Congregations: Why One Size Does not Fit All

“What do you think of Natural Church Development?”  This is a question that I have heard often in the last few years.  Not long ago the question would have been “What do you think about The Purpose Driven Church?”

The programmatic approaches to congregations or what I like to call the “One Approach Fits All” methodologies are all developed with the belief that these will fit most any congregation.  I have seen such approaches (even tried some) for many years now.  In this blog, I want to share what I think is right about them and where I see their limitations.

First let me start with a list of some of these:

                The Purpose Driven Church

                Natural Church Development

                Small Groups: Evangelistic, Pastoral, Instructional, etc.

                Fuller Church Growth Institute – The Church Growth Pastor 

This week I learned from one of our Oklahoma Rectors that the Diocese of Chicago has developed a program based on Bill Hybel’s work at his Willow Creek Church, but of course “adapted” to an Episcopal setting. 

Two of these, Natural Church Development and the new Chicago one, use a survey of members to determine a church’s strengths and weaknesses and then recommends a course of action.  The others use a model for the church (or in the Fuller approach, for the pastor) that can be imposed upon the current congregation.  Many of you may remember Carl George’s evangelistic small group strategy which argued for building churches on small groups.  “Grow larger by growing smaller” was a slogan for this movement.  Dale Galloway took a similar approach using pastoral small groups in his church in Oregon and then published a whole curriculum around it.   

Now let me make myself clear.  I am not universally discrediting such approaches.  All of these do work and all have strong advocates of their methodology.  I often point out that given most Episcopal congregations operate on simply repeating what they have always done.  This means that any approach that gets church leaders to think systematically about their church will generally improve things.  Further, the survey and application approach bases the plan on analysis of the present situation in a church.  This is never a bad idea.  These approaches do have limitations and they are not my preferred way of developing congregations.  What really astonishes me is when I hear of some Episcopal Diocese that has decided to make one of them their general approach to all congregations. One thing that I have done which such dioceses have not is to analyze congregations where these approaches have not worked.  

The Limitations

 

So here are some of the limitations I have found with these approaches: 

1.        Some programs assume that growth of churches is “natural” and follows a straight upward line as long as certain issues are attended to.  Natural Church Development and The Purpose Driven Church both follow the evangelical assumptions of the Fuller Church Growth Institute.  I would summarize these as “Real Churches are evangelistic churches and these churches will grow naturally unless something non-Gospel oriented or artificial interferes with this growth.”  

Often these approaches do not fit well with historic, sacramental churches.  Episcopal congregations that use these approaches often have to adapt the language to fit our context.  Further, is growth a constant and straight line affair?  Congregational research reveals that long-term growth is almost always a series of growth periods followed by plateaus.  In development understanding, plateaus follow a time of growth as the “system” adapts to the changes that the growth has produced.  Just observe any teenager to see how this works.   

2.        Such approaches often work best with larger congregations.  When I was rector of St. Luke’s in Seattle, we introduced a pastoral small group model for the congregation.  Within six months, the congregation was the largest it had ever been with ASA running between 450 and 500.  However, we introduced this into an already programmatic size, multi-staffed congregation by training new leaders over a three month period.  Second, we allowed many of the present members to opt out of this new approach and applied it most directly to new members.  I have found that the Purpose Driven Approach has seemed to work best when introduced to transitional and program size churches.  

Why is this so, because the obstacles and resistances to growth in smaller size churches are rooted solidly in the complex social relationships among current members.  This is enhanced often with a small church mentality, “We like our small church because we know everyone here.”   

By the way, one of my successors believed that lay people should not meet in small groups unless the pastor was present.  Today that congregation’s ASA is around 25.  This is not the only reason for the church’s decline, but it was a significant one.  

3.       Such approaches often work best in newer congregations.  Most church plants that become larger congregations tend to start with a systematic approach for reaching new members such as small group discipleship classes.  Every new church without buildings, Rose Windows, and an altar guild to sustain it, needs a methodology to hold it together.  I always ask a new church planter what is your vision for this church, what are the core values, and what is the proven methodology that you will use to attract and assimilate new members.  

