4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

Commentary

Redeemer Ambassadors Year in Review

The Redeemer Ambassadors have now visited just shy of one fourth of the churches in SEPA Synod.

As we enter the 2012, we have some observations to share.

  • Attendance is challenged across the board. We attended many services with fewer people than Redeemer.
  • The Lutheran Church is aging. There are few children attending church and even fewer tweens and teens. A typical service at Redeemer had half the congregation under 18.
  • Hospitality is a challenge. Most congregations are friendly and say hello but generally few make any attempt to introduce themselves or engage visitors. This includes clergy.
  • There are many churches in interim, bridge or mission redevelopment ministries, which means that their ministries are monitored by the Synod to some extent. SEPA broke its interim ministry contract with Redeemer.
  • Worship style and communion practices differ from congregation to congregation.
  • Most congregations do not use hymnals but print comprehensive bulletins. Redeemer does too.
  • Racial and ethnic diversity is rare. Less than 10% of the congregations we visited had broad diversity. Redeemer is mixed both racially and culturally.
  • Languages other than English are rare as well. Redeemer is multilingual and our worship reflects this.
  • People love their congregations and are proud of who they are. So does Redeemer.
  • People feel little connection with the greater church. There is a sense that they are alone in ministry and that they cannot expect constructive help from their denomination. Synod had almost no contact with Redeemer for a decade. We feel the same way.
    Interesting aside: Several church consulting groups across the nation have published statistics that indicate that 75% of church members disapprove of their denominational leadership — with an additional 10-15% weighing in with “not sure” responses. This should be a cause of concern!
  • Most congregations need more leadership than they can afford the old-fashioned way. If congregations are to grow, the denomination needs to help them find creative and affordable solutions to leadership challenges. As it is, some congregations are doing this successfully on their own with impressive commitment from their lay leaders. Unfortunately, they sense that asking for help might bring the same kind of actions from Synod that Redeemer experienced.
  • Most churches have very little knowledge of their nearest neighboring Lutheran congregations and even less of those farther away. Redeemer was much like everyone else until we started our Ambassador’s program!
28 Dec 2011

Structuring the Church for Change

The need for change is a common topic in church circles. It is also a hot topic in the business world. It isn’t easy for either sub-group of society, but the business world is more likely to succeed. The people who can be catalysts for change are rewarded in the business world but are barely tolerated in the Church.

The Church wants change. Leaders say so. Pastors say so. Congregations say so. But the structure they work within is medieval. It is set up to nurture longevity. Change in today’s world is not oriented toward longevity.

The business world recognizes the need for dramatic change and is undergoing major restructuring. Business leaders are rethinking the fundamentals of how they provide services, including the way they are charging for their services. They are looking for ways to provide recurring funding streams, so all of their business is not hinged on cyclical activity. They are communicating with their clientele differently. They are interacting with vendors and customers differently. They are consciously putting service before dollars — and they are seeing that it makes all the difference.

The Church can learn from this. The care and nurturing of an archaic infrastructure stands in the way. Before they can consider “change,” congregations are expected to do a litany of costly things the same way — call a pastor for unending term calls, maintain a building, and hold all the same services and events. Mission is secondary to all of these, something for a core group to work at as resources and energy allow. To grow within this structure, a congregation must find more like-minded people who relate to existing leadership. That’s a huge challenge.

The cost of the infrastructure is putting the Church out of business. A bare-bones active church budget with a full-time pastor and building to maintain requires the steady support of 100 families. Yet that size community or larger becomes unwieldy in providing the atmosphere many people look for in a church. The Church is asking for people to buy into a costly infrastructure over which they have little influence or control. Most people take one look and say, “No thanks!” The Church would do well to remember that participation in Church is voluntary.

The Church needs to think about the world today and the pace of change in society and in our individual lives. Few of us play out the easily defined traditional roles — bread winner or homemaker. Most people change jobs and careers frequently. Multitasking is the order of the day.

If the Church does not recognize this it will become an institution for the aging — the people who have a connection with what the Church was and not what it needs to become.

