror. Churches want more people who are like them.

 

2×2 recommends the use of personas as a worthwhile congregational exercise. But they are not a magic bullet. The Church is not a business. We do not want members just to support our bottom line, do we?

 

If our personas are only the people we hope to attract, they can blind us to unseen potential—the wonderful serendipity of mission!

 

If Redeemer, the sponsor of 2×2, had created a persona for our ideal new member in the mid-90s, we might have followed the same thinking. We might have looked for young professionals for their skills and energy. We might have looked for more established, middle-aged professionals for their ability to contribute. We might have looked for the recently retired for their volunteer hours. In our mind’s eye, we would have seen people who look like us — Americans of European descent, already familiar with our denomination.

 

The discussion would have become all about who can help us — not about whom we can help.

 

God had other plans. The people who came to Redeemer and began to make our church grow were immigrants from East Africa — Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, and Botswana and others. They were looking to create new lives in a new land — finishing school, starting families and purchasing homes. They were looking for a church to be part of their lives. Some were Lutheran. Others were not.

 

Congregations are not the only people to fall into the “persona” trap. Denominations have their own ideas of what an ideal congregation is. Our denomination was not able to accept Redeemer in our 21st century persona. They had a mental image of our congregation as a throwback to the 1940s. The persona prejudice was impossible to shake. For all its talk about being inclusive and multicultural, church leaders remains unprepared to serve a congregation that does not meet their preconceptions. Pity.

 

The idea of personas are a good exercise to aid congregations in discussion as they plan ministry. But here is the kicker. The personas we craft should represent the people who actually exist and who need to feel God’s love.

 

If the concept of “persona” has any value to church it should be for finding people we can serve, without calculating their value to us.

Can you serve children after school? Can you help single parents? Can you care for the neighborhood’s elderly? Can you support military families? Is there a cause that needs someone to take a stand? Keep true community needs in mind as you plan your ministry and write your blogs.

 

Forget the nonsense. Practice the Great Commission with blinders on. God might have exciting things in store for you.

22 Jan 2012

The Future Belongs to the Underdogs and Innovators

This headline is a quote from a post in the Marketing Agency Insider. The post discusses how traditional marketing firms are doomed if they don’t learn to adapt to the new world and offer a hybrid approach to helping companies reach new people with their products and services.

The article’s advice and analysis may be applied to the emerging church and its outreach efforts.

Things happen slowly in the church. Church structure is designed that way. Stability and normalcy are rewarded. Innovation is something to applaud and forget. It seems like every promising innovation is derailed by reverting to the old ways — the structure. Successful churches are those that are still doing things the same way with membership that can still support the old way, even if both membership and offerings are in steady, long-term decline.

Applauding survival has created a crisis among mainline religions that has been growing unchecked for decades. Still, church leaders talk about change but implement very little.

The article we quoted talks about five things that will cause a major shift in the way things are being done in the marketing world. Each can be applied to church and mission.

  1. The emerging church will find alternative funding streams. They will no longer rely on the offering plate as the sole support for mission.
  2. The emerging church must integrate its services and use every technology available.
  3. The emerging church must concentrate on efficiency in delivering services and that includes creating new, cost-effective leadership structures.
  4. The emerging church must find ways to lower operating costs. We cannot continue to support budgets that are top-heavy in management and real estate with very little money left for mission, education and service.
  5. The emerging church will find new ways to measure its successes and be accountable for its mission dollars.

The article concludes that it is the risk takers who are going to emerge from current turmoil. It concludes (slightly paraphrased to apply to “church”) that a new prominence will be afforded to the risk takers who fight to remain nimble, always thinking like startups and acting like underdogs. Their presence will be a disruptive force for years to come, shifting the balance of power and raising the bar for what’s possible when seeking new partnerships in mission.

2×2 has been saying all of this for a while!

Denominations should be concentrating on helping every congregation tool up for change that bears these five points in mind. Instead, congregations hear about “drafting mission statements” and “stewardship” and preparing to “call a pastor” and maintaining existing church budgets — which have the status quo as their foundation.

18 Jan 2012

Measuring the Potential of Church and Ministry

Today we are witnessing the end of the Medieval Era. The Church may be the last vestige of Feudalistic Society — where communities operated, lived and served under a select group of people who protected them.

That is the model of today’s church which found its enduring structure in the Middle Ages.

Today, Philadelphia is reeling over the proclamation from Roman Catholic leaders, based on a “Blue Ribbon Commission” report, that will close or merge dozens of neighborhood parish schools. There are strong hints that this is Stage One, with church closings to be announced next year. Dangle the string in front of the mouse a bit longer.

