Musings

Further Altar-Natives

What a lot of responses I got to my last "musing" about the need for radical change in the way our churches are organized!  I wish I could send you all the emails I received - but I'm afraid it would overwhelm your inboxes...

So I'll do my best to summarize your thoughtful and heartfelt expressions, and add my further reflections based on your insights.  Clearly this is an important topic for progressive Christians and our sympathizers.  In general, your responses suggested that indeed, many if not most of our churches are severely impaired in fulfilling their core mission by cumbersome processes of doing business and by the burdens of property maintenance.  Most of you shared my hope that we can do things very differently.  Many embraced my ideas, many offered different prescriptions. 

Several of you were uncomfortable with my suggestion that we're drowning in democracy.  Some suggested that without direct democracy, a church would become "consumerist" and lose its soul, abandon its commitment to working for justice and peace, and just offer feel-good programming.  It's a good point.  I do think that is a real danger.  And I certainly prefer practical forms of democracy.  It's all in the details.  Can we delegate the building and office functions to professionals, and refocus the volunteer efforts of the church members on service, advocacy for social change, worship, study, and care of the people in the church?  De-coupling business/property management from the worship and mission of the congregation might also liberate the church to be more useful to its members and to the world.  Whether elected or self-selected, a strong church board can empower a congregational volunteer structure that enlivens worship and mission.  One remarkable example of a progressive church with a self-selecting governing board, which still has a very feisty congregational life, is Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, MI (www.christ-community.net).  It has nimble, professionally-driven management that stays close to its grass-roots.

Some of you recounted the ways that your churches have greatly simplified their business structures - keeping congregational democracy while drastically reducing the number of committees and meetings and processes.  (One respondent suggested this book that her church is using to streamline its functions:  Prophetic Renewal: Hope for the Liberal Church by Rev. Michael S. Piazza.) 

In my "musing" last week, I suggested that a church could function like a charitable community non-profit, with a self-selecting board and a highly empowered professional staff.  But there are other more "democratic" options that could be used to the same end.  A church could keep its "congregational" structure and vote to contract with a management provider, perhaps created by a consortium of local churches in a regional area, to take care of its property and office functions.  Investors in real estate hire such companies to manage their properties; groups of churches could create similar entities. 

Another concern from some of you centered around the role of the minister.  Some of you felt that a pastor is essential to a congregation, and that the church would lose its spiritual and theological moorings without one.  I do appreciate that sentiment:  I wouldn't object if my church sold its old building, if that is what it took to keep our wonderful minister!  And being a local church pastor was mostly a great joy for me when I was doing it.  There are churches that function very well with a minister in the traditional role.  No reason to fix what's not broken. 

But in many cases the pastor-parish system is broken - either episodically or chronically.  In many of these cases it may be time to reconsider the system itself, rather than just hope that the church can find a new pastor who will be their savior.  Pastors and church members are often the victims of unrealistic expectations that are built-in to the structure of their relationship.  Especially in small congregations - and that's most of them - the pastor's roles as a caring listener and as the "head of staff" are often incompatible.  The pastor sometimes must make business recommendations that result in stepping on the toes of the same people she or he offers personal pastoral care. 

Again, there are a lot of alternatives, including my suggestion that instead of having one pastor, a church could use a team of regular guest preachers and/or "outside" speakers.  Perhaps a new class of clergy could emerge, focused on high-quality "itinerant" preaching, especially for small congregations.  Pescadero Community Church, a little congregation on the N. Calif. coast, opted successfully for many years to have a rotation of four pastors do the preaching, with the occasional "outsider" filling in, as well.  The pastoral care function can be taken on by lay deacons or by a professional pastoral counselor.  This does run the risk of a church losing its theological grounding, but that can be mitigated by having well-trained lay leadership, which is easier than ever to develop and maintain.  I have served churches in which I was but one of the resident theologians; these churches didn't lack for lay people with a grasp of spiritual and biblical subtleties.  There are now excellent progressive adult education materials - books through www.tcpc.org , DVD series like www.livingthequestions.com , and a "circuit" of accessible national-level speakers and teachers to bring to our congregations.  It is true that there is nothing quite like the intimate connection between the pastor and the people in the traditional structure.  However, that isn't the only model of leadership that can enable a church community to thrive.