The Church must address the following issues in a new way:

  • the way we train church leaders
  • the way we call church leaders
  • the expectations of church leaders
  • the education of all church members
  • the roles and expectations of the laity
  • the purpose of property and assets and how they are maintained and used for mission
20 Dec 2011

When Controversy Challenges the Meeting Process

This post is in response to the Alban Weekly Roundtable discussion on handling church controversy in meeting sessions.

Congregational meetings go awry for reasons.
• There are power issues.
• People feel that their interests are not being considered
• Communities have a sense that outside forces or hidden agendas are manipulating the outcome.

Conversely, meetings go well when people feel that what they have to say matters.

Meetings are necessary and most constitutions require them. But the constitutions do not preclude working on the issues before or after the meetings in talks with individuals with known interests in the outcome. That’s where true leadership can shine, but it requires time and energy.

Too often in church settings, professional leaders or congregational faction leaders want to dictate the outcome and use “meetings” to force their way. Voting becomes a weapon. The best organized is likely to win with voters who haven’t been seen in church for years suddenly populating the pews, prepared to raise their hands before leaving, perhaps to never return until their vote is needed again. Then the quorum and membership rules are dusted off and one issue becomes dozens of issues.

There are problems in calling for votes on sensitive matters prematurely. The outcome creates “winners” and “losers” and is rarely constructive. The ultimate goal is not to win but to find a solution that will move ministry forward, hopefully without losing a third of your members.

Outside moderators can be a disaster. They can arrive with the denomination’s interests as their agenda. At one such meeting the denominationally appointed moderator announced that the very issues the people desperately needed to address were not open to discussion. He then proceeded to dictate to the assembled congregation what they should do.

Attempting to side-step controversy is a terrible idea.

There are two (at least) alternatives for calling for “the vote” — neither of them without challenges.

Compromise
Compromises are solutions only if each side gains something they want and loses something they want. Too often compromises are proposed in a series of meetings that are nothing more than steps toward getting one side to make concessions to the other. After three or four meetings, the prevailing side has everything they want and the losers are left feeling that they have been slowly and methodically fleeced.

Consensus
Asking the group to agree to work toward consensus can be helpful. This assures the minority (who are sometimes right) will be heard. When you begin the discussion by promising that no decision will be made without full approval of the entire body, people who really want their side to prevail will do more than “get out the vote.” They will know they have to work toward achieving their goals with consideration for others. Working toward consensus is a commitment. Used over time on smaller decisions, it can become a healthy habit for a congregation and contentious meetings will be few and very far between.

It also helps to remind people of the ultimate reason for being a Christian community.

On one very challenging day, the disgruntled had gathered and were chafing at the bit for an opportunity to expound. Each side was loaded for bear and it was not difficult to identify the opposing factions. The meeting leader handed out hymnals and asked the group to choose a hymn. One member shouted “Everyone turn to the funeral section.” But then an amazing peace fell on the group. They began discussing their favorite hymns. Eventually the group chose two or three which were all sung a capella.

The atmosphere in the room shifted. They were able to work together to choose hymns and a few minutes later they were able to work together to resolve the serious issues facing the group. The moderator had made it clear that each person mattered and the ultimate goal was the glory of God.

Meetings are important. It is best to do a lot of groundwork before the meeting. Visitation and private talks can calm things down and affirm each member that they are not being railroaded. They can have a say without a public demonstration.

And there is work to be done after the meeting as well. Promises made in reaching a decision must be kept. Any “losers” must be visited and reminded that their views are still important and they can continue as valued contributors.

Yes, it is work — but not more work than healing the wounds of a meeting gone bad.

19 Dec 2011

SEPA-ELCA Rethinks Its Attitude Toward East Falls Ministry

  • “Ministry in East Falls is not good use of the Lord’s money.”
  • “A church with no parking lot has no chance of survival.”
  • “Mission outreach? You’re not allowed to do mission outreach.”
  • “White Redeemer must be allowed to die. Black Redeemer . . . we can put them anywhere.”
  • “There are no ministers for you.”

