Uncategorized

A New Broom Sweeps Clean

Happy New Year!

A time for forgetting the past—or is it?

There is a lot of talk about dealing with unpleasantness as if declaring a new year will make dirt disappear. Everything can be rosy. Just get out the broom and start sweeping.

Funny thing about sweeping. It’s a job that is never done!

There is really no avoiding the work. You can hire a cleaning person—or handle it yourself. You can’t sweep it away.

Yet, some leadership gurus premise their theories for building churches on just that. Church replanters in particular espouse methodologies that eliminate problems. Although I hate to mix the metaphor, they usually call it baggage.

Here’s their typical strategy for dealing with church baggage:

• Close a troubled church for six weeks or six months—or seven years in our case.
• Tear down signage.
• Lock the doors.
• Change the name.
• Allow none of the former members leadership positions if they happen to show up at the church in their neighborhood. Some are very clear—allow them presence but no voice.

These theorists treat church members as servants of a cause. They don’t want flawed people. They want an easy road.

That’s not a biblical model!

Sweeping problems under the rug is creating a full-time challenge. To resolve the mixed metaphor—baggage is too big to sweep under the rug. It must be dealt with.

Here’s a short quote from an article by Dennis Bickers, a pastor of a church in Indiana.

I remember my first church business meeting as a pastor. A proposal I made, which was in line with one of the priorities the church had given me, was firmly resisted by every person in that meeting. I went home wondering what I had gotten myself into.

A few minutes later, one of the church matriarchs called and explained some history in that church that caused such resistance.

I had not been there long enough to know this story, but with that information I was able to revise my plans so that they were later accepted.

This pastor recognizes that lay people are vessels filled with valuable knowledge.

I wish I had had his wisdom about twenty years ago when I ran into a similar situation.

Our congregation had a bad experience with our regional body. I was not active at the start of the problems, but I was involved in the eventual resolution. Trust was very low. As part of the two-year saga, our regional body had required us to meet with a consultant who ended up to be an agent of the regional body’s interests. We had felt used and betrayed by the consultant’s use of our honest interaction. She had seriously twisted and edited remarks to support the regional body’s position. The memory was still fresh.

We had a new pastor who proposed a weekend retreat. He recommended a church consultant he knew to lead the retreat. I tried to facilitate this for the sake of our new pastor, who I knew was dealing with a tough situation. We all were!

Newer members were willing to give it a chance. Older members, more familiar with the conflict, were suspicious that a retreat led by a church consultant was inviting the fox back into the henhouse. I argued that WE were engaging the consultant this time‚ not our regional body.

I shared the reason for the resistance with the pastor. We went ahead with the retreat. Key leaders did not attend. Those who attended, I among them, enjoyed it. It seemed to help the new pastor. It helped us get to know the newer people. A week or so later, I got a huge “I told you so” dropped on my head. The president of the church council received a letter from the consultant, thanking us for using his services. The letter included a copy of a report he had sent to the regional body. The report was not damaging in itself, but the fact that he reported things that we had shared in confidence revived and deepened our collective sense of betrayal. And yes, it led to more problems.

Lay leaders with experience are valuable. Those “I told you sos” are powerful defenses.

Baggage is experience. Experience is the root of wisdom. Leaders who insist on “no baggage” fresh starts are not eliminating problems. They are creating new ones.

So what do churches with “baggage” do in this new year?

Christianity, after all, is all about dealing with baggage.

photo credit: Church Door (B&W Version) via photopin (license)

HOLACRACY 4

In Post 1: I looked at how the principles of holacracy, an organizational model that is growing in popularity, is compatible with the founding principles of the Protestant movement.

In Post 2: I mused about how church structure as we have known it for hundreds of years might incorporate holacracy.

In Post 3: I looked at another example of a Protestant faith group that uses principles like those of holacracy.

Today’s Post

Why the current structure of most churches fails small churches

Here is a graphic that describes common church structure based on my experience as a Lutheran. We use words like congregation council and synod. Other denominations use different language for similar concepts.

Here’s the basic idea:

This structure worked for a long time.  It found its way into constitutions.

Good-bye to the 19th century

My first clue that it might be time for a change came about ten years ago. Our urban neighborhood congregation was beginning to attract a number of immigrant families. We did our best to fast-track them into active engagement in church life. Many of them were already familiar with Lutheranism from their home countries, but they weren’t necessarily familiar with things Americans take for granted.

Our pastor met with the new members and read the congregation’s constitution. I was tending the children. I could hear the discussion, but I was not taking part. I noticed that the group was very engaged and were asking good questions.

