Demographics are Destiny: And that is Bad News for the Church

Demographics are radically changing the context of evangelism.  When I started teaching church leaders in the Diocese of Texas in the late 90s the importance of paying attention to generations, I liked to point out the church make up of different Generations. 

The GI and Silent Generations are 60% churched

 

Boomers are 40% churched

Gen X, or the Survivor Generation, are about 18% churched

Millenials are less than 10% churched 

I would often point out that as these dynamics played themselves out to the year 2020 there would be some major changes in the church landscape.  Here are three that I would offer folks with the caveat that “if these trends remain the same then by 2020:” 

Main line denominations such as TEC will be in major decline

The trend of church membership remaining between 40 and 44% would drop to 20%

The majority of those church members would be Evangelicals and Roman Catholics 

The trends have remained the same and churches in North America are now living through a major Tsunami of social change that affects every denomination and local congregation. 

I would point out in the late 90s that the extension of life due to medical technology and treatment had contributed to church membership remaining around 40% because GI and Silent generation folks were living longer.  What I did not say was that they would not live forever, but I thought church leaders could figure this out.   

What I can add to this today is that the Millenial mark a substantial increase in the birth rate and that their numbers are significant, rivaling the post WWII Baby Boomers.  Add this into the North American landscape combined with the substantial passing of the older Generations and our society is rapidly changing and thus so is the context of evangelism in North America. 

Note this; church membership is rapidly dropping toward the 20% number and consequently North American is rapidly becoming a secular society.   

Lost amid all the reactions last week to the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage (or as it is better identified “marriage equality), is the relationship of this demographic and social shift (increasing secularism and growing Millenial numbers) to how the court and wider society sees this issue. 

One reporter on PBS observed that he (an about to retire Boomer) had never seen such major and rapid change in a social issue during his life time.  He noted that 20 years ago, there was very little support or sympathy for the idea of same-sex marriage.  He pointed out that on the day of the court ruling 37 states allowed this and the majority of the population was in favor.  But of course, it is not the same population we had 20 years ago.   

Here is what we know about the newest Generation and their effect on this issue.  Hold on to your proverbial hats!

Polls show a substantial number of Millenials support same-sex marriage.

60% of Millenials who identify themselves as Republicans support same-sex marriage

(Somebody please tell the 15 or so Republicans running for President about this)

And today, Millenials outnumber Boomers  

Well, certainly “the times they are a changing” that should be obvious.  What I want to do is not focus on the issue of same-sex marriage, but how all this will affect the church’s attempts at Evangelism in the future. I suggest the following; 

1.       First and foremost, secularism and its subsequent values (legalizing marijuana, marginalizing the place of religion in public life, multi-culturalism, and diversity in everything – to name but a few) will continue to develop.  There is no reason to believe that the children of Millenials will be more churched than their parents unless there is another Evangelical Awakening. 

2.       Second, Evangelicals and Roman Catholics will find evangelizing younger generations will be very difficult if that means converting them to one man and one woman view of marriage.  Polls show that younger people already see Christians as judgmental and homophobic. 

3.       Episcopalians and other mainline churches will find that being “inclusive” will NOT lead to evangelism among younger generations.  Just because a church shares a Generation’s values does not mean that they will join the church in any substantial numbers.  (You can add to this the fact that Progressive Christianity has a very poor track record in evangelization of any kind.) 

This means that evangelization among post-Christian secular people must be substantially different and will be harder than in other eras. Knowing this demographic information should allow church people to better understand the changes taking place and stop us from just reacting positively or negatively to each change.  Knowing this should also lead church leaders to the recognition that developing strategies for reaching Survivor and Millenial Generation people should become a top priority.  Whether it will remains to be seen. 

 

Is It Possible to Grow the Episcopal Church?

This is the question put to me by a seminary classmate of mine who is serving a smaller parish part-time in retirement.  I have taken my initial response and elaborated on it for this blog.  

The first thing we should acknowledge right up front is that most of our current leaders do not think this is possible.  They give a number of reasons such as: 

                All Mainline Churches are in decline

   We are a denomination with older members

                Young people are not interested in Institution religion

                We are not interested in numbers but quality

                Secularism and Atheism are replacing faith

 Many of our churches are doing a lot of outreach and many are inclusive places.
We don’t need to focus on growth

Growing Churches are offering simple explanations to people.  We Episcopalians are too sophisticated for that.   

