4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

Church Leadership

Lay Leaders As Middle Managers

wwa_three_expressions.ashxLay Leaders Have An Important Job
…if the Church Will Let Us Do It!

The governance of the Evangelical Lutheran Church is murky water. We are proud of our interdependence—our three expressions. Church leaders talk about it a lot.

We are less clear on how this actually works.

The foundation of interdependence is the local congregation. From this foundation comes the talent and resources that support the second interdependent entity (the regional body or synod) and the third interdependent agency (the national church). Entities 2 and 3 cannot exist without Entity 1. Entity 1 can exist without the others, but relationship with 2 and 3 is expected to make the local church stronger and more effective.

Regional clergy often feel a loyalty to the third expression, the National Church. Are they part of the regional expression? Are they a branch of the national expression? Are they beholding to their regional leader? Are they most loyal to the leaders and congregation who issue their call?

There is spillover in the role of the regional leadership—especially the office of bishop. They are elected by and serve the regional churches, but they are close to the national expression. A sort of old boys’ and girls’ club. They know each other and regard each other, but have no clue what they as individuals are doing in their 65 little corners of the United States. Since the highest authority in the ELCA is the regional Synod Assembly, they never find out. At some point the ELCA should review this. It is proving to be a bad idea. Leaders are taking advantage of this weaknesses for their own enrichment.

Lay leaders don’t fit into this structure except on paper. Our constitutions provide the laity considerable control over local ministry—the first of the three expressions and the one that funds the other two!

In practice, regional bodies are taking on powers to unilaterally strip local authority at whim. There is no effective way to check this. Synod Assemblies get their information from the synod office. They don’t have any way of investigating issues independently. In our Region, they haven’t even tried. Their decision in our case was based primarily on gossip—generated by SEPA leaders.

But still, the management of the local congregation is in the hands of the lay people. That’s the way it’s supposed to be in Lutheranland. Lay leaders stand between the people in the pew and the long arms of the clergy which branch from the national expression.

Here’s a quote from management guru Seth Godin.

The work of the middleman is to inspect and recover. If your restaurant gets lousy fish from the boat, you don’t get to serve it and proclaim garbage in garbage out. No, your job is to inspect what you get, and if necessary, change it.

That’s a big responsibilty. When we get lousy guidance from the regional or national office, we have an obligation to say “Wait a minute.”

Lay people must constantly inspect the information passed down to them—double check it, so to speak. We cannot trust that clergy have our interests in mind. It’s been clear in far too many cases that they have their own interests or the regional body’s interests in mind.

Many lay people individually are more than qualified to ask the right questions. Some lay people need to learn these skills. A responsibility of lay people is to make sure their congregations foster these skills among future generations.

Fostering an environment where questions are expected and encouraged is a challenge. Management is always tempted to believe that things run most smoothly when there are no challenges. They are wrong. Challenges, ably and readily met, make a wonderfully creative environment. We have a way to go before we achieve this.

It doesn’t take much for wrong teaching to take hold and change the character of the whole church.

Our Ambassadors occasionally come across such wrong teaching. One pastor preached to the people that they shouldn’t turn to God in prayer for little things that they can do themselves. Save God for the big things, she preached.

That began to resonate but it isn’t scriptural. It sure sounds good. But it is wrong. God is God. He wants us to come to Him in prayer. Our biggest problems are a hangnail to Him. It is somewhat presumptuous to believe that we have ANY power that is not gifted to us through Him. We need to stay in touch with God so that we remember that!

Wrong thinking can spread to wrong acting. We are seeing this today in the mis-interpretation of powers.

Bishops, aided by their synod councils, who together face economically trying times, look for answers. The answers they are finding are often outside their governance. If there is no one to point this out, they can help themselves at severe harm to others and their own mission. Get away with it once, the second, third and fourth times are so much easier—even acceptable for the lack of challenge.

What do we, as part of an interdependent church, do when one interdependent expression becomes predatory against another interdependent expression?

The only thing that can stop this is knowledgeable and independent thinking among both clergy and lay people.

That’s the challenge of today’s church.

We’ve been to Synod Assembly. We’ve seen pastors walk in, register as required, and walk out, leaving the decisions to others to make — right or wrong.

We’ve been to Synod Assembly where no one asks questions. No reason to. The answers have been laid out for the Assembly to rubber stamp.

We’ve been to Synod Assembly where serious and costly mistakes have been made because delegates follow when they should be leading.

The work of the middleman (lay leadership) is to inspect and recover. It’s a big job but somebody’s got to do it.

It’s actually the laity’s constitutional role. It’s supposed to be shared with clergy, but that hasn’t been effective. They need their jobs!

