•
In my past, I have erred on the side of low expectations. I wanted everybody to be welcome. My message has been, “Come to St. Fred’s, it is a great, welcoming community.” The problem was, I did not do a good job of leading the people to transformation once they came. I was not good at saying, “Now that you are here, if you really want to be transformed you need to . . . ” I was not good at putting systems in place so paths to transformation were obvious. I’ve been thinking about that a lot as we retool programs at Trinity Cathedral. One of the reasons I went to Trinity was the depth of spirituality in the congregation. But now that we are growing, and people new to Christianity are coming, we need to make paths of transformation explicit. I’ve been thinking that we need to be a community of high expectations. I want us to look at ourselves as a discipleship academy.
I stumbled across a very good description of being a welcoming community with high expectations in Dan Martin’s blog. He was commenting on the new ad for the Episcopal Church; providing a commentary on the different bullet points in the ad. The ad ends with these words:
All are welcome to find a spiritual home in the Episcopal Church.
Here’s what Dan Wrote in response:
I would hope so. I would think it has ever been so. I hope it will ever be so. What else is new? Is there any church anywhere that would not say the same thing about itself? The only way to make this final point interesting is to begin to take apart that little word—welcome.
Some years ago, my wife and I spent a weekend in Paris. After two fabulous dinners at restaurants that had been recommended to us by friends, we were on our own that last night, wandering around the area of the Bastille, with our very limited command of the French language. We inquired of one maitre’d, “Parlez vous Anglais?” He brusquely shook his head in the negative. So we moved on. He did not make us feel welcome, presumably because we were Americans, or he didn’t approve of the way we were dressed, or something; we’ll never know. By contrast, at our default dinner joint here in Warsaw, Indiana, if a staff member sees us coming, they open the door for us and greet us warmly. We never fail to feel welcome there. One of the servers, at least, has memorized our drink preferences. So the first dimension of welcome is, Will they let me in the door, and make me feel like they’re glad to see me? This sort of welcome is unconditional (or very nearly so). It demands nothing and presumes nothing. By this standard, I cannot imagine a congregation of the Episcopal Church that would not welcome anybody who is not in that moment literally on fire, or covered in excrement, or brandishing a weapon.
Soon after moving to Warsaw in 2007, I joined the local Rotary club. I was, in fact, recruited, wooed. And I was made to feel welcome. I was made to feel that the other club members were glad I was there. But then I got a phone call: “When can we schedule you to deliver Mobile Meals?” Then I got a bill for semi-annual dues. More recently, I saw in a club email that it was my responsibility to provide the speaker on a certain date. Rotary is a service club, so it stands to reason that I am expected to serve. I do not, because of that expectation, feel any less welcome, but I understand that if I were to persistently decline opportunities to serve (and especially if I persistently decline to pay dues!), my welcome would expire. So there is a second dimension of welcome, and this time there are conditions, expectations. The Church welcomes all, but lays certain expectations on her members. These expectations are spelled out in the liturgies of Baptism and Confirmation. Only for the most scandalous violations of these expectations would a person be formally “unwelcomed” by the Church. But short of that ultimate act of discipline, the ability to exercise leadership or influence is frequently conditioned upon consistent performance of those obligations required of those who would be “in good standing.” (In TEC canon law, this includes a standard of Sunday worship attendance [“unless for good cause prevented”] and working, praying and giving for the spread of the Kingdom of God.) Such expectations do not represent a lack of being welcoming. They are simply part of what it means to be a Christian.
So, when we say “The Episcopal Church welcomes you,” it seems reasonable that we mean “welcome” in both of its dimensions. At the door, we welcome anyone and everyone. At the table, we welcome those who have made a commitment to Jesus through the vows of the baptism. Into positions of leadership and authority we welcome those who demonstrate willingness and ability to submit with grace to the yoke of radical Christian discipleship. Everyone whom we welcome, in whatever dimension, is expected to change, to grow, to become more like Jesus in every way. Yes, his yoke is easy and his burden is light. But to follow him is to take up nothing less than one’s cross on a daily basis, with all the “cross” implies. If the demands of the cross feel uncomfortable, as they invariably will, it isn’t because the church is suddenly becoming unwelcoming.
