4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

Rethinking Small Church Ministry

A New Direction for the Changing Church

The Church cannot escape what is happening in all of society. Things are changing!

Warning signs were posted long ago, but few understood their significance. Church attendance dropped. Length of pastorates shortened. The ministry became attractive as a second career more than a life’s calling. Families, the traditional foundation of parish life, were in disarray.

Church leaders are beginning to discover that the methodologies of church leadership taught and practiced for decades are no longer relevant. Leaders are feeling a bit lost. Their earned “expertise” is of less value.

But there is still a way — an exciting way, in fact.

Marketer Seth Godin wrote today in his daily blog, “The map has been replaced by the compass.”

He goes on to explain that detailed step by step management processes are no longer effective. The world changes too quickly.

Knowing what direction you are going is very important…  even critical. Throw out the map. Follow the compass.

Today’s leaders in the church must retrain. They are not alone. Many sectors of society are finding their classroom education no longer serves them. They, too, must retool their expertise. The church needs to find ways to get new training to pastors and professional leaders who graduated years ago. Seminarians can no longer expect 20 or 30 years of serving a congregation without ongoing continuing education. Other fields (medicine and education, for example) demand it. The church must, too. Congregations cannot wait for a decade before having the opportunity to find leadership able to meet their needs.

Failure to take steps now means setting up pastor after pastor and congregation after congregation for  failure. Expectations will not be met. Conflict will be rampant. Resources will be squandered with vain attempts to right things — the old way.

New professional leaders must be trained for a changing world. Many of yesterday’s tried and true tactics need to be abandoned. Pastors will not need a thick binder of policies as much as they will need a Bible and a compass. This may be harder to teach, but it is necessary if the church is to reach out in mission.

Without a sense of direction, the church will become as archaic as the robes donned for worship.

Let’s get out our compasses and point the church in the right direction. The foundation is laid out in the Bible. We just have to apply the new tools of today’s society.

Learning in the church is truly a lifelong undertaking. It begins with professional leadership.

Are we ready for it?

photo credit: victor|bonomi via photopin cc
21 Feb 2012

20 Questions for Congregational Teams

Today’s Alban Institute Roundtable discussion reviews the proper functioning of congregational staff teams. Susan Beaumont lists 30 characteristics of a healthy team of professional leaders who have separate areas of expertise and overlapping responsibilities.

Most likely, this post resonates with a minority of churches. Most congregations have only one professional leader and even that may be part-time.

But the team concept may still apply to congregations and many of the points may relate. After all, every congregation is a “team” of believers. Even the smallest congregations must perform the basic functions of church and many are doing this with very little outside help.

Small churches unknowingly form “ministry teams.” Let’s measure small congregational teams against 20 of the 30 points made by Susan Beaumont.

  1. Does your congregation have a compelling vision for the future?
  2. Does your congregation take time to hear God’s Voice and find direction in His Spirit?
  3. Is the teaching ministry of your church reaching all members?
  4. Do your members understand the full purpose of “church”?
  5. Are your church goals clearly defined and part of every church activity?
  6. Does your church have the leadership skills needed to reach your congregational goals or do you need to complement your pastor’s skills or availability?
  7. Does your congregation celebrate its accomplishments as a team?
  8. Are the practical needs of the congregation understood and addressed or do you have a large number of members who think the bills are paid and snow is shoveled by magic?
  9. Do you take time as a congregation to examine your ministry for unaddressed needs? Often the needs of the most active members are overlooked!
  10. Does your entire congregation understand that they are part of a team accountable for progress and failure so that either is not entirely attributed to the pastor and select lay leaders?
  11. Is it clear who will plan worship, pay the bills, keep records and care for the property?
  12. Are individuals loved and made to feel important within your congregational team?
  13. Is there a system of checks and balances in all administrative tasks?
  14. Are leadership meetings and congregational meetings focused and productive?
  15. Can your congregation respond to a crisis efficiently?
  16. Is your congregation flexible? Is there room for sharing and teaching jobs or will Mr. Smith always be the treasurer?
  17. Does your congregation take the time to mix up the work teams, so that you can learn new things about member skills and interests and so that members can explore and grow their God-given talents?
  18. Are your members comfortable participants in church life or are they afraid to offer ideas, volunteer, or complain?
  19. Do your members support one another in resolving differences?
  20. Does your congregation have fun? It’s important that members enjoy being together if they are to work well together.
20 Feb 2012

Solo Pastors Must Be Evangelists

Most small congregations function with solo pastors. Solo pastors must be evangelists.

But some solo pastors rely on miraculous intervention for church growth. Denominations even have a term for this ministry style—caretaker ministries. Caretaker ministries are a terrible idea! They are an insult to mission of the church. In addition, they are at the heart of much church conflict.

The problem: congregations are not in on the “caretaker” secret. Lay people think they have called a pastor equipped to help with all aspects of ministry, including evangelism. They are unaware that their caretaker pastor has just one goal—to appease a congregation’s current membership for however long it takes for them to fail. The reason stated with confidence: the culture and demographics can no longer support the neighborhood church.