The pastor read the clause that references Robert’s Rules of Order as the mandated guide for meeting procedure.

One of the new members asked, “What’s Robert’s Rules of Order”?

I realized that what is common in American life is not necessarily recognized worldwide. There might be other methodologies. (The author of Robert’s Rules of Order was a major in the U.S. Army in the 19th century. His work has not always been well-received and has been frequently revised to answer objections. Even this standard is not set in stone!)

This was to be our experience a few years later when Robert’s Rules of Order was widely ignored in our dealings with our regional body—another affirmation that Church standards were failing us as members—and our leaders as well!

Our experience was a sign of the times, perhaps. The fast pace of change spawned the holacracy movement in business.We needed a more efficient change to involve people and compete with the rest of the world.

The same years within the Church have been characterized by frustration.

• There is dissatisfaction among leaders, considerable congregational conflict, and dismal statistics with both attendance and giving plummeting.
• The losses are nearly across the board, with larger churches often reporting greater statistical loss but are still able to meet basic budgets.
• The graying of church leadership is even more pronounced than the graying of church memberships.

Smaller churches have had to scale back in leadership, which tends to also lead to a scale-back in services and witness.

This leadership crisis has presented few innovative answers—and some of them have proven to be successful only short-term—abandoned without fanfare within ten years.

So let’s look at why the hierarchical structure isn’t working.

The above graphic does not address the national and regional structure. In our experience, the national and regional expression of the Church was of no assistance. We can only wonder if other churches have the same experiences.

We were left wondering if these expressions are worth the expense. Their primary function at the regional level is to oversee the qualifications of pastors and other rostered leaders and match them with mission needs—like an employment agency. Regional leaders know more about the pastors than they do the congregational leaders, creating an inequity.

We see the role of pastor being watered down considerably because many congregations cannot afford the mandated salaries. This results in a greater reliance on second-career and retired pastors who are eager to take on short-term commitments such as interim or bridge assignments. In our 80 church visits in 2011-2013 about a third of the churches were working with assigned interims and many more had minimal part-time leadership.

Does this mean small churches cannot be a meaningful presence?

Who’s the Boss?

Because commitments of part-time pastors are tied to salary levels often based on hourly rates, small congregations tend to develop a culture where laity pick up the slack. There is nothing in the constitutions forbidding this. In fact, laity are theoretically encouraged to support “the priesthood of all believers.”

But it does create tension when pastors want the full leadership power while serving only 20 hours or less a week.

Ministry today calls for a variety of skills. Congregations councils are responsible for finding those skills. Our hands are tied when we must devote all resources to one part-time leader. Looking beyond that one leader guarantees trouble. But progress is unlikely without it! Rock. Hard place.

This is not to debate that one side of this tension is right and the other wrong. It is simply recognizing that the tension exists— and it often hinders mission and leads to the type of conflict that results in closing churches unnecessarily.

Nobody likes to deal with tension.

But holacarcy recognizes the need for creative, disruptive tension and proposes a way to put it to work. It starts by addressing the question: Who’s the Boss? More about that in the next post.

But let’s move down the chart.

The congregation council in some form or other is also constitutionally mandated. It, too, is challenged by hierarchical structure.

A lot of the traditional emphases of the business arm of the Church have changed. Technology and cultural expectations are root reasons. There was a time when our denomination’s worship resources were used for nearly a century without much change. Then we started republishing hymnals every 20 years or so. Then we needed ethnic editions. Now, the internet makes printed music of the latest hymns available immediately upon release.

Education is challenged by modern family structure and schedule demands. We still work hard to encourage families to carve out time for some form of Christian education scheduled onsite—with less success. Work schedules and family demands vary greatly. There are work-arounds, but congregations must develop online learning models—a major rethink.

There is more overlap.  Finance needs to overlap with Stewardship. Stewardship needs to overlap with Witness/Communication. Fellowship is part of just about everything. And more.

How do these structured standing committees work together, especially when there are fewer people to help?

This overlap means waiting for the next scheduled meeting of other committees to get buy-in. The investment of time kills many a good idea.

The demands of structure overwhelm laity—who are volunteers and will look for more rewarding ways to spend their time.

Does that mean there is no hope for small congregations?

It may simply mean that smaller congregations need to find a structure that is more effective and affordable.

HOLACRACY 3

Reorganizing the Church to allow for change

“Holacracy aims to organize a company around the work that needs to be done instead of around the people who do it.”—Jena McGregor, Washington Post

Holacracy calls for serious restructuring.

The Church is all about structure. The temptation will be to dismiss its ideas because it’s not the way we do things. But historically Lutherans addressed these concepts ages ago—and abandoned them.

