CMConnect is a lively forum with lots of input on many subjects about Christian education. Many, if not most, of the voices are lay. The dialog is practical and hands on. Nitty-gritty questions get quick and thorough answers. Participants are actively trying to help one another. It’s eclectic, down-to-earth and helpful.
Another forum we follow is Alban Institute’s Roundtable, which poses a topic prompted by a book offering each Monday morning. The voices in this forum are almost exclusively those of clergy.
The engagement is miniscule compared to that of CMConnect, but those that respond usually do so at some length. The topics that draw interaction are interesting.
An October post from a book by a female pastor discussing the length of hair, jewelry and wardrobe of women in ministry drew 22 passionate responses.
A pivotal post about the future of religion in the Digital Age drew one response (2×2’s) and that response awaited moderation for a full week!
The comfortable perennial topics of budgets and teaching draw moderate dialog — three or four comments.
Tough topics that stand to change the church draw little or no interaction.
It is difficult to engage church leaders on topics outside their comfort level. Why? Are they comfortable in the isolation of their parish? Are they fearful of hierarchical repercussions? Must dialog be within approved denominational channels?
Without more open discussion, the Church will continue to decline.
Discussion must take place among church leaders and between leaders and lay people. Technology makes this easy. Changing habits is hard!
A year or so ago announcing your presence on Facebook was the latest craze. Many Church leaders tried this route as congregations and regional bodies added Facebook pages.
We visited the Facebook page of one prominent church leader. It started with a hesitant attempt to engage the flock. Within one year, the Facebook page had deteriorated to nothing but announcements of press releases. One young person had posted a deep concern on the “wall.” The answer received to that post was obviously written by a staff person, someone monitoring this prominent leader’s Facebook page — a digital age blow off.
That points to a real danger of church engagement on Facebook. People reaching out expect a caring person online waiting to hear them and willing to answer. They expect the Facebook owner to be reading what they write and they expect that person to respond when they’ve invited the inquiry. A digital blow-off from a third party, offered days later, has the power to devastate.
People will sense phoniness and turn to active forums that really ARE listening and engaging.
As proof . . . after one year this church leader had NO friends and few followers. So what was the point of the big Facebook announcement?
Facebook requires more daily attention and commitment — more time than most church leaders are able or willing to give.
We visited dozens of congregational Facebook pages . . . again . . . mostly press release type announcements with no real engagement. Most had very little activity.
This is why we recommend that congregations enter Social Media through blogging. You can develop your pace and control the content much more easily. People can engage just as they do on Facebook, but are likely to be more thoughtful about it and more willing to wait a day or so for a response.
There is some value to being on Facebook. You can feed your posts through the various Social Media outlets and get some traffic benefits. But it is hardly worth the fanfare of announcing it.
If you make a big announcement about your Facebook page and then doing nothing with it, it is like crying Wolf. Don’t say it if you don’t intend to play it!
Imagine this meeting between Jesus and his disciples and the local church development consultant.
Jesus:
Good to meet you, Mr. Consultant. Thanks for your time. Let’s get right to work. I want this fine group of men to go out into all the world and preach the Gospel. We’re hoping you can give us some advice about the best way to do this.
Consultant:.
I’m so glad you came to me, Mr. Jesus. I am an expert at analyzing ministry potential in Galilee. I know my services come at a steep cost, but in the end, I’ll be able to save you time and money.
Jesus:
So, where should we start? We are raring to go!
Consultant:
I’ve finished my analysis. I reviewed the census reports and toured the neighborhood and interviewed a good number of locals. I hate to discourage you but your ministry dollars might be better spent elsewhere.
Jesus:
You’ll have to explain that. We’ve been walking around Galilee for months and we’ve already made progress. All we need from you is advice on how to best spend our time and resources. Money doesn’t grow on olive trees, you know!
Consultant:
Sorry, Mr. Jesus. I wish I had Good News for you. I know how important this is to you — this being your home and all. But the fact is the opportunities for ministry in your neighborhood are very few. The demographics just don’t support ministry — not here, not now.
A Disciple (you can guess which one!)
Jesus, listen to him. Why are we paying Mr. Consultant if we are not about to listen? The expert said we are wasting our time. Let’s call it quits, divide the money we’ve collected and call it a day. It’s been fun, guys, but I’m with Mr. Consultant. He says the demographics won’t support us. Good enough for me! (He walks away).
