When you believe your customers have no real choice, either because they’ve signed a long-term contract, or the technology locks them in, or they’re stranded in Fargo with no other options, you’re likely to drift away from delighting them.
When you believe that people are stuck in their seats, it’s not essential, it seems, to keep cajoling them to stay there.
And while you might be correct that this particular customer is locked in, it doesn’t mean she doesn’t have friends, colleagues or a blog.
Word of mouth and recommendations don’t come with a lock-in feature. Generations change, and if you’re here for the long haul, there is no lock in.
Seth’s words complement our posts on replication and mission by the book. The replication process, touted by regional bodies as innovative, is really just a last-ditch effort to recreate ministry models that are failing at a slower rate in other neighborhoods.
Of course, the failure is first assigned to the laity. There is something wrong with them that can’t be fixed.
Shutting churches down and reopening them in the same form with different people in the pews and pulpit is actually an admission that professional leadership has failed. “Let’s let the people who have failed to lead for decades take control. They must know what they are doing,” is flawed church-think.
Healing (reconciliation) is too much work.
The Church doesn’t understand how neighborhoods work.
Links to the past don’t disappear because the Church held a service proclaiming their demise.
Go ahead and change the name. You can bet the neighborhood will call it Old Trinity or Old St. John’s for decades.
The Church is creating terrible word-of-mouth ministry — the kind of ministry tactic that spread the Gospel to the farthest reaches of the known world within a century or two back when there was no other way to reach people.
The lasting impression the leaders of the ELCA (its greedy bishops and spineless clergy) create in the neighborhoods where they swoop in, lock doors, confiscate assets and punish their life-long supporters with lawsuits is not a billboard for the road to Christ.
Here’s what the neighborhoods think when they pass the locked doors every day.
The Lutheran Church—ahh, yes. They’re the ones who sue their members and threaten their livelihoods and exclude them from participation with other congregations.
The next thought is not going to be
“Let’s join.”
Listen to Seth. Just because we are locked in—or locked out as has become the new ELCA’s protocol—doesn’t mean we don’t have friends, colleagues, neighbors and a blog.
The ELCA way makes sense only to clergy who believe in their own isolated power. When you include the people of the church — the ones who put money in the offering plate each week, the ones who sacrificed a productive lot to build a building, the ones who show up every Sunday for decades, teaching and singing and serving — then it is wanton foolishness.
Remember, the WAY that is taught to us within the walls of the church includes standing up for what we believe.
During the six years of Bishop Almquist’s term, during which SEPA was all but absent in its relationship with Redeemer, the Rev. Claire Burkat was making a name for herself as an assistant to the bishop.
She had a success of which she was particularly proud. She worked with a failing church and devised a plan. Synod would close the church with its aging members’ cooperation and reopen it weeks later with a new name.
In 2006 in her early days as bishop, Bishop Burkat came to Redeemer eager to replicate the experience which had been so successful (by her reports) before her election. In truth, it was too soon to tell if the mission strategy was actually successful. There were no statistics to support whether or not it was a good idea.
We have checked the current statistics of this congregation. They are not impressive. Membership seems to be under 50. About half the statistics of Redeemer in 2007.
Nevertheless in 2006, the experiment was touted as a promising innovation. Bishop Burkat was eager to replicate it and add another “success” to her résurmé.
The problem was Redeemer was not at all like the congregation that had agreed to pioneer this technique.
Remember, SEPA had walked away from Redeemer six years before and their memory was that the congregation consisted of a dozen old ladies. Their waiting game strategy should have been ripe for implementation, in Bishop Burkat’s view.
Things had changed at Redeemer. The elderly members who had met with Bishop Almquist had in fact gone to their heavenly reward. But there were now three times as many Redeemer members as when Bishop Almquist had released us from synodical administration—and that would soon double. Our members were mostly young families, most of whom had joined within the last ten years. Many were Tanzanian immigrants, but there were other new ethnic backgrounds new to Redeemer’s membership as well. Bishop Burkat even suggested removing the Tanzanian members to create statistics to justify the strong-arm tactics she planned to implement. Some had been members for a decade, some had been born into our community. This was (and is) insulting to Redeemer’s Tanzanian members as it should be to every Lutheran. As one young Tanzanian member noted at the time: SEPA is big on ministry to the Tanzanians — as long as we stay in Tanzania. (The statistics presented to Synod Assembly by the trustees excluded the Tanzanian members.)
Redeemer’s interest in working with SEPA was to build on its success. SEPA wasn’t listening. They knew best.
Closing Redeemer and reopening it under a new name was the only plan they would consider. Why?Their way gave them control of the congregation’s assets.
Here we go again! Mutual discernment at work!
Bishop Burkat made this proposal. She would close the church down, have a grand closing ceremony, and reopen it a few weeks later. Renaming the church was key to this strategy. There should be no confusion that the old church was dead and gone. The new name had to meet with her approval. Oh, and the current members would not be permitted any leadership roles. From where the new leaders were to suddenly emerge to take control of our ministry was not made clear. Meanwhile, Synod would reign with no one to answer to — hardly the Lutheran way.
Of course, this was offensive to a congregation that had worked hard to recover from the mess created by Bishop Almquist — and was succeeding.
The first proposal was the church should close for two weeks. That became six months by the time they saw us in court.
Well, in 2009, Bishop Burkat finally got her way and has control of Redeemer’s property. It has been locked to Redeemer and the community for three and a half years.
