Conver[sa]tion

A ministry colleague once told me how distressed she was when she was informed in a seminary class that referring to God as "Father" was "oppressive to women." Her father abandoned her and her mother when she was a baby, and she had spent her whole life trying to come to terms with that pain. Being able to relate to God as Father, she said, had been essential to her healing.

My point is not to debate the rightness or wrongness of something called "inclusive language." I share this story as an example of how deeply biographical faith is.

People often talk about faith as if it consisted of "things" called "beliefs." Beliefs are ideas we hold in our minds. Or they talk about theology in terms of "positions" -- taking a stand at a particular place. But our faith and our theology are always deeply enmeshed in the unfolding, changing story of our lives.

And maybe what's called for when we run up against our differences is not so much an argument as a conversation. Not "You are so wrong to say that," but, "Tell me why it is so important to you to say that -- and let me tell you why it causes me so much pain." 

Joyce Carol Oates' novel We Were the Mulvaneys is about a family plunged into crisis by a traumatic event. Each member reacts to this trauma in his or her own way, but they are all intimately tied together.

The second oldest of the four Mulvaney children, Patrick, searches for truth in science. "There are scientifically demonstrable ways of [perceiving reality], and there are superstititious, self-deluding ways," Patrick says. "You can have one or the other but not both." Either/or. Faith or fact. Truth or falsehood.

It's really clear, though, that Patrick is drawn to science because of a deep inner need to find something in life more trustworthy than people -- something fixed and firm that you can measure, that isn't subject to irrational moods, that doesn't let you down. Patrick's scientific unbelief is every bit as emotional, non-rational -- biographical -- as the simple church-going faith of his mother that he has rejected.

Do you know that that word conversation and the word conversion are very closely related? They come from the same Latin root meaning "to turn with." This suggests that conversation is more than superficial chit-chat. Conversation has the power to convert us, to turn us to a new way of seeing, to bring us to a different place. Every time we enter a conversation, we face the possibility that we might be changed by it.

Maybe that's why it's easier to argue than to converse.

Churches have their biographies just like individuals. Congregations live out a story. Those stories invite conversation.

The narrative most churches tell these days is one of grief over a lost past and anxiety about an uncertain future. And they want to know, "Who or what caused this?" and "What can we do?" Those are questions that are almost guaranteed to generate arguments.

But what if, instead of assigning blame, or trying to fix a problem, we were a lot more intentional about entering into conversations -- creating safe spaces where real conversation can take place -- where we can talk about what is deeply true and important -- telling and listening? What if we were more open to the possibility that conversation can lead to conversion?

How could we do that, within and among our congregations? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Doing Church Differently 3: A Few More Types of Clusters

Everybody’s way too busy to read long blog posts at Christmas time, so I’ll briefly describe a couple of more variations on the cluster theme.

One Church, Multiple Locations

A few years ago I ran across something called Cariboo Presbyterian House Church Ministries.  This is a “church” in the interior of British Columbia that consists of between 16 and 20 house churches. Located in remote communities, the network is served by three ordained clergy whose main job is to equip local lay people to lead home based gatherings.

I’ve always thought this could be a brilliant model for the United Church to explore as churches become more isolated even within high population urban areas. It would require a big shift in the understanding of ministry. Lay people become the providers of hands-on ministry, and trained clergy become trainers and equippers rather than those who “run the church.” But in the long term, wouldn’t that be a healthier mode of being church?

 Here’s their website:

http://www.cariboopresbyterianchurch.bc.ca/

 

Multiple Churches, One Location

This is apparently a common model in Australia where congregations tend to be a lot smaller than they are in Canada (although we may be fast closing the gap!)

The advantages of this arrangement are obvious. Instead of each church struggling to maintain a building, several congregations move into one facility. It represents better stewardship and would create immediate financial viability for many struggling churches.

But it would demand an equally big attitude adjustment. Congregations would have to get over their proprietorial attitude to “our church building” and really learn how to share and cooperate (not a bad idea.)

But each congregation would have to have a sufficiently clear understanding of their own unique identity that they wouldn’t be tempted to “all just get together and make one church.” The value of this model is that it would make the coexistence of distinctive communities financially possible.

Why We Do This

With those thoughts, I’ll close the 2014 version of Mission, Health and Vitality. I pray that, at this season of the year, we’ll remember why we keep doing this in the face of dwindling numbers and public indifference.