These are quotes from SEPA leadership regarding Redeemer in the last 15 years. Apparently the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is changing its attitudes and platitudes. They have hinted a new ministry is about to begin to the people of East Falls (while they are still pursuing the people who sacrificed for the old ministry in court).

Are they admitting they were wrong all along!? The Lord’s money (provided by the people of East Falls) can be well spent in East Falls?

Are they really planning a new ministry for this neighborhood which they have bullied and abused for nearly two decades? Or . . . is this a pre-election move to satisfy those voting for bishop in 2012 that SEPA’s motives in East Falls were part of a well-planned strategy with God’s Love at its core?

Will SEPA suddenly stop suing East Falls Lutherans and welcome them back into their church? Or will the “new ministry” in East Falls welcome only new and better Christians who have no baggage in life — and therefore little need of a church?

Will this new church in East Falls be the only Lutheran Church that does not own its property and is totally managed by outsiders? Will this new community of Christians be divided from the outset by those “allowed” to serve as leaders and those who, by virtue of being part of Redeemer in the past, will be banned from full participation. This (which has no constitutional foundation in Lutheranism) is precisely what SEPA recommended in court.

Is SEPA a reconciling denomination? Time will tell.

Today’s scheduled “Clean Out” of Redeemer Lutheran Church, announced as a preparation for a new ministry to this neighborhood, did not draw a crowd. We counted three or four adults and a couple of youth. By noon they had mostly carried armfuls of items and placed them in the trunks of their cars. Hmmm. If these items are worth saving, shouldn’t they be saved for the newer and better Lutheran Church planned by the Synod?

We’ve already watched as other things were carried from Redeemer. Ten folding chairs were placed in someone’s hatchback. Four cartons of records went into another car. The neighborhood reports.

The items they were salvaging from the people of Redeemer this morning included boxes and books and kitchen items and such treasures as Christmas stockings. Some hopeful Lutheran children, eyes bright with Christmas excitement, may receive a gift of four-year-old candy courtesy of the people of Redeemer.

Meanwhile Redeemer, “closed” by a constitutionally questionable edict, plans a Whoville Party to celebrate the third year SEPA has locked the neighborhood out of God’s House on Christmas Eve.

What did the Grinch do? He cleaned out Whoville just before Christmas. Yes, Virginia, there is a Grinch!

17 Dec 2011

16 Traits of a Creative Church

Creative people are often not welcome in the church.

That may seem like a bold statement, but there is some truth in it. Creative people insist on change. The Church talks about wanting change, but it is often presented by people who are rather transparent in their real goals. They want the Church to change their way. They want the Church to be more secure financially. They want the congregation to give and get along.

If the formula is so simple, why are most churches in decline?

If Churches are to embrace change they must embrace creativity, and that is a rare commodity within the rigid framework that many churches have. In some of our Ambassador visits, we have encountered congregations that post in their bulletin or web sites a list of ways newcomers can contribute: sing in the choir, serve on a committee, join the altar guild, usher, read lessons, etc. That list can be a formidable barrier to thought leadership or creativity. There is a sense that people are pegs that fill the Church’s predrilled holes.

Today’s Church needs to explore the concept of “creativity” and the power (and change) that word can create.

Creative people solve problems. Often “creative” is used to describe talent. “John is a creative person. He plays the organ so well.” But what problems did John solve? It is indeed a blessing to have talented people. But creativity is something different. It’s an atmosphere . . a way of thinking. When creativity is nurtured, talented people come out of the woodwork! You might be surprised at the talent you didn’t dream was there!

Here are some traits to nurture in your creative congregation.