Let’s start doing a better job. It may be tough at first. It certainly hasn’t been easy here in East Falls, where the dangers and pitfalls are on display for all churches to see. (You’re welcome!)

If we don’t do our job under the grand scheme of Lutheran interdependence, it will all fall apart. Laity are Lutheran inspectors—the best safeguard to—

“Garbage in. Garbage out.”

22 Sep 2013

An Interesting Post on Leadership Styles

mousetrap gotcha“Gotcha” Leadership in the ELCA

Dave Bratcher, a leadership consultant, wrote in his blog today about the style of leadership he terms “gotcha” leadership.

I wrote something similar for 2×2 ages ago. I called it the “gotcha factor.”

Dave’s post deserves a read by church leaders because gotcha leadership is a common tactic in the ELCA.

  • Approach a congregation with YOUR vision for THEIR future.
  • Stonewall anyone who disagrees. Gotcha.
  • Intimidate existing leaders. Gotcha.
  • Bring a posse, a lawyer and a locksmith to meetings. Gotcha.
  • Sue those who pursue their grievances. Gotcha.
  • Drag a simple, manageable dispute into court and rely on separation of church and state and immunity from the law (while using the law against church members). Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha.
  • Reluctantly allow a congregation to bring a grievance to Synod Assembly. Allow them no voice. Line up a host of witnesses who if they ever knew anything about the church have no current knowledge. Give them ALL the limited microphone time, supposedly available to everyone (thus doubling their side’s allotted debate time). Allow these additional witnesses to publicly ridicule the congregation, including individual members, none of whom are permitted to answer their accusers. Gotcha.

The only thing with which I would disagree is what Dave calls the tendency of peers to speak up for one another. This has happened in the Redeemer conflict only in private.

Otherwise, he is correct. Gotcha church leaders discourage risk-taking while imploring congregations to innovate. They manage by shuffling resources around, including resources that don’t necessarily belong to them! The activity makes it look like they are doing more than they actually are. Move failing Pastor A to Congregation B and then Congregation C and D to use up resources more quickly. Shut down the German heritage churches and give the resources to Korean/Latino/Homeless, etc. Lutherans. Close the older working class churches who are debt-free and build new churches in the suburbs with their assets. Forget the pain caused to the closed churches. Celebrate the new churches. All this shuffling of resources creates “us” against “them” scenarios.

Gotcha leaders can really do no better than keep and celebrate the status quo. They can do this with great fanfare! They control the media—at least until all churches discover the power of the internet.

In reality, they are more likely to start congregations down the road to failure and break the morale of their able and hard-working members.

This kind of leadership spreads fast, especially in desperate times.

The Church is facing desperate times.

Oh, and there is another word for “gotcha” leadership. Bullying.

photo credit: nicubunu.photo via photopin cc
06 Sep 2013

Risk-taking: What Is the Church Risking?

risk-taking6 Things to Consider Before Taking A Risk

Risk-taking in the church is an interesting topic.

It may facilitate risk-taking if we first examine what we are risking.

Let’s not name the innovation. For now, let’s focus on the process of implementing change by adopting risk.

Here are some things to consider:

  • Tradition.

    Tradition is important. It provides continuity. It helps groups of people define themselves. It is not, however, necessarily sacred—even though most of what we call “church” stems from tradition!

    Abandoning tradition cold turkey is asking for trouble. Handle with care.
    You need your current members!Here’s a hard reality.

    Most people do not go to church to move and shake the world. Most people consider a $5 bill in the offering plate the biggest risk they are willing to take. Most people get involved in church for their own comfort and peace of mind.

    Every church has two populations — the people who are happy and think everything is already great and church leaders who are responsible not only for peace and happiness but for moving the church in a mission-oriented direction, which may threaten happiness. Leaders, clergy and lay alike, can fall into the trap of thinking that things are moving forward if everyone is happy. Upsetting the status quo without imploding contentment is the job of true leadership. (It’s not easy!)

    Existing members are your potential evangelists. New members will be watching how you treat existing members.It’s a new world. Ten years ago you could ignore people and they had no voice. Everyone has a soapbox these days. Ignore existing members at your own peril. Honor tradition with sensitivity.

  • Expenses.

    Risk involves change. Change costs money. Every entrepreneur knows that you must spend some money to implement change.
    The church has not yet learned this lesson.

    Every dollar in the church today is coveted. Regional leadership does not want financial risk that might be passed on to them if failure might occur. They therefore keep an eye on troubled churches to guess what the optimal time might be to shut down ministry and gain the assets. They encourage risk in theory, but in practice—watch out! If your identified risk threatens cash or property assets, the regional body is likely to try to become involved. They are likely to have their own interests in mind—not the congregations.

  • Relationships with professional leaders.
     Your leaders will not want your church’s failure on their résumé. They may encourage risk-taking in theory but disappear when the going gets tough—and it will!

