4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

ELCA

We’re Not in Kansas Anymore.

ruby slippers

And we may never return.

When Dorothy left home with no particular plan for her future, she ended up visiting the land of Oz. She returned to the world she knew wiser for her visit and assured that the place she called home was heaven on earth. She needed to leave in order to appreciate it.

Not so in the mainline church. Fifty years ago there were six major mainline denominations that accounted for the majority of people who called themselves Protestant Christians. Lutherans were one of the six.

Today these six denominations are in serious decline. Non-denominational churches or smaller denominations have a bigger piece of the Protestant pie. But the pie is being nibbled away.

I’ve been reading the statistical studies of George Barna. His Group did research the scientific way, issuing a report in 2008.

Redeemer’s Ambassadors just started visiting churches of our denomination. Nothing scientific about it. But our findings are empirical. We look up a church on Saturday afternoon and visit on Sunday. We’ve visited close to half the congregations in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. We’ve found the Barna Group statistics to be true. If anything, they are even more dire today, five years later.

The average age of a mainline pastor in 2008 was 55. We’ve seen only a few younger than that and most are considerably older.

His report talks about today’s short pastoral tenure. Most pastors stay in one parish only about four years. Since the current custom in our denomination is to place an interim pastor for as long as two years when a pastor leaves, there is really no realistic expectation that any pastor will become a “settled” pastor. The key leadership position in most churches is a revolving door. Smaller churches tend to be waiting rooms for pastors hoping for openings in larger congregations with bigger budgets.

We hear pastor after pastor talk about taking the training for serving as an interim. They may soon be the majority! That this is so widespread disproves the tendency of church leaders to blame congregations when tenures are short. The commitment level seems to be low.

Shorter tenures may not be a bad thing.  Society is no longer settled. But how this is to work while maintaining congregational polity and the interest of lay people will be the challenge. Lay leadership is bound to wane when lay Christians provide the continuity in ministry but must exist under synodical scrutiny for an undesignated period of time—every four years. 

This 2008 report reveals that 35% of people attending church are 60-plus. Our experience is that number can be easily doubled. The elderly are the majority in almost every congregation we have visited. Children in worship are rare. Frequently, there are none. Youth are even rarer. Young adults are in the minority.

The report cites the inability of the mainline church to attract racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Hispanic and Asian. Our visits reinforce that finding. In addition, we see very little diversity within congregations. There are just a few that have any measurable diversity. Most are either predominantly black or white—mostly white. Synod Assemblies can crow all they want about diversity. Statistics don’t back it up.

Interestingly, the report points to the quality of leadership as presenting serious challenges. “especially regarding vision, creativity, strategic thinking, and the courage to take risks.” Our experience mirrors and magnifies this finding. Church leadership is in a rut. It cries to the laity to pull them out of the rut, but it gives them no power to do so. In fact, it can be very judgmental, even punitive, towards lay leadership if they attempt differing approaches to ministry. Yet the need for transformation is regularly preached. 

Our visits and experience attest that this is a critical problem and perhaps the biggest threat to the future of the Church. The professional leadership model just isn’t working at any level and is unlikely to change without some major fresh blood. The Church has a hard time generating or recognizing talent that can make a difference. Laity are valued for their support not their talent and initiative. Pastors tend to exist in their own worlds. They are rewarded for being good followers, not leaders.

The report goes on to talk about emerging options for Christians and their greater exposure to different religious expressions as changing the face of the mainline Church.

Perhaps we should have been paying more attention to independent churches and the religious expression of smaller denominations all this time. We might have learned something. We still can.

Perhaps our Oz is a “melting pot” phenomenon. Maybe the lessons we need to learn have something to do with recognizing that we and our neighbors are not who we think we are. Congregants are likely to find this refreshing and exciting. Mainline church structure may find it bewildering and threatening.

But most alarming may be the economic statistics. Those who attend church are less well to do than they used to be. The wealthy have found other, more rewarding places to spend their money.  

The educational level of church leaders has dipped. Salaries have risen.

Offerings have dropped. More than a third of those who attend church do not contribute at all. At the same time church budgets have doubled.

In our experience  the aging of the church-going population has sparked a move by church institutions to corner the market on endowment giving. Seminaries, social service agencies and regional bodies encourage the donors to think of them when planning their estates. Any questions, just call their development officer. Be wined and dined while the papers are drawn up.

