4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

Mission Strategy

The Power of Negative Thinking

Label a problem “impossible” and you have an excuse for failure.

This temptation faces today’s Church. In many cases, Church leaders have given up on the Church!

“Neighborhood ministry can’t be supported.” Just declare it! That makes it true.

What happens then?

We stop trying. After all, we have given ourselves permission to fail.

The first to be defeated are the clergy. They throw up their hands and devise ways to make it look like they tried. Assign a caretaker pastor here, an interim pastor there, and pray. Christians support one another in failing ministries. Just look at the statistics.

The laity can only wonder what is discussed at ministerium gatherings of “caretaker” pastors whose assignments are to slowly and quietly bring ministry to a close. It must be deflating. Any pastor who walks in with a new idea is likely to have the conversation quickly changed. The idea is to fail as gracefully as possible.

How can you rebuild self-esteem in a Church where these conditions prevail? Hold grand worship services celebrating Church closures (failures).

Lay people who have more invested in their neighborhood ministries keep working, often under the leadership of defeated pastors, who are called with the tacit understanding that they are to keep things going as long as the money can flow.

Lay leadership is puzzled at the attitudes they encounter, but they soldier on, trying to avoid the conflict brewing from exasperation and a conflict in mission that is never defined — so it can’t be handled.

A  defeated attitude spreads like a bad rash. It chafes at the message that is preached from our pulpits. We worship a God of the possible. The Bible is filled cover to cover with accounts of insurmountable obstacles overcome. Some problems are fought with patience, some with trust, and a few with power. The deeper you go in the New Testament, the more faith is relied upon, and thank God for the Book of James, who reminds us that it might take some work.

The Church faces problems today that can be overcome but not if we must first meet all the standards of yesterday’s church. It is time to clear the slate and approach our congregations openly and with the knowledge that with God, all things are possible. If we do not believe that, why bother?

Walk in the shoes of the laity. Would you support a church with no momentum? Would you join a Church that doesn’t believe in its ability to succeed? Would you subscribe to a faith that doesn’t believe its own message?

photo credit: morberg via photopin cc
12 Apr 2012

Facebook: A Force for the Church to Reckon With

Facebook and the Church are entering relatively uncharted territory.

Congregations with broad age demographics are likely to use Facebook as a way of promoting activities. There are a few youthful congregations who have implemented a Facebook social media strategy that is more comprehensive, encouraging lively interaction among members.

Facebook is something the Church must learn with caution. It may be something we should teach as well, but it will take some experience to become authoritative.

A congregation should consider demographics when using Facebook. Measure them against these statistics.

  • 81% of Americans aged 12 to 17 check Facebook daily.
  • It is likely that a quarter of a congregation’s members over 65 are on this Social Media platform and this statistic is quickly growing.
  • Close to three-fourths of your members 25-45 engage in Facebook use.
  • Business people in your congregations are surely exploring Facebook strategies.

Your members are already on Facebook. Grandparents are following the activities of their grandkids. Youth are likely to be in touch with dozens of friends while you think they are having dinner with you.

How many of your members check your congregation’s web site daily? How many read the newsletter? How many members participate in creating the content on your web site or in your newsletter?

The reins of information are no longer in your church leaders’ hands.

There is no doubt that Facebook is a force to reckon with and a tool to consider.

Facebook is changing the way we think. Privacy is valued much less. There is a driving need to be in touch. Facebook has an entry age of 13, but figuring out what year you have to be born to qualify takes elementary math. Children are using Facebook.

When our way of thinking changes, our ways of acting follow. What this means to the Church is not known. Will members become more engaged? Will they see less use for Christian community?

If the Church hopes to influence the answers to these questions, we must engage in the conversation.

The problem Churches may have in building Facebook community is that the thinking of older members and younger members may clash. The impact could be felt across a congregation. One piece of private information, innocently shared on your congregation’s Facebook network, could create serious fallout. Pictures that seem fine to someone posting on multiple walls might not pass the vanity test of others in the congregation.

Though not excluded, deep thoughts are rarely shared on Facebook. It tends to be a lively conversation with lots of inside innuendo going on. This could be fun for those in the know. Others could feel left out.

Still, Facebook is here to stay and it is changing the way we think. If churches hope to reach the people in their community, we must adapt our mission strategies for today’s way of thinking.

Maybe Facebook will force the Church to dust off the cathedral rafters!