Redeemer remains active through 2×2 Foundation, waiting for the day that the Lutherans of SEPA recognize that maybe, just maybe, they were part of a big mistake.
The strategy of replicating one success in a different neighborhood has been disastrous for both East Falls and SEPA. Redeemer bears the popular blame, but SEPA with its selfish policies is responsible. Bishop Burkat defends her actions, citing the process of mutual discernment.
Once again, the definition of mutual discernment is “comply or goodbye.“
2×2’s previous post addressed how the interests of a regional body can hinder mission. Here’s an historical example.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and its relationship with Redeemer, East Falls, provides many interesting illustrations of how the structure of the ELCA, intended for good, actually impedes creative ministry.
Its attempt to structure itself interdependently quickly becomes crippled by the reality that the regional body is dependent on congregations funding its budget, heavy with salary obligations and an expensive, outdated infrastructure. Meanwhile, congregations must meet their own budgets and support the regional and national bodies.
Years of hard work and “mutual discernment”
Bishop Burkat talks of years of working with our congregation under her leadership and that of her predecessor. She calls the process “mutual discernment.”
Sounds good. Only it didn’t happen quite that way.
There were more years of neglect than of working together.
There were so many hidden agendas that mutual discernment was impossible.
Attempts to ignore the wishes of the congregation were routine.
With interdependence comes the jockeying of self-interest. Congregations may be unaware that the synod has self-interests. They may assume that the synod has their interests at heart.
Meanwhile, the regional body expects the unquestioning deference of congregations.
Mutual Discernment at Work
Redeemer was always a small but self-sufficient congregation. SEPA did not support Redeemer financially as many people have been led to believe. It was the other way around.
When the ELCA was created in the late 1980s, Redeemer had a part-time pastor who also worked in the Synod offices. Redeemer was seen as not likely to ever support a full-time ministry. Any part-time pastor filled the bill in their eyes—a pulse was the primary qualification. They were marking time.
Then Redeemer received a $300,000 endowment. Suddenly, there was an interest in Redeemer. Pastor Wm deHeyman left the synod offices to work more fully with Redeemer. He served Redeemer 11 years. (Synod represents that Redeemer had just short-term pastors. Not true. His predecessor served 7 years.)
Wm deHeyman retired in 1996. His last years were difficult and factions had formed with some rallying around the pastor.
Redeemer looked forward to a new start.
Bishop Roy Almquist proposed that the congregation call one of his staff members, Rev. Robert Matthias, for an 18-month term call as an interim pastor.
Redeemer cooperated whole-heartedly.
This was a tumultuous time at Redeemer for other reasons. There was a series of personal tragedies that impacted congregational life. A tragic death of one family’s child. Another family was wracked with grief when its youngest child was paralyzed in an accidental shooting. A third child and family faced serious issues. The families of four council members were in crisis. During this time, a newer member volunteered to help with the financial books as the treasurer was one of the affected parents. It was soon discovered that the volunteer was embezzling money. The crime was noticed and rectified quickly—within months—but it added to the congregation’s sadness. This incident is sometimes used today to justify SEPA’s interest in Redeemer, but at the time they took no action that indicated they had concern that Redeemer could not rectify this on its own.
What was SEPA’s response in the face of unusual tragic circumstances in a small congregation?
They walked away and left the congregation with no pastor for nearly a year.
Three months into the 18-month term call agreement, Bishop Almquist returned to Redeemer and asked to break the call contract. He had an assignment for Pastor Matthias in Bucks County.
Redeemer cooperated even though it meant its investment in Pastor Matthias was wasted. Naturally, the congregation was hurt. Why was Bucks County more important than the promise SEPA had made with Redeemer?
During this year, Assistant to the Bishop Sue Ericsson was meeting with the council unbeknownst to the congregation. She encouraged the council (half of whom were in personal crisis) to convince the congregation to close. A plan was drafted. If the congregation did not go along, the congregation council would submit resignations providing grounds for SEPA to take over. Mutual discernment was being dictated behind the scenes.
The congregation’s annual meeting, usually held in February, was announced for January.
Three guests were introduced, Pastor Matthias, Gordon Simmons and Rodney Kopp.
Some reports were made. At the point when the budget should have been presented, the congregation council submitted the resolution to close (drafted by synod). This had not been discussed in the congregation who thought they were holding a routine annual meeting. They voted to table the resolution for further study—a reasonable response. A congregation should study an important issue before voting!
On cue, council members placed letters of resignation (drafted by synod) on the table. They were swooped up by Pastor Matthias who announced the meeting was over and the congregation was under synodical administration. While Pastors Simmons and Kopp spoke to angry congregation members who were feeling ambushed (Pastor Kopp used the term “blind-sided”), Pastor Matthias left with the letters of resignation and the church books.
Pastor Mathias was known at the local bank. He and a former Redeemer treasurer visited the bank the next day and conveyed $90,000 to SEPA. SEPA asked our tenants to send payments to them. Mutual discernmentincluded trickery.
But paying the bills was the extent of synodical administration. Redeemer kept its offerings and there was significant money in savings available to the congregation. Activities at the church continued to be run by the congregation.
The congregation felt betrayed by their council and SEPA. The members who resigned ended up leaving, some after long years at Redeemer. SEPA had used them at a time when they were vulnerable.