  1. Creative congregations are motivated by mission. It begins with a personal sense of mission and is later applied to a group’s sense of mission.
  2. Creative congregations foster prayer.  Prayer reminds us of Whom we serve and why we have a mission. Many opportunities should be provided for individual and community prayer.
  3. Creative congregations discourage labels.  If your Church has been exploring a problem for some time they have probably subconsciously labeled every aspect of the problem. “Those people are adversarial.” “The pastor won’t like this idea.” “Old members won’t go for it.” “The community is going to object.” “We don’t have people who can do that.” Get rid of the labels. Just stop it!
  4. Creative congregations challenge the advice of “experts.” Would the Church be facing such problems today if the “experts” had all the answers? Experts have some answers. However, experts can have their own agendas. They want to see their pet solutions put into place. Don’t ignore them — just don’t be afraid to challenge them. Creativity requires fresh thinking. If every problem is approached with a “must do” list, you will end up with the same solutions, proposed by the same experts.
  5. Creative congregations explore ideas. They ask the question “What if . . . ?”
  6. Creative congregations look for order in confusion. By sorting through a mess, you might find some treasures. By rearranging the chaos, you might find exciting connections between ideas.
  7. Creative congregations embrace serendipity. The unexpected can spark the change you are looking for. In church work, serendipity can walk through your door any Sunday. It can be a new person, a new community event, a new learning, a new pastor. Embracing serendipity can change the definition of success and failure. Make it a habit. So what if only three people showed up at your special event. What did you do with those three people that gave them something to talk about  the next day?
  8. Creative congregations are patient . . . to an extent. They know that the creative process takes time. They know the discipline required to work at it. As long as the process has direction, their people will exhibit patience. But if the process is stone-walled, they will leave. Water and watch creativity grow. Ignore and watch it wither.
  9. Creative congregations are tenacious. They will work hard at a project given an environment that allows them freedom to make a difference.
  10. Creative congregations network. Change requires fuel. Networking with other churches and neighborhood groups provides the opportunity to share objectives and ideas. This helps congregations find resources and ideas.
  11. Creative congregations are expressive. They are confident in their mission and are not afraid to say so — as individuals or as a group. Provide venues for members to express themselves. These might be within worship, a parish newsletter, or as part of discussion groups. Create a congregational blog!
  12. Creative congregations follow their instincts.  It may be the Holy Spirit nagging at you.
  13. Creative congregations are courageous. A truly creative congregation is going to be challenged. The Church must at times challenge hierarchical and societal policies. Congregations that have fostered creativity are best equipped to face such challenges.
  14. Creative congregations challenge naysayers. And there will be plenty of them.
  15. Creative congregations constantly reassess. They are not afraid to admit they are wrong. They try new ideas, assess progress and tweak with abandon. Failure to try will leave you with the same old church. Good ideas that may one day fulfill their promise will be abandoned too soon.
  16. Creative congregations are not afraid to have fun. People discover themselves in games and laughter. Provide many opportunities for your congregation to enjoy themselves. Send your members to church camp! You will be creating creative people. Creative people create creative ministries.
12 Dec 2011

How Important Are Our Children in Our Ministries?

As we researched the topic of Children in Worship we looked online for training or seminary programs specializing in chlldren’s ministry. We wanted to see what they had to offer on this topic.

We went to search engines and plugged in various combinations of key words — words like “seminary training for children’s ministry.” We found practically nothing — only a handful of seminars offered by independent religious trainers.

The closest matches were for youth ministers. Some denominations had a category called Children, Youth and Family Ministry.

It would appear that ministry to children is uncharted territory as a discipline of ministry.

Preaching to children does not appear to be an emphasis of theological training. We found a salary study that revealed that Associates in Ministry were sometimes filling this role. Salary packages were fairly low and have dropped in recent years.

Congregations do not tend to budget for Children’s Ministry. As congregations grow, the typical progression of staff development begins with a solo pastor and adding a visitation pastor (most likely concentrating on the elderly), and then adding an associate pastor who may double as youth pastor. The allocation of resources for children’s ministries is almost nonexistent.

The Church has traditionally relied on volunteers to provide leadership for teaching children. This approach is challenged by modern lifestyles — working parents and divorced parents all have less ability to commit their weekends. The volunteer pool is shallow. The need is greater than ever.

