It is very common to hear church leaders talk about demanding change in congregations. Often failure to change — even failure to want change — is cited by judicatories as reason enough to cut services and open the cattle chute leading a congregation to closure.

All this talk may be well intentioned, but it is puzzling and frustrating to the laity. Clergy are just as frustrated. They spend a lot of time sharing stories about their congregations that refused to change. Meanwhile, church closings are growing more numerous and more contentious.

At the root of the problem is failure to consider the lay point of view. As we have pointed out in many posts, change is rarely defined. Lay members do not know what the clergy want. They suspect clergy don’t know either.   

They are asking:  What do they want us to do differently? They seem to still want Sunday morning worship, choirs, offerings taken, Sunday School taught, meetings held, pot luck dinners prepared, and the property cared for. How can we expected to do all this and additional work? Do they want us to stop being who we are?  Is there something the matter with us?

The relationship between judicatory/clergy and the congregation becomes like a marriage controlled by a nagging spouse. Expect divorce! Apply the Golden Rule. How would you feel if week after week, meeting after meeting, you were told to change? It is demoralizing. Demoralized people are going to dig in their heals.

What is going through the lay person’s mind is something like this (They may be afraid to share their concerns and risk being labeled “Won’t Change.”):

“I’ve worked all my life for this church. I’ve gone to Sunday School, sung in the choir, attended youth meetings, served on committees, been at worship services almost every week. I was baptized here, confirmed here, married here and my children were baptized here. I’ve done everything I’ve been asked to do. I may not tithe but I put a lot of money in the plate and sweat into the work. What do they want from me? Why aren’t I good enough? And how about the pastor? Doesn’t the pastor get a paycheck for doing this?”

When the laity are faced with the demands for change, their arms cross and they lean back in their chairs. They are getting defensive for good reason. They are under attack. The laity stand to lose everything — their friends and their support system fostered over many years, their status in the ecumenical community and the secular community as it relates to the local communities of faith, their sense of worth, their heritage, their property, their accumulated offerings, their future, their faith, and
the sense that God loves them the way they are — which is the foundation of any strong church of any size. Their families and friendships are at risk of being divided. They face modern-day excommunication. Clergy coldly advise lay people to move to other churches where they must start re-building their reputation, friendships and influence with the real possibility that their new church will suffer the same fate in a few years. It is no surprise that what few statistics have been collected reveal that the suddenly unchurched remain unchurched — a loss to all Christendom — but the “transforming regional bodies” treat them as little more than collateral damage.

From the lay point of view, they are being asked to “change” while everything else in the church remains the same. Clergy play the same role and do the same things. They are the only leadership option provided, and the laity must work with whatever skills or failings this one person has. Change may require different help but there is no budget for that — and that’s not how it’s done! What is change going to cost? How can a congregation budget for this and still pay all the same expenses? Don’t even think about spending endowment money or church equity to create change. Resources must be preserved! If change doesn’t happen and churches fail, the blame is invariably placed on the congregation. And the church wonders why people have stopped attending church!

It is time to rethink this approach and take a careful look at the effects of modern-day transformational policies on the individual church members and the communities. Perhaps the transformation process, which has worthy goals, would be more effective if judicatories took the oath of other healers: First, do no harm. Along with the success stories, study the failures. When this process fails, it fails big time! Revisit the communities where churches have been forced into closure as a result of failed “transformation” policies. Look carefully at the role of clergy and the judicatory in a congregation’s history. Interview the members who become excommunicated by the transformation process. Do this now!

The Bible talks about transformation, but it spends much more time talking about love. This should still be the focus of any clergy/congregation relationship. Concentrating on this may empower the longed-for change.

What is the primary job of a judicatory?

Feed my sheep.