SEPA refused to share the letters of resignation. We learned three council members had not resigned. Two pastors helped the congregation appoint members to fill vacant seats as is allowed in the constitution. Redeemer’s council continued to meet and run the daily affairs of the church and plan its own worship and mission which included an ambitious summer program, totally lay led.
Redeemer protested the synodical administration for a year.
Several supply pastors led worship, including Rev. Harvey Davis. Our first Tanzanian members joined during this time. Bishop Almquist at last released the synodical administration. But he did not return the money for an additional year. At last, SEPA returned about $82,000, keeping some to cover their legal expenses. The fact that they were able to pay the congregation’s bills without depleting the $90,000 in two years, proves that the congregation was financially viable.
When the synodical administration was lifted, Bishop Almquist asked the congregation to call Rev. Jesse Brown. He was the only candidate presented. Bishop Almquist suggested a one-year term call.
Redeemer cooperated.
Things were fine with Pastor Brown, but at the end of the year he announced that he wanted to cut his hours to just ten per week, the minimum needed for him to retain his ordination credentials.
Redeemer did not wish to regularize a call with a pastor who wanted to provide minimal service. Redeemer agreed to extend the term call, but Bishop Almquist insisted it be regularized—or there would be no pastor for a very long time. Mutual discernment included threats.
Why was this a deal-breaker?
What’s the difference between a term call and a regularized call?
A regularized call can be ended by the pastor at any time with 30 days notice, but if the congregation wants to make a change, they must muster a two-thirds vote against a pastor. This can be very divisive, especially when a pastor is liked—as was Pastor Brown. Redeemer’s concern was his minimal level of commitment and what that meant to Redeemer’s ability to grow in mission. For Redeemer’s lay leaders, it was not enough that a pastor was “liked.” The congregation had to make progress. Redeemer’s leaders were looking wisely into their future. A regularized call would become problematic if Pastor Brown’s outside interests minimized the effect of his ten hours per week. Locking into a regularized call under these circumstances was not in the interest of the congregation, no matter how much the pastor was liked by individual members. In fact, it was likely to be a greater issue if the pastor was liked. The congregation’s leaders would be frustrated with lack of mission progress, while the more minimally committed members of the voting congregation were content. Redeemer was being forced to make a foolish decision that was predicated on the synod’s dismal vision for the congregation, which happened to have a healthy endowment, while they were operating with a deficit.
The congregation council rejected the synod’s proposal. Bishop Almquist asked for a second vote overseen by a staff person. That vote failed, too. Bishop Almquist deemed that the congregation should vote on the call — never explaining the wisdom of asking the congregation to vote for something the church council was against. That vote failed too.
If the vote hadn’t failed, it would have strained relationships between the council and the congregation. This was pointed out to Bishop Almquist, but he insisted on taking the issue to the congregation anyway. He was interested only in getting the vote that served his purpose—finding a call for Jesse Brown.
Bishop Almquist kept his promise. Synod ignored Redeemer for Bishop Almquist’s entire second term.
The congregation worked with Pastor Harvey Davis for three years until the pastor needed to retire. He was influential in attracting several young couples with diverse ethnic backgrounds and our Tanzanian membership continued to grow. Redeemer was becoming multicultural and was making significant innovations successfully. The ministry showed promise despite synodical neglect.
Let’s look a the motivations behind this history that is so often referenced as reason for Bishop Burkat’s actions a decade later.
Why was it important to SEPA that Redeemer’s call be regularized? Term calls are a constitutional option.
The synod’s interest in a regularized call solved some of its problems.
Pastor Brown could retain his status as an ordained pastor while he ran for public office and operated his own business on the side.
His minimal service would solve SEPA’s problem of staffing Redeemer.
Redeemer’s mission and interests were not really considered.
SEPA’s view of Redeemer was that its elderly population would die within 10 years. Minimal ministry would speed the process along. This thinking takes on signficant importance when the targeted congregation has assets and the regional body is operating with deficits. The regularized call gave SEPA more control over Redeemer and the fate it was tacitly seeking.
Declaring synodical administration gave them access to congregational assets.
After SEPA returned Redeemer’s assets, Bishop Almquist issued an appeal letter to all congregations for almost exactly the amount of money returned to Redeemer.
Redeemer had supplied SEPA with an interest-free loan.
Synodical administration had been used as a tool to benefit SEPA. Mission in East Falls was never the objective.
Lasting damage was done to Redeemer. Gossip created an unjustified cloud that hangs over East Falls to this day.
At all times in this conflict, Redeemer cooperated when it was reasonable to do so. It showed initiative, flexibility, and a willingness to accept change — all the things regional bodies look for when striving for transformation. But the congregation knew that Bishop Almquist’s insistence on a regularized call was not in the congregation’s interest.
Redeemer was consistently making choices that pointed them toward new and innovative ministry. SEPA was prescribing solutions that would benefit SEPA.
When Did the Lutherans of East Falls Become Enemies?
Why is SEPA’s only envisioned solution to the six-year conflict between the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod and Redeemer Church a score something like
SEPA: $2,000,000
People of Redeemer: 0—and if necessary to ensure the win—Homeless and Destitute?
What is this conflict really about?
SEPA must have grounds to declare synodical administration. Those grounds are detailed in the constitution and have to do with just one thing—the ability of the congregation to fulfill its “missional” purpose. It has nothing to do with the size of the congregation or the history of the congregation.
