I’ve been a pastor in the United Church of Christ since 1979. In one
capacity or another, I’ve been a professional servant of the church for
30 years. I’ve been a local church minister, church-based community organizer,
church-based nonprofit agency executive director, and campus minister.
Now, as the associate dean of religious life of a university, I preach
about once a month in different churches. On the rest of my Sundays, I
sit in the pew as a member of a wonderful little progressive UCC
congregation, Mt Hollywood Congregational in Los Angeles.
(www.mthollywood.org) I love my church community – I’m so thankful for
this group of warm, caring, free-spirited people.
For the first time in many years, I’m the parishioner, not the pastor.
And it gives me a fresh vantage point from which to make some
observations about the way we “do” church.
I appreciate local church life more than ever. A year ago my wife and I moved 400 miles from most of our family and friends. I went to Mt. Hollywood Church and within minutes realized I was home. I wept with joy, knowing that I didn’t need to search any further: I had found my people. This church has made such a huge difference to me, and to my wife. The church helped me adjust rapidly to a very new and different community. It grounds my body and soul, it un-alienates me from living in a monstrous city of 4 million.
In exchange for this sublime blessing, I serve as the building and grounds committee chairperson. I have a full-time-plus job, I have a wife and rather extensive family, I have lots of professional and avocational involvements…. And I’m in charge of plumbing, painting, electrical, and other repairs for a 90-year-old building collectively owned by 120 people, hardly any of whom, unfortunately, have any more expertise in managing a funky facility than I do. And that includes our wonderful pastor.
Our church, like almost all “mainline” Protestant congregations, suffers from the burden of institutional (and property) maintenance. This is a truly lovely gathering of souls, but, collectively, we are definitely not on top of the organizational management game. Our finances are precarious, our property is a disaster waiting to happen. The budget isn’t realistic, and everybody knows it. We’re a bunch of really nice people with busy lives and the business challenges of the church overwhelm us.
I now spend more time going to meetings and dealing with building issues than I do in worship or fellowship. This is typical for many if not most church lay people. And isn’t anything new for me. I have always spent a lot more time taking care of the business of the church than doing what attracted me to the profession of ministry in the first place. I accepted that devil’s bargain a long time ago and I am (perhaps too) comfortable with it.
But why would anybody else be comfortable with it? I know I’m not normal: ministry is, let’s face it, a peculiar profession. Just being a church member can carry with it an onerous burden of responsibility. I’m not surprised at how many members have left the United Church of Christ, screaming and tearing out what remains of their hair.
I am getting a first-hand lesson in one reason that the United Church of Christ and almost all other denominations (including the Southern Baptist Convention, believe it or not) are declining in membership. We’re being smothered by antiquated structures we are trying too hard to maintain. We’re way too much about process and way too little about product. The product is truly beautiful, and much to be treasured. But the process is gagging it. And that’s got to change.
Local churches are non-profit corporations. They are, in effect, small businesses. And in recent decades it has become more challenging than ever to manage a small business. There are a thousand details which must be tended. Just overseeing the personnel requires a level of legal expertise that was unheard-of fifty years ago. The UCC denomination, like most others, imposes a lengthy and difficult process on churches that are hiring pastors. And with couples where both partners have jobs, there is less time to devote to interminable meetings of boards and committees.
The role of the clergy itself is becoming an anachronism. A century and a half ago, the pastor was among the very few educated people in a local community. Going to church to hear the same person stand up and talk every weekend was one of the very few public entertainments available. Today the number of choices for people who seek spiritual edification, and the education level of parishioners, is staggering. The pastor may be one of the lesser-educated and lower-status members of the congregation. Local church pastors are in a losing competition with televangelists with golden throats and wavy hair. No wonder, then, that so many pastors are chewed up and spit out by their congregations.
Our churches are dying from too much democracy. That may sound outrageous, but think about it: we don’t expect our local non-profit charitable organizations to answer to the votes of hundreds of volunteers. It becomes far too complicated and time-consuming to expect that even most of the major decisions, much less the thousand minor ones, can be decided by the will of everybody involved in a local charity. We understand that non-profits with small, dedicated, self-selecting boards of volunteer directors are vital elements of American democracy at the grass-roots. Why not run churches according to this successful model? Many of our churches have become unresponsive to change around us, because we try too hard to keep everyone happy. We avoid needed changes that might rock the boats of a handful of members. The result: lots of people get tired of the dithering, and drop out completely.