11 Apr 2012

The Underestimated Value of Small Churches

There isn’t much difference between small churches and large churches and their mission potential. Redeemer’s Ambassadors have visited nearly 50 neighboring churches. We’ve seen small churches with impressive worship. We’ve seen large churches with ordinary worship. We’ve seen volunteer choirs in small congregations perform as well as larger church choirs with paid section leaders. We’ve seen small churches with amazing track records for supporting neighborhood mission. We’ve seen large churches doing similar things. We’ve seen innovative, scalable mission projects in several very small congregations.

Yet large churches have preferential ranking in the minds of denominational hierarchy. That’s because there is one thing larger churches can do better than small churches. They can better support hierarchy.

Hierarchies are expensive and self-perpetuating.

There is rarely talk about reducing hierarchy. This may be precisely what is needed.

Hierarchies are responsible for keeping church professionals employed. They are also supposed to provide services to congregations. Most congregations have little contact with their regional office unless they are calling a pastor.

Clergy rely on the denomination for access to and approval of a call. The regional body becomes their employment agency.

In the corporate world, employment agencies work for either the employer or the job-seeker. In the church, a regional body, acting as employment agency, holds some power over both the job-seekers and the limited pool of employer congregations within their region. They serve two earthly masters and tend to favor the clergy.

When pastors are vying for the most lucrative or beneficial assignments, the regional body as employment agency begins to judge congregations by their ability to meet clergy needs. If a congregation insists on finding a candidate that fits ministry needs, they can be judged as uncooperative—a judgement that could follow them for decades.

Mandated initiatives that make no sense to congregations can result. The regional body might recommend merger or acceptance of an interim pastor for an undesignated time—or they may recommend closure.

Denominational leaders are acting as managers. Looking at the map, it may make perfect management sense to merge two or three congregations within a two-mile radius. The thinking is that if you merge two 150-member churches, you will have one church with 300-members and that’s a magic number for supporting clergy.

It doesn’t work that way. In the church . . .

1 + 1 = One half

Churches are little communities, something like families. They come with their own traditions and social structure. Merging them to save management costs makes about as much sense as merging three or four unrelated families to make utility and grocery bills more reasonable.

You cannot mandate community. Attempts to merge congregations often end up with one even smaller congregation.

There is another side effect. In the corporate world, mergers and management decisions often result in similar products and services replicated in similar ways. The beauty of small congregations is their individuality. Without small churches we will end up with cookie cutter large churches, worshiping in similar ways and providing similar services and mission opportunities.

The loss of neighborhood ministries will be felt far more deeply than any temporary gains of church closures and mergers.

We must make small congregations a priority. We must find ways to help them get over decades of neglect.

10 Apr 2012

Redeemer’s Good Friday Litany of Loss

Loss within the church is a theme this week.

Kenneth J. McFayden lists ten losses to the church in an article posted on the Alban Institute Roundtable.

On this Good Friday, as the members of Redeemer approach a third Easter locked out of their house of worship by SEPA Synod, we examine McFayden’s list.

  1. Loss of Members: Redeemer was growing. 52 members had joined within the 18 months prior to SEPA’s interference.
  2. Loss of Centrality: Redeemer was an integral part of our members’ lives. Our membership had quickly assimilated to its changing demography—not always possible, but accomplished seamlessly at Redeemer—a tribute to good leadership.
  3. Loss of Pastors: Redeemer had difficulty getting the attention of SEPA in calling a pastor. Redeemer believes this was intentional neglect, a way of purposely creating conditions to allow synodical interference. Nevertheless, Redeemer had many good relationships with pastors who supplied our pulpit regularly and long term. We had asked to call a rostered Lutheran pastor and had reached agreement on terms. Bishop Burkat ignored the congregation’s request.
  4. Loss of Traditions: Redeemer never lost its traditions, even when accepting new members. We embraced many new traditions but never asked any existing members to sacrifice what was important to their faith—again, a tribute to good leadership.
  5. Loss of Structural Support: This was a challenge for Redeemer made all the more difficult by SEPA. Bishop Almquist’s administration encouraged Redeemer leaders to resign and refused to give attention to the congregation’s wishes to call a pastor. Bishop Burkat worked with Epiphany, a congregation in covenant with Redeemer, to break its covenant and close, thereby removing pastoral services from both congregations and forcing Redeemer to restructure its council with ten days notice. Eventually, Bishop Burkat simply declared Redeemer’s council to not exist — by letter, not by any process of mutual discernment.
  6. Loss of Status in the Community: Redeemer always had the respect of the community and was a leading force in interdenominational initiatives. This was made difficult by SEPA locking the building for three years to both members and the many community groups who enjoyed easy access to our facilities. Now SEPA is working in our community supposedly toward opening a new church at Redeemer — one that would exclude Redeemer members from full participation.
  7. Loss of Stability: Redeemer had worked very hard on creating a plan to assure a stable future. We were working with many new members and it takes time to develop giving and stewardship among the newly churched, but we had a solid stewardship outreach in place as well as plans for supporting our ministry with our school and other outreach projects. We’d stand our ministry plan next to any  SEPA congregation’s. Our plans were ignored.
  8. Loss of Confidence: Redeemer remains confident even under intimidating circumstances.
  9. Loss of Energy for Ministry: Never a problem at Redeemer! How many other SEPA congregations would still be functioning after five years of multiple and personal lawsuits?
  10. Loss of Identity: We know who we are? Do the churches that voted to take our property know us? Did Bishop Burkat take the time to know us? (The answer is NO!)

