What tools help us to understand the way we lead?

 Over the years, I’ve used a number of tools to help me understand my style of leadership. I have shared these with hundreds of clergy persons. You may wish to access valuable insights from these tools. I start this series of blogs with a tool used extensively over the past 40 years by Episcopal Clergy and Lay leaders.

The MBTI (Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator) was developed over four decades ago and is based on Jungian Psychology.  I do not know how extensively it is used today but back in the 90s almost all our clergy knew their own MBTI type. This tool uses four dynamics that are measured on a scale for each person. The dynamics are:

    Extrovert (E) - Introvert (I)

    Intuitive (N) - Sensing (S)

    Thinking (T) - Feeling (F)

    Judging (J) - Perceiving (P)

There is extensive material available on the MBTI types and the test is readily available on the Internet. I first learned in the 80s that I am an INFP. Then as a parish priest, I learned the hard way the need I have to protect my introverted side. This understanding has continued to be valuable throughout my ministry.

When it comes to leadership, the MBTI identifies three main types of leaders: NFs, NTs, and SJs. Some teachers distinguish between STJs and SFJs.  I have administered the MBTI to over 500 Episcopal clergy, and the majority of those I tested were Intuitive NFs or NTs. Most of our parishioners like most of the American population are SJs. I like to say that we NFs and NTs bring them meaning and insight.

Many large church rectors I have known were ESTJs. This is the classic profile of a leader with administrative skills. It was Bishop Payne’s profile. He was the best organized leader that I have ever known and also the best delegator too. Such leaders’ strong, clear, non-anxious, extroverted responses to emotional-filled individuals and situations are received as caring which they are. In a clergy group once, an ESTJ leader of a large congregation shared how he deals with people who are unhappy. He gave us this example.

    A parishioner had recently approached him after the early service and said, “I really miss the Old             Prayer Book. Why can’t we use it sometime?”  We NFs and NTs in the room we amazed with his         response. We would have made some attempt to tell why the newer one is better. He told us, “I just         gave her a hug and said, “change is hard, I know.” 

I found it helpful to know that the ENFJ profile is the ideal one for a parish with an attendance of 150 or less. Although I am an NF, I learned how to be more of an ENF on Sunday mornings. A clergy friend visited my parish, observed me, and stopped in my tracks with this feedback. “Kevin, stop telling people you are an introvert and stop acting that way on Sunday. Go to the door and greet people as they arrive. Trust me, it will help you.” And it did.  As an introvert, it was difficult for me to greet people at the door at the end of a service. He suggested that I meet them at the door at the beginning of the service when I was less emotionally tired. I would still arrive home on Sunday afternoon and need a nap, but my members found me more personable and interactive meeting them before the service started.

Unlike me, my favorite ENFJ clergy friend would make a few visits with parishioners on the way home or visit his hospitalized members. I found that amazing. Many people who have heard me preach believe wrongly that I am a strong extrovert. I am driven to preach as an NF to communicate a message that connected on both a feeling and intellectual and feeling level. So, I appear to them like an extrovert. They are confused at times when they interact with me when I am my normal introverted self. Many times, they would ask me if I was okay. I learned to smile and give them a hug. Thank God we can learn from other types.

When I was called from a large and growing pastoral church to a program sized one, I immediately felt more at home. I had a team to work with and I delegated to my staff. I gave up the expectation to know everyone and gave my emotional energy to my lay leaders. I supported them and consequently, all went well.

I gave these examples to show you how to apply insight from the MBTI. What you should never do is use your profile as an excuse. People do not care what their rector’s profile is. As John Maxwell has famously repeated, “People don’t care what you know till they know that you care.” Even an NT or STJ can learn the tools of emotionally connecting with people.

In recent years, the MBTI has been criticized because much of the teaching and application that Elizabeth Meyers shared was based more on her strong intuitive nature rather than research. Whether intuition or research based, the fact is that using this tool has afforded many of us valuable insights about ourselves and others. I think MBTI’s greatest strength is for the leader to understand one’s own psyche. I do not use this tool for team building or understanding how people can lead better. I use it to help leaders understand and accept themselves better and to understand how they process information that they will use as a leader. I also use it to underscore that many people do not process information or experience the same way we do.

In my next blog, I will share two other tools I have used to help ordained leaders.

Leaders and Leadership #6: Agency and Priesthood

In my last blog, I shared my 10-80-10 principle. I discussed the first “10” representing the Natural or Instinctual Leader and why many times they are unteachable. My additional comment is that even an instinctual leader can commit to being a life-long learner.

In this blog, I want to look at the “other 10” and who this represents. This I call Agency and this topic will lead us to our next blog about an issue that effects all clergy leaders and is underestimated in our development. This is Habit.

To get at Agency, let me start with some experiences that I had working with clergy in the Diocese of Texas. That diocese is large both demographically and geographically. Because of this, many clergy there spent almost all their ministry within the diocese. This also means that we had information from each of their parishes during their tenures. This was significant because “past performance is the best indicator of future behavior” as many managers know.

In several situations, clergy were struggling in leading their congregations and we found that they had a history of leading congregations into decline. This sometimes led to conflict with the lay leadership. Unlike previous administrations, and sadly a widespread practice at that time, such conflict would be resolved by the diocese simply moving them to another parish. We found a better way. This was to use their history to show them the need for a re-evaluation of their leadership. We used the Clergy Development Center, an ecumenical ministry, that helped pastors understand themselves better and to apply this to future ministry.

I was the point person in these interventions and was the go-between the clergy and the Center. During this process, I learned that a predictable pushback to receiving this re-evaluation was “What would I do if they tell me that I shouldn’t be a priest?” What I would say was that this is not the purpose of the re-evaluation. The task of the Center is to help you understand how and where you would work more effectively. In several situations, this led dramatically to a significant change for the clergy and introduced me to what the Center called Agency.

Here is what they meant. For some clergy, the parish is a frustrating and complex place. They arrive and discover that ministry in a congregation involves more than they expected. They wanted to be an agent with a manual and instructions on how to celebrate communion or how to make hospital visits, or how to take communion to homebound people. There are many clergy who are good at these tasks and act as agents of the Sacraments, pastoral care, and/or spiritual direction. When the boundaries and the tasks assigned are clear and there is a structure provided for them, they do just fine. 