I think it safe to say that most diocesan Bishops would be happy just to hold current membership and the number of congregations stable and that few actually expect to have positive baptismal, or attendance increases.  Despite all these stated reasons and more, I still believe it is possible to grow our community.  

Let me start with the big picture.  I will turn to congregational growth, but the big picture and what it would take to change the big picture is important.  First, TEC is declining because only about 18 to 20% of Episcopal churches are showing numerical growth.  About 20% more are stable and nearly 60% are in decline with some of these in steep decline even to the point of closing.  In other words, the growing congregations cannot sustain the losses in other congregations.  If this balance of growing and declining congregations continue, it means that our current decline will continue for some time.  

 

The last time we were growing, from 1995 to 2002, about 35% of our congregations were growing, 30 to 40% were stable, and the rest in decline.  During this period, we were the only mainline denomination showing positive growth in baptisms and average Sunday attendance.  You have probably heard people say the Decade of Evangelism didn't work, but the numbers show differently.  This is one of the untold stories of TEC. 

Of course, no one joins the denomination except on the local level, so we need to turn our focus more locally.  We should start with a Diocese.  So how does a diocese get 30% or more of its congregations to grow?  The answer is rather strait forward.  It does this by supporting and developing its current congregations and by planting new ones among new communities and groups of people.  The Diocese of Texas has continued to do just exactly this kind of congregational development since 1993 through 3 diocesan bishops and lots of changes.  Each year this diocese continues to offer educational opportunities such as “The Iona Program,” the “Invite, Welcome and Connect” workshops, and a strong Vestry equipping program.  They also continue a strong peer modeling and sharing where local clergy and lay leaders who are doing outstanding work in some area of ministry share the “how to” with others. 

Let me turn to the congregational level.  I wrote 5 Keys for Church Leaders to introduce the basic systemic issues related to healthy growing congregations.  The chapters on paying attention to generational differences, opening the front door, and closing the back door are aimed specifically at growth.  These strategies have been proven on the ground in all sorts of denominations and even within TEC in all sorts of locations.   I am not the only teacher who offers this kind of information, but I mention it because I know firsthand that it gets results.  What I am saying is that where there is a will and a strategy of intentional congregational development growth can happen.  We do not need all of our congregations to grow.  We just need more than 30% of them to do it.  

What about changing culture and demographics many would want to ask.  Remember that I pointed to the planting of new congregations in new communities and among new groups of people.  Let me point out that adults between 20 and 40 are “a new group of people” and rather than wait for them to find our declining churches (and our few vital ones) why not start work aimed specifically at them?  A great example is St. Thad’s in Los Angeles, but there are others examples.  There are also millions of Hispanic people in the U.S. not all of whom are Roman Catholics, but many of whom have seen the Church in its catholic and sacramental forms.  We found plenty of these folks when I was Dean of the Cathedral in Dallas.  The Diocese of Dallas trained leaders from our congregation who have gone on to become clergy and lay leaders.  These good leaders have restarted churches and started new Spanish language communities of faith.  Notice I haven’t mentioned the multitude of Africans moving here, many of whom are already Anglicans.  The field is ripe for the harvest, but where are the laborers. 

This raises a critical question about our ordained leaders and why, even though we have lots of ordained people, we have a declining church.  I have written about this in other places, but let me underscore the problem we have. Most of our clergy have been educated in a maintenance culture where they expect the church to be given to them and that all they need do is update liturgy, do the Lenten Program better this year, and talk about being accepting and inclusive and people will come.  Our current situation underscores that this is not working. 

Let me be clear, I am not laying this matter primarily at the feet of our seminaries.  I believe the primary goal of seminary is a sound education in the disciplines of the ordained ministry such as Scripture, Church History, Preaching, and all those other things that I for one hold dear.  However, we should also acknowledge two things about our seminary training.  First, despite all the language in seminaries today about “Mission” and “Leadership” our academic folks are not up to the kind of leadership development that mission leaders need.  Second, the academic model is primarily that if an ordained person has knowledge information and if she or he will teach this, people will follow.  The development of new leaders goes much wider than seminary education.  It starts with how we identify and select candidates for ordained ministry.  It extends through seminary education and continues into the first 5 years of ordained ministry. 