It’s because we worship a God who does not exist as a remote “First Cause” or a vague spiritual idea, but who actually entered into the world in weakness and humility to reveal the power of self-giving Love.  As Eugene Peterson puts it in his Message version of the Gospel of John, God “moved into our neighborhood.”

If we could proclaim that good news effectively, we would not be wondering how we can keep our churches vibrant and alive.

I want to wish you, the congregations of which you are a part, and those you love a Blessed and Holy Christmas and Happy and Prosperous New Year.

DOING CHURCH DIFFERENTLY 2: CLUSTERING

Nobody needs to be convinced that the world has changed. Or that the church of our childhood no longer exists. Every congregation has been profoundly affected by the deep changes in our society over the last fifty years.

But what to do?

In a series of blog posts, I am exploring some different models of church that I believe are absolutely workable in a United Church context -- if there is a commitment to change for the sake of church's mission.

Last week, I looked a Missional Communities. This week I’ll look at Clusters.

What is a Cluster?

Part of the problem is with the terminology itself. The same word can mean different things to different people. For example, some people call the Missional Communities I described in my last post Clusters.

And Waterloo Presbytery has had experience with geographical groupings of congregations that were called Clusters.

I am using the word Cluster to mean “a network of congregations sharing a team of ministry leaders.”

This is nothing new. It’s the main organizational model of the Methodist Church in many places even today, such as Great Britain, where it’s called a “Circuit.”

Basically, a Cluster, or a Circuit is a grouping of congregations, usually between three and twelve in number, that are served by a team of ministry leaders who provide worship, pastoral care and programming.

Let’s imagine a hypothetical example. Six congregations decide to form a Cluster or Circuit. Most of them are served by part time ministers. All of them are struggling to maintain their buildings and pay their bills.

A ministry staff team is assembled that could include two full time Order of Ministry persons, two Licensed Lay Worship Leaders, two Congregational Designated Ministers specializing in Pastoral Care and Children and Youth, and a couple of retired ministers who are available for occasional preaching and visiting.

Between the Ordered Ministers and the LLWLs, each church would have someone to lead their worship service each week, although not the same person every week. All of the other aspects of ministry would be divided up among the team. Coverage for holidays and sabbaticals would be arranged from within the team.

Initially, the congregations might feel that they had lost something by not having their “own minister.” In order to accommodate the preaching schedule, some might need to change the time of their worship service.

But all of the churches would have the benefits of a full-time, called minister, each of whom would be able to concentrate on their own particular areas of strength, plus the services of the other members of the team. The entire circuit of 6 churches would be served by the equivalent of 4 or 4 1/2  full time staff, which would reduce the cost to each individual congregation.  They would also have access to the gifts and expertise of the several leaders with different training and gifts, not just one part-time minister.

This model would also lend itself to sharing of administrative and custodial services, office equipment and purchasing.
There are several possible variations to this model.

Variation #1:  Hub and Satellite
In this model, one larger church joins with one or more smaller churches. Staffing and administration are done through the large church, which agrees to provide worship leadership, pastoral care and support to the satellite congregations in return for paying a share of the total budget to the central treasury. The smaller churches would be guaranteed stable ministry without having to operate their own offices or do their own administration.

A further variation of this model would be live streamed worship from the hub congregation at one or more of the satellites.

While this sounds like an organizational change, it really depends on a change of attitude. People in all of the churches would need to move from thinking only about their own needs to the welfare and mission of the whole cluster. The smaller churches would have to get over their fears of being dominated or swallowed up by the larger church, while the larger church would have to agree not to regard the smaller churches as a burden. Everyone would need to be motivated by a commitment to the wellbeing of all, and the mission of the whole church.

Variation 2:  Congregational Specialization.

Think of how many of our towns and cities have two or more United Churches that all offer basically the same thing at the same hour every week. Four, five, six churches more or less the same worship service at 10:30 on Sunday morning.

Supposing a community with that number of United Churches agreed that they would each offer something different based on their particular character, strengths and resources.

Church A would offer high quality traditional worship led by the organ and chancel choir and outstanding biblical preaching at 10 a.m.

Church B would offer high energy contemporary worship led by a praise band, together with programming for children and youth at 11 a.m.

