4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

transforming ministry

The World Is Changing. Why Can’t the Church?

Idea: Small Church Summit

I’ve written about this before, but the more I study modern marketing (evangelism) and business strategy, the more I am convinced that the Church is its own worst enemy.

Church structure is ill-equipped to change with the modern world. Its inability to adapt is dooming congregations—all congregations—not just the small ones.

Church leadership, trained and steeped in tradition, is not leading us into the modern world. They are aware of the needs. Desperately aware.

Experts write and offer advice, usually based on isolated success stories that may or may not apply to other congregations. Church structure is a roadblock to implementation. Too many hurdles. Too much reliance on traditional relationships and procedures. Easier to slog along waiting for a miracle.

This week I attended a business conference. About eight related businesses took turns reviewing the goals and strategies of each of the others. Each business was spotlighted for 45 minutes. Their particular challenges were addressed in detail.

The businesses had to let down their guard. Hierarchy was leveled. Soon, ideas were flying. Good, helpful, concrete ideas. Each business walked away with a checklist of what to accomplish to grow their business over the next four business quarters.

It wasn’t an easy process. Some participants were afraid that their ideas would be stolen and that the criticism would suck the wind from their sails. But in the end all participated and they discovered that the other participants were eager to help. Their fresh viewpoints and experience with similar problems was energizing. They were directing one another to resources that might have been protected if the businesses were acting as competitors.

Soon the participants were sitting together into the evening, asking questions, probing, sharing advice.

I was left wondering . . .

Does this kind of free-flowing brainstorming and dialogue ever happen in the Church?

In the Church, all ideas and programs are funneled through the clergy. The clergy will want to retain control even when they don’t have the skills to implement the needed steps. They will also be weighing their position in the total hierarchy. Often their career goals are more important than congregational goals.

Laity are dismissed or enlisted as followers. Their career success is not at stake. They’ll take the blame for failure but have little control over processes.

Lay people can present ideas but the power to see them fulfilled is largely controlled by cooperation of people with allegiance to the status quo, tradition and turf to protect.

How often are lay people featured speakers at any church gatherings?

How do we get around this?

What if small congregations could band together? What if they could hold regular “mastermind” sessions. Each congregation could share their goals and frustrations. Each participant would help them evaluate and strategize. Each congregation would leave with a plan which both clergy and laity would be responsible for implementing before the next “mastermind” session.

Together we might be able to help each other overcome obstacles and see transformation and growth. Together we might share skills and resources.

Or do we all just keep ministering in isolated despair, waiting for the other boot to drop, wallowing in knowing what the problems are without a clue as to how to address them?

This is our proposal. It’s just a start, but it could grow into something HUGE!

One small church provide leadership initiative.

Invite five-ten other small churches to attend a “Small Church Summit” that would explore common and unique problems. The congregations don’t have to be all the same denomination. We could learn from one another!

Once problems are defined, the group can focus on each congregation. Offer ideas and support.

It’s important that clergy and laity interact. Both must attend. As equals. The Lutheran way!

What do you think? Would a Small Church Mastermind Summit interest you?

2×2 would love to develop this idea. Contact us if you have interest.

04 Dec 2013

Risk Taking in Today’s Church

SEPA Leadership Encourages Risk-taking

At the 2013 Assembly of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod, Bishop Claire Burkat exhorted member churches to take risks. Start small. Just take one risk in mission.

I beleive in risk-taking.

Many of the risks that need to be taken in the Church are long overdue.

The climate of SEPA Synod is not conducive to risk-taking.

If congregations are to take risks they must be assured that failures

  • will not be used as excuses for hierarchical seizure of everything they own.
  • will not cause them to be excommunicated from Lutheran fellowship.
  • will not put their personal welfare and that of their families in danger.

SEPA cannot provide these assurances.

Consequently, risks will not be taken.

The biggest obstacle? Involuntary Synodical Administration.

Involuntary Synodical Administration, now so common that it is referred to by the acronym ISA, did not exist in the founding documents of the ELCA. The Articles of Incorporation still forbid it.

ISA is the determination of the bishop that a church cannot survive. The Synod assumes all cash and property assets. Trustees are appointed. They serve the bishop’s interests, not the congregation’s. It is theft by constitutional tweaking.

