I have been part of 10 congregations from 4 denominations - which may sound like a lot to some readers, and a little to others. The longest one was for 7 years. For many people, that doesn’t sound like a lot of time, especially when some people have participated in a single church/mosque/synagogue/temple their entire life. But it has taught me that changes in churches are rare. Sure, there might be small changes here and there - and maybe small changes tend to be the healthiest for any given group of people. However, I also think there is enough research and evidence that shows that slow change benefits a certain type of existence, personality, and often unspoken goal/ethos.
What I lament, after a decade of working in church leadership, is how many of the churches I worked in are becoming older and smaller. I know that people are so tired of hearing this. Or said more accurately, people in these churches are tired of hearing this. People who have left church, or simply don’t participate in religion, simply shrug their shoulders and nod yes. I’m writing this out of hearing established churches keep saying that want to “grow” - in membership, youth and/or money. Sometimes, although a bit more rare, a church will desire to grow in depth or solidarity (otherwise known in versions of mission, service, charity, justice). But the conversations of my past decade of ministry largely focused on growing in membership, youth, and money.
There’s been so many different kinds of approaches to growth, and to be honest, there’s been a fair amount of quality research and consulting work done for churches - in nearly every denomination I’ve been in touch with. Liberals and conservatives often agree that they both desire growth, even if they use different languages, and sometimes have very different visions for what growth looks like and means. If you want a good both on growth, there should be plenty for you to buy and read!
One of the key components I’ve become more fixated on, is the conversation of power-brokers with leadership roles beyond the pastor(s). In most churches, the power brokers are rarely named or recognized. I’m not advocating this as anything negative -this is just a direct and open naming of the powers within any system. Sure, you can hire a competent, qualified, educated, and strong clergy. However, they can definitely be thwarted, if not completely stymied if they ever disagree with the individuals and groups that have hold relational clout, long-term investments, and the congregational narrative/story within a given church.
If a pastor, or any individual, is inspired to make a significant change (even if they think it’s a “small” one), by default they are questioning the validity of what the power brokers have built and envisioned for years and decades. BOTH are valid, if it’s a congregation that says every member has a voice in the life of the church/community. However, to bring about sustainable change, the powers have to be engaged. I hear often, since the plateau of church participation in the 1990’s, that the power brokers want to make their church great again, like the good old days when everything worked so much better. And I hear often that newer and younger participants feel they have no voice, even if they’ve been part of a community for over a decade, let alone more than a year. Despite the Christian call to community and “instant” salvation and belonging, our church structures are rarely hospitable, and often struggle to include and empower new members (with very few caveats).
My next post will look at the power and pitfalls with mission statements and the congregations who write and live them.