I would like to see regional centers for missional leadership training.  These could be modeled on what Bishop Payne has developed for new leaders.  To this I would add rotating faculties of proven leaders who have planted and developed churches of different sizes and among diverse people.  Remember that 20% of our congregations still are showing positive numerical grow. Badly needed today are clergy who have helped rebuilt once Pastoral Size congregations especially in town ministries that have declined to Family Size Churches of 30 to 40 people gathering on Sunday.  We have them, but sadly they are not the teachers and mentors of new clergy. 

Of course, congregational development strategies are not all that we need to begin to grow TEC.  We also need something else that I would call passionate and contagious spirituality.  Here is how I get at this issue will local congregational leaders especially Vestries. 

I ask these leaders to rate their congregation on a scale of 1 to 10.  1 is "I don't even know why I come here anymore, let along why I would ever invite someone else."  10 is (tears in eyes) "Let me tell you about my church.  My church is my family; I can't wait to go on Sunday to see what will be happening next.  I am loved, accepted, and inspired there and I am challenged to grow spiritually as a follower of Jesus Christ.” 

Most Vestry members, remember that these are many of the most involved members of a church, rate their church between 4 and 6.  Many times I've gotten as low as 2s.  Once is a while I will get a few member who give their community a 7.  Then I point out that places were folks rate their church above 7 are already growing churches.  I share with them that the role of leaders, clergy and lay, are to move those numbers up starting with the next Sunday!  There are lots of ways to do this once a community decides to do it.  There are many strategies that have been proven in other congregations both large and small.  The question before the leaders becomes “are we committed to increasing the quality of the spiritual passion of our community?”  Once leaders understand this as opposed to their work at balancing a budget, mowing the grass, giving the clergy more benefits, or keeping the status quo, the community through its leaders begins to have a sense of urgency.  In other words, there is a work that they must do NOW to fulfill their calling. 

Can we grow TEC?  Yes, if we are willing to take the initiative to bring to our congregations the kind of spiritual vitality that built the community that has been bequeathed to us by previous generations of passionate leaders.  If you are a leader of a congregation or diocese and you are not committed to this task, then you are part of the problem.  As the Holy Season of Lent reminds us, there is great power in falling to our knees in tearful repentance and asking God to kindle a new passion in our lives for the Church for which our Savior was willing to die and rise again.  Each one of us should make our prayer “Lord, renew your Church and begin with me.” 

 

Three Questions to Enhance the Effectieness of Vestry Meetings

Effective Vestry Meetings are essential to healthy Congregational life.  Here are three questions to make them more effective.  

After 42 years of ordained ministry and 10 of these spent on a Bishop’s staff, I have attended far more Vestry meetings than anyone would wish.  Believe me when I say that I have seen “the good, the bad, and the ugly” of Vestry meetings.  I’ve also seen to many boring ones.   Since Vestry meetings are an essential part of parish administration, I learned early on to try to learn how to run effective ones.  Over the years in Vestry Workshops, I’ve offered a number of practical suggestions to make Vestry Meetings more effective.   In this blog, I want to share three questions that should be asked at the end of every Vestry meeting.   

1.        What have we decided? 

Interestingly, Vestry Meetings can go on for hours with lots of discussion, even conflict, with very little actually decided.  Some Vestry Clerks are able to record in the minutes an incredible amount of detail.  I’ve seen Vestry Minutes that go one for as many as ten pages.  While such detail may be interesting especially to Parish Historians, they make clarification difficult.  Even when a resolution has been made, one often has to search the minutes for a long time to locate what a Vestry has actually decided.   

I learned this tip from an Executive Secretary of the Board of General Mills.  Board or Vestry Minutes should start with the place and time of the meeting followed by a list of those in attendance.  Then there needs to be an executive summary of actions.  Here is a sample; 

These Vestry Minutes Contain the Following Vestry Actions:

1.       Approved the December Minutes

2.       Voted to authorize the Junior Warden to replace the old hot water heater in the Parish Hall

3.       Approved a 10% increase in the paper budget for the current year

4.       Appointed a long-range planning committee to address the question of adding a Sunday night service 

Note that the summary lists only the actions and decisions of the Vestry.  Discussions of items can be found in the minutes when needed.  The summary does not need to include the official resolution.  This too can be found within the minutes.  This kind of summary is very helpful when Vestry Members wish to look up a decision make months before, i.e.  “Didn’t we already authorize a new hot water heater last year when we began to have problems?”  A quick review of past Vestry Minutes can locate any past action.  This is especially important given the normal rotation of at least 1/3 of the Vestry each year. 