Small churches are the most challenged. Many cannot afford one full-time pastor much less pastors emphasizing children’s ministry. Any specialized help for children’s ministry is an unrealistic goal. Yet this is precisely the area of ministry small churches need to emphasize. Often, we do not get much encouragement from our denominations. They see a congregation with aging members and they determine that what these congregations need is a part-time pastor to tend to the needs of the elderly. They even have a term for it — caretaker ministries. While the needs of the aging must not be neglected, failure to concentrate on the potential of a congregation to reach young people in their neighborhoods is squandering opportunity.

The times are crying for a new approach to neighborhood ministry, but we seem to be locked into the mindset that teaching children should be the realm of volunteers and any programming should be run on shoestring budgets (in other words $0).

2×2 developed a program pioneering ministry to answer this need in aging congregations. We focused on beginning with summer outreach — the Vacation Bible School (www.vbsaid.com). This would be a short-term investment, something any church could try without fear of not being able to support it long-term.

VBSaid would bring a team of trained leaders to small congregations to lead a summer program and train congregational members to continue the programming, spending several months with each church to recruit teachers, students, provide training, run a two-week program, and work with each church to plan followup programming. The proposed cost was modest for the type of help offered — about $5000 per church. Calling a pastor dedicated to this type of work would cost at least $30,000.

Our first advertising for this program last summer drew responses from several congregations. None wanted to fund it. And so these congregations went another year without reaching out to the young.

We suspect that the Church is getting what it is willing to pay for. Sunday Schools are failing, VBS programs are being abandoned. Educational efforts are being fit into 40 minutes during worship. Congregations barely 100 years old are aging themselves out of existence without a viable plan to reach new generations with the Good News.

It is engrained in our thinking that successful mission must be done the way it was done for years. We are more willing to accept congregations failing than to find solutions. Nevertheless, 2×2 will continue to explore solutions. We invite your observations.

03 Dec 2011

Can Hierarchical Churches Survive?

The Lutheran Experience

In the Church there are two types of churchwide structure — congregational polity in which congregations maintain rights to manage their own affairs and property and hierarchical in which an umbrella leadership has rights to manage outpost ministries. Denominations tend to be one or the other but some find themselves on the fence. They started out as one or the other but have drifted in practice. Confusion has resulted in some cases. Major legal battles have resulted in others.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (2×2’s roots) is a denomination formed in the 1980s by a merger of three Lutheran bodies. At the time of the merger, the polity was clear. Congregations owned and controlled their own property. Laity and clergy were equal partners in ministry. Synods existed to serve, not manage.

Leaders in predecessor bodies were called presidents. The new body decided to change the name to “bishop” for only one reason — to boost status in ecumenical dialog among denominations that were more familiar with “bishops.” Only the name was to change. Their role in the church was to remain the same — a servant leader.

It was not long before our “presidents” began to assume the authority of “bishops” in other denominations. Clergy and laity have come to accept the change. The further removed they become from the memory of true Lutheran polity, the less is questioned. The Lutheran church today finds itself in conflict. Governing documents become less recognized with each unchallenged infraction.

Leaders vs Managers

The resulting conflicts parallel similar challenges faced by the business world in the much discussed topic: Leaders vs Managers.

Congregations look to their denominational bodies for leadership but often what they get is attempts at management. Congregations are frustrated that people so distant from their situation are so ready to tell them how to do ministry in their own communities with their own resources. Pastors in the field  are forced to balance allegiance to bishop with responsibility to parish.

In severe cases, denominations are forcing closure against the will of the congregation and laying total claim to the assets. This has intensified as the economy strains the resources of all.

A recent article in the Harvard Business Review can shed some light on this shift from congregational polity to ecclesial hierarchy.

In the article, “First, Let’s Fire All the Managers,” Gary Hamel provides a description of hierarchical business leadership as inefficient, cumbersome and costly. This is true in the church, too.