There are places where this happens better than in a parish. Take, for example, a hospital visit. Hospitals have very regimented schedules. If you arrive too early to give communion, the patients are busy being fed, clothed, cleaned, and given treatments such as X-rays and/or tests. A minister needs to adjust to this and come at a more convenient time. If surgery is scheduled for early morning, then the best time to come is the night before surgery. Notice how the institution creates structure, and if you learn and follow it, you can function well.

Parish ministry has some of this structure with Sunday and weekday services, regularly scheduled vestry meetings, etc., but what is a clergy person to do on Monday mornings or Wednesday afternoons? Much of parish life is unstructured. In fact, clergy must learn to self-structure in a mostly open system with little supervision and direction. These skills are mostly leadership skills and doing them in order to help the whole community accomplish its purposes and goals is what leadership is about.

In the interventions that I mentioned above, the Center helped the priest understand that priesthood for them meant being an agent and the best places for that were chaplaincies in institutions like hospital, schools, and the military. In each situation, we helped them transition to such a ministry, and in EVERY case they did well. Some clergy with this view of priesthood find this truth by accident.

In summary, all ministry involves some Agency, but ministry in a congregation where that priest is the only ordained person has little of this. If a priest enters expecting all ministry in a congregation to be agency, problems quickly arise. This creates a void in ordained leadership, and moving to another parish never resolves the problem.

What all this shows us is that Agency may be ministry but is not leadership! It is a function or a task which can have great meaning, and some clergy thrive on this. However, the openness of leadership in a community has its own demands for self-structure (discipline) and such areas as vision casting, goal setting, and creating strategy. For ordained leaders, as professionals in the best sense of that word, we “must attend,” meaning function as an agent, but for leaders this is also an opportunity to open doors for relationships and influence. Agency is seldom for a leader an end in itself.

This whole topic leads us to the important issues of self-disciple and habits. In my next blog, I will explore the habits of ministry and leadership further and particularly how healthy ones can empower us, and bad habits can hinder us as leaders in our effectiveness. And as a bonus, you will learn why it is so hard to help clergy become more effective after the age of 55! 

Looking More Closely at Leaders Post#5

How Clergy Learn to Lead: Part 1 - The Natural or Instinctual Leaders

In this section of my series on Leaders and Leadership in the Community of Faith, I look more directly at clergy as leaders by addressing such topics as different types of leaders, leadership styles, and the formation and growth of clergy leaders. I will also be posting a blog on what I look for in a good clergy leader. To get into this topic, I will first share with you what I call the 10-80-10 Principle.

This general rule is based on years of observations while teaching leadership to clergy. The first for me was at The Leadership Training Institute at Evergreen. The second was my nine years as Canon for Mission and Congregational Development which, at its core, was leadership development. Following these experiences is what I observed while doing seminars and consulting with clergy.  which I still do. What I observed is that current clergy can be divided into three groups. (Note that these are intuitive guesses)

1.    10% are what I call “Natural or Instinctual Leaders.”

2.    About 80%, I call “Teachable Leaders.”

3.    The third 10%, I call “Agents or Chaplains.”

In In this blog the first group addressed is Natural Leaders or Instinctual for two reasons. First, they are often held up by themselves and others as the “real” leaders. Second, they dominate much of the discussion today about leadership both in and outside the Church.

     This is the way I would describe the Natural Leader. They are mostly intuitive guessers who tend to be dynamic, often charismatic, inspirational, and successful. The majority that I have known are primarily unteachable   

      If you go to Amazon and search for books on leadership, you will find that almost 50% of the thousands of books on leadership are written by one of these leaders or by a fan of one of these leaders. This is as true about clergy as well as the leaders of other organizations, businesses, and institutions. These books follow a simple premise. It is “I was a successful leader. The proof is that I built a successful, large organization. If you want to be a great leader, you should buy this book, do what I did, lead with my style of leadership. You will then become a successful leader too!"

     Let me advise you DO NOT buy one of these books. The premise is faulty. This is not because these leaders were unsuccessful, quite the contrary, because leadership is not just about the leader. It is about the organization, the timing, the style, and the personality of individual leaders. It is also about the context. When a Natural leader finds or creates the right organization and it fits into the right context, it works! They look like examples to follow. Sadly, few have become successful by following their example and advice. If that were possible, there would be a thousand Joel Osteen - like congregations across North America. For us Episcopalians, we would have hundreds of congregations the size of St. Martin’s, Houston, across Church. I could also mention, for older readers, Bill Hybel’s Willow Creek congregation in Chicago.

    There are several dynamics that make this style of leadership hard to imitate. The first you have already figured out. You are not that person. Next, you are not leading that organization. Further, you are not leading an organization in their context.

     More importantly, an inherent flaw in natural leaders is how little insight they have about their own style and why it works. Add to this, the organization that they use as an example may not work the way they think it does. There is often a gap between what the leader thinks worked and what actually worked.

     At the Leadership Training Institute, we ran weeklong teaching events. The teams were made up of the three leaders from our ministry and one from the outside. This outside person was an outstanding parish leader. That guest leader always gave the initial talk “The Power of Vision.”  When we had an instinctual leader, the talk was essentially, “I have a vision for ministry. It is this.” Then followed the leader’s own vision and examples came from his parish. Those talks were interesting and often inspirational. The talks could easily have ended with an altar call based on “Commit to this vision and follow me!”

     What did the leaders who were like most of the rest of us talk about? They talked about how they discovered God’s vision for the ministry of their congregations and how others could do that. They talked about their failures and what they learned from them. They talked about God’s blessings on the vision. They talked about, how over time, this vision became clear and how they matured. In other words, they helped other leaders learn how to lead better.

     Let me end with two observations about these Natural or Instinctual leaders. First, what happens when what they have always done stops working? Mostly, they keep explaining to their followers why it should work. This involves repeating their intentions and not listening to important feedback. They fail to hear from their leaders about the difference between their intentions and what is really happening. There have been some colossal failures by such leaders. This gap between a leader’s intentions and their actual behavior is a topic I will take up again later.

     My second observation relates to my statement that they are usually unteachable. It is this. Can an instinctual leader continue to learn and grow? My observation is sometimes yes. While I was Director of The Leadership Training Institute, I worked with such a leader on a proposed cooperative venture in ministry. This involved meeting with that leader and his lay leadership. After talking to his leaders, their instinctual clergy leader would always ask something like this, “How are you feeling about this idea? Or “Are you feeling comfortable with it?”