    Change isn’t easy.

    Risks may lead your congregation to areas of ministry for which your current leaders have no skills. The pastor everyone loves may be very uncomfortable with the direction you decide to take.

    Same goes with auxiliary staff. An organist might be threatened by the idea of a praise band. A Christian education director may not understand online learning in the religious sphere. Be prepared to deal with this. Reassure your leaders that they will be supported with training and lay support. If you cannot provide this assurance and your leaders seem unlikely to cooperate, be prepared to look for new leadership with the skills you need.

    This is often necessary but traditional church custom values the concept of a settled pastor over innovation. Be prepared for stonewalling from three places—some members, pastors, and regional managers. (A key priority of regional managers is placing and pleasing clergy.)

  • Alienation.

    Your current happy members may not recognize the church you are about to become. Address this early. Try to make everyone a part of innovation. Move slowly when possible. When speed is needed, give those who are slower to accept change something to hang on to. Find something within their comfort zone for which they can be responsible with success.

    Good leaders nurture all. Poor leaders pick and choose followers and consider anyone who may resist to be expendable

    Risk-taking is not all about you and your leadership. The focus is mission.

  • Transparency.

    Transparency is easy when things are rolling along with no intentional plan for the future. When planning for innovation and risk-taking, leaders have a tendency to become less transparent. They think they are avoiding trouble.

    Wrong!

    If leaders expect anyone to follow, they must be clear about the risks. Communicate all aspects of your potentially risky mission plan clearly, often, and in different formats.

    It shouldn’t hurt to point out that risk-taking is part of Jesus’ plan. He was pretty open about that with his disciples. He promised rewards. He also promised danger.

  • Failure. 
    Innovation requires both risk and failure. We learn from mistakes. Risk-taking demands a mindset that understands failure. Unfortunately, the move toward risk-taking is overdue and so the risks are more expensive and the consequences potentially more dire. A struggling congregation may have resources for only one or two risks before its infrastructure will crumble.

    That’s all the more reason to be careful. But it is not a reason to avoid risks.

    There are probably “I told you so’s” waiting to be delivered at the first sign of failure.

    Prepare for the inevitable troubles with flexibility. Have a Plan B, C, and D, in place before you implement Plan A.The irony of risk-taking: Failure to take risks may lead to ultimate and permanent failure.

In Conclusion

People avoid risks. But they also glory in the success that taking risks can bring about. Take risks. But be prepared. Risk-taking is a leadership skill. Make sure your congregation has this skill. If you don’t have it, find it! It’s worth the cost.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

photo credit: Cayusa via photopin cc
26 May 2013

Transforming the Role of Clergy in the Future Church

Transformational Ministry Requires Structural Change

Part of the challenge facing today’s Church is that the role of clergy and how they relate to congregations must change. Changes have already occurred in the numerous short-term and part-time pastorates. This is likely to continue while our expectations remain in the past.

The monetary demands on congregations have grown while the source of funding has been steadily dwindling.

Clergy spent decades griping about being highly educated but poorly paid. They had a point, but the resolution of their complaints has put their services out of reach for many congregations.

“Too bad!” might be a quick response.

The fact is that every church that fails diminishes the mission of the whole Church. Small churches reach more people. The economics of fewer larger churches make economic sense but don’t really work.

Fewer recent college graduates are entering the ministry. Today, candidates for ministry are often mature adults. Some are nearing the end of their careers—drifting from a professional calling. As older servants of God, with established families, lifestyles, and debts, they are looking for economic security and as little disruption to their settled lives as possible. Since clergy often view themselves as CEOs, the pay expectations are the pay expectations of older professionals.

The talent pool in which all congregations fish for leaders is crowded with candidates who can make only part-time commitments within tight geographic parameters. The pool of available talent may not fit congregational needs. Yet it is the role of regional bodies to place their rostered leaders in their rostered churches. Lots of square pegs in fewer round holes. That translates to unhappy clergy and congregations. Conflict often results.

That’s one side of the equation.

On the other side of the equation—the congregational side—an ongoing revolution has been underway. People have stopped attending church. The Sunday morning worship demographic is upwards of 50+.

The younger demographic—the demographic absent from church—represents well-educated career people, whose varied expertise is hard for professional church leaders to recognize if it competes with their own.

This is only part of the picture.

The needs of congregations change so dramatically that they are difficult to define and fill when the need is greatest. Community demographics, once stable for generations, now shift every few years. Congregations using the “settled pastor” model can easily be left with beloved leadership that is unable to serve the changing neighborhood. Decline sets in and everyone is afraid to make changes. We are church people. Nobody likes to complain—even those charged with the welfare of the congregation.