Remaining Disciples:
Come on! You have to do better than that. We’re from this neighborhood!
Jesus glances proudly at his disciples but quickly turns back to the local business authority.
Jesus:
I’m prepared to start sending these men out in teams of two starting right now. They are well-trained. Just point us in the best direction!
Consultant:
Again, Mr. Jesus. You are wasting your time and money. First, everyone around here is Jewish.
Disciples snigger uncomfortably. Consultant notices and quickly jumps to his own defense.
Consultant:
All right, I understand . . you are Jewish, too, but you are the exceptions. How many more fisherman and tax collectors do you think you’ll find? The odds are just not in your favor, especially with the opposition of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Disciples:
What about all the people we’ve already met and helped?
Consultant:
Well, that’s true, butthey’re not going to help you. They don’t have any money to support your efforts. They’re “takers.” If you want to succeed in your ministry you need to find “givers.”
Peter, angrily:
Are you calling me a “taker”?!
Consultant:
Whoa. I didn’t mean to rile you. I’m just saying . . . you can’t keep curing the lame and talking to widows and expect to have a viable ministry.
Jesus:
So, what do you suggest? I thought about limiting our ministry to my family and Jewish friends, but I have this idea. Lately, I’ve been thinking about preaching to the (hesitates) … the Gentiles.
Consultant gasps:
Surely, you are not thinking of converting Romans and Samaritans! That’s a losing proposition. Our studies show NO interest among those demographics. The chance of success with them is about as good as with the know-it-all Greeks. You might as well start knocking on doors in Gaul! You’ll lose any support you ever hoped of getting from the Pharisees. Sounds like a good way to get yourself killed!
Jesus:
But what about all the children? They seem to like following us.
Consultant:
Yeah, children are real cute, but you just aren’t getting it, Mr. Jesus. Children won’t pay the light bill.
Jesus:
Light bill!? Now you’ve lost me.
But I’m listening. You’re the expert. Where should we go with our message of love and salvation.
Consultant:
I’m sorry to be the bearer of Bad News, Mr. Jesus, but my best advice is to go back to the drawing board with your mission plan. Ministry to Jews, Greeks, Samaritans, Romans, children, widows, sinners, poor, sick, and lame, just isn’t the best use of your mission dollars. Much as it pains me to say, I think the time has come to close your doors. Give what’s left of your money to someone with better odds. It won’t be easy, but really, it is for the best. And as for you disciples, I’ll work up a report on where you can go to fit in. Your work was real good and all. Credit where credit’s due. Oh, before I forget . . . here’s my invoice. I take cash.
This little scenario is not as far-fetched as it may seem. It closely parallels a conversation our church had with a church consultant 20 years ago. It is the very rationale that is behind the epidemic of church closings.
It was carefully explained to us that ministry in our own neighborhood was “not good use of the Lord’s money.” The neighborhood had changed. There was no point in continuing.
Others face the same challenge. One pastor summed it up well.
Our old members are very generous. The problem is that the changing neighborhood is bringing poorer people to our worship who are not accustomed to supporting a church. It takes ten of them to equal the support of one of our older members.
The challenge facing the church is that it is these very people whom churches are pledged to serve. That’s the way it was in Jesus day and that’s the way it is today. When we start looking at every church visitor through our green-tinted fiscal glasses, the entire mission of the church is lost.
Church planners often look for memberships that can support the lifestyle and structure to which they have become accustomed. And that’s where Christian mission ends.
We have long advocated that a church budget be used as a tool to motivate a congregation from Point A to Point B, instead of simply representing what was spent last year plus a bit for inflation. See just a few of our posts on this topic.
The way we think about our money and assets will predict failure or success. If we approach our budgets as “hanging on” to the way we did things last year and the year before, your ministry will die. If you look to the future with a vision of where you need to be, and anticipate the costs of getting there, you have a fighting chance. That planning must happen before the budget is presented, but often churches do things the other way around.
This requires more than approval of a budget. That is a small part of the equation but it is often where ministry starts and stops.
The budget is a map. If it plans to go nowhere, your church will go nowhere.
Teach your budget. Preach your budget. This does NOT mean begging for money. It means showing people how their offerings can be put to work for the true reasons people are motivated to give to churches.
Do this and your budget will become a living tool—not a mirror of your past.