So here is what happens. The caretaker pastor faithfully serves needy members, visits regularly, prays with them, and becomes loved and respected for the personal attention given. Meanwhile, lay leaders, who are responsible for the overall health of the congregation, become concerned that the congregation is not fulfilling other aspects of vital ministry. They begin pressing for evangelism, educational services and ministry efforts the caretaker minister had no intention of ever providing.

The needy congregational members see escalating conflict as an attack on their beloved caretaker. They are content and unconcerned with church growth and budgets. Suddenly, a congregation is divided. All the players are good people with worthwhile goals, but lines are soon drawn—”good guys” vs “bad guys.”

A predictable scenario: the caretaker pastor will insist evangelism is the role of the laity.

Laity, on the other hand, think that professionally trained pastors are in a better position to conduct outreach.

A corporation does not unleash their sales force without intense training. If the Church is to rely on lay evangelists, it must give them similar support.

2×2 has experience with this situation. Over many years, we had conversations with our clergy pressing for services that might grow the congregation. We became familiar with the professional reasoning that ended up with inaction on anyone’s part.

Then one day in 2006, we found ourselves with no pastor and no hope of cooperation from our denomination in finding professional leadership. We crafted our own initiative, put the reins in the hands of untried but enthusiastic members, and pledged as a congregation to support their efforts. They met with early success and were even able to find qualified professional support (help our denomination insisted could not be found). Remarkable growth resulted.

Our denomination responded by condemning our work. The only reason given: it was not done in cooperation with the Synod Mission Office.

How silly! Congregations are not required to ask permission to invite people to come to church.

Can the Church have it both ways? Can they insist that lay people are responsible for outreach and then complain when clergy don’t lead the outreach?

If church mission must be “in cooperation” with church professionals, then they must take responsibility. They must provide pastors who roll up their sleeves and lead evangelism by example and by training, equipping, and encouraging laity—and they must be held accountable.

Denominations must insist solo pastors engage in evanglism. Do not wait for years of failure before implementing steps for success.

Quit blaming demographics and culture. Christianity has been standing up to these forces from the start.

Christ’s answer to the challenge was to empower the lay workers.

17 Feb 2012

Why Church Growth Is So Elusive

Most churches never set out to grow.

Churches talk about growth all the time — even when there is little or no growth evident across a denomination. Denominations can even adopt airs of successful growth in their convocations and publications, camouflaging double digit decline.

Why is growth desirable? Is it because of the Church’s burning need to save souls, or is it to meet the escalating costs of Christian community? There is surely some of both in the answer and other options. Nevertheless, it might be worthwhile to ponder what is really spurring the current demand for growth and change.

The problem is that we are measuring success by statistics that no one really set out to fulfill.

Imagine how big every church would be if for the last 100 years every congregation accepted 20 new members net (allowing for natural attrition). Twenty new members each year should be a modest goal for a church that is growth-oriented. It should get easier every year and explode exponentially!

It rarely happens!

Most churches and church communities are designed to fill the needs of the founding members. Growth to keep up with the economy was not in their crosshairs. Special ministries to changing communities were not what most members signed on for.

Most congregations and clergy are content when numbers provide a sense of stability.

Look at the average church building erected 100 or 200 years ago. Most were not built with growth in mind. Many were situated on donated land and built to fit the lots and house the existing worshiping community. The biggest number in mind was how many might show up on Easter morning and Christmas Eve.

When growth happened, older buildings were abandoned, new ones built or wings were added. In some cases the only option for growth was to add worship services. But these days services are often added for convenience or worship style options — not to accommodate growth.

If growth is so important, why isn’t it planned from the beginning?

When are extra pastors added? Answer: when growth has already happened and the congregation can afford an additional salary. Extra hands are rarely sought when the mission work justifies it but only when there are already more service needs and a foreseeable budget to sustain those existing needs.

If growth is truly a goal and more hands are needed to achieve growth, we have to start thinking outside the foresight of our founding matriarchs and patriarchs. We have to return to true mission, not economic salvation.

We have to provide help where it is most needed — neighborhood churches. Yes, even the small ones. That’s where true denominational growth will take root.

The temptation for denominational leaders is to look for easier success formulas and provide the strongest support to the congregations who can sustain their current budgets—for the time being, at least.

We have to take some chances.

Where do we start?

photo credit: BurgTender via photopin cc

15 Feb 2012

Why Small Churches Will Save Mainline Denominations

The small church has been neglected for quite a while. Tragically, the neglect has been intentional. It is also short-sighted.

Denominational middle management stressed viablity in congregations at a time when the economy was impacting their own bottom line. Small churches became attractive targets for closure. Their weaknesses were highlighted while the denominations’ struggles were hidden from view. The attitude was, “We know what’s best for you. We can make better use of your resources. Praise God for your 100-150 years of dedication. Hand over the keys and where do you keep the money?” No “please”; no “thank you.”

This attitude reflects a dereliction of duty. Denominations exist to serve and once you write off your constituency, ethical dilemmas soon abound.

Suddenly, the failure of small churches becomes a goal — the sooner the better, and please make it easy. Little time and attention are spent on the problems of the small church. Clergy fail to hear God’s call for small parish ministry. Small churches must rely on lay skills and the devotion of retired clergy, whose training and active years predate the current thinking.