It is fairly clear that most congregations can no longer afford a full-time theologian in residence. Even if they could, it might not be to their mission advantage. The skills of theologians are no longer a congregation’s most urgent imperative.

Theologians are trained in the art of preaching — pulpit to pew communication. Modern church leadership must concentrate on communication beyond pulpit to pew. The pews are nearly empty.

Communication in today’s world is person to person. Very pastoral.

Money spent on making sure a good sermon is provided to a dwindling number of listeners is money that cannot be spent on reaching the people who are not in church—a key mission.

Yet the pastor’s salary is the foundation of every church budget.

The power in the world has shifted to the individual. This changes the way individuals think. We are no longer wired to understand the need to gather on Sunday morning—especially if our presence in Church does not recognize our abilities.

This trend is not likely to reverse. The Church is going to have to adapt.

In the Church, we see a structure that cannot budge. It continues to make unrealistic demands on the few people who remain loyal.

It is disheartening to be a lay person in today’s Church.

The typical congregation of the future, large or small, needs communications experts, education experts and service providers. We need business and entrepreneurial skills. It will be the rare pastor who can fill every need. It is unlikely that the growing pool of second career clergy perceive these skills as part of the role they are adopting late in life. (It may very well be the demands for change in their first careers that inspired them to turn to the Church.)

The day is coming when clergy will not be called to one congregation long-term but to multiple calls defined by skill sets which they will provide to congregations only for as long as they are needed.. They may join teams of clergy with complementary skills. Congregational budgets will detail mission tasks and will no longer allocate a large sum to one pastor.

This is an economic necessity and it will further empower the laity.

And then the Church might be transformed.

19 Mar 2013

Loyalty and the future of the Church

dog is not so sure1The Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (SEPA / ELCA) has become a disciple of Seth Godin, the leading authority on marketing and societal change with a voice on the web. They have quoted him to their congregations.

Seth’s blog today should interest them.

Confusing loyalty with silence

Some organizations demand total fealty, and often that means never questioning those in authority.

Those organizations are ultimately doomed.

Respectfully challenging the status quo, combined with relentlessly iterating new ideas is the hallmark of the vibrant tribe.

SEPA begs its congregations to innovate and change. When they don’t change the way the synod has predetermined that they SHOULD change, they close them down and claim their property.

Redeemer is a case in point. Redeemer was growing quickly when SEPA saw their longed-for chance at claiming our property slipping away. Bishop Almquist had made an attempt to close us and seize our assets in 1998 and backed off after two years. But he refused to work with us in ministry if we didn’t accept the part-time pastor he had chosen for us. His call or no call.

We continued to grow without his help.

SEPA has a mission plan for small churches. They call it triage — shoving the smallest churches to the side and waiting for them to die, while attention is spent on larger churches with more promising prospects for supporting the hierarchy. Property values and assets DO enter the equation. A small congregation is better off if it has no assets than if it has an endowment! Compare Redeemer’s story with Faith/Immanuel in East Lansdowne.

Bishop Burkat loves to call Redeemer “former Redeemer.” We are not sure if she means Redeemer of the 1960s, Redeemer of the 1980s, or the Redeemer she visited with a locksmith in 2008 and spent the last five years suing. We exist if only so we can be sued!

Or maybe she thinks because Synod Council voted to close Redeemer in 2010, never bothering to inform the congregation, that Redeemer is closed. We notice in the latest ELCA yearbook that we are still contributing to the national church! Sounds like we are open!

Synod Council does not have the power to vote congregations out of existence. They’d know that if they read their founding documents. We reserve our constitutional right to challenge synod council’s actions when SEPA can provide a fair forum for hearing a challenge. 

We recall very well our appeal in 2009 — which the Synod Assembly never voted on, substituting a vote about our property (not within their authority) when we were appealing Synodical Administration. Check the Synod Minutes and read the question that was voted on. It had nothing to do with our appeal!

Bait and switch. Then claim immunity from the law to pull it off in court.

Redeemer still exists in every way. Redeemer meets weekly — sometimes more often. Redeemer worships weekly —sometimes more often. Redeemer’s efforts to continue ministry— even as SEPA locked us out of the church we built and excluded us from all rights and fellowship within its fold—have grown our congregation in reach and influence despite persecution.

Redeemer is a vibrant tribe. We were always a viable, innovative congregation and our experience of the last five years has only made us stronger in innovation. We will relentlessly iterate our innovations for the good of all.

SEPA congregations are not powerless. They can still turn this around for the good of mission. But they have to respectfully challenge the status quo and demand peaceful reconciliation.

But what we’ve heard for the last five years is silence.

Redeemer is not closed.
Redeemer is locked out of the Church by SEPA Synod.

photo credit: WilliamMarlow via photopin cc

15 Feb 2013

Web 1 (Ready), Web 2 (Set), Web 3 (Go!)