Church C has a long history of contemplative prayer and spiritual practices. They decide to forego Sunday morning altogether and offer meditative, experiential worship on Wednesday evening, plus weekday morning prayer.

Church D offers family inclusive worship on the Messy Church model at 4 p.m. on Saturday.

Church E attracts a community from a specific population and ministers to their particular needs – persons with disabilities, for example, or persons in recovery.

Together, these five churches support and encourage each other’s unique ministry in the name of the mission of the United Church of Canada. Only two or perhaps three of them occupy the traditional Sunday morning time slot, but together they offer multiple points of connection to the community.

Get Over Yourself

Significant changes are not just organizational, they are cultural. They depend on an attitude adjustment, from thinking that the church’s job is to cater to the needs, wants, desires and tastes of its membership, to thinking in terms of the church’s mission. Which is really Jesus’ mission to the world through gathered communities called churches.

Congregations need to be prepared to set aside what is most convenient and satisfying for their current members for the sake of a larger vision.

Because, ironically, the more churches focus only on their inward needs, the less likely they are to survive in a rapidly changing society. The shift from the inward needs of church members to mission and discipleship for the sake of God’s reign is the key to any renewal of the church.

DOING CHURCH DIFFERENTLY: MISSIONAL COMMUNITIES

“We need to do things differently.” “The church has to change.” “Business as usual is not an option.”

We all know these statements are true. But the big question is: How? How does a long-established church begin to do things in a radically different way? Can an old dog really learn new tricks?

The answer to that question is an emphatic “Yes.” The Christian church could not have survived for 2000 years if it wasn’t able to adjust, evolve and adapt to changing circumstances. Historically, it’s change and not refusal to change that has characterized the Christian church.

But we need guidance. We need vision. We need models and patterns and templates we can follow.

In the next few blog posts, I’m going to describe models of doing church differently that I believe are accessible and doable for a United Church congregation that is motivated and willing to take some risks.

Today, I’m going to look at Missional Communities.

WHAT’S A MISSIONAL COMMUNITY?

A Missional Community is a mid-sized grouping, normally between 30 and 60 people, who are committed to growing in three areas:  their relationship with God (faith), their relationships with one another (community) and their relationship with their neighbors outside the church (mission.)

Missional communities were pioneered at  St. Thomas Church in Sheffield, England
( www.stthomaschurch.org.uk ). But really, they are as old as the New Testament.

MCs seek a “Balanced Life”
The “core business” of a Missional Community (MC) can be pictured as a triangle:

 

“Up” is our relationship with God. “In” is our relationship with one another in Christian community. “Out” is our relationship with those outside the church. NOTE: The triangle is equilateral. All the sides are equal. None dominates the others, but supports and is supported by the others. Missional Communities intentionally work at achieving balance between these three dimensions of life, being careful not to over-emphasize one and neglect another.

MCs are about Discipleship
The purpose of a MC is to make disciples – to form people who will follow the healing, reconciling and redeeming way of Jesus in their daily life.

MCs are “lightweight and low maintenance”
MCs are not burdened with top-heavy decision-making structures or bureaucratic inertia. They are free to fail and can change directions easily if they find a better way of doing things.

MCs are lay led
MCs do not depend on already overworked professional clergy. Because they are lay-led, MCs are a highly effective way of developing the gifts and unlocking the potential of lay people.

MCs are “mid-sized”
An MC is bigger than a small group, but smaller than (most) congregations. They are analogous to an “extended family.” They are small enough that people can know and care for one another, but there are enough of them that they can get things done.

MCs operate on the principle of “Low Control/ High Accountability”
MCs are free to experiment and release people’s gifts without the multiple layers of control and micromanaging that characterize many congregations.

BUT – MCs are highly accountable to their mission and to one another. No one can lead an MC unless she or he is a covenant of accountability to an experienced mentor, to other leaders and to the group.

MCs are Reproducible
Unlike some small groups where the intensity of relationships makes it hard for new people to “break in,” MCs are intentionally hospitable to newcomers. When they reach an optimum size, it is expected that some will leave to begin a new MC. The goal of making more disciples trumps the desire to people to stay in the comfort zone of their familiar group.