Five years of growing ministry with no support from SEPA and considerable attempts to shackle us prove that SEPA assessment of Redeemer’s potential was faulty. Their motives were monetary as evidenced by their attempt to sell our property without our knowledge early in 2008.
If there was truly a concern about Redeemer’s ability to do mission, why did SEPA declare Synodical Administration and then do nothing for five months before they even told the congregation and for more than a year afterwards? Clearly, there was no dire concern.
SEPA must admit that routinely running deficit budgets blinded their own sense of mission.
Maybe the clergy and Lutherans in the pew think these details don’t matter. They do. They are the details that all court actions are hanging on.
The people of East Falls, nearly four years after SEPA won in a court that never heard the case, are still being abused. There is still no end in sight. And remember, the PA Supreme Court ended in a split decision with the minority stating that if the law were followed, Redeemer’s arguments had merit.
Because the Synod, from the very beginning chose to attack members as individuals, they gave Redeemer members no recourse but to fight. They already have everything we owned as a congregation. That has not been enough.
In the early days of the conflict, we heard a lot of clergy use the excuse, “We didn’t know.”
That doesn’t fly anymore. You’ve been told. Numerous letters have been written to SEPA and clergy. Personal visits have been made to a third of SEPA congregations. This web site has discussed the issues thoroughly.
You know that your Church is not behaving compassionately. It is abusing its powers. It is using bullying techniques as ministry tools.
And you don’t care.
It’s not happening to you. You as a synod are the beneficiaries.
To you it is mildly uncomfortable, a topic to be avoided. You think, there must be something to it, dismiss it without investigating and then move on.
The people of East Falls have lived with numerous threats of legal action every day for five years. We haven’t left the denomination. We were kicked out by decree and with no discussion. Loyal, we continue to attend churches and stand next to the Lutherans who are suing us, who are praying for good things, who pass us the peace of the Lord, invite us to the communion table . . . . and do nothing to change things.
SEPA Lutherans, you can still call upon your leaders to work this out honorably and equitably and in a way that will not embarrass the denomination when you look back at this years from now.
The prescription for peace is in the Bible. We have to talk to one another.
We are Lutherans. Interdependent. Supposedly working together. Ask for a forum. We CAN talk to one another. Contact your Synod Council. Tell them you want these issues to be discussed face to face within the church. Ask for a moderator or ombudsman from outside the synod to ensure that both sides are heard. This is only necessary because the lines have been drawn indelibly.
It can’t wait any longer. People — good people — people who have supported the Lutheran church all their lives are in real danger.
Work it out face to face, Christian to Christian. It’s the biblical thing to do.
And, hey, it’s Christmas. (Remember what that’s about.)
So why is there NO attempt to reconcile? Isn’t that what we teach?
The reason is that this is about winning. It’s about power. It’s about the inability to admit mistakes. It’s about pride. It’s about revenge. It is NOT about the gospel.
But there is still a chance that we can make it about the gospel. Help, please.
We at Redeemer have always considered ourselves to be on the same side—”missionally” speaking.
Here is a list of Synod Council members. Contact them and ask them to work together in the mutual discernment that has been alleged by the synod, but which has never happened.
The Synod no longer supplies contact info, so you’ll have to do some research. We’ve provided some that are easily found on line. Lay people are more of a challenge. If they accept the role of representing congregations, they should make it possible for congregations to contact them.
If you think you don’t have the power, these are the people who do. And most of them know nothing about Redeemer except what preachers with a self-interest, many of them who also know nothing, tell them. That’s how prejudice becomes powerful.
Name
Congregation (conference)
Term expires
Bishop Claire S. Burkat
Holy Communion (Central Phila.)
2018
Patricia Robinson, vice president
Reformation, Phila. (NW/Olney)
2013
Rev. Raymond A. Miller, secretary
St. John, Quakertown (Upper Bucks)
He was one of the “trustees” who introduced themselves as “fact finders” failing to identify themselves as trustees and failing to mention that they considered our church under their administration. Their deceit set the stage for the conflict. He testified in court that Redeemer had more than twice the number of members as they represented to the Synod Assembly. Synod lawyers then went on in court to attempt to hold the congregation to a quorum vote for three times the number they testified.
2015
Janet Neff, CPA, treasurer
Grace, Royersford (Upper Montgomery)
2015
Clergy
Name
Congregation (conference)
Term expires
Rev. Paul Beck
215 723 5356
St. Peter, Hilltown (U. Bucks)
prbeck@comcast.net
One of our officers tried to talk to him in 2007. He refused. Our representative reported that he said the Synod Council had no intention of negotiating with Redeemer.
More evidence of the SEPA myth about the “mutual discernment” process.
What might have happened if we had talked before the lawyers were called in?
2013*
Rev. Sandra Brown
215 225 5329
Holy Spirit (NE Phila.)
brownsj@msn.com
Her husband, Rev. Jesse Brown, was our part-time pastor in 2000, well before we accepted more than 60 members. She has had no contact with our church in 13 years.
Their church had weaker numbers and resources than Redeemer when they started a multi-cultural ministry similar to ours at about the same time SEPA was trying to destroy our multi-cultural ministry.
2013
Fred Brown, at-large
Good Shepherd, King of Prussia (Lower Montgomery)
We visited their church.
2014
Malcolm Davis, youth rep.
Reformation, Philadelphia (NW/Olney)
Youth reps have more say in Redeemer’s future than 82 Redeemer members had.