This is the second in a short series of posts springboarding from an article in The Jewish Week, written by Rabbi Hayim Herring.

Lagging Behind the World We Hope to Reach

I attended a convocation of churches this weekend. About 20 churches met to celebrate the Reformation, conduct some business and listen to some teachings offered by their bishop.

Today, as I waited for Hurricane Sandy, I went through the delegate list and visited every church website — at least those that had websites.

The websites were without exception static “brochure” web sites. A couple were very nicely designed, with full presentations of their ministry. Several others were minimal sites provided by directory services. A few had Facebook websites but they had done nothing with them except list service times. I was the ninth visitor to one of them, which indicates how effective they are.

Only one provided content that might attract traffic from outside their existing community and that was minimal.

As the Web matures we are starting to identify its evolutionary stages.

Web 1 describes the early days of the web from the early 90s, when organizations struggled with clumsy html code to produce static pages with no interactivity. Using the web well meant hiring some help. Help with technology is not on the approved list of church expenses. Organists and sextons are expenses church people understand. Web masters? Not in the budget. Pity! Web masters have real potential to influence the growth of a church! This has become easier.

News flash: You no longer have to know code to create attractive sites. Anyone can do it.

The move to interactivity began about 2004 and has been mushrooming. This is Web 2. Unfortunately many churches are locked in the frustrations they encountered in the infant days of Web 1. If fear of code and technical ability is stopping your church from using the web, relax. The web has become almost as easy to use for originators of content as it is for consumers of content. It is becoming more powerful every day — and that’s no exaggeration.

We can now become involved with the people who visit our sites. Isn’t Involvement why churches exist?

Web 1 influenced the world. Web 2 changed the world.

Most churches are barely embracing Web 1. This failure is creating a widening gap between them and their communities. Catch up is going to be a tougher and tougher hurdle. Still, there is a hesitance to believe that the web can be of value to church mission.

This is foolish.

  • The web can connect your congregation’s members.
  • The web can connect your congregation to your community.
  • The web can connect you to other churches with similar or complementary missions.
  • The web can connect you to the world.

It has never been easier to go out into all the world, yet the Church is late to the airport!

Congregations were never meant to live in isolation, yet we often do — barely aware of what the congregation a few blocks away might be doing. We view other churches as competition, not potential partners.

We are defying our mission.

Rabbi Herring discusses this in the essay we referenced in two previous posts (1 and 2). He suggests that organizations, including religious organizations are poised to enter a third era of Web capabilities— Web 3.

Having lived in the interactive era of Web 2.0 for not quite a decade, we have an understanding about the nature of online community, the need for a vital organizational web presence and the requirement of interactive and dynamic communication with constituents. While still in its early evolutionary stages,

I’d like to suggest that we are already in transition to a Web 3.0 environment. Web 2.0 meant that Jewish organizations needed to replicate their bricks and mortar presence online. Bricks and mortar and bytes and click ran parallel to one another.

Web 3.0 means that defining principles of online social media, like collaboration, co-creation, improvisation and empowerment must now be practiced in the physical world. In other words, the characteristics of the web that enable individuals to self-direct their lives must now flow back into all organizational spaces: in someone’s home, on the web or inside institutional walls. This is definitely another paradigm shift for organizations.

Rabbi Herring’s observations are astute. Those few congregations that have embraced the power of the media are about to take their interactive and collaborative experiences and transform what goes on within their brick and mortar churches. It will be the elusive formula for transformation.

We at 2×2 are starting to dip our toes into this water, cooperating with some of the churches that correspond with us. It’s exciting, It’s a little scary. But it is invigorating and promising.

Those that haven’t bothered to understand Web 1 and are oblivious to Web 2 will not reap the benefits of Web 3.

Someone said recently . . .

Bragging today about avoiding the internet is like bragging you can’t read!

Hey, Church, it’s your choice!

photo credit: gualtiero via photopin cc (retouched)
29 Oct 2012

Low Expectations and the Under-achieving Congregation

Science documents that expectations play a powerful role in laying the groundwork for success.

Good parents know this.

If we expect nothing of our children, they are likely to fail. Expecting failure takes less effort.

If we expect great things, we go to work for our kids. We cheer for them and help to create the conditions for success. We are not surprised when they change the world.

The same science works on adults and in communities. Jesus did his best to build up the people he encountered. He loved them. He showed them he understood them. He challenged them. He gave them the opportunity to fail. He showed them how to pick up the pieces and try again. That’s the training by example that he gave his disciples.

Many church leaders today have given up on the Church. They look through the statistics and see declining attendance, membership, and giving. So sad. Too bad.