In the ancient church, candidates for baptism received the sacrament wearing nothing but their birthday suits. It symbolized a radical putting-away of one’s past, and the embrace of a new (and very jealously exclusive) identity, an identity that trumps any other by which one may be tempted to define oneself. It is my hope that the welcome offered by the Episcopal Church is not about making anybody feel good, but about invited them to a life-changing, identity-changing, pardigm-shifting, mind-blowing encounter with Jesus the Christ, King of kings, and Lord of lords. Anything less would be downright inhospitable.
I think this is a great reflection on a welcome that invites people into a relationship of transformation. That’s what I think we should mean when we say, “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You.”
•
I have been ordained 18 years. That means I have had plenty of time to make mistakes.
I moved from Honolulu to Boise in 1994. Honolulu at the time was a one-party state: Democrat. Idaho was its polar opposite. The Religious Right was strong in Idaho and the 90’s was the decade of their ascendancy. In 1994, they put an initiative on the ballot in Idaho that would deny people who were gay or lesbian “special rights.” This initiative would make sure that people who were gay or lesbian could be fired or removed from their rental homes simply for being gay or lesbian. No other justification would be needed. The Episcopal Church was in a process of “discussing” issues around homosexuality. We hadn’t come up with a cleary policy. But it seemed to me that regardless of where one was on the issue in the church, this ballot initiative seemed cruel.
Two months after arriving as the Canon Pastor at St. Michael’s Cathedral, I told the congregation what I thought about the ballot initiative. From the pulpit. It was, of course, a brilliant sermon 
. I tried to be balanced and descriptive – the church hasn’t decided it’s position . . . here are arguments for . . . however some people feel . . . regardless of where we stand, this initiative goes too far . . . If I’m going to err, I’m going to err on the side of grace.
I was the first time the word “homosexual” had been uttered from the pulpit. It was probably the first time the word had been said in the church. It was also the first time in anybody’s memory that a sermon was greeted with spontaneous applause. I was quaking in my shoes as I preached, and then people applauded. I was relieved.
Read more »
•
The church needs more members.
Faced with dwindling attendance, people in churches yearn for more members. A related longing I hear expressed is, “We need more youth in our church or the church will die out in a generation or two.” I completely understand the concern. To be honest, I have expressed it myself. But it is, I believe, an unhelpful attitude.
Think about it. What do we need more members for? We need them so the church can remain viable. The goal, in this line of reasoning, is a strong church. The goal is the institution. The means we use to achieve that goal is getting more people. The people we want are just a means to an end. In this line of reasoning, we aren’t principally concerned about the people, we are concerned about the church. We want more people so we can feel better about the church.
Why would anybody want to come to a church that simply sees them as a way to support their institution? Why would they come to our church?
Jesus did not take human flesh in order to get people into the church. Jesus was incarnate in order to bring people alive – to connect them with God and one another. I believe people are hungry. I believe, particularly in our isolated culture, people are starving for connection – with one another and with God. People are hungry for authentic community – where they can be known and know others. People are hungry for spiritual depth. They want to know there is more to life than what is seen on the surface. They yearn to connect with the source and ground of existence. They hunger for the sacred. Whether they can articulate it or not, they want to connect with God. Finally, they want to live lives that matter. They want to make a difference in the world.
The church, and I believe the Episcopal Church, is uniquely suited to sate these hungers. We offer a welcome that transcends ideology or political party. We offer worship, prayer and an incarnational world-view that helps people connect their daily lives with the heartbeat of God. And we strive to serve those around us.