     It was apparent to me that this leader was, in Meyers/Briggs terminology, an ENTJ leader. What struck me was that he would ask such feeling questions. He did not ask what would have been natural to his personality, “What do you think about this idea?” At the end of the visit, I asked him about this. Here is what he told me. “Well Kevin, after being the Rector here for 12 years, I faced a crisis. Finally, I learned that I have to pay attention to my leaders’ feelings. After all, they are not all like me. In fact, few of them are.” Sadly, many instinctual leaders do not learn this valuable lesson, and even if they do, they do not know how to apply that learning.

     Let me ask you. Who are the Natural or Instinctual Leaders you have known in the Church?

 

  

Leaders Understand the Difference between Authority and Leadership Post#4

I want to end this first section on the basics of leaders and leadership by underscoring something seldom mentioned in presentations on leadership but is always present in a community of faith. This is the relationship between authority and leadership. Why is this seldom discussed?

The first reason is that authority remains mostly assumed. Church leadership is made most aware of this when something goes wrong even though a congregation is surrounded by the symbols of authority in the vestments we wear, the scriptures we read, the creeds we profess, and the titles we use.

The second reason is the negative connotation given authority by authoritarian leaders. Authority does not mean the same thing, but it is often confused in the context of the egalitarian nature of American Church culture, even in a denomination with the name “Episcopal.”

I remember dealing with a conflicted vestry and at one point in the emotional tension of the meeting, I tried to lower tension level by saying, “I think if Bishop Payne were here, he would say that the really important thing….” That is as far as I got before I was interrupted by a red-faced angry man who banged the table and said, “What right does Bishop Payne have to tell us what we should do?” At that point, I looked around and most of the leaders including the rector sat staring at the table.  I respond with, “What part of Episcopal did you not understand when you joined this church?” This reference to our authority vested in the diocesan bishop actually empowered some of the vestry to speak up in the face of this attempt at emotional intimidation. As some reason returned to the room, the emotional temperature cooled down. Later I learned that the angry vestry member never returned. That was a good thing for their leadership. Attempting to control things by emotional intimidation is always unhealthy.

To acknowledge this usually unspoken dynamic, I often use the terms “ordained leader” and “lay leaders.” Let me elaborate. Because of our Episcopal and historic Anglican identity, the ordained leader (rector or vicar) has a special role among the leadership. For example, the canons state the right of the rector to preside at vestry meetings. While many episcopal leaders do not know this, the vestry cannot meet without the rector present unless the rector gives permission for that to happen. Some rectors delegate to a warden the job of presiding at vestry meetings. When that has been the custom, I always recommend that before the rector leaves the parish, he or she reclaim that right so that the vestry members are clear that the new rector may choose to function as chair of the meetings. In mission congregations, the above also applies to vicars and bishop’s committees.

Add to this that nothing ends the honeymoon phase of a new rectorship faster than the senior warden informing the new cleric, “In this parish, I chair the vestry meetings!” That is why, by the way, one of the chief functions of an interim is to restore normal operating procedures. All rectors have their quirks, and the transition time is when those should be eliminated and replaced by our regular canonical procedures.

A few times over the years, I have worked with a church where the rector is not a leader and does not take on the “ordained leadership role.” You can guess correctly that such congregations are already dysfunctional by definition. Usually what has happened is that the Rector lost an early struggle with some powerful lay leader or leaders but did not resign. Sadly, the rector accepted a passive role functioning as a kind of chaplain to the community. That leaves the clergy person a not much respected figurehead who functions more like the vicar of a family chapel subject to doing what the “real” leaders want done, like a character out of a bad 18^th century English novel.

On the other hand, when the ordained leader assumes a “father or mother knows best” directive style of leadership, this is authoritarian leadership. Its effect is to create dependency in the congregation and to silence any lay leaders who simply object to a rector’s decisions. Again, this creates dysfunctionality.

When an ordained leader functions in a healthy manner, two good things happen. First, the whole congregation, including the lay leaders, are reminded that the local congregation represents the wider Church and the mission of Jesus in the local community. Second, the ordained leader is the one who holds the policy and procedures of the congregation in place and negates bad behavior on the part of dysfunctional leaders and members. In other words, the ordained leader is most responsible for maintaining clear boundaries.

This authority can also be seen in important functional ways. For example, when I have worked with vestries in writing mission statements, I always interject near the end of the process this guidance, “The Rector gets the last draft of the statement.” When asked why, I point out that the rector will be the one who reminds the congregation of its mission, shares this mission with potential and new members, and l mentions this from time to time in preaching and teaching. I then remind the vestry that if the Rector has to stop to open the bulletin and read the mission statement, it isn’t yet the real mission. The rector has to say it and believe it in a naturally congruent manner.

When ordained leaders function in a healthy manner, the leadership operates in a healthy way. The canons say it this way. The rector and the vestry are responsible together for the mission of the local congregation and are accountable for its organization life and operations. The line that I have heard some rectors inclined toward autocratic behavior wrongly use is, “I am in charge of all things spiritual, and the vestry is responsible for mowing the grass and funding the budget.” Such an attitude undermines the very nature of an “Apostolic Community” in which Jesus is the head and all leaders are servants. 

Let me end by observing that authority becomes most apparent when there is a change and subsequent transition in the ordained leadership. As the team of lay leaders develops their relationship with the new ordained leader, shared responsibility and ownership can become a healthy mark of a healthy congregation.

Note that in communities, authorities are often seen as good or bad. These descriptive words make sense given humanity’s long history of this dynamic. However, they should not be used for leadership. Leadership is either effective or ineffective. In my next posts, I will be turning to what makes for an effective leader.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Leaders Need to Maintain a Balance Between Mission and Community Post #3

 

Why this Balance Matters

Over 50 years ago, I attended a “Human Relationship Lab.” I was a senior in seminary, and I had been introduced to these gatherings by one of our professors. The basic premise of the labs was to combine experience in a group with observations about group behavior especially as it related to leadership.

One observation in this session was both simple and profound. It has stayed with me all these years and I have used the principle on many occasions. The facilitator drew on newsprint a straight line and then added two words:

                             Task_____________________Community                                                   

 Here is the rule. Leaders need to tend to two dynamics to maintain a healthy community. The first is task. The second is community life. Simple right? Now comes the profound part. When these dynamics become unbalanced, too focused on task or too focused on community, the group becomes unhealthy. Today we would use the word “dysfunctional.”