2.        Who is responsible for carrying out or overseeing the decision? 

I warn clergy that if a decision is made and no one is given responsibility for executing it, then the assumption will be that the Rector is responsible.  This is poor and often problematic assumption.  To help the collective memory, I find that actions should also indicate the responsible person when appropriate.  (See #2 in the example above.)  When a Vestry is not clear as to who is the responsible person, then confusion, frustration, and hard feelings often result.   

3.        How should we communicate these decisions?

I have advocated the first two questions for years now.  Recently I read an article by Bob Sutton about effective meetings where he shared what he learned from the Human Relations person, Patty McCord, of Netflix.   

“Toward the end of our conversation, we asked Patty about senior team meetings at Netflix and elsewhere. Patty was vehement that, in the best companies, executive teams really are teams and that they make the hardest decisions together. We were especially struck by what she said next: “The most important role I played at Netflix was, at the end of every executive meeting, to say ‘Have we made any decisions in the room today, and (if we have) how are we going to communicate them?’” 

This third question is important and has become even more so for Vestries in the past three decades.  When I was first ordained, most Vestries operated more as “Trustees” of congregations.  Their decisions were seldom questioned because institutional loyalty was a standard for the G.I. generation.  To question a decision was often seen as a criticism of the integrity of the Vestry Members.  However, the change in generations has brought a new standard.  It started with us Boomers.  I like to say it this way, “Boomers consider any decision, no matter how good, made without their participation to be a bad one.”  Younger generations have gone further in expectations regarding the standards in communications and participation. 

So, if I were to give a Vestry Workshop today, I would add this third question and underscore its importance.  It is fundamental to leadership today to be effective communicators even to the point of redundancy.  Good businesses like Netflix have learned this.  Good parishes should learn this.  And we could hope that government at all levels would learn this. 

Want to enhance the effectiveness of your Vestry Meetings?  Add these three questions at the end of every meeting to build organizational effectiveness and transparency.  Yes, the Church is not a business, but this should never be an excuse for poor leadership practices.  After all, the Church is about the work of God’s Kingdom and this demands a higher standard than that at Netflix. 

Let Me Explain This One More Time

How do you as a leader mind the gap between your intentions and the consequences? 

One of the most critical issues of leadership on any level in an organization or society is the gap between a leader’s “intentions” and a leader’s “behavior.”  As I have taught leadership and consulted with churches over the years, I have seen this issue repeated constantly.  There also can be a gap between one’s intentions and the consequences.  I want to content in this blog that such gaps are inevitable and that how a leader deals with this issue is directly related to the leader’s ultimate effectiveness.  I should remind my readers that when it comes to evaluating leadership, the key ingredient should be not whether a leader is a good or bad one, but whether a leader is effective or ineffective.   

The Gap

First let me describe the issue more fully.  All humans have a similar characteristic, namely that we see most clearly “our intentions.”  We see less clearly our behavior and its consequences.   

For example, as a parent my intention may be to enable my children to be successful.  What I may not see is that my anxiety for their success may communicate to them that they are not able to take responsibility for their own lives.  I may be overly emotionally involve and as a consequence of my behavior undermining my own intentions.  As I said, this is just natural, I cannot easily observe myself.  The problem gets worse when I am confronted with a disconnect between my intentions and the consequences.  The issue is what I do when I am confronted with this.   

Initially, most of us protect our own egos by simply explaining to someone what our intentions are.  Often, as the gap between intentions and consequences widen, two things tend to happen.  We become more anxious and compensate with justifying and rationalizing by explaining more and more our true intentions.  Meanwhile those observing us become more and more emotionally put off and then begin to surmise, some would say project, what our “real” intentions are.   

Leaders

Leaders are of course human.   When we extend this natural behavior into an organization and what do we see?  We see a leader presenting her or his intentions and others watching the leader’s behavior and consequences.  The issue for a leader is how we handle the gap, or said another way, how we handle the feedback over this gap.  As I said, most naturally we explain once again our intentions. 

Sometimes this is all that is needed.  Sometimes a leader has simply failed to communicate clearly what our intentions really are.  With better communications, this problem can be helped.  However, this is not always the issue.  Often the issue is that our ego tries to protect us from looking at the gap between what we intended and what is actually happening.  In my experience, if a leader can objectively process feedback about this gap (what I call minding the gap), then make some adjustments in strategies and behaviors, the leader can become more effective in accomplishing one’s intentions and goals.  If you are following me, I will now give some examples.