Fifty years ago, those bequests might have been designated for the local churches. Small churches don’t have development staff to work with members. In addition, regional bodies are assuming powers to claim gifts bestowed on small congregations. Future gifts are unlikely. People want their money to go where they want it to go! A lot of dollars that could be supporting congregations are disappearing.

We are in the Land of Oz. Are we learning any lessons?

If we can ever return to the health and influence of decades past, what might we do differently?

There’s no place like home.

photo credit: drurydrama (Len Radin) via photopin cc

01 Jun 2013

Memorial Day Message: It all began with a land grab!

Anglican Bishop Sues Vocal Lay Member

Today is Memorial Day. We honor the many who have fought for the freedoms we have today. It’s a good day to revisit what we in the Church are doing with our freedoms.

A significant story involving the Church comes to our attention this month from Canada.

It all began with a land grab.

Now it’s a court battle pitting a bishop and a denomination’s best legal minds against a vocal layman.

Should we, residents of the Land of the Free, be concerned?

There are significant similarities that ELCA Lutherans should note. Here’s an excerpt from the Canadian story.

The ultra-liberal Anglican Bishop of Niagara, the Rt. Rev. Michael Bird has sued an orthodox Anglican blogger, a layman, alleging that he was libeled 31 times on Anglican Samizdat, a blog by David Jenkins that presents facts and pokes satirical fun at liberal Anglican leaders who depart from “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

The Bishop of Niagara was one of his targets.

The claim seeks:

  • $400,000 in damages plus court and legal costs.
  • An interim and permanent injunction to shut down Anglican Samizdat.
  • An interim and permanent injunction prohibiting Jenkins from publishing further comments about Michael Bird.

Link to full story.

Isn’t it a bit funny that someone labeled as an “ultra-liberal” would attack free speech—even if delivered with a Canadian accent. 

Canada has its own Bill of Rights, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On this side of the Niagara, the same Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects freedom of religion also protects freedom of speech.

The root problem is church leaders thinking so much of themselves that they shield themselves with the first amendment as they take actions that in a secular venue could be challenged in the courts—if not considered criminal.

The ruling in the SEPA-Redeemer case was made without ever hearing the case — even after five years of courtroom drama. The court determined that the issues were not within the jurisdiction of the courts under separation of church and state. However, a minority opinion concludes that if the law were to be applied, Redeemer’s arguments have significant merit. Two judges since have indicated that they, too, consider the dissenting opinion to have value.

Church leaders count on loyal obedience of followers who also benefit from their dubious actions. The same Synod Assembly that gave the bishop permission to take Redeemer’s property—defying their own governing documents—approved a healthy six-figure deficit. The Church can do anything they want. They are the Church.

Dissent is part of Lutheran heritage. How have Lutherans become so weak?

Church leaders work hard on their presentation. They hold the future of the clergy in their hands and can rely on their support. They also control all venues for discussion and media.

At least they did until the term “blog” became known.

Even now, Church leaders tell people how hard they work with congregations—how they use a rigorous process of dialog and discernment. They are very sure that everyone will believe them because they are Church leaders—even when there is no mutual discernment, dialog or any effort whatsoever to work together. No one asks for facts or evidence. Lay people who cite statistics and facts must be wrong because they are lay people. Church leaders can just repeat the same unsupported rhetoric and they are applauded. Bishops make pronouncements. Loyal followers stand back, out of the line of fire, and offer support—or more likely, say nothing whatsoever. This type of behavior prompted the Reformation 500 years ago. And here we are again.

Christians are not obligated to follow leaders simply because they are elected. Rank and file Christians are obligated to speak out when they see abuses and wrong actions and teachings. This is part of the supreme document of our faith—The Bible, sometimes called The Word of God.

In a free society that protects religion, it is imperative that religious followers monitor the actions of leaders. If they don’t they are at risk of being a cult.

Sadly, courts are not equipped to see beyond the rhetoric of religious leaders and probe the causes of their actions. Consequently any layperson who follows duty and conscience risks considerable loss, including:

  • heritage.
  • status within the faith community.
  • their property and assets (personal as well as communal).
  • their faith.
  • friends and family.
  • the fruits of years of volunteer service.
  • the benefits of years of monetary support.
  • and now, at least in Canada, all possessions, including the life savings intended to support you in old age. Mr. Jenkins is 65 years old. 