4.       Such approaches often work when there is a dynamic and directive clergy person who believes in the methodology and persists in it. Of course, I’ve seen many situations where the methodology failed and the pastor either left or was removed.  However, if you discover one of these approaches and believe with your whole heart it is Jesus’ way for the church, than by all means find a congregation that will follow it or start a new one.   

The Alternative

 

For me the alternative is Congregational Development.  This approach is more complex, more nuanced, and often takes more patience.  It is the way of working with congregations that I first learned from Lyle Schaller.  It is based on anthropology, psychology, organizational development, and a good dose of historical and ecclesiastical experience.  When we start with this perspective, we assume the following: 

1.       Congregations are complex communities made up of unique leaders and members.  Obviously, one size cannot fit all. 

2.       The size and history of a congregation often determines which steps can best work and which ones will not take. 

3.       All congregations have developmental areas. The local leaders are the best people to determine which areas need their attention. 

4.       Not all congregations have growth potential. 

5.       Some congregations will decline, and death is part of life.  

6.       There is no idea, no matter how great, championed by a judicatory that cannot be easily sabotaged by people on the local level. 

7.       Health is a better goal for congregations than continuing growth. 

8.       Growth is often a bi-product of other activities. 

9.       Aiming exclusively at growth can create unhealthy and anxious congregations. 

10.   Not all growth is good.  Cancer is a growth. 

11.   Dysfunctional behavior is a fact of life. 

12.   If there was a pill or a program that would fix all churches, there would not be a list of different programs.  All these would have long ago been abandoned for the one that works! 

In my next blog, I intend to start a series that builds on what I learned from Lyle Schaller about working with congregations.    

 

 

Three Important Aspects of Leadership

                As a leader who has had the privilege of teaching other leaders, I like to point out three areas for growth and awareness: personality, style, and skills.

                The first of these is personality.  Many of us have benefited from the Meyers-Briggs Personality Inventory.  This measures such things as introversion and extroversion, sensing and intuition, feeling and thinking, judging and perceiving.  This tool helps me understand the way I see the world.  It also helps we understand what energizes me and what stresses me.  As a slightly introverted person, I always find Sunday mornings stressful because of the number of social interactions required of a clergy person along with the need to be aware of all the things going on.  I prefer to withdraw on Sunday afternoons and get quiet.  My best friend is a strong extrovert.  He preferred to make parish visits and hospital calls after Sunday services.   

                Over the years, folks have asked me if there is a better profile for clergy.  I point out that there is really no virtue in one’s personality profile.  I have known very effective clergy of all types.  The secret is finding a way to do what you love and being attentive to what will bring stress.  I have also learned that leaders under stress tend to fall back on our strengths.  This tends to make the stress even more difficult.  Of course, a personality profile is different from character, especially integrity which is the ability of the leader to do the right thing when tempted to do something else. 

                The second aspect is that of style.  I learned many years ago that each of us has a preferred style of leading.  For example, my preferred style is collaborative and cooperative.  I work best in teams of peers.  Because of this preferred style, I am less comfortable with a directive style or a when I need to delegate even though I know that there are times when such leadership would be more effective.  Over the years, I have used a survey tool to help clergy identify their preferred style.  Then I help them see when their preferred style might hinder their effectiveness.  

                When you are a leader of a group that needs your preferred style, things tend to go well.  The problem comes when we are forced to provide leadership with groups that need another style.  I have found when things are not going well to stop and step back to think about the issue of style.  This keeps me from blaming the group or community for being “so difficult.”  This also explains why some clergy can do very well in one congregation and then find that the next one they serve is very difficult.  

                The third aspect is skills.  This is the subject of many books on leadership that rightfully point out important abilities of effective leaders.  Here the key word is “effective.”  For me leadership isn’t usually good or bad, but effective or ineffective.  For example, I find that effective leaders are good communicators.  Effective communication can be learned, or said another way, with work I can get better at it.  

                I consider that a good leader is committed to life-long growth.  This means identifying areas for skill development.  For example, I spent years as a Rector leading vestry meetings.  Many times these would go on for hours with little accomplished and much frustration.  Then one day, I picked up a book titled “Running Effective Meetings.”  It helped.  Today I consider a vestry meeting longer than 2 hours an ineffective one.  In the church environment, we often assume that ordination conveys all the skills one would need to lead effectively.  I have long ago renounced that idea.  