Redeemer “lost” nothing. We had much taken from us. There is a difference.

That’s why no service was ever held in East Falls to “celebrate our ministry” and “mourn the loss” of this congregation.

The loss is among SEPA leadership. It’s a loss of integrity and conscience.

The impact of our loss will be felt across the denomination as time moves forward and SEPA leadership now has a mandate to exercise powers not given them in their constitutions.

The losses imposed on us cloud our vision of the wondrous cross. We are left this Good Friday repeating the words of Psalm 22.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? …
Why are you so far from saving me,
But you, LORD, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

Usually, the despair of Good Friday is quickly replaced with the joy of Easter. Redeemer will remain locked out of God’s House by SEPA Synod.

06 Apr 2012

Stop Blaming Congregations for Failure

Let Social Media Save the Day

We lay people have been taking it on the chin for years.

  • We’ve been ridiculed. We don’t tithe. We don’t evangelize. We aren’t welcoming. We don’t volunteer.
  • We’ve been labeled. If we aren’t strong, we are backward and resistant to change, and dying. If we are strong, insisting on answers, we are adversarial and resistant to authority.
  • We are made to feel inferior and inadequate, unable to find our way in the world without hanging onto the robes of the clergy.

—all because mainline churches are failing.

IT’S NOT OUR FAULT.

  • It’s not our fault that the church is structured to nurture homogenous cultures of yesteryear that  naturally replenish and grow in numbers from generation to generation.
  • It’s not our fault that, in the New World, community demographics shift every decade
  • It’s not our fault that even the least dysfunctional families experience their own diasporas every generation or so.
  • It’s not our fault that fewer people enter the ministry as a life call and see the only road to advancement as moving to suburban settings, making neighborhood ministries less desirable.
  • It’s not our fault that leadership has been just as unprepared for changes in society as we were.
  • It’s not our fault that the Church, despite a strong start in the Reformation, managed to sit out the Renaissance and stayed mired in the Middle Ages for the last 500 years.

Now that we are in a new age yet to be named (the Information Age?, the Digital Age? the Age of Globalization?) we’re all playing catch up.

In the hierarchical past, this meant creating a position headed by a well-paid think tank leader with an alphabet of credentials after his name. It meant funding an office with a staff, providing an adequate budget for developing resources, allowing three to five years for development, and the creation of a network to implement resulting initiatives. Implementation would be easy because all churches would be alike, waiting for answers to their problems to be delivered to them. After all, there would be nowhere else for them to turn.

Today, we are standing at the door of the future. The answers will come by inspiring community. There will be much less need for a centralized office of any sort.

The church of the future will be led by a conductor who stands at the podium, signals the opening downbeat and walks away, allowing the musicians to get their cues from one another, to take off in an imaginative riff, to return to the group to enjoy another artist’s take.

Welcome to the Information Age, the Age of Social Media, the Age of Globalization. It’s all coming together just in time to save the mainline church . . . if the mainline church is paying attention.

There is a lot of rethinking that needs to be done. Lay people might be best equipped to lead the way!

photo credit: DeusXFlorida via photopin cc
02 Apr 2012

Church Competition (It’s not who you think!)

Did watch manufacturers ever predict that their major competitors would be cell phones? That’s what has happened. Cell phones display the time prominently. No need for a watch. Bulova, Timex, and Seiko were watching each other while T-mobile and the Iphone began to make them obsolete.

