4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

leadership

Called to Common Mission, Indeed!

Lutherans have hitched their star to the Episcopal wagon. Now what?
Here is an interesting and lengthy discussion of the challenges facing the Episcopal Church.

The ELCA hitched its star to the Episcopal wagon a number of years ago and announced with great hoopla that we are now in full communion. (Called to Common Mission)

Lutherans were promised that the alliance was for flexibility, broadening the resource pool. Lutheran clergy and Episcopal priests could now vie for calls and employment in either denomination.

But it has resulted in more fundamental changes. It is changing the way we think and act, which isn’t necessarily bad. But it’s not necessarily good either. Martin Luther left a good legacy.

The ELCA and its predecessor bodies are historically a broad demographic with both low and high church values represented, often among ethnic or cultural lines. The American experience, which never answered to the Archbishop of Canterbury or any European figurehead, has traditionally no such loyalty to hierarchy.

The Lutheran tradition of congregational polity is a strength which small congregations should never be asked to sign away. Small churches must be free to adapt to their changing communities. This is harder to do under hierarchies. Hierarchies understand “big.”

  • Did the decision, advocated mostly by clergy, change our polity? No, but . . .
  • Are there statistics on how much this has benefited anyone?
  • How much resource sharing has been going on? (There doesn’t seem to be a lot of resources for either denomination to share!)

It is becoming increasingly clear that dissenting Lutherans were correct about many things.

Lutheran leadership has become more and more hierarchical. It began with a shift in language, then in behavior.

In the negotiations, Lutherans did a lot of agreeing to Episcopal terms.

Lay people don’t tend to care much about things like apostolic succession. We know that our bishops (which we used to call more appropriately “presidents”) are elected. Now every Lutheran clergy to be ordained must submit to Episcopal approval. Many of them have probably never set foot in an Episcopal church, but now their calling needs their blessing.

From reading this report, it is clear that we have sacrificed the wisdom of our experience to a troubled denomination.

The Episcopalians are so concerned that some want to scrap their leadership structure entirely, realizing they cannot support, nor do they need, a hierarchy. We have written about this before.

Meanwhile, Lutheran leadership is separating itself from its constituency more and more. They are planning to have full church assemblies every three years instead of two. If they operate like our local Synod Assembly, it won’t matter much—and that’s too bad. The regional assembly is fairly well orchestrated to get the approvals it wants with as little discussion as possible. But at least there was a chance of making a difference every two years. But then, maybe this is an admission that the hierarchy has less purpose.

Regardless, the action serves to alienate lay people — who still provide the support and funding for the mistakes made by the hierarchically minded.

Soon, if Lutherans want to rise to a call to change anything, they will have to wait three years. This may save money but it is unwise. Change is happening at a faster pace. More forums are needed, not fewer.

But the deed is done. We are in full communion with a denomination that doesn’t know where it is headed to the point that some talk about starting over. Have we been set up for a bait and switch?

If you think this shift in governance isn’t part of SEPA’s attitude toward small congregations, think again. In East Falls, Bishop Claire Burkat was assisting our Episcopal neighbors—we suspect for hire—while trying to destroy her own denomination’s church a few blocks away, hoping for assets to make up their huge deficit. The Episcopal Church in East Falls was of no stronger number than Redeemer with a far less desirable location for mission purposes. Bishop Burkat gave the Episcopalians of East Falls more consideration than the Lutherans.

Called to Common Mission, indeed.


photo credit: Whitewolf Photography (retouched) via photo pin cc
14 Jul 2012

Danger Zone: Trust in the Church

“In God we trust. All others pay cash.”
That’s a fairly common American sentiment.

The Church has a way of warping our innate sense of caution. The old hymn teaches us to “Trust and obey, for there’s no other way to be happy in Jesus.”

The concept of trust in God, foundational to our faith, gets projected onto trust in people, trust in leaders, trust in the hierarchy. People may not be asked to trust church leaders, but there is an expectation that they are worthy of trust. So why not?!

There are good answers to that question.

Why not?