                Of course, being skilled does not guarantee that a leader will do the right thing.  I have learned that skills are always an adornment to character.  Character can never be seen as an adornment to skills.  We have all seen the damage that a skilled but unprincipled leader can do in a community.  The very pressure of leadership often brings to the surface the major character flaw of a leader.  Scripture is full of such examples, think Saul, David, and Solomon.  

                These three aspects of leadership are important for any leader.  I have found understanding my personality, understanding my style and the needs of different groups, and developing a plan for improving my skills enabled me to be a more effective leader.  Of course, all this means that as a clergy person I have accepted that I am a leader.  No every clergy person feels this way.  Over the years, I have encountered three attitudes among clergy about leadership.  I would describe them this way: 

The Instinctive or Natural Leader – This type leader acts instinctively.  They usually are resistant to learning about leadership.  They often do well because they instinctively find groups that need their preferred style of leadership.  They sometimes write books on leadership, and the thesis is always “This is how I lead, and you should too!”  I also find that when their preferred style does not seem to work they blame the community, at the extreme demonizing people in it.  In other words, they lack insight. 

The Agent – These are the Priests that insist they are not leaders.  Their calling is to celebrate the Eucharist, hear confessions, visit the sick, and give counsel to the needy.   Often, these persons work best in a structured environment such as a hospital or institution ministry where their roles are clearly defined.  Can such persons learn how to more effectively lead a congregation?  Of course they can.  Yet, I often find that their sense of “identity” keeps them from working at it.  I consider this a resistance to change. 

The Growing Leader – This is the 80% of the rest of us.  We know we are called to leadership.  Life and experience teach us that a part of our vocation is to get better at it.  I have been fortunate that in every stage of my development as a leader, I have had role models and examples of other leaders who have helped me grow in that calling. All have had insight into themselves, integrity, and have made life-long learning an important part of their lives.

Learning from a Church Planter

We can learn a lot from Church Planters especially in this era of declining congregations.  The Rev. Mike Michie is a long- time friend and a church planter who was just installed as the Rector of St. Andrew’s, McKinney, Texas.  For this edition of my blog, I asked him a few important questions.          

KEM: You were just installed as the first Rector of St. Andrew’s in McKinney in your beautiful new building after starting this congregation just 7 years ago.  How did you get interested in Church planting?

MM:  Church planting is all I’ve really ever known.  I can think of no better way to serve my Diocese and the Episcopal Church than to start new churches.  As hard as starting a church from scratch might be, I find it to be much more energizing than trying to change the culture of a church that is maintaining or in decline.   In so many areas, cities have grown around and, in many instances, away from our established churches.  The need for new ministries in these areas of growth is urgent.  That I could do something about this in McKinney is a great blessing.

KEM:  Your congregation grew fairly quickly, what size is it now in membership and attendance?

MM:   We started back in 2005 with about twenty people.  Now, our membership is just over 500 and our attendance since we moved in our building in January has averaged 297.

 

KEM: Was there a vision or core values that directed your work as a planter?

MM:  Yes!  I spent some quality time before getting started figuring that out.  My wife and I took a big, blank sheet of newsprint paper and put down what we wanted our church to be like.  When the time came to ask Bishop Stanton for a name for the church, we saw these values in the life of St. Andrew.  We are a place that invites, involves, instructs and inspires.  Our motto:  “a faith for all ages” has also been important.  We are a ministry that is “child-friendly” and intergenerational.  (If you don’t like to worship in a place with kids, we aren’t for you!)  Before we had a building or even a congregation, our ability to speak to this vision was a crucial. 

KEM:  In a time when so many Episcopal congregations have been in decline, what would you say has been the primary reasons for your growth?

