Change in the Church is painstakingly slow. When things are going well, there is no need for change. When times are challenged, as they are today, the need for change is shouted from the pulpit.

The Church really wants things to stay the same. This is just as true at the denominational level as at the parish level. We all long for the day when 100 or more people came together on Sunday morning and put their offerings together to pay for one pastor’s leadership. We called this the “viable” congregation.

Church became more expensive as the costs of maintaining property and professional compensation packages began to rise at the same time attendance began to drop.

It is the collapse of this economic model that inspires the cry for “Change!” Otherwise, we’d be doing ministry the same old way. In fact, we are! Change is demanded in theory, but discouraged in practice.

The wall standing between the Church and the future is its past. Congregations are first judged by their ability to meet the needs of an outdated economic model before they can implement any change.  And so things slowly grow worse.

At one of our Ambassador visits, a pleasant young lady gave a report to the congregation on her first visit to a Synod Assembly (the annual business meeting of all congregations in the synod). She was in obvious awe of her experience and made a spirited presentation. She was especially impressed with meeting the bishop, whom she described as “the person who makes it all happen.”

She is wrong. It is not the bishop who makes ministry happen. Fueled by the Holy Spirit, it is the people in the congregation — the people who risk their time, talent, faith and resources to serve their Church. If they are lucky, they have good professional leaders to serve them, but many congregations today toil to provide the same basic ministries to their communities with much less professional commitment then they had in the past.

The denominational answer to the challenge is to attempt to manage change from afar. This is a failing proposition as evidenced by the number of church closings that result.

Strapped for cash, leaders are tempted to examine neighborhood ministries for signs of failure that might justify seizing congregational assets. Small churches find themselves planning their future with their eyes constantly glancing over their shoulders.

Unfortunately, protecting financial and property assets has become the overriding mission of the Church. We are forgetting that the will and spirit of the faithful are also resources to be protected.

Congregations must be empowered.

A better approach would be to create an atmosphere that ENCOURAGED risk taking and SUPPORTED and REWARDED new initiatives. But the congregational outposts that have the most potential for encouraging growth, are given only platitudes. Encourage multicultural ministry. Discourage bullying. Etc.

Good ideas! How?

The Need to Take Risks

The Church faces other problems as well — some economic, some societal, some theological. None can be effectively addressed without risk.

2×2 addresses some of these problems in our virtual ministry, just as we once did when we had physical resources — which were seized by our denomination, just as we were beginning to make significant progress.

Our experience gives our sister congregations reason to fear.

The Church must acknowledge that the economy has made ministry difficult. This does not mean ministry must end. It means resources must be spent differently with ministry as its goal.

The problem is not going to be solved with caretaker ministries and forced church closings, which do nothing but reward the hierarchy at considerable cost to the community of believers.

The standard approach of the church to any significant challenge is to acknowledge it and pray. And often that’s where the problems stay — in our thoughts and prayers. Action does not follow.

Change will not happen without individual congregations sticking out their necks and trying new ideas. New ideas cost money. Congregations must be free to use their resources without fear of denominational interference. A few failures can be expected before results begin to show.

This is a foundation of Lutheran polity. We must be free to Act Boldly.