Over my years as a Rector, a Canon in a diocese, and a consultant to churches, I have seen lots of dysfunctional behavior in congregations. It often occurs when one of these two dynamics becomes over emphasized. When I observed such churches, I found that the leaders were not attending to this balance and were dealing with issues, not by trying to balance these, but by putting even more energy in their preferred dynamic. As a consultant, I would make recommendations to restore the balance. When applied, this always helped create a healthier community that was better able to accomplish its purpose. When ignored often conflict emerged.

Add to this that each of these two dynamics can be both healthy and unhealthy. For example, take the clergy person who believes the congregation needs to build a new worship space. In order to accomplish this task, it is necessary to raise money. The leader now takes every opportunity to hammer away at the need for people to give. The result is that members start saying things like, “The church is always asking for money.” This complaint is code language for “we are not feeling a part of this community.” Perhaps what was not being attended to was the need for members to fully own the decision. 

Back then, an expression that I used with leaders was that “Baby Boomers and GenXers think that any decision made without them involved, even if seems a good one to the leaders, was bad. That was important because the GI generation mostly trusted their leaders’ decisions, but the boomer generation did not! This generational shift in our society was a major issue for churches in the latter part of the 21st century.

The problem on the other side of the balance, community life, can be seen in several ways. First, the tighter the relationships become, the more difficult it is to include new people. New people see a self-described “friendly congregation,” as often made up of people who stand around at the coffee hour talking to each other while ignoring the visitors.

In the wider Episcopal Church in recent days the emphasis on “The beloved Community” carries that risk. If a group puts all its energy into relationships within the group, it can be unhealthy. In our church, which puts much emphasis on learning to love one another and reconciliation, this emphasis runs the risk of focusing too much on the present group’s relationships. The task then must become balancing our communities with a healthy understanding of the task of making new disciples.

Another example of see too much emphasis on communing is to imagine what happens if one of the leaders of a community comes from a dysfunctional family or is addicted to some substance. Then it is easy for the whole church “family” to become dysfunctional. This is a particular problem in our smaller churches, and we have lots of them. The solution would be balanced by greater emphasis on the church’s task or mission. 

My former Bishop, Claude Payne, underscored this with his description of the Church’s two core values which are The Great Commission to make disciples and The Great Commandment to love one another. He would point out that maintaining a healthy balance between these two core values is a continual work of a congregation’s leadership both ordained and lay.

I would add this observation. A community that puts all its emphasis on itself is best defined as a cult. One that puts too much emphasis on the task is a corporation not a community.

How are your leaders doing at maintaining this healthy balance? What strategies might accomplish this? This model remains a basic tool in developing strategies aimed at health.  

 

 

 

Leaders and Leadership in the Faith Community Post#2

 

Are Leaders Born or Made Leaders?

This question has been debated for years, maybe for as long as we humans have been around. I have read arguments both ways. The problem with this question is twofold.

First, leadership is complex.

Second, this question focuses on leaders apart from groups or communities.

Studies of group behavior by several disciplines have revealed a very interesting dynamic of group life. If you put 100 random people in a room and give them a task or problem to solve, you will observe that about 10% or 10 people will step forward as leaders to help the group accomplish the task or solve the problem.

This dynamic has been observed across cultures, in different organizations, and varying institutions including churches. Approximately 10% of a group will self-differentiate from the group members as leaders.

I have called this series “Leaders and Leadership in Communities of Faith” for a reason. When we talk about leaders in our society, we often focus on individuals. We ask how a particular leader learned to be one or how that leader developed a style of leadership. But the other side of this is about leadership as a function of groups. Many of us who are seen as leaders have found ourselves in groups where a task or problem occurred, and we decided “to remain quiet” and waited for others to lead. And other do emerge. When I use the term leadership, I will be referring to how leadership functions as a dynamic of a group’s life. When I say leader, I will be referring to individuals and how they function as leaders.

Let me stay with leadership for a moment and underscore one of the consistent problems of congregations. Almost all congregations overestimate the number of leaders they have. For example, take a parish with 100 active members. If we take the research above seriously, we realize that this community will have approximately 10 leaders at any moment in time. Notice that they may have 9 to 12 Vestry members. They will also have a director of the altar guild, the ushers, the vergers, and servers. They may have leaders in Christian education and others in outreach. Now you see the problem. They have more leadership roles than they have leaders to fill them. To “mind the gap” as the British would say, there are two typical solutions that are always bad for the health of the community.

The first is to give one person more than one leadership position. I’ve been in congregations where a person has 3to 4 leadership positions. When this happens, they naturally lose focus, and the areas of ministry they lead will suffer.

The Second is to fill leadership positions with non-leaders. Let’s say St. John’s has 9 vestry positions but this year no one wants to serve on the Vestry. Often the nominating committee comes up with the names of helpful and pleasant folks willing to take a position but who are not leaders. That leadership recruitment strategy is called “No one else will do it!” What is wrong with this, you might ask. Nothing if all that is needed is maintenance. But if leadership is needed, the presence of non-leaders restrains the real leaders from doing what needs to be done. The leadership team will suffer because of the inability of those non-leaders to produce as part of the leadership team.

There are many applications to this but let me share one. During my time in the Diocese of Texas, when we had a church in crisis or that needed revitalization, we stepped beyond normal procedures. We placed a new clergy person in the community and then asked the Senior Warden and 5 to 7 members of the Vestry to remain in place for the next 3 years. Once agreed upon by the leaders, there will be no elections or replacements even if someone leaves the congregation. Our plan always worked for the betterment of the community.

Why? I let you ponder that question, but a clue has to do with team solidarity. This also reflects an unintended consequence of term limits for Vestry members. 

Leaders and Leadership in the Faith Community Post #1

 

Leaders Take the Initiative

When I worked for the Diocese of Texas, I met with parish leaders in a congregation in crisis. Their Rector had recently left after a year of conflict with the lay leadership. The giving had fallen off and then suddenly the HAV system died. They asked for help and Bishop Payne sent me to meet with them.

For the past few years, this congregation’s representatives to the Diocesan Council had at the beginning of Council asked to be allowed to be seated even though they had not paid their Diocesan assessment for the past year. Texas had two assessments. The first covered the administrative costs of the bishop and his office and paying this was mandatory. If a parish did not pay this basic assessment, they were denied seating, voice, and vote at that Council. The second asking was for support of Diocesan programs and was more voluntary.