A prevailing attitude among today’s church leaders is to accept failure as the norm. Bishop Burkat even recommends doing nothing to help small churches in her book, Transforming Regional Bodies.

The malaise is contagious—and deadly.

Redeemer will never forget Bishop Burkat’s first visit to Redeemer in December 2006. Bishop Burkat likes to claim publicly that she worked hard with our congregation for an extended period of time to no avail. This is what really happened.

It was a study in the power of low expectations, fueled by prejudice.

She walked into our Fellowship Hall. Gloom filled the room.

No bishop had visited Redeemer to talk with our leaders in nearly a decade. In 1997, Bishop Almquist came to break the 18-month term call (contract) he had made with us and one of his staff members just three months earlier. We were bitterly disappointed. (Bishop Burkat likes to claim that Bishop Almquist worked long and hard with us, too, but he was largely absent and he confiscated a sizeable amount of our money for two years.)

We went without a pastor for a year after that and for most of the following decade. Our lay leaders had worked hard to find ministry solutions on our own with mixed success. Still, we were enthusiastic about our prospects, especially since things seemed to be poised for significant change.

The memory of synod’s abandonment was still fresh for our leaders if not for the many new people who had come to Redeemer. We weren’t sure what to expect from the newly elected bishop, whom none of us had met, but we came ready for a fresh start.

It didn’t take long to dash our hopes. Bishop Burkat greeted us with what sounded like a rehearsed string of criticism.

She walked into the equivalent of the living room of our home and complained that the place looked junky. “No visitor will want to return to a place that looks like this.”

We explained. Epiphany, a neighboring church whose building was condemned, had just moved their things out of storage and into our fellowship hall. We were trying to help our neighbors.

We moved on.

Next. “You have no parking lot,” Bishop Burkat noticed. “A church with no parking lot has little chance of survival.” Our Ambassador visits have proved that the size of the parking lot has nothing to do with attendance at worship, but we answered defensively.

We pointed out that parking at Redeemer had never been an issue. The school and library, which share our intersection are closed on weekends and in the evenings when most church activity takes place.

The conversation continued.

Churches have personalities, Bishop Burkat said, with the clear implication that Redeemer’s personality left something to be desired.

What could we say? We turned the attention to our ministry efforts. We talked enthusiastically about the number of East Africans who were showing an interest in our congregation and the multi-cultural environment that had been fostered by one of our part-time pastors. We wanted to continue in this promising direction.

Bishop Burkat said a puzzling thing, “You are not allowed to do outreach.”

Huh? Say that again.

We told the bishop that we were disappointed in SEPA’s treatment of our ministry and very hurt that Bishop Almquist terminated our call agreement for his own convenience. That was a pivotal loss (by design, we think) for lay people to overcome, but we rose to the challenge.

The meeting ended abruptly. The bishop had a serious family emergency and we urged her to go to be with her family. Bishop Burkat promised to schedule a meeting in three to five months to talk about our concerns and try to heal some wounds. (Never happened,)

We sighed with relief when she was gone.  She exuded negativity. We were glad that only our key leaders were at that meeting. Her attitude would have dragged down the entire congregation. It would have undermined all the work we had done.

Our next encounter with Bishop Burkat, eleven months later, was similar. There were more people present. Redeemer had grown significantly during that 11 months of neglect, accepting 49 members! We came to that meeting with our recently completed 20-page ministry plan and with a resolution to call the pastor who had been serving us for about seven months.

Bishop Burkat began this meeting by ranting that Redeemer was “adversarial.” She used that word repeatedly in her opening statement. We still don’t understand her wrath!

The rant was undeserved. Only three of the thirteen people present had met the bishop before — two of us briefly, a year before. The third was the pastor we hoped to call who had been a member of her seminary class. All but two had joined the church within the last 10 years and knew nothing about ancient problems, which synod seemed ever-ready to resurrect.   

The meeting lasted more than two hours and we were able to turn the tone around, ending, we thought, on a very positive note. The bishop promised we could work with her newly appointed mission director, Rev. Pat Davenport. Our people began to sing a hymn together as we rode down the elevator and crossed the parking lot. We were excited and united.

And then NOTHING happened.

After four months of silence, including numerous unreturned phone calls, we all received letters from the Bishop announcing she was closing our church.

We wonder how many other churches have experienced such low expectations from leaders.

If this is how every church is treated, it is no wonder there is so little progress.

Our leaders have no faith in their message.

They don’t seem to care about or even like the people they serve. They don’t model their teachings about peace, repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, love, justice, humility, or transformation (though they talk about this a great deal).

Pastors and congregations soon begin to avoid the regional body. They may even fear it.

The only transforming that takes place is destructive.

What would happen if we expected success—if church leaders went into congregations and asked one question: “How can we help you serve?”?