If you think technology will not affect religion, think again.
Back to School night at my son’s school was always an education. He is a college man now, but I remember the stark contrast to my own schooling I found when I entered his classroom every fall.
Today, very few classrooms are arranged with rows of desks and chairs facing a teacher’s desk and blackboard. In grade school the desks are clumped in little communities. Lessons are taught with the children sitting with their teachers on the floor. Furniture becomes more meaningful in older grades but is usually arranged in circles. A teacher’s desk is off in an obscure corner. Class discussions are more like an afternoon at Arthur’s Roundtable than a lecture hall. Assignments are often group projects with individuals responsible for the success of classmates.
Smartboards or laptops are the hub and spokes of the learning circle. The conversation can be broadened beyond the walls of the school with an effortless Skype or internet connection. Teachers are facilitators of learning more than relaters of factual information. This is the world our young people know five days a week.
Then, with decreasing frequency, they go to church on Sunday.
They encounter a service or liturgy with its roots in ancient times. If their family has brought them to church from their cradle days this is not a shock. To the uninitiated this is an aberration. Young people are asked to stand and sit and stand and sit and no one tells them why anymore. They settle back for a 20+-minute sermon when they’ve never before listened to any one person talk for more than five minutes.
The current coming-of-age generation (Generation Y) is not accustomed to the Church’s standard model for communicating the Gospel. They have not experienced it.
Faced with this as the only option for being part of religion, they find it easy — to use the term of the internet — to opt out.
How is the Church going to answer this new reality? We have some ideas. We are sure you do, too!
We will start exploring this topic this week. — Administrator, Judy Gotwald
Bishop Claire Burkat of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (ELCA) recently wrote to professional leaders outraged that people (specifically members of Redeemer) have suggested she is following a plan to close SEPA congregations.
She denies this.
We present to you the following evidence which makes it clear SEPA weighs the benefits to SEPA when assessing the strength of member ministries. SEPA has relied on church closings to fund its budget.
1998
In 1998, Bishop Almquist had his eye on Redeemer, a small church with a large endowment. He created conditions that led to imposing “involuntary synodical administration” and raided our bank account. When at last he gave up on the “administration” ruse he took an additional year to return the confiscated money, keeping some for Synod expenses. He then issued a plea to congregations for help in restoring the depleted “Mission Fund.” The amount he was asking for was almost exactly the amount returned to Redeemer. Redeemer in effect had supplied SEPA with an involuntary, two-year, interest-free loan.
2001
The issue with Bishop Almquist resolved in 2001, but he failed to find leadership for our congregation, trying to force us into long-term relationships with pastors who were clearly minimally commited. From 2001 to 2006, little concern was shown for Redeemer. It was even stated that left alone for ten years we were likely to die a natural death. Further evidence that this is a leadership philosophy: In 2001, Bishop Burkat as a member of Almquist’s staff holding the title of Mission Director, co-authored a book for regional church leaders, recommending a triage system for small churches. Do not spend time and resources on churches that will die in ten years, the book advises leaders.
2005
In 2005, just prior to Bishop Burkat’s election, SEPA treasurer reported that the Synod was within $75,000 of depleting every resource available. That’s about one month’s payroll for a staff of 14. Synod was in financial crisis.
2006
Redeemer had been working with Epiphany for nearly two years to unite our congregations and thought we were making progress. In October 2006, Epiphany abruptly announced its intention to break our covenant and close. We learned this vote was taken after Bishop Burkat met with Pastor Muse and Epiphany’s president. Redeemer was not consulted.
Pastor Muse gave 10 days notice, leaving Redeemer with no professional leadership. For six months, Bishop Burkat “helped bring closure” to Epiphany’s ministry . . . while neglecting Redeemer who was still housing Epiphany’s congregation but now with no advantages to their ministry. Epiphany was never locked out of Redeemer during their six-month closure process.
2007
Redeemer was launching a new ministry outreach which was showing great promise. By 2007, the national Church had already made note of our innovative ministry. We were attempting to get the attention of SEPA’s Mission Director. Phone calls were unreturned. We were told at last: “It doesn’t matter what your congregation does, the Bishop intends to close your church.” So much for the process of “mutual discernment”!