Because Church leaders are people. Church leaders are subject to the same temptations and challenges in life. They are just as capable of self-interest and foolishness. Donning a collar or a fancy robe or hat does not change human nature.

Placing unquestioning trust in Church leaders is all the more dangerous because trust in people becomes intertwined with trust in God. If we challenge people in the Church, are we challenging God?

Recent struggles in the Church suggest that blind trust in Church leadership is no more fruitful than blind trust in politicians. Children have had their lives shattered because they trusted men whom the Church presented as trustworthy. It took decades for Church leaders to come to grips with the problem. There is no reason to mention the expense. The price paid by the victims is so much higher.

Stories that make the news are not isolated. The Church shatters relationships with the faithful in other ways as well. It is just as slow to self-correct. It may even be impossible.

Seth Godin wrote yesterday on the subject of trust. He made a valid observation. Trust grows in times of crisis, when leaders stand by their people, when the going is tough, when it would be easier to run or hide, abandoning the faithful—or to lie.

Indeed, it is in times of crisis that trustworthiness shows its mettle. It is rarely seen in today’s Church.

photo credit: jrodmanjr via photo pin cc
24 Jun 2012

Defining Change in the Church

Congregations are often criticized by others in the Church as being “unwilling to change.”

The need for change is universal. It applies to small congregations, medium congregations, large congregations, clergy and hierarchy. It applies to groups and individuals.

It is a criticism that is hard to refute. After all, it applies to EVERYONE. Change of some sort is always desirable, so it becomes a card to play to achieve ulterior motives.

The ability to embrace change is going to become the saving quality of every congregation–even those that seem to be ministering comfortably. Unrelenting change is going to be the norm.

When confronted with the need to change, congregations must take steps to make sure that their interests and ministries are respected.

Ask for change to be defined.

  • What are the desired goals? (It is easy to say you need more members and more income. It is always true.) Demand clear goals.
  • Ask what help is available? Change is not likely to happen without something added to the ministry mix.
  • Do the congregation and pastor need training? Is a necessary skill missing? If your neighborhood is changing, you may need help with culture and language differences. If you want to serve youth, you may need to find help with youth ministry skills.
  • Does the demand for change have a timetable that is realistic?
  • Is there a plan? Was the plan created by the congregation or mandated?
  • Is the congregation on board with the plan?

Creating an environment for change is a group effort. It will not happen by edict, nor will it happen in an atmosphere characterized by superiority expressed in criticism.

Change takes time, patience, tolerance and most of all love.

 

23 May 2012

What the Church Has Learned from American Politics

Redeemer's right to be represented at SEPA Synod was removed by decree of Bishop Burkat before the 2009 Synod Assembly.

Redeemer's right to be represented at SEPA Synod Assembly was removed by decree of Bishop Burkat before 2009 Synod Assembly one week before the 2009 Assembly — before there was ever a hearing or vote of Synod Assembly. Redeemer appealed this decision but Synod Assembly did not vote on it. In fact, Synod Council didn't vote on this until June 2010. Constitutionally, Redeemer should have had a right to challenge that 2010 decision. Redeemer should have had voting privileges in 2009 and 2010. Redeemer never voted to close. There is no requirement for congregations to own buildings. Redeemer remains faithful in worship and mission. Since the only aspect of our appeal addressed by Synod Assembly was our property, Redeemer still has voting rights under SEPA's constitution.

Today is election day in Pennsylvania. We are expected to go to the polls as informed citizens to make wise decisions. Most of what we have heard for the last six months is what’s bad about the other guy.

Mud-raking in American politics is an old tradition. The best mud-raker wins. And so, one quality every presidential candidate must have is the ability to tear the figurative limbs from opponents.

Successful mud-raking gets leaders their way.

But there is a cost. The cost is to the spirit of the people, who go to the polls weary and uncertain that they are voting for the most capable leader . . . or the best-funded, best-organized critic.

Politics is part of American life. It’s also part of the Protestant Church. We elect our leaders. Unfortunately, our leaders have learned lessons from secular politicians. You can gain support by tearing down your opponents.

We don’t have campaigns between “hopefuls” so it is a field day for those in power. Opponents in the church can be anyone who challenges the status quo.