What if pastors—and bishops—were held accountable?  

What if we believed in the message we preach?

All things are possible.

20 Oct 2012

Using Your Mission Statement to Strengthen Networks

We can’t do it all ourselves, but we live in a world where we like to think we can.

In the world of corporate marketing, the “brand” is sacred. Corporate branders would cringe to think of sending their customers to a competitor. They would take one of these approaches.

Convince the customer they are wrong for needing something they do not offer.

You like contemporary worship? Our liturgies are much richer and more meaningful! Take a seat and listen!

You are being bullied? We are so sorry, but our mission is more about feeding the hungry. Our food pantry is open on Tuesday and Friday afternoons! Stop by!

Promise an answer so far down the line that it is likely to be useless to the person in need today.  

You want youth programming? Come back in two years. We’re training someone right now in exactly what you are looking for.

This type of thinking can affect how congregations interpret their Mission Statements. Governing boards can start to weigh every challenge by measuring it against their published Mission Statement and what they are prepared to provide—not the actual needs of the neighborhood. The Mission Statement then becomes an excuse to turn a blind eye to the changing needs.

Part of the decline of the neighborhood church is that the church as a whole is unprepared for change. Denominational leaders strive to find long-term pastors for stable (they call them “settled”) positions. When this becomes problematic, lay people tend to pay the price.

Let’s learn from this failure. Do not use your Mission Statement as a rigid gatekeeper in approving every congregational venture. Instead, use  it as an indicator of how you need to change.

Also realize, that the approved Mission of your congregation may not resonate with each member. Similarly, visitors to your congregation may not care at all about your mission. Most people first attend church for personal reasons. They come to be healed. They come to have their needs met.

  • Don’t expect everyone to embrace your lofty words.
  • Make sure that all the good intentions in creating a Mission do not blind you to reality.
  • Seekers coming to your door may not seem to fit into your Mission.
  • Your sense of Mission must be flexible. Otherwise, you may be a congregation with a sense of mission but no one to serve.

This can happen at every level of Church life. A congregation can go to their Regional Body and ask for help with a challenge that their neighborhood has encountered. After all, when neighborhoods change, you can expect challenges to. But it is not uncommon for the response from leaders to be some form of “That’s not in our Mission.”

What they are saying is “We don’t know how to help you.” And that’s OK, but churches and denominations must be aware of the needs and be prepared to direct people to those who can help.

Today’s Mission needs are bigger than congregations of any size! It is inappropriate to turn seekers with problems away without hope. We have to start building networks for serving. We have to start thinking in terms of team.

If a need is beyond your ability to serve, help seekers find direction. Don’t just give them a phone number. Accompany them to the agency or office that can serve them. Personally introduce them to individuals with the expertise to help. Your personal attention will build your reputation in your changing neighborhood. By personally taking part in finding help, you will strengthen your own abilities.

You Mission must be active and flexible and ideally linked to other Christians and neighborhood organizations that can help.

Start building those networks!

16 Oct 2012

How Denominations Can Derail Your Mission Efforts

Branding When Ministry Is in Decline

Denominations are well aware that the structure of the church faces challenges. As you work on branding your ministry consider these realities. Your mission/branding efforts have the best chance for success when all leaders are on the same page.

This is not always the case and lay members are often the last to know. Leadership in changing this is likely to come from lay Christians.

Church leaders know:

  • the church is playing a smaller role in community life.
  • the traditional membership base of the Church is dwindling.
  • for the first time in history the neighborhood demographics are shifting every ten years or less.
  • the mission of the Church is to embrace all populations.

Knowing all this, church leaders are dedicated to the existing structure. Until recently, it has supported them reasonably well. Mission strategy was simple: replicate the same ministry in neighborhood after neighborhood.

Today, many of the solutions they present to their congregations are both destined and designed to fail.

Church professionals come to congregations and point out that if they think they are going to reach more people like them, they are mistaken. They elaborate on what is obvious to the people living in the neighborhoods: their neighborhoods are changing. They preach a future of gloom and act surprised when people don’t jump on board.

Meanwhile, congregations see opportunity. They live and work every day in their changing neighborhoods. Their children play and attend school with the new neighborhood children. They recognize that they need leaders with different training. Help is hard to find.

The Church as a whole has been caught unprepared. Changing an institution is more difficult than changing a congregation. The Church diverts attention from its own shortcomings by concentrating on the failings of lay people.

The temptation for denominational leaders is to facilitate failure.

Finding and training leaders for congregations facing modern changes is their job/mission, but it is difficult. It is often easier to just give up on congregations that are dealing with the toughest demographic changes.

They are squandering legacy — which has enormous value!

