Addressing Our Statistics

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Addressing Our Statistics With a Solid Plan If We Do What We Always Did, We Will Get What We Always Got Canon Robert Lewis In this second blog on addressing the statistics of decline released at the last House of Bishops meeting, we will look at some of the solutions that can turn the downward trend. Some of these are solutions discussed among the Bishops and I have added a few of my own suggestions. Recruit our immigrant neighbors - Episcopal church decline could immediately reverse if we were able to recruit 10% of those who are Anglicans from other countries now residing in the USA.(There seems to be a language issue with them knowing that "Episcopal" is Anglican in the USA) Seek those who have been wounded by the church - in the past few years, our greatest membership gains have been from those who were wounded in other faith traditions and now see the Episcopal Church as "safe". (This means divorced folks, LGBTQ, and immigrant groups). While that has been the dominant group of those joining from other faiths, it is imperative that we also step up our own evangelistic witness to those who have never considered themselves Christian. Commit to raising up an entrepreneurial priesthood. Seminaries have continued with the same model of classical preparation. Now in theory, they are learning the essentials of ministry, but praxis and theory are not the same thing. We have trained clergy in the past to be village chaplains. That model has continually yielded family and pastoral sized congregations - the demographic that is struggling the most. Some of our most successful clergy have learned from the business world how to engage people where they are. If clergy are waiting for our newest would-be parishioners to darken the doorstep, they need to understand that will yield a very limited result. The old adage “if we do what we always did, we will get what we always got” rings true here. It seems that every few General Conventions, there is legislation that adds to the training hours of clergy, usually for risk management or diversity issues. Unless we can teach new clergy an entrepreneurial model, we will get what we always got. (yet no one is suggesting that kind of training) Clergy committed to spending time with unchurched people. Our models show that we are simply moving market share and not resulting in new Christians. Our number of adult baptisms proves this point. I once heard that 10% of clergy hours should be used meeting people out in the world. I think 15% is more realistic in this age. All decline numbers seem to be a harbinger of death. But not if we do something with the information we have!. Too often we continue to do the same things and wonder why the leadership at the national or diocesan level does not do something to address the decline. The fact is that all of these numbers are reversible, but that starts at the local parish level with people determined to create something new, instead of simply maintaining the old. A colleague shared with me this model: This is the very picture of reforming the status quo. It does not interrupt the “old Guard” who are the financial mainstays, but it does recognize that a new order has to be created. The “Emergent System” recognizes that the cliff is approaching, and goes the work of imagining a new order, while still shepherding the old one to a good and holy death. One Illustration of this model is in 19th Century entrepreneur Cornelius Vanderbilt. After coming to this country as an immigrant, he slowly built a shipping empire. When it seemed that railroads were the new up and coming model, he slowly converted his shipping assets into rail assets. The process of arresting decline is no different than restoring a classic automobile. Although there is more work the longer the decline has happened, and a strategy needs to be developed, there is nothing hopeless except giving up. Canon Robert+

 

New Statistics Tell a Dire Story

This is the first of three guest blogs from my colleague and friend Canon Robert Lewis.

 In my eighteen years of parish ministry, I have had a bit of an eye roll every time new statistics come out. Don’t get me wrong, I think we all need markers of measurement to see what our church is doing well, and where we need to improve. I was not ready to receive the last set of numbers that I received from my bishop. At the House of Bishops meeting in March, the bishops gathered received some truly telling statistics that I will unpack and propose what I think we need to consider to address the issues:

First, what does Sunday look like in the Episcopal Church right now? The last decade has been rather disastrous. In 2014, our in person average Sunday attendance (ASA) was 604,938. A decade later, the latest statistics place it at 398,887. Over a third (34%) of those regularly worshipping with us ten years ago were lost to death, indifference, or simply got out of the “church habit’ during the COVID-era lockdowns.

Those same lockdowns gave us a new metric which really has too little data to be an effective tool - online average Sunday attendance. To be clear, one only needs to watch a portion of the service online in order to be counted. For 2024, 113,698 appear to have worshipped online as opposed to in-person. I do not wish to disparage this, since for the first time in the history of the Church, most congregations are finding ways to reach outside of their four walls and bring their services to living rooms and dens across the world. The congregation I serve even has those who worship online from other states and still provide needed pledge dollars for the work of the parish. The real question is, what does this metric really measure - and I’m not sure we can even figure that out for a few more years.

