This is the second part of a series on change in church. While change can happen in many ways for many reasons, this blog series focuses on the relationships in churches, and especially the power dynamics that are often unseen, unknown and/or unrecognized. Again, there are many resources that point to these dynamics, but unfortunately too few of the “people in the pew” have the time to read and engage them.
I truly believe that one of the keys to creating lasting and healthy change in a congregation is acknowledging the power brokers in the congregation. They are NOT necessarily the pastor, paid staff, and board/elders/deacons/council (or whatever other name for the leadership group a congregation may have). All too often, these official roles are believed to have power and authority to make decisions in the best interests of the group/congregation, and specifically to fulfill the specified mission of the group/congregation.
However, churches are notorious for having beautifully written mission statements that are a bit removed from the actual actions of the church. If nothing else I think of all the church signs that read “all are welcome.” I think there needs to be a disclaimer next to that statement. In my snarkier mood it should read something like: “all are welcome to come inside the sanctuary 9am-noon, give as much money to church as you want, and to believe and act like the majority of this group.” If you don’t look like us, act like us, show up at other times, and forget to give money, you are less welcome. If you are LGBTQ inclusive, you will not be welcome in most conversative churches. If you do not believe women should be pastors, you will not be welcome in most liberal churches.
The mission statement is often filled with wonderful words and theology, but I do not think many of them are accurately describe the actions of the congregation. I appreciate the humility and honesty of any church statement that says we are “working towards,” or “aspire to be.” I personally know of too many specific liberal churches where people of color, with less education and/or low income are not welcomed in any meaningful way. Their dignity and belonging are questioned in multiple small instances, and few of the congregations I know can be proactive at empowering and including people. They do not know how. To do this takes effort and intentionally. If the mission statement of inclusion does not have a vision statement that shows how the mission statement is enacted in specific ways, the mission will disappear into lofty theology without any actual actions.
When the mission statement is NOT clear and specific, then the congregation relies on (defaults to) different leaders to fill in the specifics of the mission statement. This can work well enough, but all too often it actually provides room for the leaders to interpret (enact) the mission statement on their own. Furthermore, the people that “feel” the mission of the church, rather than know the intellectual words, are the power brokers. They don’t spend/waste time on defining who/what they are with words. To them, the church has become a system of relationships and a routine of habits that they have been cultivating and investing in for years, if not decades and generations. Any mission statement that disrupts their system of relationships and routine of habits is foreign at best, and destructive at worst.
So if a Christian church is to include some mission of hospitality, inclusion and evangelicalism, then how do you incorporate people who are different just by being new? I’ll dig more into the challenges and hope that power brokers offer in my next post, that gives an example comparing official roles and power brokers.