The techniques are more subtle in church politics. In the ELCA, each bishop has six years to plant innuendo, to ignore opponents’ good ideas, to neglect some churches and curry favor in others, to charismatically rally support. Every action is supported by well-chosen Scripture.

Who are the opponents? In the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, it can be the very churches who provide support — but not enough support in the leaders’ eyes. It can be clergy who speak against policy or who simply advocate for new policy. It can even be the congregational members who volunteer with no expectation of power, or recognition, monetary or otherwise. It can be congregations who have small memberships but more assets than SEPA.

Looking for faults becomes a habit. Finding faults (an easy job) can have  rewards when powers (constitutional or not) are exerted.

American politics is wearying. Church politics is self-defeating.

Church politics are supposed to model servant leadership—also true of public servants — but in the Church we have the life of Christ as guide. In the Lutheran Church, the constitutions assign equality to each entity. There really is no power to wield. We are supposed to be partners in ministry.

Violating the intent of the constitutions makes immediate winners/losers—a situation which is unChristian. In the end the whole Church suffers. It takes awhile, but the erosion of spirit over a decade becomes obvious.

The Church relies on knowledgeable people doing the right thing. Abdication of that role leads to abuses of power.

And yet, in the Lutheran Church it is not uncommon to hear the best educated church leaders justify non-participation with “we elected the leaders; we have to support them.” This is nonsense—an abdication of responsibility. You don’t have to support a leader who is making bad decisions.

This is also an election year for SEPA. What kind of leader will you elect? One who finds fault with the congregations served and their volunteer members who dare to disagree? Or one who builds on their strengths and nurtures them in faithful service to God and His people?

photo credit: JosephGilbert.org via photo pin cc
24 Apr 2012

9 Common Tactics for Church Growth — Good, Bad and Ugly

The Church has fallen on hard times. This is widely documented — no need to go into detail.

It’s hard to blame the world. The world was here long before the Church. Reaching the world has always been the challenge, yet we remain surprised that the world is not lining up at our doors, wallets in hand.

Today, however, after some mid-century prosperity, we’ve forgotten that the Church’s mission is to reach out. It is not the world’s job to embrace the Church. It’s our job to embrace the world.

We typically greet the challenge with a number of tactics. Some show initial success and then fade. Some are the foundations of long-term ministry. Some are a mixture of frequently used bad ideas. All the ideas below represent actual ministry tactics — for better or worse.