Understanding your competition is important to successful honing and implementation of mission.

Many churches have no clue that there is competition. There is.

We often address symptoms of the competition and miss the diagnosis. The competition is not:

  • the neighboring church of a different denomination
  • the church with the charismatic pastor or hefty endowment
  • the bigger church of your same denomination
  • Saturday morning sports
  • demands of the schools on family time
  • dysfunctional families
  • televangelism

These are symptoms.

The competition is the force that separates people from God and wanting to be in communion with the people of God. There was a time when the religious were bold enough to give it a name . . . Satan.

Most churches act as if their mission were to attract the biggest piece of the existing religious pie.

That’s what happens when you rely on demographers to direct mission efforts. Demographers can measure the known. Careful studies count the number of existing “Lutherans” in a geographic area. They compare it to how many “Lutherans” were in that area a decade ago. They measure the household income of the people in the neighborhood.

That’s where the train jumps the track.

Mission is about reaching those who are not measured by demographers and will not have the inclination to support ministry with a piece of their household income for some time.

The biggest problem (and there are many) in this approach to mission is that it keeps churches from working together.

Denominational church structures are designed to facilitate mission, but in tough economic times they can become self-focused, making decisions that protect their own status quo.

Denominations and congregations cannot serve our neighbors while we are coveting their people, their money, their staff, and their property.

When each visitor is seen as a potential “sell,” we fail to reach the soul of a seeker longing to know God. When each congregation is measured by its ability to support the denomination, not its community or mission, we fail the Church as a whole.

There is a trickle down effect. Unaddressed problems spread over the years. Failure to help one struggling church becomes ten neglected churches within a decade or so.

Our Ambassadors have visited many congregations. We have seen separate communities facing the same challenges—most of them in isolation. Some of them are within a three-mile radius (in well-populated areas). Some of them face closure—one at a time—over the next decade or two. Since the ability to support an expensive structure is put before mission, they fight an uphill battle even within their denomination.

There is untapped power in working together. Yet the Church that talks about unity is crippled as they seek success and solutions that help their bottom lines today.

When the church understands that their mission is to reach the world outside their demographics, progress will be made.

We offer a quote prominently displayed on another website.

People shouldn’t have to find a church.

The church should find them.

photo credit: mbgrigby via photopin cc

31 Mar 2012

Women Are Key Influencers in the Church (always have been!)

A business blogger recently posted statistics claiming that women are the most powerful “brand ambassadors” in the world. The business world sometimes uses a church term, evangelist, for this job description. Once again, the church can learn from the world of business.

Steve Olenski, in socialmediatoday, cited a study that showed that:

  • Women are 80% more likely than men to try new products/services based on advice of a friend.
  • Women are 74% more likely than men to encourage friends to try new products and services.
  • Women tend to stay more engaged (74%) with products and services they like.
  • Women are 42% less likely to share negative experiences with products or services.
  • Women are only 32% less likely to avoid products or services based on a friend’s negative experience.

These interesting statistics remind us of something we encountered in our own experience and on our Ambassador visits. Redeemer’s greatest period of growth was nurtured less by pastors but by the presence of a deaconess, who ran the educational and social programs in the church. Older Redeemer members could tell us the names of pastors but they talked about the work of the deaconess. In our visits we encountered several churches that referred lovingly to a long-departed deaconess.

And then we remembered the power of the women’s group at Redeemer, which operated independently with their own budget and bank account. Unhampered by church council they chose their own social pursuits — all of which reflected well on Redeemer as a whole. We thought back to the days of the Women’s Auxiliaries and Ladies Aid Societies.

Many of the churches that struggle today to afford pastors have their roots in the less recognized and less compensated devotion of women.

In a television program that follows well-known entertainers as they research geneology, Actress Helen Hunt appeared to be mortified by the revelation that her great grandmother had been a powerful force in the women’s temperance movement of the 19th century and early 20th century. She sat with an historian who pointed out to her that this movement was actually revolutionary, fighting serious societal problems that were affecting their communities in a world that gave women no vote or voice.

Women have always had a voice — just not a publicly recognized one. Their voice was easily overlooked because men controlled publishing as well as the board room. The powerful women’s groups of the era grew from passion, commitment and perseverance to make a difference in a world that refused to recognize their abilities.

No more!

The church would be considerably stronger today if it recognized and unleashed women’s powerful inclination to nurture — which is what the statistics quoted above reveal.

Consider this as you make plans for church growth. The challenge is to find modern, equitable ways to do this.