He was one of the “trustees” who introduced themselves as fact finders failing to identify themselves as trustees and failing to mention that they considered our church under their administration.
Many innovators seek to leapfrog over existing solutions, essentially hoping to win by playing the innovation game better. Disruptors win by playing the innovation game differently. [emphasis in original] Disruptions are all about trade-offs. Disruptions typically do offer lower performance along dimensions that historically mattered to mainstream customers. They aren’t bad along these dimensions; they are good enough. But they more than make up for that — in the eyes of their customers — by offering better performance along different dimensions.
This is very applicable to church life. Congregations are bombarded with demands to transform. We are competing to reach a standard that no one has measured. The drama sets congregation against congregation as they vie for attention from their regional body in access to professional services and standing. Transform becomes conform.
Concentrating on growing can be frustrating. It can discourage people who never joined church to work to reach other people’s goals. New members need time to settle and mature.
Sometimes churches are exactly the right size. They can afford their pastor. They can maintain their building. People know each other and are sensitive to one another and their community. They work well together and are confident enough in their sense of mission to welcome new people.
So why can’t we accept congregations the way they are? Is the push to grow important to the mission of the church or is it important to maintaining the three budgets each congregation is expected to support (their own, and those of the regional body and national entity)?
Churches will grow if they are growing for the right reasons. Their way of achieving their mission may not suit church professionals, but it may be good enough—at the moment. It may be great.
Redeemer was good enough. Redeemer was great at what it was doing in mission work — which no one else was doing quite the same way. We were not replicating a model foisted on us from above but we were innovating in ways from which others could learn and which we could afford and had the talent to support.
We don’t know what would have made the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America happy.
We had grown five-fold since Bishop Almquist’s interference in our ministry in the late 1990s. SEPA didn’t know that because SEPA ignored us for a decade. When faced with the facts, they simply refused to count the new members. “White Redeemer must be allowed to die. Black Redeemer — we can put them anywhere.” (Bishop Burkat)
We had achieved diversity, a stated goal of SEPA.
Our members spanned the age ranges and was no longer top heavy with older Christians.
We had several pastors interested in working with us.
We had some money in reserve.
We had lay leaders with diverse talents that complemented those of professional leaders.
We had a ministry plan that had the potential to create ongoing revenue.
We were and are good enough. We might even be great.
But recognizing Redeemer’s unique ministry didn’t meet SEPA’s agenda. They needed us to fail so they could justify taking our property (which their Articles of Incorporation forbid, but who cares).
So they quickly, in a blink of an eye, acknowledged our success but followed it with criticism for not achieving it under their direction. (They were AWOL.)
Since they kicked us out of the ELCA, we’ve visited 52 congregations. We know our ministry is just as active and effective as those who sat in judgement over us. And it is unique. We don’t have a food pantry. We don’t sign up for every charity run. Our kids don’t go to Synod youth events. But we do support ministries in other countries. All our kids and families had an opportunity to attend church camp. We have developed a social media ministry which reaches 1500 people a month. We’ve made a project of connecting with other Lutheran congregations. We have fought to maintain congregational polity, which will someday benefit every other SEPA congregation. We continue to meet for worship and ministry weekly.
If we had tried to be like bigger churches we would not have been able to accomplish the things we did. We did our own thing with our own resources and remained true to our mission. If we had concentrated on emulating bigger congregations we would have failed. All of our resources would have been spent keeping up with the St. Joneses. We found areas of ministry in which we could excel and make a difference.
We were good enough, we like to think, to be welcome in God’s house.
We were not good enough, we know, to be welcome in the ELCA.
The work of Scott D. Anthony, Mark W. Johnson, Joseph V. Sinfield and Elizabeth J. Altman proposes three principles that characterize disruptive growth. They cite businesses that found a way to thrive when the trends and statistics were discouraging.
We think these theories point to the missing ingredient in the Church’s long and ineffective quest to transform. Here are the three principles which, if followed, lead to growth.
Serving “overshot customers” or totally new consumers
Noting that “good enough” can be great
Doing what the natural competitors consider unattractive or uninteresting
Let’s look at each of these as they might apply to the Church. We’ll use our own ministry as an example. Today we will look at Principle 1.
Serving “overshot customers” or totally new consumers
What does this mean in the world of Church? The study elaborates:
A truly disruptive strategy is unlikely to find success in a current market. Making that disruptive solution good enough for current customers often requires heavy investment to fix performance limitations. Those investments can snuff out the disruptive essence of the new solution. Furthermore, bringing the solution to established markets means following established approaches, which can blind companies to the new potential inherent in the disruptive model.
This is a description of the current situation facing thousands of mainline congregations today. The Church cannot transform without the support of the current membership. The Church frequently opts to discourage current members hoping for better luck and more influence with pews full of newby Christians. They are hoping that they will buy in, ask few questions and give money to support the way things are already being done. In so doing, they are wasting the investment they made when they nurtured and educated the existing members.
This is not insignificant. The current membership with knowledge of the church and its traditions is the most likely source of both sweat and financial equity. The Church is shooting itself in the foot (not to mention missing the point of Christianity) when it undervalues its current members.
The Church has its established approaches.
Thick manuals on how to minister to churches in transition. (We’ve read them.)
Book after book sitting on the shelves behind the pastor’s desk. (We read many of them.)
Changes in constitutions to give the hierarchies powers to force their ministry ideas on congregations.