  • Hierarchies create expense.
    A boss oversees supervisors who oversee managers who oversee foremen who oversee workers, creating layer after layer of expense. Management becomes the job of everyone but the lowest level workers! (ELCA constitutions are written the other way around!) Congregations cannot afford this structure. This does not automatically translate to inability to fulfill ministry, but this conclusion is often reached by hungry denominational bodies.
  • Hierarchies lead to poor decision-making.
    “The typical management hierachy increases the risk of large, calamitous decisions.” Hamel explains that as the power of the hierarchy grows, the ability of the lower ranks to challenge their decisions wanes. When power becomes incontestable, expect royal screwups, he warns. You do not have to look far in either the business or religion section of the newspaper for evidence. This may be the root of some of the challenges the ELCA is facing today exemplified by a 10% exodus of its congregations and escalating court battles.
  • Hierarchies are sluggish.
    As a hierarchy becomes more complex, initiatives and responses become more difficult. (Remember the Middle Ages from which Protestantism emerged. It was the pinnacle of the era of church hierarchy!) Managers can spend more time protecting authority than reacting to ideas presented by the lower ranks. Add to that the power to kill ideas that might threaten their own and the result is status quo at best — decline, conflict or demise at worse.
  • Hierarchies inhibit innovation.
    When lower level workers have little voice they must work harder to implement even simple decisions. Volunteer church workers become less valuable as they become demoralized and lose incentive to improve either their own status or their congregational mission.

Our Ambassadors have encountered this quiet desperation of the faithful. They have high hopes for their congregations but cannot find a way to make it happen. They are fighting an uphill battle with leadership claiming powers to dictate. Dictating managers are finding themselves with fewer people to manage — but they expect the same salaries and benefits.

That’s something the church hasn’t grasped: Participation of the faithful is optional.

All of these issues were faced by Lutherans before. We hashed out the relationships we wanted to have 500 years ago. We revisited the issues 200-300 years ago as Lutherans began to populate the New World.

Apparently, the polity of our faith requires vigilance which is much more difficult in congregations that have dwindling parish education programs. Newcomers, unacquainted with our history, can easily accept attempts at adopting hierarchical leadership. In the resulting vacuum of tradition and knowledge, laity with firm roots in Lutheran tradition can be seen as trouble-makers. In reality they are protecting their traditions which have been tested over centuries and which are protected in their founding documents.

Lutherans must return to their heritage.

30 Nov 2011

10 Reasons to Question the Wisdom of Interim Ministry

Interim Ministry is a fairly modern trend of assigning a short-term minister to a parish that has recently ended a relationship with one pastor and intends to call a new pastor. The process is described in a similar manner by various denominations as a time to minister to the people and help them identify ministry objectives.

One denomination described the interim period as a buffer between a congregation and its relationship with a former pastor and expectations of a new minister. One said, “The interim minister makes the necessary changes in a congregation. No reason to have the congregation get mad at the new minister. Let the interim take the heat.”

The days of a congregation enjoying the leadership of a single pastor for decades may be numbered.

This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but there is a danger that the practice could serve less noble purposes. Our recent visits to 34 congregations found a surprising percentage engaged in some stage of interim ministry. Some were just beginning the process. Some had been in interim status for more than a year. One had a new interim at our first visit and we learned a few weeks later that another interim was stepping in. “It didn’t work out,” the newer pastor explained.

Both the number of interim ministries we encountered and their length raised questions. We do not claim to have the answers but the questions could be important.