The original constitutional statute allowed for synodical administration only with the consent of the congregation and as a temporary measure.

Synodical Administration was intended to be a tool to help struggling congregations overcome difficulty. Congregations were part of the process—the Lutheran way. Help was offered, but assets remained owned by the congregations.

Involuntary Synodical Administration is a monstrous contrivance.

The Synod’s model constitution has been tweaked to negate the promises made to the congregations when they joined the ELCA.

Consequently, congregational polity, precious to Lutherans, no longer exists in SEPA Synod.

Too bad. Congregational polity encourages risk-taking.

Without congregational polity every congregation must consider what big brother or sister will do if their risks fail —as measured by the bishop not by the congregation.  

If congregations are to take Bishop Burkat’s advice and take risks, they should seriously review and revise their own governing documents.

Taking risks, after all, is risky. You could fail.

Failure leads to knowledge which can then be put to new ministry use. Innovation is usually the result of multiple attempts that failed.

But in the world of SEPA, failure of any sort, as measured by no one but the bishop (who has minimal knowledge of congregations), leads to long-term Lutheran assets lost to short-term synodical needs.

Here’s what I know about SEPA and their ability to accept congregational risk-taking:

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, there was a small urban congregation facing the same challenges many small congregations face. The founding members who predated decades of urban unrest were dying off. The landscape for ministry was changing dramatically and at a faster pace than the “settled” Church had ever encountered.

This congregation had resources. A founding member had left an endowment with the stipulation that it be used for ministry in that neighborhood.

That endowment had already been an attractive target for s financially troubled synod, but that had been resolved eight years before. However, the memory was still fresh. The Synod refused to follow the call process after the resolution. They were betting that without help, the congregation would fall apart. SEPA need wait only a bit longer to get to the assets.

This congregation had unusually strong lay leadership. The absence of professional leaders had actually helped develop the congregation’s sense of mission. They knew they had to serve a multicultural neighborhood. Without the burden of salaries, they were free to engage pastors for specific tasks as needed.

Money was not yet a problem, but it was clear that it would become a problem if congregational leaders didn’t address the needs of the future immediately.

The congregational leaders spent six months drafting a plan. They consulted pastors, real estate experts, an accountant and a lawyer in drafting a five-year plan. Funds were needed to bring facilities up to modern standards. The congregation was willing to risk a third of their property for a short-term mortgage that might catapult them into a solid future.

The congregation had been renting its educational building to a Lutheran agency, but the congregation knew that this was no longer in their interests. The property had more potential for congregational ministry if the congregation ran its own school with the important added benefit of being able to witness in mission as the Lutheran agency was unable to do.

Two members of the congregation already experienced in childcare took the training necessary for licensure. The school was projected to bring in $100,000 annually to the congregation’s ministry within two years. Meanwhile, other sources of income were also identified and a stewardship program was implemented. 

Previous pastors were not comfortable in multicultural settings. They promised to find help but reported regularly, “There is no one.” When the last pastor left, the congregation found excellent, qualified professional leaders within a few weeks.

52 members joined in the first year and there was every indication that this was only the start of a vibrant new ministry. 

Meanwhile, the congregation presented the mission plan to Bishop Claire Burkat along with a resolution to call one of the pastors who had already been working with the congregation successfully for seven months.

There were risks, but there were strong indications that the risks would pay off.

Bishop Claire Burkat accepted the resolution and ministry plan and promised to review them. She also promised that the congregation could work with the Synod’s Mission Developer. Four months passed with no communication from anyone in the bishop’s office.

Was there to be a period of discussion and review of the 24-page mission plan? Would the bishop make suggestions or offer help?

No.

Bishop Burkat abruptly sent a letter to the congregation announcing the church was closed and all assets were to be assumed by her office (which had recently announced they were within $75,000 of depleting every available resource).  

The risks quickly escalated with law suits and personal attacks on members that continued for five years. Although Bishop Burkat wrote to clergy that all issues are settled, the fact is the case is still in the courts.

If Bishop Burkat truly believed in risk-taking, she could have taken a chance on Redeemer’s carefully crafted mission plan. She could have joined interdependently in a carefully calculated mission adventure that was already succeeding. She could have taken credit!