Decisions made by church hierarchy tend to be based on their own needs and resources more than the needs and resources of neighborhoods. There was a day when loyal lay people would not venture such criticism. Yesterday’s newspapers show that day is over.

Neighborhoods are beginning to recognize that the Feudalistic Church is no longer serving their needs and mission. It is existing to protect itself. It is a bitter pill for the most dedicated church supporters. We wish it weren’t so.

Hierarchies could make changes in policies and traditions at the leadership/service end, but it’s easier to dictate change to the rank and file.

Catholics are not alone — but they are in today’s spotlight. What results from the wisdom of the Catholic leadership remains to be seen. It is likely that the decision will accelerate any existing decline.  Affected congregations will lose a core part of their ministry focus. Their loyalties will not automatically transfer to consolidated schools — the hearts and souls of people just don’t work that way. The parishes who survived will not reap a windfall in support. The Church will be weakened. People will drift. Resources will be further strained. Substantial spoils of closed churches/schools, contributed by generations of neighborhood families, will go to enrich the unyielding hierarchy.

These decisions were likely based on statistics. Statistics tend to work against lay people. They are minimally involved in either collecting or reporting data. The data recorded may mean very little in a fast-changing world.

A fresh approach might be to stop measuring the people who are there and start measuring the people who are not there. Instead of measuring the services the church provides, measure the needs of the people who are not in church. This is a very biblical approach — something every congregation talks about doing, while they are measuring and reporting useless statistics.

Think about it. . . if you measure what you have, you are valuing and protecting the status quo. The church becomes a protective organization, making decisions to hang on to things as they are and hope for slight progress doing things the same old way.

If you start measuring needs and counting the people who are not in church, you are opening your community to service, mission and outreach. It will change your focus and thinking. The Bible is full of mandates to do just that.

We just have to get as good at measuring potential as we are at measuring failure.

09 Jan 2012

Hierarchies and Neighborhood Ministries

A basic message of the Bible is “love one another.” It’s so simple. Why is it so hard, even for the people who are supposed to be experts?

The East Falls neighborhood of Philadelphia may have an unusually strong experience with church hierarchies and how they can ignore their own teachings.

East Falls is a working class neighborhood that has enjoyed a strong quality of life even through decades of urban turmoil. Its well-kept properties have become valuable. Others covet what East Falls has.

  • The local Episcocal Diocese moved in on St. James the Less a decade ago in a dispute with a bishop.
  • In 2008. the bishop of the local synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided she knew what was best for Christians in East Falls.
  • Now the archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church has decided that the best economical decision for the faithful of East Falls is for them to send their children to school in another neighborhood.

These are management decisions and are made with hierarchical interests in mind — not neighborhood interests.

When parishes lose their schools, they lose their lifeblood. The schools create a hub of activity in the community. They train the faithful. They create passion and loyalty. They foster love, faith and mission. Similarly, when neighborhoods lose their churches, they lose a strong source of hands-on leadership and labor, working with the interests of the community in mind.

If non-members of neighborhood churches think these decisions made by outsiders don’t affect them, they are wrong. People move to neighborhoods because of schools. People remain in neighborhoods because of church community. The economic value of church can be measured and it is impressive.

In both Catholic and Episcopal traditions, property is owned by the diocese. The Lutheran tradition is that property and its management belong to the people. Lutherans reference the practice of the more hierarchical churches in court as if they are part of their own governance. They are not — but the courts don’t want to sort this out.

Land and asset grabs by church hierarchies are making regular news. The economy tanked. Offerings dropped. Hierarchies must find new sources of revenues. Developing programs and ministries that create revenue are a lot of work. Those nice, paid-for properties in desirable neighborhoods like East Falls become awfully attractive. It becomes so easy to set aside the 10 Commandments. 8, 9, and 10 go out the window right away and some of the earlier commandments are hurt in the process.

Debt-free churches are the most-attractive.

The Redeemer situation is prime. This congregation was experiencing exciting growth despite the fact that the “hierarchy” had not supplied it with pastoral services in years. We had a healthy endowment and solid plan for the use of our property.

But synod practiced an intentional policy of neglect which made considerable efforts of the lay workers futile. Do not waste time and resources on small churches that may die in ten years. This is the published philosophy of Bishop Claire Burkat.

Ten years! That’s more than enough time for dedicated people to turn things around if you try. There are many churches of the same size and resources as Redeemer so she will be able to practice her philosophy of neglect again and again.