2008
SEPA Synod Assembly voted for a hefty deficit budget several years in a row. In 2008, when Bishop Burkat officially announced its intentions for Redeemer, the approved deficit was shy of $300,000—about 10% of the total budget. It was well known at the time that offerings and membership were in steady decline. Even larger SEPA congregations were experiencing hardship. Was there a plan presented for how to come up with $300,000?
Yes. It was reported that budget shortfalls are made up from the “Mission Fund.” Only later was the Assembly told that the Mission Fund was the repository of assets from closed churches.
In February, Bishop Burkat brought a lawyer, a locksmith and a sizable posse with her to what she thought was to be her first meeting with Redeemer. “Mutual discernment” began with intimidation.
2009
Synod Attorney John Gordon, before Judge Lynn in its actions against Redeemer, argued that Redeemer was the first of six congregations SEPA intended to close, suggesting to the court that it was a normal and benevolent procedure. That in itself is admission that SEPA has a plan to close churches.
2010
In the fall of 2010, Redeemer Ambassadors encountered a member of Epiphany in one of our visits. She spoke of her outrage that it was only after Epiphany voted to close that the congregation was informed that all but 5% of its assets had to be turned over to the Synod. There are many published reports of Lutheran congregations closing and dividing assets to causes of their choosing. There is no rule that congregational assets automatically go to Synod.
Statistics show that 80% of members from churches forced into closure never find a new church home. The members of closed SEPA congregations we encounter are hurt and angry. Those impressively orchestrated closing ceremonies do little more than assuage the consciences of leaders. We suspect that the process of closing churches that Bishop Burkat describes as going smoothly is not satisfactory from the congregations’ view.
We invite congregations to tell of their experiences.
2011
It was not until the 2011 Synod Assembly that the Assembly insisted on a balanced budget, but still earmarked about 3% as coming from the Mission Fund—progress that came too late for about six SEPA congregations.
November 2011
We encountered a businessman on one of our visits who told us his company had attempted to help an urban church with a property problem. He received a phone call from Bishop Burkat ordering him to stop helping this church. Why? The plan, she explained, was to close the church and sell the property. This congregation is still open. Our Ambassadors have visited it twice. Members are fervent in their passion for their ministry.
There is ample evidence that closing churches is part of Synod’s plan to fund their budget.
SEPA member churches and clergy MUST take responsibility for the leadership they elect.
Many innocent people sitting in pews across five counties rely on you. Lay servants may think twice when they see how Redeemer leaders have been treated. They provide offerings, energy, property, buildings, and passion to SEPA’s ministry. SEPA is taking advantage of them.
The measure of a Synod is in how it treats its smallest congregations.
Jason Stambaugh of Wevival wrote a blog post on the cost of social media which is worth a read.
He discusses the true costs of serious engagement in social media. He points out accurately that the real cost is time. We suspect that the time required to work in social media ministry is the biggest hurdle for pastors and congregations.
The fees to have a social media presence are negligible — less than $50 per year. The learning curve is shorter for each successive generation. Time is often the reason social media efforts either do not happen or die on the vine. We can’t tell you how many church web sites we’ve visited that were last updated in 2009!
Time is the investment. What are the benefits?
This article also points out five major benefits — all of which we have mentioned as well. They make it very clear that failure to find the time is failure in ministry.
Accountability. Social Media creates a discipline. You become accountable for your passion. Isn’t that what ministry is all about? Your readers will hold you accountable as well!
Thought Leadership. The Church is accustomed to a “top-down” dialog process. It will take a while for both pastors and congregants to become comfortable with the idea that this model will not work much longer in religion. It may have always been a bad idea. The Jewish faith, from which Christianity grew, fosters a questioning of their teachings as part of their faith discipline. The Medieval structure of the Christian Church, under which we still live, discourages this. The resulting lack of thought leadership is contributing to the decline of the Church. This is not to say that pastors are not great thinkers. They are just sharing their great thoughts with fewer and fewer people because they are relying on people coming to them on Sunday morning. With fewer and fewer people in Church, there is less thinking going on in the pew as well!
Help. In the past congregations took their ideas and questions to their pastors, who passed rigorous examination from those above him (and for centuries it was a “him”). It was cumbersome to follow any other path such as writing letters and waiting for a response. That has changed! Communities of interest spring up overnight. And they help one another! 2×2 can attest to the power of social media to find help. There are millions of people in the world engaged in social media. Some of them may have answers to your questions on your pastor’s day off.