  1. What other aspects of our lives have such long fallow periods? We change presidents and mayors, jobs (and even spouses) without months of interim work. An argument might be that presidents and mayors have long campaigns before they are chosen for their jobs. That leads us to consider the call process.
  2. Perhaps it is the call process that needs changing? With the average length of pastorates fairly short — less than seven years — an interim ministry can be a frequent occurrence, adding to instability. The scenario could be 12-18 months of interim ministry, 12 months of honeymoon, three years of ministry, 12-18 months of interim ministry, etc. (Revolving door). While pastors may feel that the interim has eased the transition process, the lay point of view is that the process starts all over again every time the face in the pulpit changes — interim or not. The call process, at least in our denomination, can be unsettling. Candidates are given every opportunity to learn about the congregation, while the names of candidates are withheld from the congregation until a sample sermon is delivered. The approval process is often based on little more — yet congregations expect so much more!
  3. Shouldn’t congregations undergo a constant process of self-examination? If ministry is to be effective, congregations will change constantly. Communities also change quickly.
  4. Shouldn’t all pastors have skills to help congregations assess goals and strategize?
  5. Does the interim process change the role of lay representatives? Who does the interim pastor report to and work for — the congregation or the regional body? In several of the churches we visited, the interim pastor announced that he or she would be making a report to the bishop that week. There was no mention of any lay involvement.
  6. Wouldn’t it be easier to train one leader to handle change than to try to work with dozens of congregation members?
  7. Is the interim process good use of congregational resources? Congregations pay good money to the interim for a very short-term investment. If this is a period where ministry concentrates on self-analysis, that translates to a long period of time when resources are spent on activity that is not, at least for the time being, outreach-oriented. Are visitors during the interim going to be attracted to a congregation in long-term transition?
  8. Do interim ministries meet the career needs of pastors and administrative needs of regional bodies more than the ministry needs of congregations? Interim pastors are making short-term commitments. Short-term commitments are safer entry points for the many seminary candidates entering ministry as a second career. Interim pastors don’t have to consider the hassles of moving and relocating families. It’s an attractive opportunity for pastors who don’t want to make changes in their lives that may not match the career objectives of their spouses. But the congregations are expected to change!
  9. Do interim pastorates change the political balance? An overlooked consequence of the over-dependence on interim pastors is the shift of power away from the congregation. Interim pastors have close ties and loyalty to the denominational body and its current leadership. When a high percentage of congregations have interim ministries, that has the potential to skew the decisions of representative governing bodies.
  10. Why should the interim process, led by experts in interim ministry, take more than three months?
21 Nov 2011

Ministries in Decline — The Boat’s Getting Crowded

The year was 1998. A few representatives from SEPA Synod Council were meeting with Redeemer congregation.

They had just made their first attempt to close our church and seize our assets. Working with the congregation council behind the backs of the congregation, they had convinced leaders to resign en masse to create constitutional grounds (where none existed) for SEPA to step in.

On cue, seven council members tossed their resignations (drafted by a synod staff person) onto the table. A synod representative scooped them up and declared “synodical administration.” But three council members refused to be part of the scheme. With the help of two anonymous pastors, they re-established the congregational council — following the constitution — and successfully challenged SEPA’s plot.

SEPA’s interference damaged our church and the network of friendships that characterizes all congregations. The council members who had worked secretly with Synod were disgraced. They left Redeemer with their families. Some had been at Redeemer for decades. We learned that our Synod rarely measures the personal cost of their actions.

There was also damage to our congregation’s reputation. The conflict challenged giving and our ability to attract leadership. Branded.

At this meeting, a synod council member (a pastor from a neighboring church) started to talk to our members about statistics of small churches, patiently explaining that we couldn’t survive.

We pointed out that what congregations in the heart of the city were currently experiencing would become problematic for churches in outer city neighborhoods and suburbs within a decade or so. It was time to find answers.

A decade or more has passed and the churches we visit today on the edges of Philadelphia look remarkably like Redeemer looked in 1998, including the congregation of the pastor who was lecturing us 14 years before. Most congregations are experiencing serious decline, often in double digits.

We are learning through our Ambassador visits, that even suburban churches with fairly healthy worship attendance face financial challenges. Two of the largest congregations we have visited have liquid assets very similar to Redeemer’s and are carrying a similar debt load. A remarkable statistical difference is that Redeemer was growing in membership and attendance while TREND reports show that the larger churches are in decline.

If so many congregations are failing, why are we pointing fingers? Time and resources would be better spent looking for answers.

One thing stands out from our experience. The trustees in 2008 reported to Synod Assembly that we had a vibrant outreach ministry, but it was not run in cooperation with Synod’s Mission Director. In other words, Redeemer was growing without Synod’s help!