MCs are Missional
MCs do not exist to support the current institutional structure of the church, but to participate in Christ’s mission of reconciliation, healing, and shalom. MCs normally organize around a specific passion or concern. Some examples: isolated seniors, at risk youth, a particular language or cultural community, people in recovery, persons with intellectual or physical disabilities, those who have experienced abuse in the church, single parent families, people in a particular neighborhood or housing development, etc., etc., etc. Their goal is to incarnate the presence of Christ among that chosen group, not simply to serve the spiritual or emotional needs of their own members.

WHAT DOES A MISSIONAL COMMUNITY DO?
MCs do whatever is needed to achieve that balance of relationships with God, each other, and the outside community. Each MC will develop its own rhythm, but typically it would involve meeting at least once a month to share a meal, once a month to engage in study and learning, and once a month to participate in hands on mission. These practices could be combined, but MCs should expect to gather at least three times a month, in addition to regular worship and prayer, and the mentoring of leaders.

WHAT’S THE CONNECTION BETWEEN AN MC AND AN EXISTING CHURCH?
Some MCs are formed within existing congregations as a more effective way to grow spiritually, build community and engage in mission. People join MCs because they want to do more than show up for church on Sunday morning.

But when a congregation decides to encourage MCs it is ESSENTIAL that it not attempt to control or micromanage them but leave the MCs free to develop their own organic life and mission.

MCs could be part of a congregation’s outreach. An MC could be formed to reach out intentionally to a neighborhood or population that the church is not currently reaching.

MCs can also be a tool for church planting. Some new “churches” consist of a network of Missional Communities.

WHAT ABOUT SUNDAY WORSHIP?MCs usually incorporate some kind of worship into their life together. However, preparing and leading a Sunday worship service demands a lot of resources. Think about how much time and effort goes into that one hour on Sunday morning in a typical church.

MCs need to remain focused on the triangle of relationships, and therefore need to be careful they don’t divert effort into a worship service that people simply “attend.”

Where MCs are part of an existing congregation, members will continue to attend their own Sunday worship service.

However, they might also decide to attend other churches either individually or as a group.

HOW COULD MY CONGREGATION START A MISSIONAL COMMUNITY?
First, what not to do. Don’t start by asking your Board or Council to approve the formation of a missional community. That immediately creates the expectation that the Board will exercise control over the MC. MCs have to grow from the bottom up, from the passion and vocation of people, not as the result of a top-down decision.

But, if your congregation really does want to “do things differently,” and really believes that “business as usual” no longer cuts it, start by redefining “success.” Decide that the measure of success will no longer be simply the number of people who show up on Sunday morning, or the number of busy activities the church puts on, but the number of people who are growing as disciples.

Incidentally, churches with active MCs also tend to have vibrant, inspiring and well attended Sunday worship. Becoming less anxious about Sunday worship can actually end up strengthening Sunday worship!)  

Identify 2, 4, 6 people of passionate faith who are hungering for a fuller expression of Christian life. Invite them to begin learning how to be missional leaders. There is a wealth of resources available to accomplish that goal.

Ask these people to prayerfully discern a vision, and then invite others to join them. Learn as you go along, don’t be afraid to make mistakes, but don’t waver from that goal of creating a community that balances the Up, In and Out dimensions of their Christian life.

If you want to know more about Missional Communities, contact me at paul@watpres.ca and I will be able to help you get started.  

 

Picture This

I share with many the tragic fate of being a Toronto sports fan.

A couple of weeks ago, when it looked like the Maple Leafs were about to crash and burn (again), their coach said what they really need to do was to simplify their game.

During a recent basketball game, when the Raptors were leading but being hard-pressed by their opponent, the commentator said they needed to slow the game down.

Simplify. Slow down. Good advice for a sports team under pressure. And good advice for anxious churches as well.

Anxiety makes things seem more complicated than they need to be. Where do we even start? One problem spawns a dozen more problems and we become paralyzed into inaction.

And anxiety makes us rush. This sounds ironic, since the church seems to move at a glacier's pace. But when we are stressed and afraid, the temptation is to run around trying to deal with everything until our heads are spinning. As one of my university professors used to say: "When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout." Slowing down, taking stock, praying, reflecting, are key disciplines in anxious times. Remember the old Mennonite proverb: "The hurrier I go, the behinder I get."