We could simply say “shame on the Canadian church leaders,” but we know how close this scenario is to what has been happening in East Falls with attacks on the individual members of Redeemer going on long after the objective of grabbing our property was decided. (Yes, right here, where George Washington camped with his freedom fighters on the same stretch of land where the LCA once had its headquarters.)

None of this costly and public conflict is necessary. Church leaders need only treat lay leaders with respect (love one another) and follow the teachings of their faith (do not sue one another, do unto others…). They need to stop coveting the property of member churches. Breaking the covet Commandments leads to breaking several other Commandments and the slow and steady deterioration of the Church’s mission.

Church leaders who encounter criticism or resistance, whether merited or not, have a less costly choice. They can write their own blog and respond to criticism. They can actually have the dialog they tell everyone they are having. Why not try peacemaking?

Using the courts against their members while they cry “separation of church and state” has the potential for a dual payoff. They might be awarded a lot of money while humiliating and intimidating lay people and thereby exerting control over anyone who might follow suit. In the Church today, pursuit of the Almighty Dollar is second only to the pursuit of power.

Mr. Jenkins already took down the offending blog posts.

I’m betting that won’t be enough to satisfy his enemies. Once bishops take an issue public, they have to win. Pride and power take control. Humility, forgiveness, reconciliation — just words for preaching.

Happy Memorial Day! Hurrah for the Bill of Rights and the people who lived and died protecting them!

27 May 2013

Are We Playing God in the Church?

Something must die for new life to occur.

We’ve heard the adage before. It is presented in today’s church almost as if it were romantic. There are hints that it might be biblical.  

It is not biblical—at least in the way it is being used to justify self-serving actions by regional bodies and church leaders.

This month in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), this thinking was passed on to the rank and file.

SEPA’s 2013 Synod Assembly had a guest speaker deliver this message. His address figures prominently on SEPA’s web site. It is not original thinking. Bishop Burkat wrote about this concept in 2001. 

Good idea to have an outsider reinforce the ideas that are hurting so many SEPA member churches.

From SEPA’s web site:

Jay Gamelin urged congregational leaders to focus on making disciples instead of taking care of members and warned that sometimes new life requires death to occur first. “What needs to die in your church?” he asked the Assembly. “Because you know what God does with death? He makes an empty tomb out of it.”

Actually, that was not Christ’s approach to mission. True, his Resurrection saved us, but He didn’t tear down the people He encountered. He taught. He nurtured new leadership. He counseled established leaders. He empowered ordinary people—people who had no wealth to give but were welcomed all the same. He cured. He encouraged. He gave hope to the marginally served in society and within the religious structures of the day. He loved.

Christ wanted sin to die. Not churches.

He didn’t teach taking financial assessments of congregations and abandoning the weak. In fact, the sense of economics in His parables often puzzles us. He found strength and promise in places no one else did!

This death-oriented ministry philosophy may create an occasional statistical success story, but church statistics don’t reveal that resulting success is the norm or automatic or has longevity. Of course, time will tell.

Something must die. Any volunteers?

Why is it that our church leaders look to find somebody else to do the dying? Why is it the efforts of lay people that are targeted?

This is an abuse of the Resurrection story. Why do we embrace this thinking? Why do we sit in Synod Assembly and listen to it being taught?

Noble-sounding words mask a dangerous idea. The Church is playing with power—group power and some individuals’ sense of power. 

Power doesn’t take much encouragement before it runs seriously amok. The idea that one person or group knows better how to use another person’s or group’s assets is the root of much crime.

ELCA documents protect us from this misuse of power, but they are routinely ignored.

This pseudo-resurrection concept is rooted in a sense of superiority. It masks leadership failures. “We didn’t fail as professional church leaders. It was their time to die. We’ll help them grieve on the way to the bank.”

They are playing God.

The temptation to play God when exercised by mortals results in skewed or lazy assessments of ministries, with property and cash assets the focus — not mission.

Christ’s power grew from humility. It has no time for arrogance.

When money is a problem for everyone, including the regional body and national church, things get crazy fast. No one looks for mission solutions. We look for easy answers that won’t take work, time, or commitment or an investment of any kind. We find it easy to judge others as unworthy of God’s blessings. We stop providing mission services and tell ourselves it’s OK.  We decide which congregations will die (not “might die” but “will die”) in ten years. TEN YEARS!