We need to feed hungry souls. In my experience, we feed one another with our liturgy, sacraments, preaching, pastoral care, etc., but we do a terrible job of offering this rich food to those outside the church.
We need to feed more people, not because we need them to save our institution, but simply because they are hungry. Congregations need to discover what particular charism they have for bringing people alive, and offer that to those outside the congregation. Not because we need them, but because they are hungry. Feeding hungry souls is how we incarnate God’s love in the world.
Churches don’t have financial problems. They don’t have attendance problems. They have vision problems. They don’t realize they are stewards of a precious resource the world needs. I remember a talk in which someone said, “The Church is the best solution to the world’s problems.” It is a bold statement. It is also a challenging statement. The church has all too often been the cause of the world’s problems. In order to be the solution, we have to first reconnect with the love of God that possesses us. We have to become churches of transformation, where people come alive in community. Then we need to boldly share that love with everybody we can.
We exist to feed people — to bring people alive with the Love of God. We don’t need more people to come to church. We need to serve more people with a love that won’t quit. Then church attendance will take care of itself.
•
Last week I attended a panel discussion on homelessness. I was struck by the fact that our national strategy in dealing with homelessness has changed dramatically because the federal government paid close attention to outcomes. When I think of helping the homeless, I think of shelters. Well apparently shelters don’t work. The preferred method is to provide supported permanent housing. I’ve written a reflection on about the panel
HERE.
I think the church needs to learn a thing or two from the federal government in this respect. I think the church does a terrible job paying attention to outcomes. We do what we think should work, like providing shelters for the homeless. But we seldom evaluate our strategies to see if we are achieving our goals. In fact, we seldom set goals.
In my own diocese, average Sunday attendance (ASA) in the past 9 years has gone from 7,620 to 5,694. That’s a huge shift. I was speaking with Kent McNair, one of the senior clergy in the diocese. In his estimation, 21 congregations in the diocese that had full-time clergy 20 years ago can no longer support a priest. That’s 21 congregations in a diocese of about 75 congregations.
As far as I can tell, there was no sober assessment of what was happening in the past nine years with a resulting significant change in strategy. Of course new programs and new initiatives were tried, but what was needed was a complete re visioning of our strategy.
Fortunately I think things are about to change. I believe this for two reasons. First, the greatest factor in church growth or decline is conflict. It’s doesn’t really matter whether the church is conservative or liberal. What matters is whether the church is fighting over being conservative or liberal. The Episcopal Church has been in one big family feud for the past ten years. But the time of fighting is over. There will be small pockets of people who like to focus on the remaining skirmishes. But for most congregations, and most Episcopalians, we are ready to move on and get back to mission.
The second reason I’m optimistic is our bishop is aware that we need to change. He has asked for the complete re-visioning of our structures and strategy. We are too focused on professional clergy. We have placed too much responsibility for ministry in the office of the bishop. Bishop Beisner knows ministry must take place at the grass-roots, congregational or coffee-shop level. As the chair of the diocesan budget committee, I get to be very involved in shaping our budget and structure to reflect this change.
I think we now need to set concrete goals. We need to articulate strategies for reaching those goals and we need to evaluate those strategies. I think we are making good, wise choices. But we need benchmarks to see if these choices are, in fact, the right ones.
I think we need to do this at the Cathedral (and in other congregations) as well. I’ve been setting some benchmarks and evaluating our performance, but I think we need to do this on a wider scale. It is my intention for us to enter into a phase of strategic planing where we can have a Cathedral-wide set of measurable goals and a time frame for evaluating our progress.
The primary reason I am excited about our future is I feel the movement of the Spirit. At the Cathedral and at gatherings in the diocese, there is a new energy. Amazing ministry is happening all over Northern California. I know we are on the brink of a new birth. I think we need to learn from our past and pay more attention to the outcomes of our well-intentioned programs. We need set organizational systems in place to help us make wise decisions in this exciting time.