One way to help your church simplify and slow down is to invite people to paint a picture. Not literally, but figuratively. Invite them to come up with one central word picture or metaphor that expresses who they are and where they are. Post modern people respond to images more readily than abstract concepts, we're told. Yet what tool do we most often use to try to describe ourselves? The  mission statement  wordy, heady, abstract. Mission statements act like definitions, which invites endless arguing over word choice -- "I think it should say 'A caring community of faith,'  not 'A community of caring faith.'"

A well chosen picture is an invitation. An invitation to enter into reality more deeply. An invitation to engage our imaginations. to be open to unsuspected dimensions of meaning. A good picture is "multi-valent" -- it works at different levels, allowing it to speak to multiple situations and experiences.

One of the earliest pictures for the Christian church was the sailing ship. This metaphor captured the early Christians' sense of being pilgrims on a journey. But it also immediately suggested risk -- sea travel was extremely dangerous -- and therefore the need for faith. The ship created immediate connections to biblical stories -- the ark, for example. But the ark, in turn, symbolized the saving presence of among the people of God, God's willingness to journey with us. It reminded them of Jesus calming the storms of chaos and commanding his fishermen disciples to push out into deeper water if in order to catch fish.

To those steeped in these stories, the ship invited them to go deeper in applying them to their own lives. To those new to faith, they were powerful teaching aids. "Why do you have a picture of a ship on the wall?" "Well, let me tell you."

Finding a good picture for your church and its mission is more the product of intuition than rationality. It's where the creative, right-brain folks in your church can really be helpful.

Here's a simple process that any church, no matter how small, can use to find its central picture.

1.   Gather together. Don't ask a committee to do it. People need to participate in the process so they own it. It can be a specially called meeting, or something that's already happening, like your AGM. Always best to have food. Invite people to talk about some simple questions:

"Who are we? (Identity) Who ought we to be? (Purpose) Think of some words that describe us."
"What biblical story pops into your mind as we discuss this?"
"Think of a picture image that captures the essence of our discussion so far."

2.  Don't rush! It might not happen in one sitting. Maybe you'll need to plan other opportunities to continue talking. Keep at it until something emerges that engages the hearts and imaginations of the people. You'll know when it does.

And don't move too quickly to the obvious, the over-used, the visual equivalent of the tired cliche. Rainbows, circles, trees can be powerful images, but not if they simply sit on the surface and don't take us deeper.

Don't be afraid to be playful or quirky. I heard about a church whose chosen picture was a flying chicken. They'd been reflecting on God's word in Isaiah 40 about "rising up on wings like eagles." They trusted that God could help them fly; but they knew they were clumsy and accident-prone, and not nearly as majestic as an eagle. So a flying chicken seemed to say it best!

3.  Keep it simple. Resist the urge to say everything up front. The beauty of a truly profound image is that its meaning will expand over time. It has the potential to tell us things about ourselves we never suspected. There's a version of the "boat in the storm" story in Matthew 14, where the disciples see Jesus walking on the water. (Matthew 14: 22-33) I once heard someone ask, "So, if the boat is the ancient symbol of the church, where is Jesus?" I remember it hitting me. Jesus is not in the boat, he's outside the boat, calling to Peter to take one enormous leap of faith by getting out of the boat himself. What a transformative insight from a well-worn story.

4.  Keep it biblical. For some reason, churches think they've outgrown Scripture, like they've heard it all before. Scripture is a bottomless well that will keep on nourishing us and refreshing us if we allow it to. Your picture should have the capacity to draw you into Scripture in fresh and surprising ways.

5.  Keep at it. The problem with fine sounding mission statements is that we write them and then forget about them. Even if they're posted on the wall, they have no power to shape our life.

You can find a great image, but unless you let it work its way into your life, it will also be abstract and remote. You need to put that image at the centre of everything you do, not in a limiting and controlling way, but in an inviting and imaginative way. To paraphrase God's command in Deuteronomy: "Keep it in your heart. Recite it to your children and talk about it when you are home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Bind it as a sign on your forehead, and write it on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

In other words, take every opportunity -- in worship, in meetings, in small groups, at events -- to draw your congregation's attention to your defining picture, and encourage them to discover new levels of meaning in it that will shape your church's life.

This is a process that costs no money, that requires no complicated program, that can work in any church of any size -- in fact, it's probably easier to do in a smaller church.

Find your picture and let it guide you in your journey.