The dereliction of duty is intentional and horrific. We not only do nothing but we plot to speed the process. We provide a “caretaker” minister. This caretaker expects to be paid as if he or she were actually doing ministry, but they are there to do nothing more than hold hands while resources and spirit are drained. They are there to facilitate the conveyance of assets.

Let’s look at what can happen in ten years.

Ten years — enough time to fight most wars, including World Wars. Enough time to reverse a serious recession. Long enough to see a high school student through seminary. Time enough for the Civil Rights Movement to begin to see results. Ten years—the entire history of social media!

What could happen in a church in ten years?

Endowments might be enriched. New populations could move in. Mission initiatives might take hold. Community outreach might take root. New housing might be built. New businesses might move in. A new generation will be born.

If the Church’s attention is on fostering failure, they will miss out on important mission opportunities.

One Bad Idea Leads to Another

This philosophy quickly jumps to even more erroneous thinking.

“You are not here to serve your membership, you are here to serve God.” Jay Gamelin concludes.

Serving your members IS serving God. Your constitution probably spells out your duties and it undoubtedly mandates care of members.

We ARE  here to serve members. Their needs and preferences DO count. It is THEIR expression of worship and ministry. They are not the only thing that counts but they DO count. Love would tell us that.

The minute we give our leaders permission to NOT serve members, we devalue our message to all. Problems will result. They may not be immediate, but they will result.

Where there is life there is hope and there is God. God can play God all He wants.

And He will.

Don’t expect this philosophy that results from our leaders playing God to spread without problems.

Take a look at what’s happened in NW Philadelphia in the last ten years or so while this philosophy has reigned.

17 May 2013

Achieving Diversity in the Church

The road to diversity. Who has the map?

How does a denomination reach diversity goals when diversity is so difficult to measure?

Here’s what probably won’t work:

  • assigning a pastor who brings along personal friends who fit diverse criteria and adds them to a congregation’s membership roster without going through the constitutional membership process.
  • pigeon-holing already diverse populations and directing them to churches where you think they will be happier.
  • assuming that individual personal worship preferences are dictated by skin color or ethnicity.
  • assuming that one congregation can serve only one demographic—the one they served 40 years ago.
  • trying so hard to appeal to new populations (that might not even be local) that the long-time supporters feel like strangers.
  • locking out an already diverse community, which has made major contributions to the denomination, with a stated goal of replacing them.

Each of these tactics was tried by SEPA leadership at Redeemer. Each failed.

What does work?

  • consciously welcoming whomever walks through the door.
  • consciously creating a fellowship that draws newcomers in. (Just setting up a coffee urn and snack table isn’t enough.)
  • empowering all to invite others. (Find a way to model this  to make it part of your congregation’s personality.)
  • providing a quality worship experience despite numbers. (This doesn’t mean hiring a lot of professional musicians. It means nurturing the worship experience, not always going with the obvious, expanding the experience so that there is something for new worshipers to connect with and something for older members to own and cherish.)
  • expanding or changing the worship experience incrementally, not all at once.
  • fostering participatory worship every week. (Let go of the reins. Really engage worshipers and give them a leadership role in planning worship.)
  • not forcing old ways on new people.
  • not forcing new ways on old people.
  • using repetition. (Introduce new elements slowly and repeat them often until they are accepted.)
  • re-examining the “givens” in our worship life to determine if they are understood and appreciated by the current group of worshipers or if a change might make an overall difference. (Example: Are an opening hymn, sermon hymn and closing hymn enough musically? Is the frequency of communion attracting people or keeping them away? Would shorter or longer sermons be appreciated? Should children be excused for most of the service? Is the time of worship interfering with attendance?)
  • listening to newcomers to understand their worship preferences.

Redeemer used these methods with success. We didn’t know all this when we started. We worked at it. We made mistakes. What we learned from mistakes makes us more certain of our success.

We hope our experience serves as a roadmap.

 

13 May 2013

Networking and the Modern Church

Will the Church Use the Power of Networking?

One of the joys of being excommunicated from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is the freedom to not only think outside the Lutheran box but to explore religion and the concept of church beyond what is expected of the traditional congregation.