A congregation’s delegation could petition at the beginning of Council to suspend the requirement for that year and forgive the payment of the first assessment. This almost always passed because the other parishes recognized that congregations did at times face a crisis and nothing was gained by denying their participation. This particular congregation had used the action several years running and the Bishop did not want this pattern repeated.

After I was welcomed, the Senior Warden announced that Canon Martin had news to share. I smiled and said, “Actually, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the Bishop has arranged for a grant to solve the approximately $20,000 in needed repairs.” I then paused and added, “The bad news is the grant is dependent on your paying your full assessment for this past year.” With that announcement, I paused and waited.

Immediately the room erupted with objections. Several asked how the Bishop could be “so unchristian” as to demand this knowing how strapped the parish was financially. Finally, one person said, “There is no way that we can manage this financially.”  After another pause, I said, “I know a way to do it.”

I then asked, “Is the treasurer here tonight?” A man across from me nodded and responded, “I am.” I asked how much the assessment was for last year. He told me and I then said, “There are 11 of us in this room including me. If you divide the assessment by 11, how much is that?” He pulled out his calculator and punched in the numbers. Then announced, “$68.75 each.” I pulled out my check book while explaining that as a diocesan staff member, I was a part of their leadership. I wrote out a check for the $68.75 amount while adding, “Not everyone in this room may be able to give that exact amount, but some can give more.” I put my check down on the table.

There was dead silence. Finally, an older woman opened her purse and took out two $20 dollar bills. “This is from my tips at work,” she added. She put these down on top of my check. Another long pause followed. Then a vestry member sitting near me put his hand over the check and cash and said, “Canon Martin, I personally guarantee that we will send a check to the Diocese tomorrow for the full assessment. Several other smiled and nodded.  I responded, “Great.” After a further conversation about their needs, I said good night and left. I knew we would get their payment and that there would be no further requests from this congregation for the Council to suspend the requirement that their Assessment be paid.

What marks a leader from a follower?

When a problem or crisis arises in a community, the non-leaders complain and wring their hands indicating they don’t know what to do. The leaders step forward and take the initiative to find a solution. That woman with her $40 dollars was one. And the gentlemen who told me he guaranteed the assessment would be paid was another. Simply said, a leader takes the initiative when others won’t or can’t.

In my next blog, I will explore the question of whether leaders are born, or they learn how to become one.  

Evangelism and the Path to Discipleship

In my last blog post, I wrote about the pathway to membership, but as I mentioned, I prefer the word community. Now I turn to the important topic of an intentional path to discipleship.

Remember that Jesus called us to follow him as disciples. The concept of discipleship is often lost in an emphasis on evangelism only as conversion and often presented as a decision. Many evangelical churches make their single focus on getting people to confess their sins and accept Jesus as their savior. Jesus’ own emphasis was on following him by learning his teachings - his way, his truth, and his life.

However, this is important. Studies on multiple congregations in a wide range of denominations have shown that individual spiritual growth often has no relationship to the activities of people’s local congregation. In other words, spiritual growth happens when you are in the right place at the right time. A person who merely attended church could be in the same congregation for years but remain spiritually stuck while a new member sees an announcement about a special retreat, decides to attend, and experiences a remarkable amount of spiritual growth and insight from it.

When I became the Dean of the Cathedral in Dallas, I found a typical pattern that exists in many Episcopal Congregations. Adult Education amounted to random classes based on clergy or lay leaders’ interests. I call them the Theology 401 classes. These assume that members are ready for advance information. I lamented to our staff the lack of any 101 classes on the basics of Prayer Book liturgy, the different forms of prayer, finding a daily devotion, understanding the basic doctrines, or how to read and interpret scripture. A better approach is to focus on Christian Formation. Christian education often aims at information while formation aims at integration of information to behavior feeding our minds, bodies, and spirits.

One of my favorite preachers and teachers was Pastor Bruce Theilmann of First Presbyterian Church Pittsburgh. He once noted that churches where members carried bibles to church and attended classes only on passages of the bible often produced Christian Pharisees not big-hearted loving disciples of Jesus, people who reflected Christian maturity. Tragically, this has proven true on many occasions.

What needs to be done to correct this information only approach? Congregational leaders, and especially their clergy, need think about the steps our people need to take to move from seeker or nominal church member toward fully devoted followers of Christ. While each member is unique, spiritual directors have long understood that there is a path all disciples take. So, think about what activities we should systematically offer that will move members on this path of Christian maturity. My understanding of spiritual growth followed a classical model of 7 steps:

1.    People of whim

2.    People of law

3.    People of Grace

4.    Discipleship

5.    Journey to the Cross

6.    Death to self

7.    The resurrected life

W  What we did at the Cathedral was to create two tools, The Cathedral Core Curriculum and A Cathedral Way of Life. 

W We then asked all members to take the first four core classes aimed at a clear understanding of discipleship even if they had been members of the Cathedral for years. These were:

1.    Christian Believing using the Baptismal Covenant as an outline.

2.    How to Read and Understand Holy Scripture.

3.    Anglican Spirituality, introduction to the Prayer Book as a guide.

4.    Your Call to Ministry in the Body of Christ, an introduction to vocation and spiritual gifts for ministry.

     We communicated that all four were important and that it did not matter the order people took these. We also created opportunities for retreats and/or days of reflection aligned with the Church year to introduce the deeper life of the last three steps. We encouraged people to experience these steps, and the core curriculum was also our path to baptism and confirmation. We knew that people needed to proceed at their own pace often this depended on life’s circumstances. When I left the Cathedral over 50% of our members, old and new, had taken the core courses and over 50% were following the Way of Life that we offered. It was one of the most significant achievements of my ministry of 42 years! I can send you an outline of these if you email me, deankevinmartin@gmail.com.

     Of course, there are other models of Christian growth and other steps that clergy have created for their congregation. While I was working on my evangelism series, a good colleague of mine, Paul Fielder, sent me the text of his new book to review. The title is Living the Transformed Life. It is being published and should be available in the next few months. I will send notice when it is available. Thinking like a Spiritual Director and acting on his pastoral experience, Paul gives a series of spiritual exercises that begins with a guided spiritual retreat done over several days or weeks if one needs a slower pace. His chapters move people along this path of “Transformation.” These exercises aim at deepening believers’ relationship with God, and they can be done individually or in small groups.