Real life connections. Social Media starts with anonymous interaction but can and does grow to people meeting and working together. Again, 2×2 can attest to the effectiveness of internet connectedness.
Opportunity. Wow! What else can we say? There was never greater opportunity.
Consider your social media presence your Pool of Bethesda. That's where people go looking for help these days. If you aren't there you can't help!
So why aren’t more churches engaging in Social Media? They haven’t figured out how to find the time. They are busy doing things the way they’ve done them for centuries. Some of this is good—no one wants their leaders to stop visiting or spend less time on sermon preparation, etc., but to not find time which can bring the benefits listed above to your community is opportunity missed, potential voices silenced, help withheld because we weren’t paying attention to the place where people are going for help these days.
2×2 has many readers who know little about the long conflict within SEPA Synod, and we do not wish to burden them. We want 2×2 to be a lively forum for ideas.
Therefore we created a special page to discuss the recent letter Bishop Claire Burkat wrote to SEPA clergy to prepare them for a possible article in the Philadelphia papers. If you are interested, here’s the link.
Among the most frequently asked questions among new bloggers/social media practitioners is “How do we get people to “like” us or “comment.”
This is particularly difficult in the church setting because Social Media breaks a 2000-year-old tradition. Preachers preach. Congregants listen. Traditional communication is one way.
If pastors are encouraging parishioners to voice theological thoughts in public, they are asking people to make a major change in their spiritual relationships with God, the Church, and with other people. They may feel awkward, vulnerable or unqualified. This will take time.
Encouraging religious dialog among the laity is a worthwhile goal and long, long overdue. Trust must be established. Confidence must be built. Faith must be prepared for inevitable challenges. It’s a tall order and not to be rushed.
Here are some ideas.
Start with younger members. They are closer to their confirmation years and much more comfortable with social media, although many do not see it as a place for serious thought. Still, they are a most likely to consider it. The challenge will be to build their confidence to speak outside their circle of peers.
Prime the pump. Ask three people to write a blog or start a conversation on Facebook. Help them. Teach them. Guide them.
Engage the congregation or forum group in conversation about the online dialog and specifically ask some of them to share their insights on line. You can lead the way with your own “like” or comment.
Create an online poll asking questions that the posts raised. This is an easy first online engagement for people. It’s anonymous but people can see how it works.
Repeat this cycle monthly or quarterly or as topics arise in your community or congregation.
One more idea:
Blogging Roundtable
Have a blog roundtable. Sometimes these are called blog carnivals. It’s a new idea so you can choose any name you like. Make it fun. Blogging rodeo? Blogging round-up? Blogfest?
Ask several or many people to write on a given topic and submit a 500-word or less post in email, text or document format. Post an introductory blog to present the topic and explain the roundtable concept. Set a deadline about 10 days away. Do some behind the scenes nudging to make sure you have at least a few responses. Run a few tickler posts on the topic to get mental juices flowing. On the appointed day, publish ALL the posts at once and encourage participants and readers to mix, match and compare. You might even run a “like” contest or poll to see which ideas resonate best.
This could help rally people and engage them in a fun way.
Join Bishop Ruby Kinisa as she visits small churches "under cover" to learn what people would never share if they knew they were talking to their bishop.
Undercover Bishop will always be available in PDF form on 2x2virtualchurch.com for FREE.
Print or Kindle copies are available on Amazon.com.
For bulk copies, please contact 2x2: creation@dca.net.
MISSION INSPIRATION OFFER
A visual and biblical guide to help congregations define their missions.
Contact Info
You can reach
Judy Gotwald,
the moderator of 2x2,
at
creation@dca.net
or 215 605 8774
Redeemer’s Prayer
We were all once strangers, the weakest, the outcasts, until someone came to our defense, included us, empowered us, reconciled us (1 Cor. 2; Eph. 2).
Be calm. Wait. Wait. Commit your cause to God. He will make it succeed. Look for Him a little at a time. Wait. Wait. But since this waiting seems long to the flesh and appears like death, the flesh always wavers. But keep faith. Patience will overcome wickedness.
—Martin Luther
2×2 follows several online forums.
It is difficult to engage church leaders on topics outside their comfort level. Why? Are they comfortable in the isolation of their parish? Are they fearful of hierarchical repercussions? Must dialog be within approved denominational channels?