Here’s an interesting quote from a prominent blogger in the Jewish community, Rabbi Hayim Herring. He addresses many of the problems the Christian church faces but from a Jewish point of view. Do they have different solutions?

It seems one of the Jewish initiatives is building network-based communities. Here’s a quote from a recent discussion.:

Established organizations are structured as hierarchies. They still have a command and control model, complete with organizational charts that visually portray a chain of command. But networks rest on platforms and platforms abhor hierarchies. They are self-directed and not directed ex machina. They rely on influence and not control, connections and not command.

This observation will benefit Christian community in the new information era.

The Church that will survive in the 21st century will master network-building. Social Media is the turbine for network building.

Network building means reaching out beyond who we already are.

Why think “networks”? Why now?

Because now we can. Now we have the tools to reach people like never before. Now we can think beyond our traditional membership base (which is waning). We can easily look beyond family, friends, and immediate neighbors. Now we can go directly to the people in society who can help us or whom we feel we can help without the gatekeeping of hierarchy or the institutionalizing of our efforts.

 Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all people.

Hierarchical thinking may have once facilitated the goals of Christianity. (It is debatable.) It may now be a handicap—an expensive handicap. Networks are not created by command but by nurture. We will not build networks effectively if we are looking over our shoulders for hierarchical approval.

Hierarchical thinking in today’s world will hinder the spread of the Gospel. As the self-proclaimed “Greatest Generation” fades, the new and as yet unlabeled generations will see no reason to submit to hierarchical thinking in most realms of life and certainly not in religion.

We, as Church, can spend the next decade trying to preserve the past, or we can start to build the platforms and networks that will keep our religion viable in a spiritually competitive world.

Every dollar spent preserving the past is a mission dollar squandered.

This should not be alarming. It is really what we have all been waiting for—a chance to open dialog with people who are not necessarily like-minded. (Don’t most churches look for people who will fit in and contribute in traditional ways?)

The new evangelist will listen and respond. Hyping the Church’s agenda will not build the networks and platforms. The new evangelical approach will return us to our mission of love.

Are we ready for the new world?

11 May 2013

Redeemer Provides Multimedia Clip for SEPA Synod Assembly

God Is Doing Something New in East Falls—Video!

Redeemer and 2×2 takes SEPA’s recent request for congregations to make multimedia presentations about their ministry seriously. It is a goal of 2×2 to conquer video for use on its website, so it was a welcome challenge.

Here’s the YouTube link!

We learned basic recording techniques and syncing sound tracks to slides. We added transitions. We’ve got a lot to learn, but we are happy with our start and will soon share our experiences with others.

The mission possibilities are great!

Enjoy!

 

03 May 2013

Has the Culture of Church Changed?

Today, Seth Godin, renowned marketing blogger, quotes an organization he supports. In doing so he is exploring the impact of the mission statement.

Churches, these days, are heavily “into” mission statements.

There is more to mission than writing statements. Seth likes the term “manifesto.” It’s a stronger, more action-oriented term. Your manifesto defines your culture, while your mission statement collects dust. (Click to tweet).

Here’s the manifesto he quotes from an organization called Acumen:

Acumen: It starts by standing with the poor, listening to voices unheard, and recognizing potential where others see despair.

It demands investing as a means, not an end, daring to go where markets have failed and aid has fallen short. It makes capital work for us, not control us.

It thrives on moral imagination: the humility to see the world as it is and the audacity to imagine the world as it could be. It’s having the ambition to learn at the edge, the wisdom to admit failure, and the courage to start again.

It requires patience and kindness, resilience and grit: a hard-edged hope. It’s leadership that rejects complacency, breaks through bureaucracy, and challenges corruption. Doing what’s right, not what’s easy.

Acumen: it’s the radical idea of creating hope in a cynical world. Changing the way the world tackles poverty and building a world based on dignity.

Love the phrase “hard-edged hope.” It describes Redeemer.

The problems Redeemer has faced in the ELCA is that the ELCA has become a complacent church. Congregations seem to be increasingly self-focused. As long as things are fine for them, what problems can there be?

The problem is that this complacency quickly defines our culture.

Our culture is worshiping together in a fairly defined way. It is friendly chatter around coffee before or after worship. It is choosing from a fairly short list of acceptable public charities to support (Habitat for Humanity seems to be the most popular). Some congregations support or operate food pantries and nursery schools. Ladies Groups knit prayer blankets and fix meals. Toys are donated at Christmas. Cookie cutter ministries.