     There are other ways to do this too. In my opinion, The Alpha Program starts people on the path of Discipleship. Cursillo has often been a weekend that transforms members into disciples. My former boss, Bishop Claude Payne, attended a Cursillo and started asking why this is not offered at the front door of a parish rather than allowing years of membership before attending one. He introduced this at his home parish in retirement and the lay people have embraced it. It has become the method for membership connected to baptism, confirmation, and reception.

     Does your congregation have an intentional path toward discipleship? Remember that believing people can just attend church and eventually they will catch discipleship is like believing that putting them into a chicken coop once a week and hoping that at some point they will lay eggs. Discipleship is spiritual transformation. It was for the first 3 centuries of Christianity. It has been in every revival and movement from Benedict to Francis to Wesley. It is the primary work of Jesus, disciples making disciples that continues the Jesus Movement up to this day.  

Create an intentional path of discipleship and watch the transformation of your congregation from members to disciple!

 

 

 

Evangelism and the Path to Membership

 I want to publish my first of two important paths for congregations in my series on evangelism before the demands of Holy Week and Easter occupy the minds of my fellow colleagues. For the past ten years, I have pointed congregational leaders toward the creation of these important and parallel paths.

Remember that the Episcopal definition of evangelism ends with the phrase “within the fellowship of the Church.” I have pointed out the importance of this phrase in my previous blogs on this topic. We can never separate as, American evangelicals often do, the preaching of repentance and turning to Christ from the work of making disciples within the fellowship of God’s people that we commonly call “The Church.”

When working with church leaders, I call this first path The Path to Membership. It is really The Path of True Fellowship. Let me remind all of us that what we call fellowship today, the coffee hour and potluck suppers, is really a terrible use of the word “koinonia”.  One of my dear mentors, Bishop Frey, always pointed out when teaching on the life of the Church that the better translation of this Greek word is “Solidarity.” As you know, Solidarity was the name chosen by the Polish resistance and liberation movement against communism and Soviet totalitarianism and is much more powerful than the word fellowship today.

Any reading of the New Testament and especial Acts tells us that the solidarity/fellowship of the early church bonded the followers of Jesus into a community of love with one another that it even threatened the power of Rome. “The blood of the martyrs" may have been the "seeds of the Church,” but the obvious love of one another that the early Christians exemplified drew thousands into relationship with Christ and one another. Often this included slaves! 

This is why the story of Perpetua and Felicitas held such a dramatic place in the early disciples of the second and third centuries. An aristocrat willing to die for her faith was stunning to Roman leaders, but the willingness of her slave to forgo freedom and chose death because of her love of her sister in Christ confounded the order of the Roman world. In a society where as much as 80% of the empire at times were part of the slave system, no wonder the Roman Empire was threatened and persecuted the early Christians. That power of love lived out would ultimately undermine the power of pagan society and despite their efforts to destroy them, this fellowship of the Beloved ultimately won over even the Empire itself. 

Why do I so belabor this point? Because as our secular society opens the door to paganism and superstitious cults, the rediscovery of this true fellowship becomes more important with each passing day. Cults bind souls. Fellowship frees them! How do we know when so-called Christian Fellowships like the Branch Davidian have become a cult? It becomes one when it binds members not only to one another but to some sort of charismatic leader who has become the interpreter of truth.

The Path to Fellowship needs to be intentional. We cannot just welcome new “members” into the Church and hope that attendance in worship, participation in stewardship, and occasional coffee hours will build this kind of community. These activities are not wrong or bad, but they are much less than true fellowship. For example, last Sunday, I handed the reserve sacrament to a Stephen’s minister of our home Parish at the end of the Eucharist.  Afterward at coffee, she explained to me that she was taking this to a widow of the parish who was now suffering from dementia in a nursing home. She told me that she and three other woman friends had committed themselves to the support each other. When one of them was left with no family to care for her, is now surrounded by institutional care (sic), and has become lost even to herself, these three women were committed to remembering who she was and is to them and her Church. There it is. Koinonia!

I challenge clergy and lay leaders to create an intentional path to such membership/fellowship to build their local communities. Sadly, Church membership often means welcoming new people, introducing them to other members, inviting them to participation in baptism or confirmation or reception, and then hoping they will volunteer someday to serve one of the parish's ministries. How can we do this more intentionally?

One of my mentors, Lyle Schaller, used to suggest that congregations use different types and sizes of groups to accomplish needed ministries. He pointed to the 15-to-30-person group which he called a class as best for instruction. Most choirs actually fit this definition, they learn and sing. And of course, church school classes and adult education are often done best is this size. The 30-to-70-person group he called a mission group because it is often best size for such ministries as Stephen Ministries or various outreaches to the wider community. But he always underscored that the best group for discipleship was the small group of 6 to 12 people. 

“That’s what Jesus did!” He would say with a smile to underscore his point. He would then say that it doesn’t matter whether you call them Home Fellowships, Bible Studies, or Support Groups, their real importance is that given enough time together, their true purpose is Christian formation and relationships. I always marvel at the continual conversations around the church as to whether a congregation should have small groups. My response is always, “Only if you want to have a real Christian community or if you are just satisfied to have a “Parish.”

After Easter, I will finish my series on evangelism with The Path to Discipleship. This obviously overlaps with fellowship, but it is, of course, much more. For now, ask yourself and other leaders, does our community have a clear and intentional path to fellowship and can we describe it and invite all members to it? 

 

The Parish and Evangelism

 

This is the third of my series of blogs on Evangelism. In this, I want to lift up three things.

1.    How Evangelism fits today amid secularization and the end of Christendom.

2.    The Discipleship Movement.

3.    Two Programs that have enhanced the work of evangelism in congregations.

In my first blog, I shared TEC’s official definition of evangelism, its origins, and its unique emphasis on “within the fellowship of the Church.” To the credit of the Billy Graham Association, three decades ago they did research on the follow up with those who decided for Christ at one of their Crusades. What they found was that only about 25% of those who had come forward and made such a response had followed up with this decision.

This was so troubling that the organization made an important decision. Instead of just putting on these Crusades, they reached out to involve local pastors. They asked for their involvement and gave permission to pastors to pray for those who wanted to repent and receive Christ. They also gave permission to pastors to invite the new believer to their congregation for follow up if they did not already belong to a church. I even knew Episcopal clergy that did so.