Next, let’s consider Easter attendance. In 2014, 1.37 million worshippers joined in our celebrations of the risen Jesus. Ten years later that number had fallen to 859,241 (a 37% decline). It would seem as we dip further into a post-Christendom culture, even the tradition of twice yearly attendance in church for those with the most marginal of commitments is failing.

I am among others who have noticed that the great number of pastoral sized parishes that dotted rural and county seat towns all over America have shrunk to the point where they can no longer retain one full-time clergy presence. In fact, the number of congregations that are now under 50 on an average Sunday has increased dramatically. In 2014, those congregations numbered 2,489. As of last year, that number had climbed to 3,102 (an increase of 613 congregations. Those same congregations have a number of options to weigh ; part-time coverage, licensed lay ministry leadership, long term supply - none of those options really has a statistical bent on growth. In fact one of the most trustworthy ways of ensuring some stability is a full time resident priest who commits to stay for a long tenure. With the failing ability of smaller churches to attract, call, and retain a capable rector, the numbers will get only worse.

But what about our larger congregations? For many years, I had heard that there was a law of outward tendency. Smaller churches would get smaller and larger ones would tend to grow. The new statistics really are punching a hole in that theory. In congregations reporting over 200 on an average Sunday, the decline is downright shocking. In 2014, there were 679 worshipping communities that had over 200. By 2024, that number dropped to 291.

So what is it, money problems? Hardly. The money is there, but it is in some limiting pockets. In 2014, the total dollar amount of endowments throughout the church was $4.2 Billion. That increased to $7.9 Billion by the close of 2024. That figure does not include Trinity Wall Street, as their holdings in Manhattan properties would seriously skew the sample. But 20% of those funds are controlled by only 32 worshipping communities. In a religious environment like the Episcopal church, this is troubling simply because the funds are likely to remain at the parish level while more financially strapped congregations may fail.

When we look at pledge giving units, it is important to realize that for every one pledge unit that is lost to death, 5-7 are needed among the Gen X and younger crowd to replace the same amount given by older generations. It is not true that younger persons are less likely to give, it is that they cannot give the same amounts as in previous generations with guaranteed pensions and employer absorbed health care. The game has changed. It used to be said that a congregation needed around 100 pledge units (on average) to support a full-time rector with benefits, care for a building and grounds, and have some programs. Now, that number of pledge units will have to be raised to account for the lack of younger parishioners' ability to give at the same levels.

What about leadership? This too is not spread evenly. There are currently 17,777 clergy in good standing, with active priests numbering 5,213. There are roughly around 7,000 congregations in TEC, so that illustrates the shortage. There are 1,236 inactive priests under 72. This means there are those who could serve a community but cannot or will not move to those places where a new cleric is needed. Explanations are manifold: spousal employment opportunities, good schools for children, or even being in a mortgaged property with a much lower rate than one could acquire if he or she moved to a new location. As with finances, leadership is unevenly distributed. Most of those inactive clergy are east of the Mississippi River.

Now let's look at how that shortage is split across full-time - Part-time lines. For every seven parishes seeking a part time priest, there is only one candidate looking for a call. Small parishes are becoming warden-led and recruiting supply clergy, if they are available. This entrenches the family-parish dynamics even further. Such congregations will, in coming years, look at a priest as a hired hand, and not a member of the community. For every three parishes seeking a full-time call, there is only one candidate looking for a call. If a vestry is blessed with resources, they may decide to hire a recruiter or "headhunter" to seek out candidates in rural communities to consider being on a slate of candidates for larger urban calls.

There is a great disparity of resources in our church, particularly between urban parishes and rural ones. Most buildings are underused and with high maintenance costs. Most have over $200K in deferred maintenance costs. Gifted clergy are staying out east instead of considering calls in the western US where there are more calls available.

In my next blog, I will address some potential solutions, and in the third (and last) blog in this series, will also suggest returning to time-tested, and mostly forgotten model in Anglican history that worked well. Now other non-Anglicans are beating us to it!