Examples

When I when to work for the Diocese of Texas, if was in the last years of Bishop Benitez’ 15 year tenure.  I quickly realized that the organization of the Diocese of Texas was stuck on several levels.  For example, no one believed more in evangelism than the Bishop.  It was one of the reasons he had hired me.  Yet, the Diocese at the end of his tenure was almost exactly the same size it had been at the beginning of his tenure.  There was a gap between his intentions and the consequences.  What the good bishop did was to deal with this disconnect by simply explaining “once more” his intention to have the Church be effective in bringing new people to Christ.  Many times during those last months of his tenure, I would hear him respond to a challenge by saying “let me explain this one more time.”  Meanwhile his followers had become divided.  There were those who believed his intentions made him a “good leader.”  Then there were others who were frustrated by his inability to receive feedback and tended to see him as a “bad leader.”  These folks would often explain to me as a newcomer what the Bishop “really intended.”   

Or take President Obama for another example.  After watching him as a leader these past six years, it is clear how he manages the gap between his intentions and its consequences. Mostly he explains once again his intentions.  I know this is an area of some passion with partisans loyally and lovingly defending him while critics are more and more questioning his “real intentions,” but step back from this situation and you can see much of our societies’ stuckness.   

I believe the President when he says that his intention in the health care act was to see to it that more of the 40 million uninsured Americans be provided effective healthcare through insurance.  However, when confronted with the failure of the legislation to effectively reach a significant number of those who had not been insured he returns to his intentions.  Add to this that there have been some unintended consequences of the new law.  For example, many lost their insurance despite his promises otherwise.  What did he and his administration do with this gap between intentions and consequences?  Naturally, he explains one more time his intentions.   

Will he be effective in improving the health care system and insuring more of the uninsured during the remainder of his tenure?  It is unlikely given the growing polarization and his inability to mind the gap.  A more creative response would be to admit that such a complex piece of legislation will naturally need to be reviewed and adjusted.  Yet to admit this seems to question the integrity of his intentions.  When reason departs and rhetoric and spin become the end game, it usually means that the leader or leaders have failed to mind the gap.    

My point is this; explaining one more time one’s intentions only further polarizes the situation, confuses many, and adds fuel to those eager to project “one’s real intentions.”  Any casually reading of the internet or visit to talk news programs shows us how sad this has become and why it will take another leader to make the necessary adjustments and strategies that could make the health care act more effective.   

TEC and Its Intentions

Now take the example of TEC’s current national leadership.  As we all know by now, our intentions for the past ten years have been to make TEC more inclusive of others and more able to relate to our culture.  I would suggest that some of the consequences are that we have actually lost lots of people (thus becoming more theological exclusive and we are rapidly becoming less connected to our culture by evidence of our inability to recruit others to our community.  How do our current leaders deal with this?  They explain “once more” their intentions.  Until new leadership emerges that can mind the gap, we will continue to be a stuck community destined to repeat unproductive behavior.  Mostly today our leaders are seen as good by their supporters and bad by their detractors. For me they are mostly ineffective.   

Learning

The bottom line for leaders is this.  An effective leader has the ability to mind the gap between our intentions, our behavior and the consequences.  An effective leader is able to receive feedback and process it in effective ways.  The effective parish clergy and Bishops that I have known actively seek feedback (“How am I doing?  How are we doing?”) and makes continual strategic adjustments.  Even more effectively, such leaders actively involve followers in this process of feedback and adjustments.   

This was one of Bishop Payne’s great strengths.  For most of his tenure as Bishop of Texas, he and the Diocese make strategic adjustments while keeping the vision of “One Church United in Mission” before the Diocese.  He effectively minded the gap.  Did he have his distractors?  Yes, of course he did, all leaders do.  However, he was effective in accomplishing his goals because he avoided “having to explain one more time” his intentions.  He was able to use a diverse group of leaders in the process of making effective adjustments to his strategies. 

So, let me ask.  How do you as a leader mind the gap between your intentions and the consequences?  Your ability to do this openly and creatively will determine to a major extent your effectiveness.  Let those who have eyes to see and ears to hear take note. 