In other words, the most well-known evangelistic group in North America embraced in practice the last part of our definition, “within the fellowship of the Church” because of the critical importance of giving support to the new believer. It was an important correction. According to the Association, the results were significant. New believers were given spiritual support, teaching, and fellowship on the local level. They more than doubled the number of people who followed up on their decision.

This underscores the relationship between evangelism and membership in the body of Christ. Of course, in the New Testament, the two were assumed to be the same thing. It was the decision by the emperor Constantine to make Christianity the official religion of the Empire that this changed in a dramatic way.  It was the victory of the Cross over the State that had for 300 years persecuted with various intensity believers. Unfortunately, it also gave birth to the possibility of “nominal Christians” or Christians in name or membership only. 

It made possible what we now called Christendom. And its existence comes down to us even today. It is membership without evangelism or discipleship. In the US, where we never had an official state church, The new nation’s constitution enshrined separation of Church and State, however, this did not change the many cultural benefits to being a church member in a dominant Christian nation. This changed after the second world war. With the decline of “Protestant Culture” and the rise of secularism, we have seen the erosion of the benefits of such nominal membership. However, I’ve met many Episcopalians over the years who were members in name only. This remains the reason that I believe we need to do evangelism among our members. This is especially true in all so called “mainline churches.” 

To underscore what I just said above, I want to point out that the major movement of the 1990s was without a doubt the “Discipleship Movement.” It was ecumenical and it touched many people. This was the Christian response to growing secularism and the end of Christendom. In my first 30 years of ordained ministry in TEC, I almost never heard the word disciple applied to individual church members. In my experience, the best method for moving members to disciples was Cursillo.  It was a four-day event of mostly lay teaching and witness done in an incredible environment of worship, love, and support. The summary testimony of so many participants at the end was “when I came, I knew not Christ. Now I know him and want to follow him.”

A popular program aimed at members and new people was Alpha. I had many reservations about the Alpha claim that it was basic Christianity, however it was effective where parishes followed the program. Often the Holy Spirit Weekend at the end was a powerful experience for new believers as well as long-time Church members. Unfortunately, the heavy emphasis on conservative biblical interpretation often brought in people who during the early 2000s were going to have predictable reactions against some of TEC’s decisions regarding gender. My fundamental objection was simple that I had never known a Christianity without the sacraments. Teaching baptism and the Eucharist as not “basic” to the faith already revealed the problem Anglicans and Episcopalians would have with this.

I believe the present theological state of TEC makes Alpha no longer compatible to our congregations and clergy. It also seems that Cursillo has waned for a number of reasons. This, however, does not change the need our congregations have for doing evangelism both inside our churches and between our churches and the increasingly secular society. It actually increases the need. It would be a very helpful thing to have congregations doing this kind of work share their methods for doing it. 

In my next blog post, I will be sharing what I have said to many congregations and clergy about creating two intentional paths in their communities. First, is the path toward full inclusion in the parish versus just making people members. The second path is that of discipleship. These obviously are closely related, but there is a need for both of them.

Learning to do Evangelism

After my ordination, I quickly found that my seminary training had not prepared me for leading a parish.  It had left me spiritually bereft in dealing with a troubled and difficult parish. The Good News in this was that it left me open to a moment of spiritual renewal. This motivated me to learn more about ministry in the power of the Holy Spirit.

I attended an ecumenical conference in Tulsa, and this ended with a group of five younger Episcopal clergy having dinner with the Rev. Robert Harvey. He was an older priest who led a vital and vibrant congregation. During our meal, we asked him a number of questions about leading a renewal of a congregation. After several questions about how to do this, he stopped us and asked an important question. “How many of you have done evangelism either in your church or among non-churched people?” After a long silence, he suggested that all of us learn how to do evangelism and recommended several places where we could learn this skill. We knew he was right.

This led me to call the New England headquarters of Campus Crusade for Christ. It was a hard thing to do. I knew the organization had a strong fundamentalist and evangelical core, but I was willing to sign up for their next “Disciple Making Seminar.” I arrived at the two day event not knowing what to expect. I was stunned to discover that the other participants were all college students. With my clerical collar, I stood out from the group.  I told myself that I might learn something and to just listen.

The first day was spent introducing us to their standard evangelism tool. It is called “The Four Spiritual Laws” and was intended to be used one on one.  The teacher was engaging, but I found myself put off by the simplicity of the four spiritual laws. Essentially, the four laws are (1) God created us and loves us, (2) We have sinned and rebelled against God as sinners, (3) Jesus repaired the gap between us and God by his death on a Cross. (4) We can be reconciled to God by accepting Jesus’ death for us, confessing that we are sinners, and repeating the disciples’ prayer. At the end of the day, I remember thinking “that’s it? That is evangelism?”

Of course, my mainline theological education gave me grave doubts about all this, and the next day I was not prepared for our assignment. We were divided into groups of two and told to go out to a public place and share the booklet with someone. Our approach was to ask, “Have you ever heard of the Four Spiritual Laws?” If the answer was no, we were then to offer to share them by way of the booklet with its simple illustrations.  Thank God, my paired student seemed eager, and I was glad to let him take the lead.

We ended up at a laundromat. There were just a few people and the only one alone was a young man in his middle twenties. I nodded encouragement to the student, and he smiled and said, “Since you’re a pastor, why don’t you show me how to do this.” He added that “I will be praying for you both.” I was not wearing my clericals, dressed casually, but I knew that despite my reluctance, there was no way out. 

I approached the young man, introduced myself, and said “Have you ever heard of the four spiritual laws?  He looked curious and said, “No, what are they?” I proceeded to walk through the booklet with him explaining each law. Occasionally, he would nod and look thoughtful. Finally, we reached the end, and I asked THE question. Would you like to accept Jesus and say this disciple prayer? He thought for a few moments and responded, “Yes, I would.” I could see my partner smiling. So, surprised, I said the only thing I could like of, “Why in the world would you want to do that?”

I could not believe that anyone would respond to such a basic presentation, and I genuinely wanted to know why he did. At first, he simply said, “Hey, you are the one who shared this with me!” I pulled myself together and seeing the panic on my partner’s face, I simply asked, “What made you want to say yes? I will never forget his response.

“Well, I’ve heard about Jesus, of course, even attended a few churches over the years, but no one has ever explained this before. I could understand it, and I wanted to say yes.” So, I read, and he repeated the sinner’s prayer and his commitment to follow Christ.  After I suggested that he follow up by finding a church or Christian fellowship. I gave him the booklet and he smiled and thanked me. As we left, he was reading it over carefully.