  1. We can pretend to be someone else.
    We can figure what the community wants and pretend to be the answer. You might gain some currency in your community but it is most likely temporary. Community interests change and will probably change just as you are getting the hang of yesterday’s priority. In chasing public demand, we often forget who we are and what we are about. We start to look for best ways to meet demands and that often means abandoning our mission. Religious social services, which routinely deny their connections to the Church so as not to jeopardize government subsidies are a prime example. Services are provided. The Church is buried.
  2. You can scale down ministry.
    This is a frequent road traveled by struggling congregations. It never works. When a congregation decides to go “part time” in its ministry, it projects failure. Any part-time solutions should from the beginning be approached as temporary measures. Clergy chosen for part-time ministries must be missionaries. They rarely are.
  3. You can hire more help.
    You want to reach families so you hire a youth minister. You want to tend to the elderly and sick so you hire a visitation pastor. Soon you have a budget that is out of control and threatening the congregation’s ability to conduct any ministry at all. This avenue is taken by individual congregations, regional bodies and even national denominations. Hiring someone and creating an additional monetary challenge may make us feel like we are addressing needs. By the time results are measured, the newly created positions are secured by custom whether or not they proved effective.
  4. You can copy the equally challenged.
    Churches are great at copying one another’s ministry ideas. However, they often copy before the results are tested. Result: failure is replicated. Individuality and creativity are lost. The church becomes less meaningful.
  5. We can form alliances to pool resources and diversify our talent pool.
    This idea needs more testing in the church. It is somewhat foreign to church structure which traditionally focuses all energy and resources on one leader and many followers. This worked well for the church when small, homogenous communities were the norm. The world is changing faster than the Church seems to be able to adapt. We need each other now more than ever.
  6. We can employ teamwork.
    This sounds like something churches would embrace but it actually hasn’t worked very well. We are all protective of our own territory in the church. The structure for alliances is fostered in theory but rarely used. Church bodies have congregations, social service agencies, missionary outreach, seminaries, schools and church camps. All are looking to the same membership to provide support, but often the major sources of support — individual congregants or congregations — have very little interaction with arms of the church. Congregations hope that members will remember them in their wills, but you can bet the regional offices, seminaries and social service agencies with funded development offices want a big piece of the same pie. Interaction in the church suffers. Congregations are the financial losers. The others, recipients of occasional windfalls, slowly erode their long-term foundation of support.
  7. We can become predators.
    This is a very real dynamic in today’s church. We don’t help struggling congregations when help is first needed, we wait for years as downward trends continue — and almost all congregation’s are experiencing downward statistics. Our inability to support one another in ministry forces congregations to close. The dice are rolled to divide assets. We need to find ways to help the weakest among us so that we can all be stronger. Survival of the fittest may work in nature, but it is not the foundation of the Gospel.
  8. We can live beyond our means.
    This tendency in the church has created predatory ministries. The terrible lessons are being learned slowly and at significant loss. When those with hierarchical power operate on deficit budgets, they jeopardize the ministries of their supporting congregations. It becomes easy to find fault with them and force them to close in ways that guarantee assets are turned over to them.
  9. We can return to our roots.
    We can study the evangelism techniques used by Christ and the apostles. There are good lessons in the scriptures. Why is it that this is often the last place we turn for help?
20 Apr 2012

Growing the Church Among the Discontented

Have you ever noticed how the restaurant server has a knack of asking if everything is to your liking just as you’ve filled your mouth with a forkful of tough meat?

Similarly, the car dealer might call and ask how you are enjoying your new car a week into your purchase, not three months down the road, when you really know something about the car’s performance.

People want to hear kind words and good things about their work. Churches and church leaders are no different. They tend to identify happy souls and and engage them. The unhappy are neglected and eventually will not be in church at all.

There are more people not in church than in church!

Our faith and Christian relationships are precious. Once broken, repairing them is costly and difficult work.

Churches work hard at seeming to care. Leaders seek agreement and talk about their successful relationships, while the discontented are given labels that muffle their voices.

Church leaders talk about processes of “mutual discernment” — the hottest buzz words in the church at the moment.

Often, the process of mutual discernment has the regional body unanimous on one side of the fence and the congregation unanimous on the other side of the fence with neither side reaching to open the gate. Yet reports will tell of the process of mutual discernment that resulted in a one-sided decree.

Lay people may have to put up with this on the job. They will feel differently about it in church where they are the shareholders.

Dealing with discontent is a steady and ongoing process and involves sincere, dedicated communication. Discernment is a process of listening and responding. It is hard work. To claim a process of discernment, while neglecting the necessary work, is dishonest.

If congregants sense that their concerns don’t matter, they have a remedy. It’s a multistep process.

  • They complain publicly.
  • They complain bitterly in private.
  • They keep their billfolds in their pockets.
  • They stay home.
  • They continue to complain, but not in church.

The earlier the church intervenes and shows true concern, the easier the process of reconciliation becomes. Left unchecked, discontent will spin out of control and damage the whole people of God.

Discontented Christians have their grievances steadily on their minds. Their faith and way of life are under attack. They may no longer be attending church, but they are probably talking to their neighbors and friends at the bowling alley and grocery store. While pastors are feeling warm and cozy, surrounded by their closest supporters, the foundation of the community they are serving is eroding in forums they cannot control.

What is eluding many in the Church is that there have never been more forums for the discontented.

It was never more important for the Church to learn to deal with people who have a beef with them.

Wise church leaders spend time with the discontented. That’s where church growth will happen. That’s where the strength of the future Church lies.

Look for the rose in your crown of thorns. It’s what reconciliation is all about.

photo credit: somenametoforget via photopin cc

26 Mar 2012