I have always found The
Congregational Life Cycle to be a helpful tool in teaching Congregational
Development and in understanding what a declining congregation needs. Many of my readers would be familiar with
this model. A congregation is birthed. It grows and, at some point in its initial history
15 to 20 years it reaches a stage of stability.
If leaders do nothing at this stage, a congregation will begin to
decline. This decline points to three
necessary responses.
First is
“Re-Visioning”
This is what congregational leaders need to do during
the initial turn down at the end of the stabilization period. It is often hard to do, because in many ways
the congregation is operating at its best in most areas of congregational life. It takes gifted and dedicated and mission minded leadership to
challenge others to think ahead and push forward.
I learned some time ago by
studying larger congregations that their history is often seen in as a series
of growth spirts followed by plateaus that lead to a new time of further growth and greater
vitality. In other words, just as growth
in the natural world is seldom a straight line, growth in a human community
isn’t either. Those who study such
things now think that these moments of stabilization reflect the organism’s
need to integrate the proceeding development and prepare for the future. Failure to do this, leads to decline. The scientific term is “atrophy” – things
left to their own devices tend to run down.
Unfortunately, many
congregations never move to this new level because the status quo is seldom
challenged. A typical pattern is a new
plant grows until it can afford a full time Rector and then clusters around the
Pastoral Size with an average Sunday attendance between 75 to 140. This remains standard until either a crisis or
the inevitable aging of the congregation starts the church toward decline. Sometimes a new Rector brings new energy and
new growth, but the congregation never moves beyond the Pastoral size and its
limitations.
What I am
saying is this; Re-Visioning is the best time to re-evaluate and create a renewed
vision, but satisfaction with the status quo keeps this from happening. Often
Re-Visioning involves clarifying or refining the current sense of mission. Writing a mission statement can be a helpful
tool especially if new and expanded ministries are planned and executed.
Once decline is
clearly evident, the congregation needs “Re-vitalization.”
This is a harder and more
costly process because it demands change that is not congruent with what has
gone before. The Leaders often feel that
the problem is simply a need for a few newer families with children rather than
realize that this is merely aimed at maintaining what is known. So let me say this as clear as I can. The almost universal suggestion by Dioceses
that congregations write a mission statement is almost useless in a
congregation needing Re-Vitalization.
When the leaders write one, it will mostly be a maintenance statement
disguised as a mission statement.
Re-Vitalization takes
place best when a clergy leader with skills in congregational transformation in
in place. Many will not like to hear
this, but the leaders who got the congregation to the stage of needing
Re-Vitalization are not the ones to get you out of it. In my next blog, I will discuss some of the
skills and characteristics of such clergy and lay leadership, but for now I
want to focus on the process needed.
When we did intentional Re-Vitalization in the Diocese
of Texas during Bishop Payne’s tenure, we would do some or all of the
following.
1. We would
take an active role in recruiting the right kind of ordained leader for this
work. Declining congregations make very
poor choices in a search process.
2. We brought
new resources in both capital and operating assistance usually for a period
long enough to make a difference – 3 to 5 years.
3. We reduced
the size of the vestry to 5 to 7 leaders.
Our request to the congregation was simple and direct, “Put your A
Team -best leaders - on the field."
4. We would
keep that Vestry in place for the 3 to 5 years of the partnership.
5. We often
kept the same Senior Warden in place during this time too.
6. We expected
the clergy and lay leadership to review current ministries and stop those that
were no longer viable.
7. We provided
training in Leadership, Congregational Development, and Stewardship. (For example: Congregations in the Re-Vitalization process
were required to send a majority of Vestry Members to the Annual Diocesan
Stewardship Conference.)
8. We trained
lay leaders in New Member Ministry (the genesis of Mary Palmer’s “Invite,
Welcome and Connect” seminars. And we
shared best practices from similar sized congregations.
9. We would ask the leadership to prepare a
series of goals and timelines and made clear that continued funding was
dependent on meeting them.
Of course, we were a large
Diocese with plenty of staff to assist making these things happen. Did these strategies work? In my 9 years with
the Diocese, it worked in every intentional Re-Vitalization.
Once decline
has reached a critical point, what is now needed is “Re-Birth” or frankly
Resurrection.
A dying English speaking congregation of 15
folks becoming a growing Hispanic congregation is Rebirth, it is not
revitalization. Hence a dying English
speaking congregation that starts a Spanish speaking service in hopes it will
bring about revitalization to the English speaking side of a congregation is
headed for trouble.
In my experience, almost
all Re-Birth events in congregations involved finding a new target for the
future. Sometimes this is ethnic. Often times it is generational. In dynamic places it often involves
both. I am also convinced that congregation
Re-Birth is almost always a God thing and looks very much like a miracle. I guess Resurrection is like that. However, it is also important to remember
that for a Resurrection to take place, something has to die. And, of course, some congregations will
simple die.
Now with these three terms
in front of us, Re-visioning, Re-Vitalization, and Re-Birth, I can now make a
couple of final observations.
First,
most congregational leaders wait too long to take initiative in each of these
stages and often act in reactionary ways.
Second,
being in denial, the leaders often underestimate which stage they are really
in. Hence the congregation needing Re-Visioning
just focuses on operations. The congregation
needing Re-Vitalization focuses on writing a new Mission Statement. A congregation moving toward death believes a
new Rector and new programs will turn things around. And finally, a congregation in the throes of death believes that “Jesus will
never let his Church die.” As is often
said, Denial is not a river in Egypt!
And
third, Diocesan Leadership seldom intervenes with the right strategy at the
right time even though they actual know better than local leaders the true
state of the congregation.
Now in my opinion, most of
the 70 to 80% of our congregations in decline in TEC are in the Re-Vitalization stage
and we need to train both clergy and lay leaders in the necessary steps to
bring about this Re-Vitalization. I
would love to put together a two week continuing education at one of our seminaries
on this and invite folks to attend. I am
still awaiting an invitation.
In summary; A
congregation in decline needs to understand what stage they are in and apply
the appropriate strategy to meet it.
This often involves new leadership, especially clergy, and new
information by way of training.
Re-Visioning can be done largely on the local level. Re-Vitalization and Re-Birth need intentional
Diocesan support.