Post 1 addresses how holacracy fits into Lutheran tradition—at least how it used to be practiced. But there is another Christian tradition that practices many of the principals of holacracy.

Most denominations presume pastors are a given. Quakers have no clergy.

The Quaker tradition revolves around meetings. There are Meetings for Worship. Quakers gather in silence and wait for members to speak as they are moved.

There are also meetings for other purposes, including Meetings for Business.

My son attended Quaker School for 13 years. I’ve attended Quaker Meetings for Worship. I am less familiar with Quaker Meetings for Business—although my son talks about them. I had an early encounter with the Quaker system for settling disputes that was impressive.

My five-year-old son had a beef with his gym teacher in the opening days of kindergarten. He told me very little—only that he was never going to gym class again—ever.

I informed his classroom teacher that I thought there was a problem. She responded immediately—no time for things to fester and deteriorate. Three parties had a mini-Quaker meeting. My five-year-old. His 60-year-old classroom teacher. His Olympic gold-medalist gym teacher. I had to wonder if my little guy stood a chance! I was not present.

All ended well. Peace was almost immediate.

The five-year-old had his say. The gym teacher took responsibility for a miscommunication and apologized. The focus was on the problem—not on who was the boss.

This is the approach of holacracy. The focus is on the work, not the structure and certainly not on personalities.

This is worth exploring regardless of how difficult it may be for those who depend on church structure for status and income.

• How much talent lies dormant for fear of stepping on toes?
• How many ideas are unexplored because they don’t fit into a committee structure?
• How many people don’t bother with church because they don’t feel they can make a difference?
• How many members feel they have “assigned” roles and can’t contribute outside those roles?

To create change and foster innovation, today’s churches need to engage more skills than one pastor is likely to have. But the authority structure focuses on one leader.

The Lutheran Church was already addressing this leadership problem when it gave the highest governing status to the congregation council—not the pastor.

Many congregational members wrongly assume that the pastor or even the bishop is “the boss.” A great deal of church conflict stems from failure to define the role of pastor, assuming authority based on traditions of other, better publicized denominations.

Very messy indeed. The mess leaves us unprepared to face today’s culture.

Recent years have shown that world-changing innovations are more likely to come from the dorm room than the board room.

 

Church is not structured so that the voices outside of approved ranks can be heard. Laity tend to receive recognition for their ability to follow—not lead.

The attitude of the Church toward ideas that come from outside rostered leadership is a bit like Nathaniel’s smart-alecky biblical quip. “Can any good come out of Nazareth?”

The answer then and now is “YES.”

The challenge is to allow this to happen.

Small congregations should be hotbeds of innovation. They aren’t because they cannot afford to make waves and attract attention. They must allocate every available penny toward limited leadership. The regional body may have already written off the possibility of a future.

Holacracy is a structure that fosters peer-to-peer engagement.

The work is defined. Teams of people have freedom to do the work. They own the work. They have complete authority to accomplish goals. They report to one another not to determine if they have met some predetermined agenda but to report progress and get input from others.

We’ll start looking at the holacratic method in the next post.

The future of the Church does not have to be bricking up the neighborhood churches.

HOLACRACY: Part 2

Yesterday’s post introduced holacracy—a movement that is restructuring how organizations work together.

I suggested that the concepts may be exactly what the world of Church is struggling to find.

But how do we get there?

Holacracy is finding success in the business world because a few savvy entrepreneurs were willing to step away from titles like CEO and the accompanying vertical structure. They saw it hampering innovation. Fostering innovation makes you stand out among competitors.

In other words—there is incentive.

The Church talks about innovation but remains unprepared to invest in the concept. No incentive.

Tradition and constitutions define rules. (Holacracy has a constitution, by the way.) Leadership roles of bishop and pastor are guaranteed as long as congregational money lasts and people get along. Successful leaders keep people happy.

In recent years, the money is failing. When money is in short supply, tensions rise. People are not happy.

As congregations fail, church leaders have rewritten the rules to make sure money lasts longer for their benefit.

It is OK for congregations to fail, if the denomination benefits from failure. This isn’t made up. It is actually stated in training resources for church leaders. Don’t waste time helping struggling churches. Create a triage list. Spend time and energy on those showing more promise.

Self-survival is the only incentive. It is not survival of the fittest. The higher ranks of the Church are every bit as challenged as the congregations. Rather, it is survival of the most powerful. Service and Mission are off in the distance.

The Church of the near future is likely to be composed of denominational offices and the 40 richest congregations—a quarter the current size of our regional body. The roster of pastors will be similarly cut, although those remaining will be well paid. Affluence is the measure of ministry. All the buildings will be new or renovated.