Ten Things Churches Should Stop Saying

A couple of years ago, my wife decided what she would give up for Lent was complaining about being tired and overworked. Amazingly, she discovered that once she stopped telling herself how tired and overworked she was, she felt a lot less tired and overworked! Changing how she talked actually changed her reality.

We can say things often enough that they start to actually determine reality rather than just describe it. They might be factually true, but they are unhelpful because of what they reinforce.

Here are ten statements often heard in churches that can negatively shape the culture of a congregation. Even if they accurately describe your church, you should consider inviting people to stop repeating them.   

1.      “We are an aging congregation.”
Well, of course. Most mainline churches are aging. The problem with this statement is it is often used to justify inaction. It means, “Don’t ask us to do anything different, we’re too old and tired.” Repeated often enough, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Contrary to the popular adage, old dogs can learn lots of new tricks, but not if they keep telling themselves it’s impossible.  

Positive response:  Begin to focus on the assets that wisdom and experience bring, not on the limitations of tired backs and short term memory loss.

 

2.      “Children are the future of our church.”
This statement is not necessarily unhelpful. It can remind churches that they need to pay attention to more than the older, long-term members. It can be unhelpful, though, if it makes people think that Christian education is only for kids. The odds that the children in your current Sunday School will grow up to be the core of your congregation are so long, they are barely measurable. Your children are not just the potential givers and volunteers of tomorrow, they are a vital part of your  church today.

Positive response:  Begin to develop a process for helping people of all ages become more faithful disciples of Jesus.

3.      “People come to our church because of the outstanding music.”
Music has power to touch our souls and inspire us to great things. But if a significant number of people say they attend your church mainly because of the music, prepare yourself for a major exodus if that ever changes. High quality  music programs usually depend on a handful of skilled individuals – an outstanding director, or a few strong singers. That can change in a heartbeat. If the only thing that is keeping many folks in your church is the current state of your music program, the departure of a couple of people could have a devastating effect on the congregation. This leads to a second and related problem statement …. 

4.      “The best thing about our church is the choir. “
Choirs can be a centre of health and vitality in a church. But if people’s first allegiance is to the choir, rather than the larger mission of the church, they can become a quasi-independent power group with their own executives and money disconnected from the decision-making structure of the church. Also, choirs are often the only remaining group that meets weekly, making them fertile ground for gossip and dissent. Choirs can become the tail that wags the dog.

Positive response: Work with your choir to help them locate themselves within the overall ministry and mission of the church. 

5.      “People are on fixed incomes.  They can’t give any more.”
Those who say this usually have little solid empirical evidence to back up their statement. Every church has some members who really can’t give anymore, and they should never feel put down because of it. But most United Churches are nowhere near to maximizing their stewardship potential. People don’t stop going to Tim Horton’s when the price of a large double-double goes up. Even those of limited means will increase their support if they believe in what the church is doing.

Positive response: Intentionally build a culture of vision, enthusiasm and generosity. Create opportunities for people to celebrate what their church is doing, and invite them to be a part of it through the gifts with which God has blessed them. Don’t continually harp on financial deficits but accentuate the positives.

6.      “We need a minister who will attract younger families.”
Your minister may help to create a good first impression that will attract people initially. But it’s the culture of the congregation – hospitality, energy, involvement -- that determines whether they will become part of the family. A church that places the burden of growth solely on the minister’s shoulders is setting that minister up for painful failure.
Positive response:  Constantly remind people that ministry belongs to the whole church, not just to the person who gets the pay check. Encourage people to find ministries that match their gifts and give them joy.

7.      Why don’t our children/ grandchildren go to church?
I respond to that question with another question: Have you ever asked them? No one should be allowed to ask this question until they have had at least five extended conversations about faith and church with people their children’s or grandchildren’s age – conversations in which they do more listening than talking. (See my blog post “Why Don’t Our Kids Come to Church?”)

Positive response:  Create opportunities for significant conversations with youth and younger adults about why the church may not be significant for them. Such conversations require a level of trust in which people can feel safe to express themselves honestly. That trust might need to be built over a long time. 

8.      I don’t like ……..
Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. And not everyone’s the same. But if your church’s mission is driven by the tastes and preferences of your current members, it will decline and eventually die. Doing what is effective in reaching people for the Gospel is what matters, not the likes and dislikes of certain vocal, long-term members.

Positive response:  Constantly call the congregation to reflect on their mission, vision and values. Why are we here? Whom do we hope to reach? What do we need to do? Shift the focus from people’s likes and dislikes to what will help the church be true to its own calling.  