MM:  A few come to mind.  First, and most important, be nice to people when they show up!  I’m always interested in the reasons why people decide to join.  Almost always, folks say, “everyone was so nice!  We visited other churches and no one even spoke to us.”  If your church wants to grow, then act like it.  Have nice greeters at the door, don’t ignore people at the Peace, and clergy, please, please, please, don’t hide from visitors.  Introverted as you may be, your church needs you to put a friendly, inviting and compassionate face to your congregation.  It does no good to have nice greeters if you are hiding in the sacristy!  Take the lead.  Second, make the worship accessible.  Remove all the obstacles you can for folks who don’t have experience with our worship, the BCP, Service Music, etc.  Third, preach practical, Biblical sermons.  I preach at least twenty minutes and always ground my sermons in one of the texts for the day.  It works!  Fourth, do a children’s sermon.  I make sure each child gets to connect and hear from me every week.  The grown-ups love it, too.  It also creates that child-friendly environment that is so important.  Fifth, have good music.  Even if you do hymnody, there are too many good hymns to ever sing a bad one.  Break out, if you can, sing a worship song, an old faithful from a Cursillo songbook, or even “I am the Bread of Life”.  Try to create moments of exalted worship:  give people the time and space to be in God’s presence. 

KEM:  What advice would you give to other clergy who would really like to see their congregations grow?

Be strong and courageous (Joshua 1:9)!  I firmly believe that every church can grow.  You can do it!  You have to be willing to work hard, though.  Follow-up is the name of the game in church planting, and I wish that Rectors of established churches value it as much as church plants do.  Also, be creative.  Do a sermon series and start a new class like Alpha or Financial Peace University.  Adopt a local elementary school or get your church involved in a great outreach project.  Be willing to break out of the program-year rut.  Finally, don’t give up!  Even when it is hard, be content in reaching the people that God sends you each Sunday.  One of the most difficult lessons I had to learn was to preach to the people that were there on Sunday, not to the ones that weren’t.  Ministering out of frustration, anger or panic isn’t good for anybody, especially you.  Love and teach the one’s you’ve got and trust the Lord with the rest!

Running a Church and Growing It

            One of the things that I share consistently with Episcopal Church Leaders is this: Running a church well and growing it is NOT the same thing.  Why is this true and why is this important? 

Most mainline church leaders, and this includes Episcopalians, have been taught to believe that “If we run it well, they will come.”  There was some truth to this idea back before 1965 when we lived in what could be called “the Protestant Era.”  During this time, there was a cultural expectation that most people would be members of a church and, if the church was run well, it tended to grow. I remember a priest who was about to retire in 1971 telling me that in his younger days, “if you preached a credible sermon and provided Christian Education for children, people joined your church.”   Even though this has not been true for many years, the idea that running a church well is all we need to do still persists.   

Here is a typical example: the Rector and staff of St. Swithen’s are gathered to plan the Lenten Program.  As they discuss it, they decide they need to make a few adjustments.  This year they decide to add a lite supper, an alternative class, and something for the youth of the parish.  They may spend a great deal of time working on this.  It is possible that an improved Lenten program may lead to more “members” attending the event, but this will not lead to more non-members or un-churched folks attending.  The same principle applies to Sunday Worship, Adult Education, Church School, fellowship groups and on and on.  The underlying principle remains, “Run the Church well, and they will come.”   

This especially applies to mainline attitudes toward worship.  I often meet church leaders, especially clergy, who believe the number one thing they need to do to help their church grow is alter their Sunday morning worship.  This might mean lengthening the sermon or shortening it.  It may mean taking out the traditional organ and replacing the choir with a “contemporary music” group.  This may mean dropping the Rite I liturgy for Rite II or dropping the Rite II service for something more culturally relevant from the Alternative Service Book.  One I find especially interesting is incorporating some things from the New Zealand Prayer Book.  The truth is that such changes, the more radical they are, usually lead to a decrease in attendance, or even worse, major conflict. 

Here is how to demythologize this belief.  Studies of new members show that most people decide within the first 5 minutes of driving on your parking lot whether they will return again.  By 15 minutes almost all of them have decided this.  What this tells us is that how people are welcomed and greeted is far more important to connecting with new people than the style of music. And I should add for the benefit of clergy, this includes the sermon.  Clergy sermons come far too late in our service to be the primary ingredient in determining whether new comers will return.  

Now, of course, I am not arguing for bad liturgy or bad anything in church life.  What I am saying is that the skills necessary to help grow a congregation are DIFFERENT from those required in running it well, and that most of us focus most of our energy on running it well. 

If you want to grow a church, you will want to focus on two important dynamics.  The first is what we generally know about the front door of a congregation.  The front door involves three important tasks: 

1.        Inviting people: this involves signs, internets, Special Sundays, advertisement, and in today’s world, social media. 