One problem, pews are not likely to be full. The people of the 120 abandoned congregations spread across five counties will not drive to attend worship no matter how grand the parking lots or plush the pews.

The loss of neighborhood churches will challenge the ability of the surviving churches to effectively deliver in mission. They will have isolated themselves from the poor, needy and diverse. They will become social clubs for Christians who can afford the dues.

Failure to recognize the destructive nature of self-centered use of power sparked the Reformation. A refresher course every 500 years may be the ticket!

Just as in 1517, power feeds on money. The powerful will not easily revise their roles if it means ceding power and status.

This is likely to be the Church’s undoing.

Change is not going to come from clergy, seminarians or consultants. They remain heavily invested in vertical church structure.

I suggest we start by looking at what we already have. Examine that word in the ELCA constitutions that eludes us.

INTERDEPENDENT

What does it mean?

With that question in mind, take a look at this TED talk.

photo credit: Brick Filled Window via photopin (license)

I just finished a novel—a murder mystery. (Fisher of Souls by Hanni Münzer). Solving the murders of a growing number of high-ranking church leaders traces the motive to the proposed revelation of ancient documents sealed by the church leaders that indicate Jesus had appointed leadership roles to women. This information is seen as threatening to all church structure. Hence, 300 pages of intrigue.

The stuff of novels?

photo credit: Geordie via photopin (license)

The other day I was doing some research and googled “top church influencers.” Up popped a post on a blog, Brian Dodd on Leadership. It is a list of the top 30 blogs Christian leaders should have been reading in 2015. I recognized a couple of names that I’ve followed online and I had heard of a few more, but most were unknown to me.

But something was really jumping out.

Where were the names of any women? Women are the engines of most churches.

Of 30 influential blogs listed only three are written by women.  The only place women are listed as influencers are in the category “Women.” There is no “Men” category.

Women exist as influencers only as they relate to women. One writes about gender abuse. A bunch write for a blog written for women leaders and preachers wives. A third is an author and speaker who has written for the female perspective (a NY Bestselling author—must be a market for it!). By women, for women. An interesting segregation.

At least the men aren’t claiming to be experts on women! Where would that get them?

The remaining blogs on the list reveal that the world of church leadership (whether Protestant or Catholic) is still a male domain.

Most of the blogs take the corporate view of church, referencing the large church model that sports such oxymoronic terms as “executive pastor.”

Where are the women leaders? Probably serving the smaller congregations—most congregations.

I can still feel the bitterness of my grandmother and mother at their roles as preachers’ wives, which bridled their considerable talents. I often thought they might have been happier if they had been born today, but the dream of equality in the church is still a dream deferred. We’ve got some work to do if we believe in the priesthood of all believers.

Early in the current campaign for the 2016 presidential elections, I wrote a blog post about the wide field of Republican candidates and their religious affiliations. 

Back then, the candidates were eager to be seen as part of some faith group, but they were careful to define their affiliations to pass the political correctness test.

The test was given again this week. The grade for the Republican frontrunner is an embarrassing F–.

The field is now narrowing—current events are giving us a view of the forerunners’ faith. Character is emerging. Perhaps it is a God-send these issues are arising now, before the campaign narrows our choices any further. Perhaps it will help us avoid a serious national mistake.

Which is more troubling?

• The leading candidate, Donald Trump, is sending us back to World War II and the McCarthy Era. His views and proposed remedies of the current crisis with militant Islamic extremists violate our nation’s founding principles. It should be obvious to any eighth-grade civic student.
• The remaining serious contenders seem to be scared to speak strongly against the forerunner. Some have already pledged to support the person who won the nomination.

If ever there was a reason to break a promise, this is it. We need the other contenders to speak up and withdraw their pledged support. Just be honest: you thought you could support his candidacy but this is a development you cannot accept. That would be leadership.

There are more important principles at stake than protecting chances for the VP slot or protecting party loyalty. There usually are, by the way.

It has been proven time and again—Leaders who lead by excluding self-defined opponents are dangerous (in world politics and within the Church).

A few months ago, the candidates were trying to qualify for the nation’s faith vote.

Now they are missing the main point of most faith groups and the very definition of the God worshiped by Christians.

Back then, Trump defined himself as a Presbyterian who attends church as much as he can. “Always on Christmas and Easter.”

Well, Donald. In two weeks or so, when you find yourself in church on Christmas, I hope you hear the message.

God is love. Change the accent. God IS love.

Love is inclusive, not exclusive. Any Sunday School Kindergarten student can tell you that.