The church that grew from the biblical teachings of Martin Luther was anything but complacent. 

Lutheranism grew from the ability of Christians to question authority and to fashion ministry with scripture as a guide — not pronouncements from hierarchy. The whole structure of the Lutheran Church, which focuses on the congregation is designed so that congregations can look at local possibilities for mission and respond independently, without carrying the weight of bureaucracy.

The ELCA uses the word “interdependent” to define this structure. The intent is that each level of church might draw strength from one another. Our regional body has reinterpreted this to mean that they are authorities unto themselves. No one can question them. There is no structure above them to check their power. The churches below them are supposed to do that — but that has proven to be ineffective at best and risky at worst.

The result in our region is SEPA Synod—a collection of 160 congregations that instead of drawing strength from one another, tends to exist with each member church living in its own little world. The way to avoid challenge is to never stray from conventional ministry. Just keep doing the same thing as the world around us slips into history.

Redeemer, on the other hand, had fashioned a ministry around new challenges. This was made all the easier by SEPA’s refusal to provide pastoral leadership. Our priority was not in maintaining good relations with leadership. It was in exploring ministry possibilities. We continue to do so.

Redeemer’s manifesto addressed many of the same points as those quoted above. It was the mission plan we created in 2007.

We were fashioning multi-cultural ministry in a new way. Diverse cultures were joining together in ministry, worshiping  and serving together. We weren’t just sharing a building.

We were investing our resources in this ministry. Our resources. Not SEPA’s resources.

We were recognizing something that the rest of the Church does not want to admit. We cannot serve needy populations when the expectation for every congregation is to support a building and professional staff at a minimum budget of $130,000 before a dime is spent on mission or outreach. This model is creating a church where only the rich and middle class can expect to participate fully. This worked in a culture where everyone attended church and knew what was expected of them. It doesn’t work when you are trying to reach the vast and growing population of unchurched people.

Redeemer was responding to this economic challenge, not by pleading for stewardship. We taught stewardship, but we recognized that it would take decades to develop personal giving. (This was made much more difficult by SEPA raiding our bank account in 1998.)

The only way toward fiscal viability was to develop our own funding streams.

We were unafraid of failure. We learned from it. Our early attempts to reach the diversity of our neighborhood were not particularly successful. Our pastors were not comfortable with multicultural ministry, so evangelism was difficult. Our success came when we were free to find professional leadership who could actually further our mission beyond status quo Sunday worship. It came into full flower when we put outreach leadership into the hands of our immigrant members.

SEPA was so intent on seizing our resources that they never really looked at what was going on in our community. They ignored our success and dwelt on ancient failures.

The past five years have proven that they really don’t care about their congregations and their missions. They certainly don’t care about the people.

Our suggestion for congregations:

Spend more time writing your manifesto and less time on your mission statements. Let’s regain our Lutheran culture!

 

24 Apr 2013

The Squandering of Voice in the Church

Hearing the Voice Within

It will take a while for the Church to recognize that they can no longer control the voice of the faithful. The reason for this delay is that congregations and individual Christians do not yet realize that we have more power than ever before in history.

We are accustomed to abiding in silence, accepting what we are told and assuming that the powerful within the church have godly interests.

This is not always true.

Martin Luther took a huge risk when he hammered his list of 95 complaints onto the cathedral door. The response was predictable. Luther was forced into hiding for fear of his life. Fortunately, he made a few well-positioned friends who helped him over this rough spot. He emerged to become a respected preacher and teacher of the Word.

Martin Luther wasn’t the first to raise many of the issues he cited. He was the first to survive. He was the first with the power of a printing press to amplify his voice.

 

The old tools of intimidation still work. Clergy who are beholding to hierarchy are easily silenced.

During the extended conflict between Redeemer Lutheran Church and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod has anyone wondered why it is the lay people who have been dragged through courts? The clergy who were working with the congregation, voted with the congregation, and encouraged the congregation headed for the hills after private meetings in the synod office.

 

Today, each individual within the Church has far more power than Martin Luther.

We have a voice that will be more difficult to control.

Eventually, our voices will have influence.

Redeemer, excluded from participation within the church, started a blog. We are one of very few churches who have taken this step and use this tool for weekly outreach. It has both changed and shaped our ministry in ways we never expected.