In all this effort to follow accepted or conventional ministry techniques, the Church is eroding their foundation and missing opportunities that are begging for unconventional attention.
The second part of the above quote is equally important: while we are following the conventions of church building we are blinding our eyes to new possibilities — new potential.
How the Redeemer/SEPA conflict validates this principle
The Redeemer situation illustrates this principle. Redeemer members were following the Disruptive Innovation techniques, serving a neighborhood which church analysts had determined was “overshot” and totally new populations. We had never heard the term at the time.
One of the few pastors who have openly addressed the Redeemer issue (retired, of course) justified the Synod Assembly vote with a point that was never raised in either the Synod’s presentation or Redeemer’s allotted few minutes.
“There are too many churches in East Falls anyway. What do we need with a church there?”
(Let’s forget for now that under Lutheran polity this isn’t his or the Assembly’s choice.)
This is not true, the people of East Falls are largely unchurched—not over-churched.
East Falls has
a Roman Catholic Church
a Presbyterian Church
an Episcopal Church
Redeemer with its locked doors but open hearts
The Roman Catholic Church is reeling from its own conflict with its hierarchy. The hierarchy, ever attentive to their own fiscal challenges, closed St. Bridget’s relatively successful school in an attempt to bolster the numbers at a school a couple of miles away that was failing despite the diocese’s investment in renovation. (Now both schools are closed. Great job, hierarchy!)
Five years ago, when SEPA’s attention turned to closing Redeemer, Falls Presbyterian Church had half the membership of Redeemer. Their denomination decided to support the congregation with a minister who has helped them make significant progress.
Five years ago, the Memorial Church of the Good Shepherd Episcopal Church was struggling, following the unexpected death of its pastor. They turned to then synod staff member, Claire Burkat. As a consultant, she determined that this congregation, located at the more affluent end of East Falls, with a location on a side street with no parking lot (a criticism she hurled at Redeemer) had ministry potential. While supporting the Episcopal congregation in East Falls, Bishop Burkat was soon plotting the downfall of the congregation in the same neighborhood that had supported her work for decades.
It should be noted that East Falls once had
a Methodist Church, which failed when its location became locked in the crowded streets of an old neighborhood
a Baptist Church, with similar challenges
a Congregational Church that closed more than 30 years ago
and a second Episcopal Church that did not survive a conflict with its bishop
There is a track record here of techniques that don’t work. Redeemer noticed and addressed its ministry challenges with them in mind.
So the neighborhood, in the analysis of church experts, was over-served but in reality it was “overshot,” a fertile field of “nonconsumers.” Prime ministry territory for Disruptive Innovation.
When the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Church in America decided that this was the next church they could turn to as a solution to their fiscal problems, Redeemer had already taken significant and promising ministry steps. We were able to forge a new direction in part because SEPA Synod was following its guidelines of NOT HELPING churches they determined might die in TEN YEARS. An unbelievable philosophy that is documented.
Pastors were discouraged from serving here. In that void, the laity charted an unconventional but promising 2008 Redeemer Ministry Plan, which we are still following this plan today, with necessary adaptations, despite the fact that SEPA excludes us from church membership.
During the ten years that SEPA thought we were dying, Redeemer was reaching newcomers to the East Falls area—some with Lutheran roots, some without. They were different from Redeemer’s historic membership in that their roots were in East Africa as opposed to England, Scotland and Germany.
SEPA Synod and Bishop Burkat in particular looked at our membership list and criticized it. “A lot of these names look African.” She tried to remove our African members asking our pastor to take them with him to another congregation—choosing for them which church they should attend, something she would never dare try with white Lutherans. She never counted them — reporting to the Synod Assembly in 2009 that we had only 13 members. We had only 13 white members. We had 60 or more black members that SEPA refused to recognize. They were unconventional.
SEPA wanted to see a conventional ministry here, opting to follow the trend of three other denominations that failed following the same “tried and true” ministry strategies. Pastor Patricia Davenport made a presentation to East Falls Community Council last March, repeating “We want a Word and Sacrament church at that location.” Why they evicted the Word and Sacrament church that was there was not explained. Redeemer, if given half a chance, would be flourishing and paying the debts the Synod continues to fight over in court.
And we would be forging new ministry techniques that might help others.
2×2 records banner statistics as 2012 draws to a close
2×2 will soon enter its third year of online ministry. Very few churches are experimenting with content evangelism. This is new territory.
We have been forced into online ministry by the confiscation of our property and the abandonment of traditional leadership. Online numbers are the only thing we can measure. We don’t have property or a pastor to pay. We have few expenses outside of unending law suits.
This was an interesting week statistically. For the last five weeks or so we’ve been inching up to 400 readers per week. We got as high as 397 without breaking 400. We fluctuated a bit, week by week, with our monthly totals steadily climbing for the last six months. Our daily readership also climbed steadily during the latter part of 2012.
This week we broke the 400 mark—and the 500 mark—and the 600 mark. 604 readers visited 2×2 last week.
Keep in mind that Redeemer’s ability to fulfill its mission was the lame excuse offered to justify the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s self-serving land grab. SEPA paraded false statistics before a Synod Assembly that was duped into taking foolish actions. Redeemer was allowed no say at the time (under questionable constitutionality)—by design.
Now we have independent statistics to prove our viability.
And a little church shall lead the way
2×2 is the focus of Redeemer’s mission. We pay daily attention to our blog’s statistics so we can do a better job. It’s not just a numbers game. We are forming real relationships with our readers all over the world. We are sharing freely what we are learning.