2.       Welcoming people: this involves the hospitality ministry of the entire congregation.  It is what happens in those first 5 to 10 minutes of new people arriving.  For example, very large, growing, mega-churches often have volunteers greeting folks in the parking lot and helping direct them to the right place.

3.       Assimilating people:  This involves the conscious and intentional actions and activities of the congregation to move people from first time visitor toward both membership and discipleship.  I urge every congregation to have a clear path to both. 

 

You can learn more specifics on each of these tasks in my book Five Keys for Church Leaders in the chapter on “Opening the Front Door.” 

                The second dynamic has to do with size or “culture” of a congregation.  If you lead a Pastoral Size Church, the activities and events that will lead to growth are most predictably those that fit the style of the congregation.  If you lead a larger Episcopal congregation with attendance over 400, the activities and events that will lead to growth are very different from those of smaller congregations. 

                You can learn more on this topic by reading my book The Myth of the 200 Barrier where I describe these different dynamics.   

                Are you laboring under the assumption that working hard at running your church well will lead to growth?   If you are, learn the skills of growing a church.  These are not the same as running it well.  There is a relationship between these two, of course, but it secondary to focusing at the right issues.

 

 

 

 

You are an Advocate for the Church

You are an Advocate for the Episcopal Church and Your Congregation

Several years ago, I was asked to speak on evangelism and newcomer ministry in a Diocese where many of the clergy were unhappy with decisions and the direction of TEC. After my morning presentation, several of the clergy gathered around the coffee pot to ask me a challenging question. “How can you get people to join TEC?” For example, several said to me that when folks in their confirmation classes heard about the Church’s stand on certain controversial issues, they refused to join. I responded that this was such a good question that I would answer it at the beginning of my second talk. I am pretty sure that many did not like my answer, but I think it was right, and I still think it applies to our work.

I started my answer by reminding clergy that we are the chief apologists for both the wider Church and the local congregation. I then responded to the issue of confirmation participants not joining after hearing “what we believe.” I asked the clergy bluntly, “So, what are you telling them?” Of course, many were telling folks that, despite the local congregation’s “orthodoxy,” that TEC was teaching heresy and making immoral decisions. Of course, this explained perfectly why folks would not join. However, I was concerned with a more basic issue related to clergy leadership. At the end, I said this, “If you cannot stand before a group of people and give five good, enthusiastic, and positive reasons why a person should become a member of TEC and your congregation, then you should think about doing something else for a living.

Now, let me be clear, I am not saying that we clergy have to always affirm decisions by the Church. I am not saying that we should not be concerned with the Church’s direction or its current teaching. I have spoken openly from time to time about my unhappiness with our current national leadership. Given my theological perspective, I am not in agreement with the strong advocacy position taken by TEC in recent years. What I am saying is this: as ordained leaders we hold a critical role in advocating the values and nature of our community. We would understand this in any other organization. Can you imagine the owner of an Apple Store saying, “I am not sure you will really want to buy one of our products when you learn about our company?”

It comes down to this, no matter how I might feel at a particular moment about current issues or decisions, I am still the primary advocate for my community. So, what should I do if I find myself out of sorts with some action? I need to express this to “those in charge,” but then I have to find my way back to being able to say, “Let me give you five reasons why you should consider being a part of this community.”

Here are some things that I have highlighted over the years:

• The Episcopal Church is welcoming of all people, as our sign says, “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You!”

• We are a creedal Church, teaching what is essential and majoring on the majors and not the minors of faith.

• We are a biblical Church. We read more scripture each Sunday than many so-called “Bible” churches and we engage all of the Scriptures, not just the parts we like.

• We engage Scripture with our minds, willing to question and be taught. We engage with our hearts, willing to be changed. We engage with our Spirits, willing to be fed. We are biblical, but not rigid or literal in our engagement with Scripture’s meaning.

• We are a Sacramental Church. We practice the Sacraments (all of them) of the historic faith. We look for the sacred, the good, and the holy in life.

• We are a Church with structure and order. We have a balance of authority between clergy and laity, and we have a balance between local, regional, and national leadership. We base our life on mutual accountability and not rigid or repressive hierarchy.