After locking East Falls out for more than two years, they are approaching the community for ideas on how to use the buildings that are vacant.

They are vacant because they made them vacant.

How would any organization feel if the community were invited to weigh in on how to use the resources that were seized by force without regard for the well-being of the people who provided the resources? The people of Redeemer can tell you. It feels like violation.

We suspect our Catholic neighbors are feeling the same way this weekend. We hope the community helps them fight.

08 Jan 2012

Can the ELCA Seize Church Property?

Someone typed this question into a search engine and found 2×2, so we will give you our answer.

If the ELCA follows it’s own rules, the ELCA cannot seize church property. The Articles of Incorporation which are the founding documents of the corporation and which outweigh any subsequent documents state clearly:

In the performance of its functions, this corporation (the Synod) shall not act as agent of or otherwise obligate the income or assets of the ELCA, any congregation of the ELCA, or any other synod of the ELCA without the express authorization of such entity.

This was a promise made to member congregations when they joined the ELCA in the late 1980s. A bishop, synod council or synod assembly has no power to undo the Articles of Incorporation with a vote to override it or by replacing it with a bylaw. The congregations are entitled, under Lutheran governance, to manage their own affairs and to vote on the use of their property and assets.

The model Synodical/ELCA constitution adheres to this.

†S7.01. This synod shall have a Synod Assembly, which shall be its highest legislative authority. The powers of the Synod Assembly are limited only by the provisions in the Articles of Incorporation, this constitution and bylaws, the assembly’s own resolutions, and the constitutions and bylaws of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

In 2×2’s experience, many church leaders, including bishops, are unaware of the Articles, which forbid the seizure of congregational property.

This has created enormous and costly problems within synods and between synods and their congregations. Synods have assumed the power to raid member churches for their assets — partly because other denominations with whom they are in “full communion” allow it. The coveting of member churches’ belongings has escalated with the decline in support. Hierarchies feel threatened. Their survival as they know it depends on finding funds.

With each unchallenged episode in Lutheran church seizures, every other Lutheran congregation is more endangered.

Secular courts do not want to be involved in church disputes and their hesitance — stating separation of church and state — gives synods immunity when violating their own governing laws.

An atmosphere of intimidation within the church serves to guarantee the powers they claim without constitutional authority will go unchallenged. (See Timeline and Post).

The Lutheran Church’s heritage practices congregational polity. Middle management, with a national office, are intended to serve congregations and facilitate services individual congregations cannot do alone — not manage them. Lutheran defining documents describe the relationships as “interdependent.”

The national church has side-stepped responsibility for the behaviors of bishops and the enforcement of constitutions. If it were a hierarchy, it is very bad at it. Its blind eye to actions of the second tier of power makes the second tier of power the first tier of power. Congregations have increasingly little say or redress. No wonder they are leaving in droves.

These issues should be handled internally, but the bodies given jurisdiction over congregational/synodical disputes (Synod Councils and Synod Assemblies) meet rarely, display a   bias toward synod leadership and do not allot sufficient time or fair procedures for hearings of disputes.

This is a serious failing in ELCA governance.  Predecessor bodies provided an ombudsmen committee to hear disputes — not a bad idea. Without a fair forum for grievances the church is nothing but a “go along to get along body” and cannot be an advocate for justice and peace.

So the answer to this question is: Synods are not allowed under their own rules to seize church property but they are able to get away with doing so because courts and member Lutherans are failing to insist they follow their own rules.

The tradition of Lutheran congregational polity is in danger.

Already, many congregations have had their communities plundered. More are likely to follow. It will be painful, costly and ugly — the Church at its worst.

Good leadership would address this now — before more people are hurt. 2×2 is betting that won’t happen!

05 Jan 2012

Churches Must Be Open to Be Accessible

This post is in response to a post on Alban Institute Roundtable about churches welcoming disabled or others representing a challenging status in society.

The Alban post begins by referencing a 2004 commercial created by the United Church of Christ that used stunning imagery of churches barring or ejecting the disabled, elderly, homosexual couples or people who visibly represent a racial or ethnic minority.

What follows is a very good review of the challenges facing congregations living up to Jesus’ mandate of inclusion.

The article states that the imagery was meant to be provocative.

It may be more than that. It may be true.

The fact is denominational leaders are entering sanctuaries and evicting the faithful, sometimes using stealth and chicanery. They are locking doors and barring access to members who rely on their neighborhood churches to support their faith, to know their problems without having to ask for help or special consideration, to strengthen their families, and let’s not forget, to worship.