9.      We can’t do that. People might leave.  
Most of us don’t like change. Some people will try to influence decisions by  threatening to withdraw their money or their attendance. If your congregation is serious about renewal, inevitably some people will be unhappy and might well decide to go elsewhere. But this threat should not be allowed to control the agenda of the church. Related to this is the statement that “’Many people’ are not happy.” Boards, ministers and congregations should have an unwavering policy that no complaint will be heard that does not have a name attached to it.

Positive response:  Communicate, communicate, communicate. When something new is tried, make sure it is clear why it is being done. Provide opportunities for people’s concerns to be heard. Make adjustments when they are warranted. But stay the course. Don’t allow a few disgruntled voices to shut down new ideas before they take root.    

10.  “Numbers don’t matter.”
Two things. We aren’t likely to return to the 1950s when 6 out of every 10 Canadians were in church on Sunday morning. And numbers aren’t the only thing that matters. But when a church loses 5 to 7 per cent of its members every year and does not replace them; and when there is no one in the congregation under the age of 70, it’s time to pay attention to numbers! Christianity has always thrived where new people are being brought into the community of faith. We need to recover that sense of missional urgency – and fast!

Positive response:  Set realistic targets and develop a concrete plan for connecting with new people.

11.Can you think of anymore?

Let’s Face It – We’re a Minority

In her book A Church with the Soul of a Nation, Professor Phyllis Airhart suggests that the

Phyllis D. Airhart

United Church of Canada was founded on two principles. One was a vision of the Christian life which combines personal faith with social action.

“The United Church sought to balance care of souls with care of society. Its approach to lived religion tapped the root meaning of ‘pietas’: personal duty to God and to others that included right relationships.” (p. 104)

The other principle was the Christianizing of the Canadian social order. The architects of Church union were motivated by a vision of Canadian society permeated by the values of (Protestant) Christianity, where being a good Christian and being a good citizen were pretty much the same thing.

Both of these principles are at odds with the mainstream of Canadian culture. Both contribute to the minority status of the church. But while one of the second has long since lost its relevance, the first is still a vision worth preserving and strengthening.  

Phyllis Airhart suggests that the goal of Christianizing Canadian society was already obsolete in the 1920s when an increasingly secular and individualistic culture began to diverge sharply from the idea that a common religious faith can contribute to social cohesion.

But that foundational impulse is still deeply embedded in the consciousness of many congregations. Many churches still want the boundary between church and community to be as permeable as possible and the commitment bar to be set as low as possible. This is a vestige of that original desire to be a church that includes everyone. A lot of really nice, committed United Church folk are deeply perplexed that it doesn’t seem to be working. They can’t understand how they came to be so marginalized. Still in their DNA is the expectation that their brand of Christian faith will be widely acceptable to society at large. They simply can’t comprehend why their neighbors, friends and family members aren’t attracted to their church, when what they say and do is so innocuous and non-threatening.

The decline in the United Church is partly rooted in an outdated vision of the connection between church and society, and a failure to understand cultural change. Phyllis Airhart: “Though often described as a modern church, [the United Church] was not well suited to cope with some key cultural dynamics that ran counter to its founding vision.” (p. 259)   

On the other hand, a model of Christian life that joins personal faith and social witness is a valuable inheritance that needs to be embraced wholeheartedly. It is the special gift of mainline Christianity, and our culture will be greatly impoverished if it fails to survive. However, commitment to such a life also sets us at odds with the pervasive individualism and consumerism of our culture.

So, one way or another, the United Church will never achieve that original goal of representing the mainstream of Canadian society.  

We need to make sure, however, that anxiety about loss of status doesn’t divert attention and energy from cultivating robust expressions of that public-private faith that is the genius of mainline Protestant Christianity.

Ironically, our desire to be mainstream and inoffensive has obscured the very thing that could make our churches more compelling  – transforming faith that touches the heart, combined with a credible commitment to meaningful action in the world.

On the other hand, the church would have a far greater impact on society through a critical mass of people discipled in the way of Jesus and deeply committed to living a vision of the Kingdom of justice and peace than through a mass of people for whom church attendance is simply one more expression of cultural conformity.  

If we’re going to be a minority, we need to make sure it’s for the right reasons.