 

Strategies for the Town Parish

How do we presently deal with the aging and declining Town Parish in TEC? 

We send them a part-time or bi-vocational or retired clergy person.  What are the odds that such a strategy will actually grow the congregation? I would say less than 10%.  This means that such models of ministry may be good at maintaining the congregation for a season, but not very good at growing it.

What would happen if a diocese used the following strategy in the redevelopment of a Town Parish?

1.            Reduce the assessment/mission asking to 10% during a stated time of “re-development”

2.            Then train and provide clergy who are willing to make a long-term commitment (at least 5 years)to the parish and community and who are trained in family systems

3.            Create an incentive for the lay members in recruiting new members

4.            Create an incentive for the clergy (in salary and benefits) based on the development and growth of the congregation, this would include outreach ministries (In today’s world.  Most clergy in growing congregations pay the price for much of the growth by not receiving increases in compensation. Most clergy can only get an increase in salary when they move to another parish.

This last of these points to a critical issue about many current clergy who are graduates of Episcopal Seminaries who often share some of the following:

1.            They have been trained in self-care, taking their day off, and considering themselves to be a professional person rather than developing a pastoral heart for people.

2.            They expect “church” to be given to them, they do not believe that they must build up a community and know how to recruit people to it.

3.            They  see no relationship between their ability to recruit and evangelize others and their financial remuneration.  They believe they should be rewarded for tenure alone

4.            They expect to move every 4 to 5 years

5.            They tend to devalue the older/long-tenured members of the congregation

I once asked the Bishop of Oklahoma, who revitalized and grew three Episcopal Congregations in Town/Small Cities, what he would do if he found himself serving a congregation with an average attendance of 30 people.  He said, “I would go out and find other people who did not have a church and recruit them to join our congregation.”  Then he added, “That is what I did in each of the churches I served although they had more than 30 people in them when I started. “

The bottom line to all this is simply that to reverse the trends in our current Town Parishes, TEC needs to radical rethink our strategies and the recruitment and training of clergy to serve them. 

Or we can continue to do what we have always done and continue to get the results we presently get!

 In my next blog, I will discuss the training needed for such developmental clergy.

The Town Parish Continued

I could go on about the plight of many of our Town Parishes, but allow me in this blog to begin to explore what is needed and what could be done with these churches.  Let’s start with what these churches need in ordained leadership.  What do most Town Parishes need in the clergy who serve them?  I would list the following as crucial:

1.        Like any congregation, they need an ordained leader who communicates an enthusiastic and hopeful vision of God’s Kingdom and the good news of Jesus Christ.

2.       An ordained person who is willing to stay 7 to 10 years in the same church

3.       A person who is willing to become connected to community organizations and activities that are not directly related to church work

4.       A person who functions as a generalist rather than a specialist.  (Think Family Practitioner rather than Internist)

5.       A person who sees the congregation as made up of families and not just individuals (even single people are from families and often relate to others based on their families of origin.)

6.       A clergy person who is willing to spend 15 to 25% of their time with un-churched people.

7.       A person who can relate to at least 4 different generations of people

8.       A clergy person who honors the elders and mentors and teaches others

9.       A clergy person who will marry those needing marriage, bury those who have died, baptize those who need baptizing and trusts that such sacramental acts are opportunities to build relationships with others, rather than a clergy person who will only perform such functions for church members.

10.   A clergy leader who sees the development of lay ministries as more important than their own preferences on the ways things should be done.

11.   A clergy person who does not try to make everyone happy, does not fear conflict, and is effective at facing and resolving conflict and getting people to work harmoniously together.

12.   A clergy person who will give up her day off if a parishioner is having emergency surgery

13.   A clergy person who can honor the pastors who have served before them and leave their successor a healthier and more functional parish than the one they found.

Where would be the best place to teach new and younger clergy how to grow and develop a Town Parish? 

In a mission training center where those who have demonstrated an outstanding ability to do this in a Town setting do the teaching and mentoring.  This does not mean using dearly beloved longer-tenured clergy who love to tell anecdotal stories.  It means using effective ordained clergy who have learned how to develop such churches demonstrated by their record.

In my next blog, I will discuss how we presently deal with such churches and why this is not working!