Bishop Burkat couldn’t risk Redeemer’s resources slipping from syndical control twice in one decade. Some of the motivation was SEPA’s own financial needs. Power and pride also entered the picture.

Risk-taking does not happen in this atmosphere.

Lay members are sitting ducks for abuse. Clergy will protect their standing.

If SEPA congregations truly want to be risk-takers for mission, they must revisit their constitutions and make risk-taking a little less risky.

Redeemer is still ready to take risks.

We’ve been pioneering mission while SEPA has been attacking us. There is nothing stopping Redeemer’s mission plan from being implemented even today.

SEPA prefers the expenses of locked churches to the expenses of mission. They spend more than $170,000 a year keeping those doors locked. Taking a risk on Redeemer’s mission plan would have cost them nothing (and it was already succeeding!)

There is more mission potential in open churches than in closed churches.

There is more economic potential in open churches than in closed churches.

 

23 May 2013

Are We Playing God in the Church?

Something must die for new life to occur.

We’ve heard the adage before. It is presented in today’s church almost as if it were romantic. There are hints that it might be biblical.  

It is not biblical—at least in the way it is being used to justify self-serving actions by regional bodies and church leaders.

This month in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), this thinking was passed on to the rank and file.

SEPA’s 2013 Synod Assembly had a guest speaker deliver this message. His address figures prominently on SEPA’s web site. It is not original thinking. Bishop Burkat wrote about this concept in 2001. 

Good idea to have an outsider reinforce the ideas that are hurting so many SEPA member churches.

From SEPA’s web site:

Jay Gamelin urged congregational leaders to focus on making disciples instead of taking care of members and warned that sometimes new life requires death to occur first. “What needs to die in your church?” he asked the Assembly. “Because you know what God does with death? He makes an empty tomb out of it.”

Actually, that was not Christ’s approach to mission. True, his Resurrection saved us, but He didn’t tear down the people He encountered. He taught. He nurtured new leadership. He counseled established leaders. He empowered ordinary people—people who had no wealth to give but were welcomed all the same. He cured. He encouraged. He gave hope to the marginally served in society and within the religious structures of the day. He loved.

Christ wanted sin to die. Not churches.

He didn’t teach taking financial assessments of congregations and abandoning the weak. In fact, the sense of economics in His parables often puzzles us. He found strength and promise in places no one else did!

This death-oriented ministry philosophy may create an occasional statistical success story, but church statistics don’t reveal that resulting success is the norm or automatic or has longevity. Of course, time will tell.

Something must die. Any volunteers?

Why is it that our church leaders look to find somebody else to do the dying? Why is it the efforts of lay people that are targeted?

This is an abuse of the Resurrection story. Why do we embrace this thinking? Why do we sit in Synod Assembly and listen to it being taught?

Noble-sounding words mask a dangerous idea. The Church is playing with power—group power and some individuals’ sense of power. 

Power doesn’t take much encouragement before it runs seriously amok. The idea that one person or group knows better how to use another person’s or group’s assets is the root of much crime.

ELCA documents protect us from this misuse of power, but they are routinely ignored.

This pseudo-resurrection concept is rooted in a sense of superiority. It masks leadership failures. “We didn’t fail as professional church leaders. It was their time to die. We’ll help them grieve on the way to the bank.”

They are playing God.

The temptation to play God when exercised by mortals results in skewed or lazy assessments of ministries, with property and cash assets the focus — not mission.

Christ’s power grew from humility. It has no time for arrogance.

When money is a problem for everyone, including the regional body and national church, things get crazy fast. No one looks for mission solutions. We look for easy answers that won’t take work, time, or commitment or an investment of any kind. We find it easy to judge others as unworthy of God’s blessings. We stop providing mission services and tell ourselves it’s OK.  We decide which congregations will die (not “might die” but “will die”) in ten years. TEN YEARS!

The dereliction of duty is intentional and horrific. We not only do nothing but we plot to speed the process. We provide a “caretaker” minister. This caretaker expects to be paid as if he or she were actually doing ministry, but they are there to do nothing more than hold hands while resources and spirit are drained. They are there to facilitate the conveyance of assets.

Let’s look at what can happen in ten years.

Ten years — enough time to fight most wars, including World Wars. Enough time to reverse a serious recession. Long enough to see a high school student through seminary. Time enough for the Civil Rights Movement to begin to see results. Ten years—the entire history of social media!