Blogging builds community. We have encountered dozens of individual bloggers who write from a spiritual point of view. They are poets, photographers, parents, writers, artists, and adventurers. They are all over the world—Thailand, Armenia, Scandinavia, Africa, the Mideast. Some of them have church connections. Others do not. They tend to represent the age demographic that is missing in the church on Sunday morning—20-40.

They have discovered that within the Church, they have little voice, but outside the Church, they can grow.

The ability to grow as individuals is a key factor that is missing in many church communities.

Modern youth have been reared in a world where they must constantly reeducate themselves. They are involved in an ongoing process of self-discovery. In the past this discovery period ended at about age 30, when we settled down. This will no longer be true for any of us, regardless of age.

Self-rediscovery tends to be discouraged within the Church. We are likely to be assigned a task that Church needs to have accomplished. We will be told how to do it—how to teach, how to sing, how to fix the altar, and how to distribute the offering plates. Once we accept one of these jobs, it may be ours for life!

It is no wonder that people turn away from the Church. They seek community where their voices can be heard—their ideas and talents recognized.

If the Church does not find a way to welcome the voice of the people and adapt to modern expectations, they will find their churches to be empty on Sunday mornings.

Church leaders who face this change in society with tenacious resistance will enjoy fleeting successes.

A storm is coming. A wise church would nurture voice if they want transforming change.

What are we afraid of, anyway?

growblogcartoonlr

04 Apr 2013

Lutheran Fraternal Insurer Seeks to Serve Non-Lutherans

kangaroo2Is there something to be learned from this?

Thrivent, once known as Lutheran Brotherhood, is a financial fraternal association serving the members of all Lutheran denominations.

Redeemer’s Thrivent members recently received a ballot to vote on a proposal to expand their service offerings to other Christian groups.  (They must not have heard that we’ve been kicked out of the Lutheran Church.)

It was inevitable as the Lutheran population dwindles that the financial fraternity would have to expand its economic base and welcome more people into the brotherhood.

This raises some questions about church voting. If an insurance company can open a vote to every member, why do we still rely on representative assemblies voting for us at the Synod level? Might the Digital Age afford us a better way?

Representative voting relies on voters having the knowledge and experience to do a conscientious job. In this regard, the voting procedure within the ELCA is seriously flawed.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America adopted a quota system at the time it was formed 25 years ago—before the power of the internet was unsheathed. The original system (faulty as it was) has been tinkered with ever since. Votes are assigned by size of church, gender, language, and age. There is no good way to prove some of these characteristics. Redeemer was a church with a majority membership of color, a strong youth population and multi-lingual. Not only were we never allotted extra representation for any of these demographics, as the bylaws allow, but the bishop (at the last minute) declared us ineligible to send any voting representatives to the 2009 Synod Assembly—which the bylaws do not allow.

None of the voters at that Assembly raised any questions. We’ve been excluded ever since.

Under the quota system, credentials for representatives create a false demographic—an illusion of inclusion. A scan of the floor of a Synod Assembly might make it seem like SEPA Synod is highly diverse. We’ve visited 57 congregations. Diversity is the exception.

Twenty years of liturgical gerrymandering may have resulted in a voting pool that meets inclusion criteria but fails to be representative—or effective.

For example, many congregations have a majority female membership. They must come up with a male if they are to have the proper number of votes at Assembly. The males in the congregation may have no interest and are borderline involved in church government  but genitalia is valued above knowledge and commitment. 

An inexperienced voting assembly is putty in the hands of church leaders. How else can our Synod explain adopting six-figure deficits at a time when giving was down across the board and never stopping to think how those deficits would be overcome and at whose expense?

Voters who don’t understand the issues or consequences of their decisions follow the pack.

There are important documents and procedures which control the powers of the Assemblies and provide safeguards to the congregatons. It’s not just the constitution, with which some people have at least vague familiarity. It includes the Articles of Incorporation, which define the powers of the Assembly and control the extent to which the constitution can be changed. Practically no one is familiar with this document. For one thing it forbids the seizure of congregational property without the consent of the congregation and puts this matter outside the authority of the Synod Assembly.

Without knowledge of church government, Synod Assembly has become a venue to present a synod’s wish list for rubberstamp approval—not a venue for dialog or debate. 

All of this can be revamped for greater participation in an age where this is expected.