The discussion of the church and inclusion should be broadened to include the endangered neighborhood church. If churches are closed and sold for their assets, it doesn’t matter if they have handicapped ramps, listening aids or large-type bulletins. They are not there to help anyone.

Denominations are taking from the people they label as frail to strengthen their own needs which are growing as mainline denominations decline and the economy fails. The attitude: It is too much trouble to serve them. We might as well take what they have and relieve our own problems.

Denominations are relying on “separation of church and state” to leave their authority unquestioned, even when their governing statutes forbid their actions. Intimidating tactics ensure that their own rank and file will not intervene. They assume absolute power — and we all know the saying that goes with that!

Bystanders, which include staff, clergy and congregations, assume that the victims are somehow being put out of their misery . . . that it’s all for the good of the Kingdom. They justify inaction and settle their consciences with . . . . “Well, the denomination knows better how to use resources than the smaller churches.” A study of church history does not bear this out, and that’s why the Lutheran Church and some other denominations foster congregational polity.

The people they are hurting include the very people the Christian mission seeks to help. The disabled and the disenfranchised play important roles in small churches in a very natural way. They are not “allowed” to serve as acolytes and ushers or readers. They just do these things as does everyone else. They don’t have to ask for help; their neighbors and families know their needs and their strengths. They — or should we say “we”– go to church where we have found this acceptance.

It is often the small churches with 100 members and valuable properties that denominations eye as easy pickings. In doing so, they threaten their entire denominational mission.

When you lock the doors of a neighborhood church, you are locking out the crippled, who can’t get to the large suburban churches that have elevators and ramps but no public transportation. You are locking out ethnic groups trying to make lives in the neighborhood where they have chosen to live. You are locking out disadvantaged children who walk to church by themselves when their single moms or dads work on Sunday morning. You are evicting the elderly who gave their best years to the neighborhood church and now need their support. You are putting the disadvantaged in a position where they have to beg to be included or noticed.

The imagery of that commercial is real. This is happening.

Accessibility begins with proximity.

‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 

03 Jan 2012

Why Does the Church Accept Failure?

2×2 has studied church statistics in the last two years. A growing church is a rarity. Almost all Lutheran churches in SEPA Synod are in decline — many in double-digit decline, including some of the “most important churches” (that’s a term used in Bishop Burkat’s book about Transforming Denominational Ministries). There is no room for any church to pass judgment on another.

What is most alarming is that failure seems to be accepted. Decline continues over years. Many churches have had the same pastor during many years of decline. This may be a byproduct of the call system that requires congregations to muster a two-thirds vote to change leadership. This process tends to be divisive and avoided for good reason, long past the point when needed.

Pastors are protected by the call system. They can collect a pay check even while steeples are falling. Some even expect periodic raises as income and attendance drop! Failure has no consequence.

Why does the Church accept failure from its leadership?

It starts at the top! The ELCA presiding bishop has no trouble traveling to Washington to advise our president on the politics of the Mideast, but he has been silent about many problems facing the ELCA, as if they don’t exist.

His attitude trickles down to the bishops which trickles down to the pastors which trickles down to the congregations. You end up with a church of words without action.

A great deal of effort is spent not rocking this ecclesiastic boat. Pastors serve in isolation. Asking for help might impact their autonomy. If things get really bad (as if they aren’t already), they need friends in the denomination to help them move on.

Lay people have a different sense of commitment to their ministries. It is a truly deep “call” to them; it is the foundation of their culture, faith, and legacy. They are not likely to move when their church is failing. They will either work harder or slowly fade from involvement.

Our Ambassador visits reveal just how influential the laity is. They are holding congregations together with little help and less credit. Sadly, they will be the first to take the blame when fingers start pointing. Just ask the members of Redeemer! Our members were sued by SEPA BEFORE we were able to exercise any process called for by the constitution. The clergy working with us, who voted for and encouraged our initiatives, disappeared faster than you can say “Luther is my uncle.”

This is not to say there are no problems among the laity. Many lay people admit that they try to avoid dealing with the denomination. They fear the very treatment that Redeemer experienced. So they keep sloughing along on their own with minimal funds or professional support. Many have only part-time professional leadership, which typically covers worship and visitation but not much in the way of mission or initiative.

Without initiative their work is like that of Sisyphus.