Canon Robert+

A Tool to Become a More Effective Leader

 

In this last blog of my series on leadership and leaders, I want to share with you what I think is the most helpful leadership tool you can use, The Situational Leadership Model. Here is what it can do for you.

First, you can discover your preferred leadership style. The model identifies four:

1. Directive (often pejoratively called authoritarian)

2. Coaching/Encouraging. 

3. Participatory/Shared

4. Delegative

Depending on the source you use for this model, you will take a short survey of situations and how you would prefer to respond as a leader. I did an internet search on Google and easily found three surveys you can use. Taking one helps you identify your style. I have given my version of the questionnaire developed for church leaders to hundreds of Episcopal clergy and the vast majority lean toward the Coaching and Participatory styles.

I believe this is directly related to our education level that is bias toward Shared Leadership and toward our organizational culture that is unfriendly to both Directive and Delegative leaders. For example, in surveying church planters, I found that their preferred style is Directive. Unfortunately, most Commissions on Ministry (reinforced by CPE) see such leaders as having an “authority issue.”

Before I move on to the second dynamic, let me underscore a few important points:

No matter what your preferred style or how strongly you hold it, there is always a need    for us to learn skills to become more effective.

There is also a need to understand more clearly when our own preference is predictably better matched to a group.

We can also appreciate better the styles of other leaders. This is a great tool in clergy     placement.

Second, the model then puts alongside your preference the predictable developmental needs of any group. The model uses four “maturity levels” that can be determined by fairly simply questions. Here are some examples:

    How long has the group has been together?

    What is the experience of group members with their task?

    What is the working relationship of group members?

    What is the level of leadership skills of the individual members?

The key insight for any leader happens when you compare your preferred leadership style with the predictable needs of your group dependent on their maturity level. Over time the maturity level can progress or regress and awareness of this by the leader is crucial to our effectiveness. Here is how a groups maturity level can increase over time and with experience and the leadership style that best suits this:

Level one - Directive, level two - Coaching/Encouraging, level three – Shared level four - Delegative

I need to point out, however, the complexity of this model when compared to a congregation’s life. First, congregations, even small ones, are made up of several groups or ministries and larger congregations often have many. Second, these will have varying maturity levels. Third, many groups or ministries in a congregation have developed their own leaders and the longer these are in place, the more predictable the group will be resistant to change. This is why I advocate rotating such leaders the same as vestry members, every 3 years. Lastly, while canonically every rector or vicar is a member of each ministry, they may not be its leader and in many cases should not be its leader. This is why we should do more to teach clergy how to lead by delegating even if that is not their preferred style. 

Clearly, few congregational groups ever get to level four due to reasons such as the addition of new members, changing tasks, and challenges or crisis. Note that adding new members to a group also causes regression in the group’s maturity level. This is why I recommend that clergy always treat their vestry with its yearly rotation of newly elected members as a level two group until they start acting like a level three group. This movement can be enhanced by team building and better incorporation of new members, but few vestries ever bother to do this. Consequently, new vestry members have often told me that it took about a year for them to feel like a full member.

What would be a church example of a level four maturity group? I would mention the program staff of a large parish and the program staff of a diocese. This is perhaps why Bishops who have been rectors of larger parishes often do better at leading a larger diocese. Simply said, they have learned to delegate better. I should also point out that in many congregations, the Altar Guild is a level four group. Too many new clergy learn this the hard way.

After leading workshops on the Situational Leadership Model, this is my final suggestion for this blog.

“If you and your group are working well together, congratulations, your leadership style is matched to the group’s needs based on their maturity level. You can put this information into a file and just hold on to it until you come to a moment when you and the group members are struggling together. Then take out the model and ask yourself what has changed? Often, either the group has regressed, or you have failed to adjust your leadership style to their current maturity level. If you are working with a new group and you and the group are struggling, the same thing is true. Take out the model and adjust your style to meet their needs!”

Conclusion: effective leadership demands that leaders shift their preferred style of leadership to the maturity needs of any group. Effective ordained leadership is the willingness to be flexible as one moves from group to group and to attend to their further maturity.

 

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.