• We are a Church with rich worship, enhanced by the Prayer Book, and drawing upon the best prayers of all the saints who have gone before us. We can worship within this framework both formally and informally.

• We are a Church that is willing to engage culture. We are not afraid of science or secular society. We don’t see the church as a fortress that must be protected from every new style of music or trends in culture. Anglicans have been business leaders, scientists, artists, writers, teachers, actors, songwriters and even pop music stars. We engage culture for the purpose of transforming it toward God’s Kingdom.

Of course, I spice these assertions with flavor from my local community. I could always say of the Cathedral in Dallas that “you won’t find a more loving and supportive community in time of need.” I often would speak of how our architecture revealed awe, wonder and transcendence.

In our role as leaders, remember that clergy are heralds of God’s Kingdom, spokespersons for the Church’s mission, and advocates of the values of our community.

You might read this blog and conclude that I am saying that it is important for our churches that we are advocates, and you would be right. However, I would add that it is just as important for us as leaders that we embrace this role and find ways to express our enthusiasm for the community we represent. Communities and organizations have a strange way of living up to their leaders’ expectations.

Is There a Future for Diocesan Structures?

            In 1990 I attended a conference put on by Leadership Network.  There I heard one of my mentors, Lyle Schaller, say something very evocative about denominations and judicatories (dioceses for us Episcopalians.)  What he said that day was that everyone understands the importance of the local congregation for Christians.  Then he added that no one can explain a rationale for the existence of a national organization.  Finally, he went on to say that there is a role for the local diocese, but it must be transformed.  The problem he went on to explain is that most everything done by a judicatory on the national or local level can be done better and more effectively by some other organization. 

Take for example Christian Education.  In the 1950s and 1960s almost every denomination produced Christian Educational materials for local churches – think Seabury Curriculum.  By the 1970s, local congregations could choose among dozens of alternative materials that were better, less expensive and more relevant than that produced by a denomination.  Or think about capital fund-raising, time was each denomination had an agency to help congregations when they needed to raise funds for buildings.  Again, by the 1970s, we had numerous organizations that would customize a program for each congregation.  I could give many such examples. 

Some of us do think we would be a bit better off if our national organization would cease to be so costly given its questionable role, but in this blog I want to focus on what Schaller had to say about a diocese.  He thought that there is a vital role for the diocese to perform, but it needed to re-invent itself to carry out this role.  He described this as moving away from many traditional things and toward new ones.  Over the years, I have become absolutely convinced at his insight.  Let me describe what I see as the primary functions of a Diocese in the old paradigm and the ones needed today.

Primary Functions of a Diocese in the Old Paradigm

1.       A Mission Funding Forwarding Agency.  In the old days, we on the local level would take up offerings to fund mission work somewhere else, usually the so-called third world; remember the “mite boxes”?  Today, local congregations can form companion relationships across wide geographic boundaries because of the internet and better communications.  We can even form relationships with non-governmental agencies in providing clean water or mosquitoes netting for local villages.  The point here is that we do not need our denomination to make these happen.

2.      A Resource Redistribution Center.  This simply means taking money from larger congregations in a diocese and giving it to smaller ones.  Today our largest congregations have plenty of needs on the local level and in their communities.  They do not worry about sustaining small mission churches in small rural communities.

3.      A Congregational Accrediting Agency.  This was the role the diocese had in planting and recognizing new congregations and closing dead ones.  Today we know that dioceses are one of the least effective agencies in forming new congregations.  If you do not think so, look at the abysmal track record within TEC in new church planting.

4.      A Clergy Accrediting Agency.  This continues in the work of Commissions on Ministries and Standing Committees. The problem is not with accrediting but rather with educating such persons for effective ministry leadership in today’s world.

5.      A Regional Program Entity.  Do Dioceses really need youth, adult education, stewardship and other such ministries done on a regional level?  Dioceses think so, but the participation by local congregations says “not really.”

6.      A Denominational Link to Ecumenical Activities, Agencies and other Denominational Bodies.  In the 1950s and 1960s, ecumenical work was negotiated on a judicatory level.  Today, ecumenical work is done cooperatively on the local level with judicatories holding symbolic meetings. 