This is a shame. Small churches are ideally situated to address many of the problems faced by denominations today.

It’s a David and Goliath scenario.

A Goliath church is large and cumbersome. It looks down on the rest of the world and can be haughty about its wealth and prestige. The budget is top-heavy with professional salaries and property maintenance. Parish life revolves around making these assets function. This makes it more difficult to identify change in the community and refocus on changing ministry priorities. Any priorities to be addressed must fit the skills and interests of salaried leaders. The priority is always paying pastors and keeping up the building. A Goliath church has an army of support. Armies work best when there is someone giving orders.

A David church is small, agile and wiry. It meets the rest of the world eye to eye. It doesn’t have the status of larger churches, but it is likely to know very well where its strengths lie. It has a hard time getting the attention of denominational leadership. It presses forward, relying on members’ talent, fueled by a spirit and devotion that is ready to overcome any obstacle. It does not have much in the way of internal hierarchy to weigh it down. It can change ministry plans and emphases easily as neighborhoods change and new challenges arise. Any member can implement a new idea. A David church is likely to change quickly and the denomination, who may have been paying no attention for years, is none the wiser.

Mainline denominations face challenges today that are ideal for David-sized church ministries. Small churches are likely to interact personally with visitors and less likely to depend on someone else taking the lead. Multicultural ministries can be easily pursued in neighborhoods where populations are changing. The disabled and disenfranchised can be served one on one without unwieldy programs. Families led by single parents can easily find support and acceptance. David churches have been training their own leaders for decades. They have skills and energy that King Saul would not notice — until he is desperate.

Of course, large churches can also address these issues, but there is a greater tendency to create programs led by well-paid experts, while small churches will roll up their sleeves and embrace challenges personally.

The problem is that denominations come to their David churches with Goliath expectations and solutions. Small churches know they cannot afford Goliath budgets. That doesn’t mean that closing David churches and reallocating their assets is the answer. The answer is in finding ways to help David churches be the best they can be with their resources. Use their resources to help them with their challenges.

Wise denominations will look to their small David churches for ideas and energy and stop viewing them as tomorrow’s dinner.

11 Feb 2012

Put Some Verbs in Your Parish Reports

A pastor, was lamenting that the forms he fills out every year to report his congregation’s ministry don’t ask the questions which really measure their ministry. “All they count is members and money — not what happens with the members and money.”

Church statistics can mislead. As one eminent church consultant commented—There are congregations with 20 members that will die and there are congregations with 20 members who have what it takes to grow.

Similarly, there are congregations with $1,000,000 in endowment funds that do little but watch it grow. After all, that can be measured on next year’s report. On the other hand, there are congregations that struggle to pay the insurance but have tons of projects and mission ideas.

How should denominations measure congregational ministry?

Start counting verbs as well as nouns. What is happening with the money and people you are counting? For example:

  • It is of no value to count the number of Spanish-speaking Christians if you cannot name a single ministry outreach effort that addresses the Hispanic community.
  • Did your church baptize 5 children this year but have no Vacation Bible School?
  • How did you spend the your offerings this year? Did it all go for salaries and utilities? Was anything spent on mission?

Look over your parish report and attach a verb to every number. If you have a hard time coming up with verbs, you have a good idea of what needs attention.

If there is no place on your forms for your full ministry report — one with some verbs — attach it anyway. Who knows? It may do some good! And it may be more honest than a list of numbers.

02 Feb 2012

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

Comments in Social Media vs Contact Information

2×2 is an experimental site in a fairly new medium, so we are learning along with everyone else. A recent real life lesson is teaching us the difference between “comments” as a way to interact vs actually posting contact information.

2×2 was launched in February of 2011. It is built on a blogging platform, so comments have always been possible. We had not included obvious phone numbers or emails. We thought the comment mechanism was the way interested people would reach us.

Our overall goal is to create helpful dialog on issues which affect small church ministry but are not often discussed. How that happens is up to our readers! While we have always invited comments, “getting comments” has never been a goal as it is among many bloggers.

We have followed analytics on our site since about June and we knew that we were getting many international “hits.” We had no way to measure whether or not they were quality hits or accidental surfing hits.

About a week ago, a reader wrote to us via a comment asking for contact information. We immediately responded by posting a contact name and number in the sidebar. We have been in regular communication since. We have begun to hear from others as well — not on the site — but via email and telephone.

Our emails are proving that we do, indeed, have a national and international following that is beginning to put us in direct contact with ministries we would have never known about years ago.

This morning we had a detailed email from a ministry in Pakistan, thanking us for our web site. The pastor sent us links to their ministry site and asked for our prayers.

Was it coincidence that a 2×2/Redeemer member suggested last week that the 2×2 web site begin to include a prayer list? Probably not.

2×2 is a place for sharing about ministry and we will always be glad to feature ministry news that will benefit the labors of other small Christian communities. We will consider linking to any ministry that sends us information to verify their ministry efforts.

And, of course, we will add your ministry to our soon to be published prayer list.

Lesson to be learned: Comments are nice, but communication is better!

19 Jan 2012