30 Mar 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

Make Way for the Non-geographic Future Church

We are polishing our crystal ball again. This is what we see . . .

The Church of tomorrow will have only two sociological geographies — the local church and the worldwide church. Intermediary layers will be defined by local congregations as needed — not by hierarchies.

Denominations and regional authorities will become expensive drains on local churches with waning benefits.

They and national church offices — at least as we know them today — will become archaic, outliving their purpose and mission. Once the hub of thought leadership, educational/resource publishing, and social ministry implementation, they are already being phased out by economic realities. Any congregation can form alliances with a multitude of social causes locally, nationally and internationally. Any congregant can publish.

Congregations will become identified by their works which will make them more relevant and help them grow. If they are to survive they will find vitality — quickly!

Congregations will soon realize that the dollars they are sending to regional bodies are better spent in ways they can monitor and become involved with directly. Giving will improve when results are more visible.

This is all the result of the internet.

Every congregation has the same power at its fingertips. Soon churches will realize they will get more help and better advice if they bypass the systems of the past.

Part of this is driven by economics of scale. Business has a saying: “Go big or go home.”

The church will discover this, too.

In the past, each individual judicatory duplicated similar services supported by its own 100-200 congregations. Better services will be supplied by pooling resources of more churches than one regional body can support. Local churches will bypass judicatories and go directly to enterprising thought leaders who no longer need denominational affiliation to gain an ear.

The economic failure of judicatories will return talent now stagnating in management to work in congregations.

The best ideas will be too expensive for regional bodies to implement. They will, for a while, keep trying to do things the same way . . . and fail. Frustration will turn the tide.

Denominational lines will blur as the internet helps ideas cross traditional lines. Congregations will find their own sister congregations . . . and they could be anywhere.

In the past, denominations might have worried that doctrines and traditions would be compromised without layers of oversight. No longer! Everyone has access to the same technology. This will create its own checks and balances.

Turf wars are likely at first. They could be ugly. But the realization that hierarchies are no longer needed will begin to set in.

For a while, middle management judicatories will flex muscles, trying to rein in congregations as their power weakens. There will be casualties that will be an enduring shame…but a new church will emerge.

The local congregation will become more important than ever. It will be the local hands-on expression. They will display renewed vitality as they tap resources beyond the offering plate. They will identify mission and form alliances with like-minded organizations.

We’ve spent decades in interdenominational dialogue to achieve what the internet will achieve in just a few years!

The coming Church is going to be exciting!

photo credit: frompandora via photopin cc
17 Mar 2012

Laity Need to Learn to Speak the Clergy’s Language

Talking with clergy lately, we heard some terms we doubt many lay people have ever used or heard.

Some terms universally understood among clergy describe congregational health. These terms include “hospice,” “caretaker ministries,” and even “undertaker ministries.”

Ask a lay person, “Is your church on hospice?” and they will probably look puzzled. As it dawns on them that hospice is a service provided to dying people, they will start to realize that the clergy person is asking if their church is dying and unlikely to receive meaningful support from their denomination.

They will keep listening as they recover from shock and anger sets in.

“Who’s your pastor?” might be the next question. “Is he/she part time?”

If the answer is “Yes, that’s all we can afford right now,” the clergy might nod and mutter, “Ah, —sounds like you have a caretaker ministry.”

The lay person has probably never heard this term either. When it is explained that “caretaker ministers” are assigned to churches to hold members’ hands as their congregations die, the sense of shock and anger is rekindled.

With any sensitivity, the clergy person does not use another term used among clergy — “undertaker ministers.” This type of minister has NO intention of growing a congregation’s mission and the assignment, in all probability unknown to the congregation, is that this minister is there with the denomination’s understanding that the congregation’s ministry be brought to a close with as little muss and fuss possible.

This is a prescription for church conflict.

Laity NEVER consider their congregations as dying. They are usually aware that they face challenges, but when they call a pastor they are ALWAYS looking for help with their ministry. Lay people understand that the mission is to serve. They think every clergy person they talk to or call — even on a part-time basis — has congregational health and outreach as their goal.

Laity need to use a bit of “clergy talk” when calling their ministers. If they sense the candidate understands that the mission under consideration is to close the church—not grow the church—the congregation needs to move on and make sure their denomination understands that the congregation considers mission and ministry the goal.

It might help if we all spoke the same language!

photo credit: aldenjewell via photopin cc
17 Mar 2012