What could happen in a church in ten years?

Endowments might be enriched. New populations could move in. Mission initiatives might take hold. Community outreach might take root. New housing might be built. New businesses might move in. A new generation will be born.

If the Church’s attention is on fostering failure, they will miss out on important mission opportunities.

One Bad Idea Leads to Another

This philosophy quickly jumps to even more erroneous thinking.

“You are not here to serve your membership, you are here to serve God.” Jay Gamelin concludes.

Serving your members IS serving God. Your constitution probably spells out your duties and it undoubtedly mandates care of members.

We ARE  here to serve members. Their needs and preferences DO count. It is THEIR expression of worship and ministry. They are not the only thing that counts but they DO count. Love would tell us that.

The minute we give our leaders permission to NOT serve members, we devalue our message to all. Problems will result. They may not be immediate, but they will result.

Where there is life there is hope and there is God. God can play God all He wants.

And He will.

Don’t expect this philosophy that results from our leaders playing God to spread without problems.

Take a look at what’s happened in NW Philadelphia in the last ten years or so while this philosophy has reigned.

17 May 2013

The Squandering of Voice in the Church

Hearing the Voice Within

It will take a while for the Church to recognize that they can no longer control the voice of the faithful. The reason for this delay is that congregations and individual Christians do not yet realize that we have more power than ever before in history.

We are accustomed to abiding in silence, accepting what we are told and assuming that the powerful within the church have godly interests.

This is not always true.

Martin Luther took a huge risk when he hammered his list of 95 complaints onto the cathedral door. The response was predictable. Luther was forced into hiding for fear of his life. Fortunately, he made a few well-positioned friends who helped him over this rough spot. He emerged to become a respected preacher and teacher of the Word.

Martin Luther wasn’t the first to raise many of the issues he cited. He was the first to survive. He was the first with the power of a printing press to amplify his voice.

 

The old tools of intimidation still work. Clergy who are beholding to hierarchy are easily silenced.

During the extended conflict between Redeemer Lutheran Church and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod has anyone wondered why it is the lay people who have been dragged through courts? The clergy who were working with the congregation, voted with the congregation, and encouraged the congregation headed for the hills after private meetings in the synod office.

 

Today, each individual within the Church has far more power than Martin Luther.

We have a voice that will be more difficult to control.

Eventually, our voices will have influence.

Redeemer, excluded from participation within the church, started a blog. We are one of very few churches who have taken this step and use this tool for weekly outreach. It has both changed and shaped our ministry in ways we never expected.

Blogging builds community. We have encountered dozens of individual bloggers who write from a spiritual point of view. They are poets, photographers, parents, writers, artists, and adventurers. They are all over the world—Thailand, Armenia, Scandinavia, Africa, the Mideast. Some of them have church connections. Others do not. They tend to represent the age demographic that is missing in the church on Sunday morning—20-40.

They have discovered that within the Church, they have little voice, but outside the Church, they can grow.

The ability to grow as individuals is a key factor that is missing in many church communities.

Modern youth have been reared in a world where they must constantly reeducate themselves. They are involved in an ongoing process of self-discovery. In the past this discovery period ended at about age 30, when we settled down. This will no longer be true for any of us, regardless of age.

Self-rediscovery tends to be discouraged within the Church. We are likely to be assigned a task that Church needs to have accomplished. We will be told how to do it—how to teach, how to sing, how to fix the altar, and how to distribute the offering plates. Once we accept one of these jobs, it may be ours for life!

It is no wonder that people turn away from the Church. They seek community where their voices can be heard—their ideas and talents recognized.

If the Church does not find a way to welcome the voice of the people and adapt to modern expectations, they will find their churches to be empty on Sunday mornings.

Church leaders who face this change in society with tenacious resistance will enjoy fleeting successes.

A storm is coming. A wise church would nurture voice if they want transforming change.

What are we afraid of, anyway?

growblogcartoonlr

04 Apr 2013

What to Do with the Inconvenient Church

What Happens When the Small Church Becomes Inconvenient?

There is a problem facing the mainline Church today. It is spoken of frequently among Church professionals—less frequently with lay people. (Maybe there would be a solution if we were all part of the discussion.)