 

The Fate of the Town Parish

     With this blog, I start a series on the state and fate of the “town parish.”  By town parish, I mean the Episcopal congregation located in a town of less than 50,000 people and usually the only congregation in the county.  For many years these congregations were the stable support of many dioceses.  For example, in the Diocese of Texas, where I served on Diocesan staff for ten years, our town parishes were some of the earliest congregations planted in the missionary diocese.  They were often the business and agricultural center of the area.  Sometimes church leaders mistakenly refer to these as “rural parishes,” but in the greater church scene in North America, TEC has few actual rural churches.  These smaller rural congregations are almost always family size, less than 50 in attendance, and are often located in farm areas at major crossroads and not necessarily in a town.  

     Long before larger cities congregations took over as the mainstay of congregational life in a diocese,  the stable pastoral sized town congregation, often with longer-tenured clergy, provided on-going stability to dioceses.  These congregations started as missions and only became a parishes when they could support the full-time services of a seminary trained clergy person.  This gave the local lay leaders a clear set of goals to work toward. 

     The town parish would have to build a facility that would hold at least 125 people in worship.  They would need adequate church school classrooms and a functional parish hall and kitchen.  Since this type of congregation peaked before 1960, they often had limited off street parking.  The Episcopal Church in Duncan, Oklahoma is a good example of such a parish.  As you drive on the main street to it, you will pass a pastoral size Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian Church.  This was, in other words, the mainstay of mainstream churches in such communities.  By the way, the largest churches in such communities were often the ones most culturally identified with the majority of the population.  This is why TEC has very few program or resource size congregations in smaller cities.  Only in Virginia or South Carolina were Anglicans in such a majority. 

     During my lifetime, I have visited hundreds of these congregations.  When I was a student at  the University of North Texas, my home parish was St. Barnabas in Denton, Texas.  It was this congregation and Rector that nourished my wife and I and prepared us for attending seminary.  (Denton actually had two parishes, one high church and one low, but that is another story.)   

Three recent dynamics have caused the town parishes of TEC to face a number of serious challenges to their future.   

     First is the general decline in membership.  From 1965 to 2000, the Episcopal Church lost 1/3 of its membership.  This combined with the migration of many people in America from smaller towns to cities set the stage for trouble.  Than from 2002 to 2012, TEC lost another 1/3 of its members.  This has led to some church closures, but most significantly has been the decline of many town parishes from 100 to 150 Sunday attendance down to less than 50 which is known as the family size congregation. 

     Second is the higher cost of clergy and utilities.  In the 1960s, a parish with 60 pledging units could support the services of a full-time seminary trained clergy person, pay its bills, meet the diocesan assessment, AND have funds for some local outreach.  Today, the escalating costs of benefits for clergy, not actual salaries, but especially medical insurance and housing costs combined with the cost of utilities which have grown faster than inflation means that the same congregation will need 80 to 100 pledging units or a large endowment.   

     Third is the growing number of Episcopal clergy who would rather serve in a city than a town.  Often this is because the clergy spouse has employment needs that cannot work in a small town.  I was astounded as a member of the Standing committee in Dallas at the number of aspirants that informed us that they could only serve a parish in a major metropolitan area because of their spouse’s needs.  However, we can add to this the simple fact that most seminary trained clergy came from city parishes and prefer the benefits of large city life.  Now, let me be clear about this.  There are many benefits of a longer tenure in a small town especially for families with younger children, but this is not what most professionally trained clergy want.  Speaking of tenure, the shorter tenure of clergy in parishes hasn’t helped the situation of the town parish either. 

     Generally speaking, how have leaders, Bishops and Dioceses, responded to the challenge of once larger town parishes with decreasing and aging congregational membership?  In a word, they have responded badly.  Perhaps in fairness I should say that they have responded by finding practical ways to solve the problems.  This almost always means providing part-time, or bi-vocational, or retired clergy to serve such parishes.  The worse solution is to allow the church to drift to supply clergy.  A few dioceses that could afford it have tried to subsidize full-time clergy in such parishes, but because of the shorter tenure of such clergy and their desire often to “get out of Dodge” and get back to a larger city, this has proven futile.  

So let me close this first blog on the town parish with this observation; part-time or bi-vocational, or retired clergy may be a solution to the financial challenges of the declining and aging town parish, but these almost never provide solutions that will re-grow the congregation.  Hence, many of TEC’s town parishes are stuck in a declining cycle and their lay leaders do not know how to change this.  Meanwhile, their diocesan leadership seems stuck in merely trying to solve problems without looking toward long-term and strategic solutions.