Primary Functions of a Diocese in the New Paradigm

1.       Resourcing and Networking Congregations.  The Diocese that can serve as a resource to the local church has a place in the future.

2.      Strategic Planning.  Often a diocese can best frame strategic planning on the local level and can contribute significantly on a regional level.

3.      An Inspirational Challenge Agency.  A diocese can provide vision, funding and training to help local leaders carry out their work. 

4.      A Congregational Intervention Agency. A diocese can intervene to help declining, stagnant and conflicted congregations.  Let’s face it; this is more and more of a need of TEC given our recent high level of conflict and the 60% of our congregations in serious decline. 

I am not saying that a diocese can move totally from the old paradigm to the new one a short period of time.  Like Schaller, however, I believe those that start a steady movement from the old to the new assure a healthy future for themselves and their congregations into the 21^st Century; those, that do not, make themselves more and more irrelevant to their congregations.  Where is your diocese in the movement from the old way of being the church to the need new way of being the church? 

The Preaching Scale

In this blog I want to point to one thing the clergy could do to make our congregations more attractive and magnetic to non-Christians and Christians alike.  Why not improve our preaching?

Let me be clear, I am not saying that preaching in the Episcopal Church is bad.  I think it is generally thoughtful, contextually related to the Sunday lectionary, and generally informative.  It is, in other words, good.  And that is the problem.  It is not great, and I think I know the reasons why.

When I do workshops on preaching or have taught preaching at our Stanton Center, I usually start off by asking about good preachers the students have known.  We make a list on a whiteboard.  The list usually includes some former rector, a current rector, an occasional bishop, and a few students point to some well-known clergy within our denomination such as our Presiding Bishop.  What I then point out to the participants is that none of them is known beyond the Episcopal Church especially when it has to do with preaching.  What this exercise shows is what is generally known outside the Episcopal Church, namely, our clergy are not known as outstanding preachers. 

Herbert O’Driscoll, John Stott, and Barbara Brown Taylor are three Anglicans known as great preachers by non-Episcopalians.  All are recognized by Christians outside our community as outstanding.  Now I ask, what do they all have in common?  Yes, it is true that they are all good story tellers.  All three use illustrations creatively.  True, they are full of biblical insights.  However, there is something else that is often overlooked and gives us great insight into our current situation.  The three were or are students and teachers of preaching.

For 15 years, I worked in positions that put me directly in clergy placement and recruiting which means that I read lots of resumes and Clergy Deployment Office Profiles.  I found that 90% of Episcopal Clergy list preaching as their first or second primary pastoral skill.  In other words, we think we are good preachers. So, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being outstanding, we rank ourselves in the 7, 8 or 9 category.  Why do we think this?  We judge ourselves this way because our scale is based on Episcopal clergy, those who teach preaching in our seminaries, and hearing ourselves preach.

Some folks think I am a good preacher, even some of my students.  They are surprised to learn that I rate myself as a “5” generally who can occasionally preach a “7” on what I call “The Preaching Scale.”  Then I point out the counter-cultural truth.  If I am a good preacher, it is because I think I need to work at it.  You see, if we rate ourselves as already good, we do not dedicate ourselves to becoming great.  I consider myself both a preacher and a student of preaching.  I attend workshops on preaching.  I constantly read books on preaching. I also study communications and read books on writing well.   I analyze the preaching of others, and I listen to outstanding preachers from other traditions. 

In listening to outstanding preachers, I mark how she or he uses language; words, phrases, and imagery to communicate effectively.  I listen to how they make their case, appeal to their listener, and motivate others to action. 

The good news is that preaching involves multiple skills, and because of this, any preacher can improve.  We can improve the content of our sermons.  We can improve the delivery of our sermons.  When we do, we almost always get positive feedback from our congregation.  When a preacher has something worthwhile to say, and says it effectively, it draws people in.

All our congregations are faced with challenges, and many are in decline.  There are many reasons for this, and the truth is that many of these are beyond the power of the clergy person to fix.  However, we can begin today to become a better and more effective communicator of the Gospel.  If you want to become a more effective clergy person who is a blessing to your congregation, give yourself over to becoming a student of preaching. Desire to become better at the task than you are now, and you will do yourself, your church and your community a favor.