It’s only a matter of time. They will fail unless denominations can revise their attitudes. They should not be refusing to help small churches while they wait for laity to give up, yet that is the published leadership philosophy of the current SEPA bishop! (See review) They should not be discouraging churches by providing limited options for professional leadership. Caretaker ministries — in which pastors intentionally do nothing to encourage growth but tend only the needs of current waning membership — are an insult to the mission of the Church.  (Such ministries are also part of SEPA’s bishop’s published philosophy). Denominational leaders should not breeze into neighborhoods they haven’t visited in decades and dictate ministry solutions which solve their leadership placement problems and ambitions for church assets — not the congregation’s needs or mission.

These serious problems are side-stepped by the Annual Assemblies. There is little time allowed.

Our Ambassadors have noticed a troubling sentiment common among active Lutheran clergy. Many  use the same words: “We’ve elected our leadership; we have to support it” or “We have to trust the wisdom of the Bishop and Synod Council.”

They are wrong. The constitutions rely on the clergy and congregations to be the watchdogs of the church. The bishop and Synod Council serve the congregations. The constitutions work only when clergy and congregational representatives provide checks and balances over the leadership they elect. It’s their duty. To stand aside and watch poor leadership is apathetic and derelict. It does not speak well of Christianity or our denomination.

Ignoring these duties, hoping someone else or the secular courts will do the work, is the foundation of much church failure. Leadership at every level needs to be held accountable.

31 Dec 2011

New Year’s Resolutions for the Hospitable Church

As a people, Americans have become suspicious and xenophobic. We live in a world that recommends background checks and fosters credit checks for simplest of reasons. These attitutudes are bound to manifest in church life.

But church life should be different. We should be welcoming the people with spotty backgrounds. Christ died for them! The least we can do is welcome them into His church!

Most churches describe themselves as friendly. Some church web sites describe themselves as “truly friendly.” Many churches post a generic sign “All Welcome.”

Friendliness, however, is a beauty that can only be measured by the eye of the beholder. If visitors to your church leave feeling they were wallflowers, observers of friendliness, it is not hospitality.

Redeemer Ambassadors visited 38 churches in the last 18 months. We have experience as recipients of church hospitality. We think this is an area of church life that needs to be addressed.

Hospitality, once part of the fabric of American life, no longer seems to come naturally. It may have to be taught and nurtured. Even pastors, whom we presume received training in evangelism, seem to be awkward in greeting church visitors.

Some churches have assigned “greeters.” But the gauntlet of greeters characteristically do little more than hand you a bulletin. We suspect that visitors are rare in some congregations and that leads to a bit of rustiness.

In several of the churches we visited, the pastor disappeared after the service and did not greet people at the door. At times the pastor was present in the fellowship area but stood along the wall and waited for people to come to him/her.

While some pastors pointed us to guest books to sign, most never introduced themselves to us or asked our names. After 38 visits, only one pastor followed up with a phone call after our visit. Another returned a call when one of our ambassadors called him.

Some churches seemed to have fellowship going on somewhere else in the building. The congregation disappeared quickly after worship, failing to invite us to join. In many cases, people walked by in the narthex and never made eye contact. In one instance, when we approached them and asked a simple question such as the location of a restroom, they responded, “Oh, we thought you knew someone here” or “We thought you were here for the baptism.” Assumptions block hospitality.

The number of churches/pastors who exhibited true hospitality are so few as to be memorable to us. We suspect that if others were greeted the way we were in these churches that they would return. Here are a few efforts we remember and appreciated as visitors:

  • When a pastor personally invited us to fellowship, accompanied us and introduced us to a few people (one church visit).
  • When a pastor asked if he could meet with us sometime during the week (one church visit).
  • When a member took the time to give us a tour of their church and told us something of their history (three church visits).
  • When a lay member sent us a handwritten thank you note for our visit (one church visit).
  • When a member sat next to us and pointed things out in the bulletin (one church visit).
  • When we left knowing at least one member’s name (a few times).
  • When members of a church offered to help us (more than just pray) and followed through (three church visits).
  • When a member engaged us in extensive conversation that was about us as much as about them (six visits).
  • When congregation members prompted the worship leader to introduce visitors (two visits).
  • When a pastor asked us to join their congregation (one church visit).

Here are four easy resolutions your church can make in 2012 to become a more welcoming, hospitable church:

  • Make sure each visitor knows the name of at least one church member before they leave.
  • Make sure each visitor is addressed by name before they leave.
  • Make sure each visitor receives a direct and specific invitation to a church activity. It can be next week’s worship or some other event. Most people report that they became involved in a congregation because someone invited them! 
  • Contact your visitor within five days of their visit with a phone call or greeting card. Make it as personal as possible.
29 Dec 2011