Denominational leaders are actually taught to neglect certain parishes and allow them to die. Using Church jargon, they assign “caretaker” pastors who, unbeknownst to the congregations, are expected to do nothing but hold the hands of the faithful until they quit, move or die.

Conflict results when the faithful do not cooperate with this undisclosed agenda. Suddenly, they are “the enemy.” The only way to spread the Gospel under this “mission plan” is to destroy the existing faith community and start fresh. This buys the denomination time. They do not have to provide ANY services while they work on a mission plan. Church doors are locked for a while (weeks, months or years) until the community forgets that a church was there. This, too, is part of the plan.

The problem with this approach, outside of it being wholly unChristian, is that it is fairly easy for the people making up the new demographic to see the Church behaving at its worse.

  • They can see the disregard for the lay efforts of their neighbors who talked to them with pride about their church.
  • They can imagine where their own commitment to any “new” church might find them in 20 years or less.
  • They will sense that they are of value to the church only as long as they can contribute.

This must be recognized. The Church which was in serious decline before the recent recession is now in severe crisis. The lure of small congregations’ endowment funds and property values is tough to pass up. It has created predatory practices that are thinly disguised as “mission.”

  • The hierarchy has no confidence in its own message.
  • Predators soon turn to questionable, selfish strategies.
  • The people who have sacrificed for ministry are expendable. If they don’t leave on their own, displace them. If they resist, sue them.

We now have enough experience to know this approach is not working. Church members, during peaceful times, are taught to believe and trust in God. It is difficult to teach allegiance to God and suddenly demand allegiance to man.

Your pastor is the first person you must convince to embrace your plan. You must appeal to the passion (which may be dormant) that led him or her to seminary in the first place.

  • Make sure your pastor knows what your leaders envision and what you expect from leadership.
  • If your pastor thinks he or she may need more training, try to set up an “internship” for a week or two with a mentor that is practicing the type of ministry you now need. You may have to go outside your denomination or region.
  • Stress that mission is the goal. Do not let any differences become personal. If you do, your regional office will have a very long memory for any resulting problems.
  • Let your pastor know that lay representatives are expected to accompany him or her on any visits with the regional office. You want to be seen as a team.

 

13 Oct 2012

A First Step in Branding: The Mission Statement

We’ve discussed the need to look over your shoulder and include your denomination’s regional offices and other congregations.

We’ve discussed how branding helps your members understand their mission.

Now you are ready for outreach to your community.

A typical starting point in any branding campaign is to craft a mission statement.

The mission of every church is defined in the Bible.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. —Matthew 28:19-20

There are other verses you can focus on, but this one encompasses a great deal.

The task of each congregation is to refine this directive in a way that will keep your people on a chosen track of implementation.

We all know how easy it is to become distracted from our mission. This is a special challenge for small congregations. We small churches are so busy putting out fires that it is easy for us to lose our way!

There is a tendency to measure all congregations against some standard that, frankly, isn’t very well-defined. It may be a typical suburban church or a church with a well-known pastor. It is never the small church — although we outnumber larger churches!

This can be a shock to a small congregation’s self-confidence. There the driving force is often a dedicated and changing staff of lay people, who juggle uncompensated mission and ministry with work lives.

In defining your mission be true to yourself. If you are a family church, concentrate on the values of a family church—the warmth, the intimacy, the ability for newcomers to assimilate quickly. If you are a pastoral church you might have an emphasis that is a “trademark” of your leadership. That might be reaching a particular ethnic group or operating a daycare program. Your mission should express whatever binds you together as a people.

Mission is a huge task and one that was never intended to be performed solo. (2×2!) The task of congregations is to answer the question How? (We’ve talked about the Why? question before.)

How will your group of people—with all the things you have going for you (taking into account your limitations)—fulfill Christ’s directive? In short:

How do you reach, how do you preach, and how do you teach?

You might start by asking each member this question. Their answers should help shape the “official” mission statement. Having been included in the process, they will own the mission.

Once a mission statement is adopted put it to work.

  • Feature it on your web site, on your stationery, and on your signage.
  • Hold a service to celebrate the adoption of a mission statement.
  • Invite several people to speak to the mission. Do this regularly!
  • Have a pin made or give out refrigerator magnets featuring your statement.
  • Make a congregational T-shirt featuring your mission. Declare T-shirt events (service projects, for example) when members should come in “uniform.”
  • Hang a banner over your door. (Outside where people can see it.)
  • Begin every service or meeting by reciting your mission together.
  • Write a press release and send it to local papers.

Keep your mission front and center.

But remember, your mission can change. Review it every few years to make sure you can still live up to its directive, and that, in focusing on it, you are not ignoring new opportunities. Actually, we live in such a fast-changing world that proclaiming a special mission emphasis each year might not be a bad idea. (Next post!)

11 Oct 2012