•
It is well known that mainline denominations have been shrinking. Contrary to this trend in other denominations, The Episcopal Church was actually growing in Sunday attendance from the early 1990’s through 2001. From 2002 onward, we have declined.
According to a recently released report, the Average Sunday Attendance (my preferred benchmark) in the Episcopal church fell 14% in the past five years. I suspect much of this is a result of the conflict over the acceptance of people who are gay or lesbian.
There is other data in the report I find more interesting. 55% of the churches in TEC have less Sunday attendance than they did five years ago. So over half of our congregations have been shrinking. But 18% have increased attendance over the past 5 years. 35% of the churches have grown this past year.
In an environment of decline, 18% to 35% of the congregations are growing, depending on whether you use the 5 year or 1 year figure. What makes those congregations grow while others are shrinking?
There is a another report that attempts to answer this question. I commend the full report. The conclusion lists the two most important factors for growth:
The strongest correlate of growth when all controls were in effect was the presence or absence of conflict. Obviously, conflict cannot be completely avoided, but whether or not a congregation finds itself mired in serious conflict is the number one predictor of congregational decline. This finding points to the need for conflict resolution skills among clergy so minor conflict does not become serious, debilitating conflict. In the Episcopal Church the impact of conflict is greater than in many other denominations because conflict is more widespread –largely due to the fact that conflict over sexuality is added to the usual congregational disputes over leadership, finances, worship and program. (p 17)
I think it is important to pay attention to the toll that the conflicts these past several years have had on us. I agree with the report that we need to be savvy about how we handle situations of conflict in congregations. I think non-anxious leadership has been key in congregations that weathered conflict well.
I also think the worst is behind us. People are eager to move forward in mission. This certainly seems to be true at Trinity Cathedral and I think it is true in our denomination. Conflict in congregations will always be with us, and we need good leadership, but I think the large scale fighting is pretty much over.
The report goes on to say:
The second most powerful correlate of growth when all controls were used was a scale that combined four highly related characteristics of the parish’s rector or vicar: generates enthusiasm, charismatic leader, has a clear vision for the congregation , and knows how to get people to work together. Leadership is critical to growth in the Episcopal church. (p 18)
I think this is absolutely true. We need leaders who generate enthusiasm, cast compelling vision and get people to pull on the oars together. I think our potential for growth is huge. The gospel is such good news. The potential in the Episcopal church for authentic community, inspiring worship and effective social action is spectacular. And people in the world are hungry for community, spiritual depth and living lives of purpose. We just need good leaders to proclaim, organize and mobilize.
What would it look like if we intentionally recruited clergy with these traits? Do diocesan commissions on ministry consider demonstrated leadership skill as a primary criterion? What if, in addition to writing spiritual autobiographies, aspirants wrote leadership autobiographies. What about our seminaries? How much time in seminary is spent teaching priests how to lead effectively? Or perhaps it is too difficult to teach important leadership lessons before someone is actually leading congregations. Maybe what we need is more robust continuing education targeted toward leadership skills.
I am very optimistic for the future of the Episcopal church. Our major conflicts are behind us. The world is hungry for the gospel we share. I think now we need to focus our efforts on raising up and training effective, inspirational leaders.
The website with these and other reports is HERE.
•
From a recent Trinity enewsletter:
Did you know a member of the vestry is regularly praying for you? Each vestry member is assigned a segment of the congregation and at the beginning of the vestry year, they send out postcards introducing themselves to the people for whom they are praying. Then at the beginning of each monthly meeting, a different member of the vestry reports on how their prayer ministry is going. At last night’s meeting, the person reporting spoke about how humbling the experience has been. After receiving the postcard, people on his list contacted him with particular requests. He spends time every weekday praying through a portion of the list, with special attention given to those who have made requests. As he was giving his report, I became aware of how important this aspect of the vestry’s work was. It is essential that we begin our task of leadership in prayer, and in prayer for one another.