There is NO requirement for congregations to run evangelism efforts past the Synod for approval. That goes against Lutheran polity.

The persistent attacks from our denomination have given Redeemer a valuable perspective. We actively seek answers to modern ministry challenges. This IS Lutheran polity.

We recovered from the 1998 damage and were again growing in 2007 when Bishop Burkat, facing serious Synod financial challenges, decided to evict our congregation from our property, effectively excommunicating us. As we approach 2012, without a building or much in the way of money, we continue our ministry and have a glimpse of where churches must go to thrive in a dramatically different world. We continue to grow in ways we did not anticipate as we create a worldwide community, forging invigorating intra- and cross-denominational bonds.

Congregations must be encouraged to find their own answers to ministry challenges. The prescribed way — by every statistical measure — is not working!

19 Nov 2011

Our Once and Future Church

Today’s Alban Institute Weekly Forum builds on the re-release of the books written in the 1990s by its founder and president emeritus, Dr. Loren Mead. The Once and Future Church (1991), Transforming Congregations for the Future (1994), and Five Challenges for the Once and Future Church (1996) tackle the very issues our sponsoring congregation, Redeemer Lutheran Church, has been facing since 1998.

None of our members was a scholar of his work at this time. We were just lay members working at what we believed was our mission. As we review the five challenges Mead poses for the church, we find remarkable similarities to the direction our congregation took — without leadership pointing the way but with dedicated lay people grappling, uncompensated and unrecognized, with issues as big as worldwide church.

Our discipleship has not been without cost. We have suffered both as community and as individuals. Most of the time we found ourselves very much alone. The church as a whole was struggling, its denominational leadership was struggling, its individual congregations — large and small — were counting every penny. Our small church was deemed insignificant.

Mead writes:

For now, here are the five challenges I see we have ahead of us: 

  • To transfer the ownership of the church. 
  • To discover new structures for the church. 
  • To discover a passionate spirituality. 
  • To make the church a new community and source of community. 
  • To become an apostolic people. 

Redeemer deals with each of these issues:

  • We insist that the ownership of our community rests in the congregation. Our constitution and church polity agree with our position. But this has been of no protection. When assets are coveted, governing documents are quickly rewritten in the minds of church leadership. Clergy serving us disappeared with little or no notice or explanation. We were eventually evicted from our property. This was intended to be a final blow. Our denomination even predicted publicly that within six months, our congregational identity would die. 26 months later our congregation still meets weekly and has found new ways to serve which do not rely on property or professional leaders. 
  • Left without a building to support, we began creating a new congregational structure which reached out to other congregations, denominations and the spiritually minded with no church affiliation. How fortunate that the world was never more prepared for this type of outreach!
  • We discovered within ourselves a spirituality we didn’t know we had when we were passive pew-sitters, receptors of our clergy’s sense of spirituality. A foundation was quickly laid for the development of dormant leadership skills.
  • We embraced outreach tools that the church as a whole has been very slow to use to anywhere near full potential. Within months we found that our community potential was worldwide.
  • We work now to create an apostolic presence using modern tools.

Mead goes on to write:

“We need to recognize that a classic conflict of interest is at work here. Clergy-dominated institutions make many decisions in which clergy have a direct stake: salaries and job security, for example—sometimes involving prestige and preference. In our society we generally feel that institutions that nurture “conflict of interest” frequently make bad policy—policy that supports the welfare of those with the conflict of interest not the welfare of the entire institution.”

Mead calls for more dialog between clergy and laity. He cautions that dialog must be entered into with equal respect among participants. This, Redeemer has found, has been impossible. The conflict we have faced has been fought for four years with virtually no dialog and no foundation for mutual respect. Power, not mission, was central to the conflict from the outset.

Mead’s books were rightfully acclaimed when they were published. As they are re-released in a single volume for a new generation of church leaders, we can only ponder why his respected advice has been so strongly resisted by the readers who once found his thinking so ground-breaking.

We hope for a new generation who can not only applaud his wisdom but also apply it!

14 Nov 2011