It is now entirely possible to allow all members a vote, but failing that they can at least be afforded a voice. It would take some thinking to make it work but it could bring benefits, fresh air, and true representation into the world of Church.

  • Regional offices will be forced to really engage with their constituency.
  • Congregations will have to be realistic about their memberships.
  • They, too, would have reason to engage members on issues that matter.
  • Members would have a sense that their involvement can make a difference.
  • Vested members may increase participation and giving.

Today issues can be presented to all church members online well in advance of the Assembly date. 

During this time, the regional office is free to communicate with all members of the church. Congregations have equal freedom to debate issues. Even individuals can take discussions online. People might actually become involved.

If it is too unwieldy to count each person, a congregation’s representatives can gather after the issues for debate have been aired for a few weeks. A one-day assembly is all that would be needed.

It’s something to think about.

It could be truly transforming!

If insurance companies can count every vote, so can churches.

Voting kangaroos have done enough damage!

29 Mar 2013

2×2 to Undergo Some Changes

2×2 will be undergoing some changes in the next few days. They are structural in nature but over time, will allow us more flexibility in our outreach.

You won’t see a big change at first. We might be adding less content for a few days. But eventually, 2×2 will be easier for our readers to navigate and to find the types of content they are seeking.

We thank our readers and ask for your patience during the process. We are not quite sure what to expect as we work with the experts.

2×2 is growing quickly. Our monthly traffic is more than three times what it was last year at this time. We now have more than 4000 unique visitors every month and a growing subscription list. Last year we had 13,000 unique visitors. In the first two months of this year we’ve had 6,500 visitors, putting us on track to reach 40,000 by year’s end. This figure does not count subscribers who read our posts in LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter or in email feeds. Combining subscribers with new visitors we are reaching close to 10,000 readers every month. It is probably fair to say that Redeemer, through 2×2, reaches more people than any other Lutheran congregation in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (SEPA / ELCA).

Not bad for a church that doesn’t exist.

The 2×2 Story

The Church likes roadmaps. They like to be able to say, “If you do X, your congregation will achieve Y.”

It’s been a while since formulas like these worked in the Church. It is a source of frustration and conflict.

There is no roadmap for where the Church is going. Societal and technological changes have created unchartable challenges.

The methods of the past aren’t working. There is no time or patience to test new ideas. Everyone at every level is feeling an economic pinch. The easy way out: Blame the congregations. Close them down. Salvage their property for the use of the regional body. Make sure the national church gets their share of the loot.

Redeemer was a congregation willing to try new things, willing to take some risks, even willing to sacrifice today’s statistics for tomorrow’s ministry—a concept that was widely discussed in our planning meetings.

We were beginning to see significant success, but our cash-strapped regional body was impatient and preferred to see failure. A couple of small church failures each year would fund the synod’s six-figure annual deficit—until there are no more small churches to plunder.

The expectation was that little churches would not have the stamina or resources to resist. It made sense. Full-time paid professionals fighting part-time volunteers. Easy pickings.

Then came Redeemer. We had presented a 20-page ministry plan we had researched for six months and asked to call a minister who had helped us write the plan. SEPA ignored us. They never even discussed our plan with us, while they represented publicly that they were working with us.

SEPA strong-armed Redeemer out of their property in defiance of their own governing laws. The conflict is now some seven years old.

We took our ministry online which was always part of our ministry plan, although it was not Step 1. Step 1 was opening an income-producing Christian Day School, which was projected to produce upwards of $6000 per month for ministry. The empty building has earned nothing for nearly four years under SEPA’s “administration.”

Online ministry requires no property and not a great deal of money—less than $200 each year. We had no idea what to expect. We just started to write about our experiences and presented the types of resources we use regularly in our worship. We have a lot of experience as a small church. We share it.

Our resources are driving our traffic. The Easter play we posted last year had about 200 downloads last year and 3000 downloads so far this year. Our continuing series on adult object lessons also has steady readership.

The followers of our commentaries are an eclectic group and mostly young people—the very demographic that eludes the mainline church. They tend to be passionate, artistic, creative and they are all over the world.

We will continue to build the 2×2 platform for ministry and share the concepts we are pioneering.

Thanks for visiting us now and then. Feel free to contribute or let us know what type of content would benefit your small church. We’ll try to supply it.

18 Mar 2013