The topic (although it is not stated this way) is “What to Do with Inconvenient Churches.”

That includes most of us.

What makes a congregation “inconvenient”?

Let’s look first as what makes a “convenient” church.

Convenient churches are those that have 150 or more at worship each Sunday. They have a pastor who has already served five years and has no desire to move on. The convenient church has a paid-for property and a growing number of members supporting the ministry from the grave.

The convenient church can send a good percentage of offerings to the regional and national offices. They can send year-end gifts to major church agencies and the denominational seminaries and camps.

When a convenient church calls the Regional Office, their calls are returned. The bishop is a familiar face to them and can be counted on to visit for special occasions. Seminarians look over the list of convenient churches with hope that they might one day serve in their alluring comfort and security.

The convenient church really has little use for the regional office. But the regional office needs them and the dollars they can supply. A symbiotic bond is formed.

The inconvenient church may have some of the same traits. They could have a good number of people. They may have a paid-for property. They may have a settled pastor. But something happened —or didn’t happen— somewhere along the line that made them damaged goods, flawed beyond redemption in the eyes of church leaders.

The congregation may be clueless about its reputation. It was probably shaped over the years in the clergy gossip mill until the mere mention of the congregation’s name brings muffled chortles and knowing glances.

It is likely that clergy were somehow involved in whatever created the inconvenient situation. They are in a position to make sure the other clergy get their spin. There will never be a forum to properly examine the history. By the time the congregation learns they are marked, it is too late. The Church just doesn’t have time to deal with them and the trouble it would take to turn things around. Inconvenient.

The result is condoned shunning. Pastors won’t want to serve them. Hierarchy, in their number one role as employment agency for rostered leaders, wants the people they see and work with regularly to be happy. The laity are unknown, novices in church procedures, and will be no threat. Out of sight; out of mind.

Yet most churches today fall into the inconvenient category, possibly from decades of dealing with an unresponsive Church structure.

Churches that have been abandoned by clergy in favor of more convenient assignments quickly get used to going it alone. If they are fortunate, they develop lay leadership. After a while, they assume every congregation has trouble communicating with the regional office. Every church gets appointments 11 months in the future.

Now the real problem comes in. Clergy may not want to serve these congregations but they definitely don’t want them to go it alone.  The behind-the-scenes clergy prejudice becomes impenetrable.

The problem: no one wants to commit to service in these unpopular congregations.

The solution: create a team of pastors to serve them without commitment.

The team will be made up of retired pastors and pastors who don’t want the inconvenience of moving or readjusting their lives. Call them interim ministers. Have them report regularly to the regional office, so they know what’s going on without having to actually do anything about it. This isn’t far-fetched. It’s actually part of the rationale of regional bodies. The problems may have festered so long that no one wants to deal with them. Better to let the short-termer, uncommitted pastor take the blame. The priority is the comfort of the pastors!

Somebody needs to take the blame.

The “inconvenient” churches need help. A committed pastor has the best chance of providing that help, but it takes work. He or she may need to spend six months visiting every home. Someone may need to admit to some leadership failings. Reconciliation requires a little self-sacrifice. Remember the cross.

Inconvenient churches may need the services of a regional body — but they are not in a position to pay more than a token amount. That’s not all their fault. Their ministries have been neglected for years and that affects stewardship.

So in the world of Church, the attention goes to the congregations that don’t need it.

As long as funds are adequate, everyone can get by. But in difficult times, even the “convenient” deep-pocket churches may become needy.

Someone has to make up for the shortfall when the bigger churches can no longer support the hierarchy at the level to which it is accustomed. (Suddenly they have to do the same work with less money and fewer people — just like the inconvenient churches they failed to serve!)

That’s when the “inconvenient” churches become vulnerable. It has less to do with their ability to survive (they are used to struggling) than it does with the whole lop-sided system.

The “convenient” churches can now use their clout to insure their own survival.

The obvious answer to the hierarchy that has already distanced themselves from their smaller congregations: Close ’em down. Take their assets. Make life more convenient for the convenient churches.

It is quickly forgotten that the nature of ministry is to help the weak.

If the Church looks at their smaller congregations (the majority) as windfalls in waiting, they are missing their mission.

The way things are going, it will be their turn soon enough.

12 Dec 2012