It’s time for some serious change in our churches. Not incremental change, but radical transformation. To that end, I offer one of many possible scenarios.
Imagine a church like the one to which I belong – full of goodness and vitality, but suffering from scary organizational burdens. Imagine it liberating itself from time-consuming and soul-draining processes, so that it can focus on the compelling reasons it exists in the first place.
It starts by separating congregational life from institutional maintenance. It adopts the model of a typical local non-profit charitable organization. It becomes an entity something like a local YWCA, where few of the members expect to be drawn into decision-making roles, and yet it is still a “grass-roots” institution with a rich inner community life. It turns over the organizational management to a board of directors that elects itself, choosing its own members from among the congregation. This board makes broad policy for the church, hires and fires the top staff, and then lets the top staff run the organization on a day-to-day basis. There is only one monthly church board meeting – lasting no more than an hour and a half. New members for this board are recruited by the board from the church membership. The board’s purpose is to serve the congregation and to serve the wider community, so it has a strong motivation to be in close touch with the needs and desires of the congregation. If the congregation isn’t happy with the board, they can very effectively express their dissatisfaction by withholding money and participation, if they don’t feel heard in words. But the board, and the staff, are not bogged down by needing to consult everyone in the congregation about fine details of the church’s management. It is no longer a typical “congregational” church, run by “Athenian” or “New England Town Hall” democracy. But people can still have a strong sense of “belonging” within it. Indeed, their relief at having a simple church organization can greatly enhance their commitment to it.
Instead of a pastor, the top staff person is an executive director or program director. The director answers only to the small board of directors. The director is the sole manager of the subordinate staff who run the office, organize and conduct the church’s worship and programming, and take care of the property. Volunteers are recruited from the congregation to assist with these tasks as appropriate, but the real responsibility for taking care of the business of the church rests with paid professional staff.
The paid director organizes the church’s worship service, involving church member volunteers. Instead of a pastor who preaches every Sunday, there are a variety of guest speakers or preachers – some ordained, some not - some who preach regularly, others on a one-time basis. These people are not regular church staff members, but guests paid to appear on an episodic basis. The personal, pastoral care is provided either by a pastoral counselor or pastor of visitation on the staff of the church, or by a team of lay volunteers.
Since the top staff person, the director, is not the Sunday preacher, the church is thus liberated from the pastoral “cult of personality” – or the absence thereof – which so often bedevils congregations. The church isn’t focused on one charismatic, or less-than-charismatic, cultic figure, but rather on the spiritual life of the congregation itself. Seminary-trained professionals can become itinerant speakers/preachers/teachers, offering talks and programs that are highly polished and reflective of the best art and scholarship - because they aren't burdened with all the other organizational details that take up most traditional ministers' time.
Its organization is run efficiently and nimbly, so that resources are deployed to maximize the quality of worship, programming, and service/advocacy work of the church. The small board and the highly-empowered staff can adjust programming quickly in response to the needs of the congregation and wider community. The board and staff can make tough, decisive choices quickly, and can make effective long-term plans.
The church becomes a center for spiritual growth, worship, and service to the community. The church serves those who want to belong to a traditional congregation, but it equally serves those who are spiritual “seekers” and have no interest in formal membership. There is a distinct congregation, with members and regular attendees who make pledges and donations to support the church. Equally important, the church offers workshops, retreats, and events that serve the wider community beyond the membership. Speakers and events and concerts are offered year-round, appealing to a variety of audiences in the local community. There is an admission charge (or suggested donation) for all these special events. It’s a true community institution, not just a sectarian religious group.
All maintenance of the facility is managed professionally, either by paid staff of the church or by an outside building management organization. There may be work-days for church volunteers to help with property maintenance, but the church does not depend on volunteers to keep the property in good shape.
What do you think? Is this one “altar-native” to the current system that typifies liberal Protestant churches? I’d love your feedback –