We look beyond the numbers to determine what the numbers represent. Online ministry is very measurable.
This week, an Ambassadors post early in the week attracted unusual attention, mostly on Monday but a little on Tuesday morning. By Tuesday afternoon, that interest had died. We expected the numbers to plummet to 20, 30 or 40 visits per day. They didn’t. By the end of the week, all the traffic was from the usual sources (people searching for ministry ideas), only at two or three times the previous week’s numbers.
Redeemer continues its dedication. We have numbers to back up our claims. Along with the statistics is evidence of Redeemer’s growing reach. We have readers all over the world. We may even lay claim to being one of the largest Lutheran churches within SEPA’s geographical area. But we are not limited by geography!
Imagine a different scenario than the one fostered by SEPA leadership
Imagine what we could be doing
if we had a place to meet for worship.
if we had a facility to hold workshops on the things we are learning.
if the pastor who had given us a five-year commitment hadn’t been chased off.
if our property were serving the community and earning income to satisfy existing debt and support even more outreach.
if we were free to monetize our site without interference.
if our members were not burdened or intimidated by lawsuits.
if we had a pastor to work with us and care about us.
And there’s the rub! It’s in that last bulleted item. The lay people of Redeemer now have more experience at this type of ministry than almost all ELCA pastors.
And so we are condemned and excluded. Not because we lack “missional” focus but because professional leaders, steeped in 19th and 20th century ministry models, don’t know how to work with us.
Who knows how long SEPA will keep Redemer’s doors locked until they feel they can totally control a ministry they never understood?
They have looked the other way as Grace, Roxborough, failed and their building and parsonage were sold to benefit SEPA. They allowed Epiphany, Upper Roxborough, to break its covenant with Redeemer and vote to close—assets going to SEPA. Only landlocked Bethany remains to serve several Philadelphia neighborhoods—East Falls, Wissahickon, Roxborough, and Manayunk.
A resurgence of ministry there without new focus is unlikely, but SEPA would rather watch traditional ministries struggle with an arrogant “we told you so” hanging in the air than help them to experiment beyond the experience of available leadership.
SEPA congregations and clergy look on with approval, touting the wisdom of its leaders, and protecting their own endangered territories.
Meanwhile, little, unrecognized Redeemer just keeps growing. Without property, without money, without professional leaders, Redeemer grows!
God is doing something new in East Falls.
When will SEPA and the ELCA perceive it?
Screen shot of Redeemer’s statistics toward the end of the December 2, 2012. We actually closed the day with 604 site visits — two more visited before the Cinderella hour.
Last Sunday, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) held a gathering they called
“Plant It, Water It, Watch it Grow.”
It was supposed to be a presentation on SEPA’s mission work.
Redeemer wasn’t invited. We are the weed, we suppose, in the SEPA garden.
SEPA Synod evicted a vibrant, growing congregation, locked everyone in town out of God’s House, and sent a caretaker to rake the leaves and shovel the snow. He does a good job, the neighbors tell us.
But GROW! That’s the part SEPA Synod has trouble with. Almost all of its congregations are in decline or flat-lined. In fact, Rev. Hilgendorf of St. David’s, dean of the NE Conference, addressed the Plant It, Water It, Watch It Grow concept and talked mostly of helping congregations save money by consolidating purchasing. This really has nothing to do with planting, watering or growth.
Botanists describe weeds as flowers that are reproductively successful.
What SEPA Synod needs is more weeds — like Redeemer.
They wouldn’t know what to do if they had a garden filled with them.
That’s why Redeemer is about to celebrate its FOURTH Christmas locked out of the church. And none of the people who attended Sunday’s “Plant It, Water It, Watch It Grow” conference have demonstrated that they care.
While all those church leaders were together talking about mission, we wonder:
2×2 grew from a small church—Redeemer in East Falls. How small? Well, too small for the ELCA. But big enough for mission.
While we have been locked out of our sanctuary for more than three years, we took on a project of visiting the very people who locked us out for their own enrichment.
We’ve made more than 50 visits. Most congregations appear to be no stronger in numbers or wealth than Redeemer. Several would probably already have been targeted by SEPA Synod for takeover if Redeemer hadn’t been commanding their attention for the last five years. As church experts categorize churches by size, they are either in the family church (under 75 members) or pastoral church (around 150 active members) categories .
A few of the congregations we have visited fall into the next biggest category — the program church.
Program churches are big enough by definition to afford a full-time pastor or two and some additional paid staff. They can offer programs to various segments of the population led by the extra hands they can afford to pay.
There is a stark contrast between these churches and the smaller churches that struggle to compete for pastoral services and attention from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).
The difference is initiative. It’s not that larger churches don’t have initiative; it’s just more “programmed.”
We can see it in little things.
In last Sunday’s visit, the pastor used five large objects in his sermon. He introduced them one by one and placed them across the front of the chancel as he talked. When his sermon ended, he walked back and forth across the chancel and removed the objects. He sang a hymn as he did so. But it seemed odd that the vicar sitting nearby didn’t offer to help—nor did the acolyte sitting nest to the vicar. I know that had this been Redeemer, one or two people would have jumped up and helped the pastor prepare for the next part of worship. There is nothing wrong with this, understand. The hymn the pastor was singing as he cleaned up was nice. It just seemed odd.