Later that day, we regrouped and shared our experience in trying to share Christ with others. A few also found a person who, after a few questions, agreed to say the prayer. Fortunately for me, the instructor had my partner share what had happened with us. He did share about my asking why my person wanted to pray, and then went on to share the young man’s response. 

I went home with a bag full of Four Spiritual Laws booklets and a lot of things to think about. I kept thinking about the young man’s honest answer to me. No one has ever explained this to me in a way that I could understand it. I realized that all my theological training and experience in the ministry had left me incapable of sharing the heart of the gospel in a clear and simple way that led to an invitation to respond to God’s gift in Christ.

I also learned the importance of intentionally in trying to share this message. I would now say that evangelism is to intentionally share the good news of Christ with another person or persons, and to invite that person to respond to that message. The role of intentionality struck me. Neither was I trying to argue with someone or to try to intellectually convince them that Christianity was true. I was intentionally trying to share the good news with another.

A lot happened after that. I found other ways to intentionally do this. And I found a more personal way that felt more congruent with me. In my next parish, I started my ministry by preaching the Gospel in such a way that I offered to my congregation a chance to personally respond to the message. To my surprise, a number of longstanding members of TEC responded and I prayed with them as they made such a decision. A mentor taught me during all this to “never assume that a church member has made a commitment to Christ unless you hear them say that they had.” Note that my mentor did not say that I should assume that someone had not made that decision and judge others. He said do not assume they had.

I later learned how to equipe members of my congregations to be able to say that they had come to Christ and to invite others to also do so. That will be my next blog. For now, remember this. Evangelism involves an intention to share. Many times, over the years, I have prayed that God would give me the opportunity to share the faith with another, but I realized that even if that happened, I would have to be prepared to do it and know what I intended.

Imagine a whole congregation praying, “Oh Lord, give me the opportunity to share my faith with others and wisdom to intentionally do this when the moment arises.” I have further learned evangelism is the Spirit’s work and that God is the great evangelist longing to win the world to God’s own self but has left the message with us to share. 

Let me close with this story. When Jesus ascended to heaven after the resurrection, a group of Angels gathered around him and asked, “Lord, how are you now going to win the over the world.” Jesus, responded with, “I have commissioned my disciples to do this work.” The Angels looked at each other and one finally said, “Lord, what’s your plan B? You know how humans are.”

Jesus answered, “There is no plan B.”

In my next blog, I will share how I equipped others to do this work both in my parishes and in workshops in numerous other congregations.

 

 

Turning to Christ

This is the title of Dean Urban Holmes’ book on evangelism. It is now a classic, and it is my favorite phrase for understanding evangelism. Holmes also had a great insight into a problem TEC has with evangelism. He pointed out that the Church has a linguistic problem. We all share the same vocabulary, but often we mean different things when we use terms. When it comes to the word evangelism, our problem is that all of us know and use the word, but often we mean different things by it.

When I served in Southern Ohio, the Bishop asked me to chair a new commission on Evangelism. Holmes’ point was driven home in our first meeting when I asked each member what they meant by evangelism. The answers varied greatly, and I remember two responses. One person said, “Evangelism means proselytizing other people and I am here to make sure we Episcopalians don’t do it.” A second person added, “I came from an evangelical denomination, and I joined the Episcopal Church because we don’t do it.”  This latter answer is something that I will return in a later blog when I discuss the resistance within the Church to doing evangelism. The first 5 meetings of the Commission were spent just trying to reach some agreement about the word evangelism.

I also learned the painful truth about how people use the word. After a year of discussion and planning, we went back to the bishop to suggest a strategy for evangelism in Southern Ohio. After he read it, he said to me, “That’s not what I think evangelism is.” The bishop a disillusioned former evangelical now believed evangelism meant advocacy and social change. At first, I felt let down by the bishop, but Urban Holmes’s comment helped me understand that I was naïve to take on the work without finding out first what the bishop meant.

As the Church prepared for the decade of evangelism in the 1990s, our bishops spent much time coming to a definition for TEC. They built on William Temple’s saying that “Evangelism is the presentation of Jesus Christ in such ways that men and women are led to accept him as Savior and follow him as Lord. When Temple's definition was expanded to “follow him within the fellowship of his Church,” English evangelicals led by John Stott objected to this. They stated that our job was “to proclaim” the good news of the Gospel and not to attach people to the Church. They argued that evangelism was centered on the decision and not on church membership or formation.  Of course, the baptismal service affirms the role of the Church in the formation of a new Christian. Fortunately, our bishops embraced Temple’s fuller definition and added the words “in the power of the Holy Spirit.” After all, evangelism is God’s endeavor through Christ and not based on human determination to “make” people believers.

What is evangelism according to TEC? Our official definition is “Evangelism is to present Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit so that persons are led to believe in him as Savior and follow him as Lord within the fellowship of the Church.”

What is not evangelism? It is not as one Bishop famously said, “everything the Church does.” It is not diversity, inclusion, and equality. It is not demanding social justice. It is not offering a food bank, or providing shelter for those who need it. It is not marching for someone or some group’s rights. As important as all these things are, they are not evangelism. I would add that if everything we do is evangelism then nothing is evangelism.

However, I would strongly like to repeat an observation often made by Bishop Payne. He would point out that “evangelism is the most inclusive thing the Church does.” Remember the biblical witness. In the beginning, all Jesus’ followers were Jews. Then the gospel was shared with the Greek Speaking Jews. Then it was shared with the Samaritans. Then it was carried to the gentile Cornelius and his household. And Acts tells us that the home of Paul’s missionary work was not Jerusalem but in the multicultural community of Antioch. And, of course, it was there that the followers of the way were first called Christians. This was the risen Christ’s intention, “go and make disciples of all nations (“etna” or “people groups”) baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and teaching them all I have told you.”

Clergy often say that the decade of Evangelism was a failure. That is not correct. From 1995 to 2000, TEC was the only growing mainline Church in the United States. Why was this true? It happened because with a clear definition of evangelism, we expanded the ways that we presented Jesus Christ to our own members and to the non-churched. Many congregations started offering different methods for evangelism and many dioceses sponsored them. Are there Episcopal congregations and clergy who still do evangelism? Yes, there are, but they are now seen as outliers and are few in numbers.

In this series, I intend to explore this topic more fully. In my next blog, I want to share how I learned to do evangelism and what I learned about evangelism by doing it.