Where initiative is lacking, so is creativity. It shows in the bulletins of program churches. They invariably have long lists of credits. Who is the greeter, the reader, the usher, the offering counter, the communion assistant, the flower donator, or the nursery assistant for this week and the rest of the month? Just check the bulletin.
Presumably, if it’s not your Sunday to greet people, then there is no reason to greet anyone.
In small churches, every job belongs to every body.
Reading through church newsletters and bulletins of the program-sized churches, there are lists of activities. They are similar to every other program-sized church. Perhaps that’s where church leaders get the notion that closing/consolidating churches is good management.
The things Redeemer does aren’t on any of the lists. No Swahili outreach, no experimentation with the web and social media, very little experimenting in the worship and educational settings, no ambassadors.
Perhaps the promise that they will lose their uniqueness is why small churches resist the management “wisdom” of their leaders.
Perhaps it is why the ELCA and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) tend to undervalue their small congregations.
Redeemer is not closed. We are locked out of God’s house by SEPA Synod.
I had an uncle who was a Methodist preacher. He often said, only partially jokingly, “Jesus is the answer. Now what is your question?”
There seems to be a similar “go to” response in the Church today. When you don’t know what to do—or when you do know what to do but don’t have the courage to do it, there is an easy answer. Promise to pray.
It’s been tough going for our congregation as members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Bishop Claire Burkat of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod went on the warpath against Redeemer Lutheran in East Falls, Philadelphia, including personal attacks on lay members. Acquiring the assets of Redeemer seems to have been part of the plan to fund massive budget deficits from the very beginning of her first term in 2006.
Large deficits have been routine since the beginning of SEPA back in the late 1980s. Giving and attendance were (and still are) in serious decline. There was no plan for reviving small church ministry beyond neglect and waiting for failure. Several congregations folded rather than swim upstream without the cooperation of SEPA leadership.
The assumption of SEPA leadership is that if they neglect ministry for a decade, ministry will fail to the benefit of Synod coffers. Under Lutheran polity this isn’t a given. Congregations can determine where to donate their assets. But Synods are finding a work-around that guarantees they will benefit. Simply declare the congregations “terminated” before they can have any say. This means that the congregations have NO rights within the Church they have served for decades or centuries. They need not even be consulted! Constitutional checks and balances are ignored.
Redeemer was getting the “10 years of neglect” treatment. But it wasn’t going as Synod planned. Lay leadership grew. Alliances were made with several dedicated pastors. Redeemer was in a promising position, with a five-year commitment of a qualified Lutheran pastor, working under a detailed plan that the congregation had spent six months drafting. In fact, our ministry continues to grow, despite the abuse.
But the efforts of lay people are not valued.
And there was that $275,000 deficit budget approved by Synod Assembly at the same time they voted (against Lutheran rules) to take our property.
And all of this has gone on while the clergy of SEPA Synod have watched.
Our members have approached people who should be in a position to at least open dialog on the issues.
There are fairly specific guidelines for resolution of disputes in the Bible and there are governing documents that could be followed within the Church. But ELCA leaders do not bother. They rely on “wisdom.”
We’ve heard all kinds of excuses.
From Bishop Hanson: Just talk it out. I have great regard for Bishop Burkat.
From a Synod Council member: We have no intention of negotiating with you. (Synod Council is supposed to represent the congregations.)
From deans: Silence
From pastors in a position to help: We have to trust the wisdom of the bishop.
From pastors who visited Redeemer 30 or 40 years ago: We know your history (as if Redeemer was stuck in a time warp).
From pastors who don’t know anything about Redeemer — but voted with the crowd anyway: Sorry! We didn’t know.
Whatever the excuse, it is always accompanied with a sanctimonious, conscience-assuaging promise to pray.
We wonder what these learned church leaders expect to come of prayer.
That someone else—anyone else—will play peacemaker.
That God will suddenly fix everything without any work.
That whatever happens won’t affect them.
That miracles will replace gumption.
That whatever happens, their jobs will be secure.
That they will never be the victims of the type of leadership abuses that have characterized this sad episode (and perhaps others before us).
That life in SEPA will go on as if Redeemer, and Epiphany, and Grace and others never existed—and the list will probably continue to grow.
Lutherans pride themselves on an interdependent structure. That means we are supposed to work together.
Here’s a suggestion:
By all means, keep praying, but recognize that the answer to prayer is probably in getting off your backsides and doing something.
‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do
for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
Join Bishop Ruby Kinisa as she visits small churches "under cover" to learn what people would never share if they knew they were talking to their bishop.
Undercover Bishop will always be available in PDF form on 2x2virtualchurch.com for FREE.
Print or Kindle copies are available on Amazon.com.
For bulk copies, please contact 2x2: creation@dca.net.
Contact Info
You can reach
Judy Gotwald,
the moderator of 2x2,
at
creation@dca.net
or 215 605 8774
Redeemer’s Prayer
We were all once strangers, the weakest, the outcasts, until someone came to our defense, included us, empowered us, reconciled us (1 Cor. 2; Eph. 2).
2×2 Sections
Where in the World is 2×2?
On Isaiah 30:15b
Be calm. Wait. Wait. Commit your cause to God. He will make it succeed. Look for Him a little at a time. Wait. Wait. But since this waiting seems long to the flesh and appears like death, the flesh always wavers. But keep faith. Patience will overcome wickedness.
—Martin Luther