One "musings" reader told about his church, St Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal in San Francisco - a progressive congregation with an international reputation (www.stgregorys.org).  Among its many features worth emulating, it offers a unique option regarding the role of the pastor.  The senior pastor preaches only once a month: there is a regular rotation of preachers who are more or less associated with the congregation.  The senior pastor is mosly focused on the management functions of the congregation.  The pastoral care is mostly the function of lay people who have been well-trained by the church's professional staff.

Please keep the bright ideas and helpful examples coming!

An Atar-native Manifesto

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 –

 

It Could Happen Here

If you are trying to kill a religion, there is no surer method than marrying it to a government.

Consider Iran, where vast crowds  gathered recently in Tehran’s streets to protest the theft of an election by turbaned clerics.  From the rooftops, the people chanted the same words that the masses roared 30 years ago when they brought down the Shah and ushered in the current theocratic government:  “God is great,  death to the dictator!”  Read:  "God is great, but we are done with the people who claim to rule us on God's behalf!"  The majority of the people of Iran are under 30 years old, and most of them are chafing under the repressive rule of unelected ayatollahs.  Whatever moral authority Ayatollah Khamenei had before the protests has been seriously eroded since his brutal crackdown on dissent.

Consider Europe, where the churches are sponsored by the state in many countries.   Hardly anybody goes to church anymore.  Europeans don’t have religion forced down their throats nearly to the degree suffered by Iranians.  But they still find it hard to swallow.  The holiness of the church doesn’t rub off on the state nearly as much as the unholiness of the state rubs off on the church, in countries where the two are intertwined.

Iran’s case is a cautionary example for us in America.  It’s really nice to have a progressive Christian in the White House.  But the last thing the country needs, and the last thing progressive Christianity needs, would be for the President to identify his administration strongly with our religion.    As long as progressive Christianity is not seen as the force that runs the country, we have some chance of influencing America for the better, while preserving the integrity of our faith.  We need to keep the state from being run by a church, and a church from being supported by the state, at all costs.

The damage done to Islam by Islamic theocracy in Iran is enormous.  The clerical leadership has alienated a vast swath of the population, particularly the younger generation, from the rich heritage of the religion.  Clergymen use goon squads to silence the protests.  If we think it couldn’t happen here, we ought to think again: there are millions of people in the US who yearn for “Christian dominion”, a vision of a theocratic state that would force everybody, Christian or not, to obey laws based on fundamentalist Christian interpretations of biblical laws.  (For scary reading, see www.chalcedon.edu  .)  Imagine posses of self-anointed Christian Dominionists in America enforcing a legal code from the Bronze Age, and you get the picture. 

I’d like to think that these recent events have eclipsed America’s neo-conservative hype about Iran as a monolithic enemy of the West.  Consider the deep contradiction of millions of Iranians protesting against theocracy, and John McCain’s theme song of “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.”  How would our bombs distinguish between the pro-democracy protesters and the pro-theocracy thugs that attacked them?  Hopefully it is now obvious that a ham-handed approach won’t work in a country of people who don’t eat pork.  Yes, the prospect of Iran as a nuclear power is a real problem.  But it’s a problem our Air Force can’t fix.

Even the clerics in Iran aren’t of one mind about their form of government.  In the seminary city of Qom, debates have been raging for years about whether or not it serves Islam for a cabal of ayatollahs to run the country.  Those debates are at a high pitch now.  A significant number of influential religious scholars are pleading for recognition that the will of the majority of the people is the best way to interpret and apply “sharia” in society.   These scholars see the awful damage done to their religion by the clerical oligarchy, and are striving behind the scenes to change the system.  Indeed, what happens in the cloisters of its seminaries may have as much impact on Iran’s future as what happens its the streets.

While the election of Obama made the prospect more remote – thank God – the possibility that our country could go the way of Iran is far from unthinkable.  May recent events on the streets of Tehran inspire us to vigilance in preserving religion and democracy by keeping their institutions a healthy distance from each other.

Feeling For

Hiking alongside Big Tesuque Creek near Santa Fe, New Mexico, last week, I felt the urge to stop and stare at a little pinon tree.  It was sprouted from a nut likely dropped from the full-grown pinon under whose scrubby arms it was sheltered.  I observed my reaction to the sight of this baby tree growing beneath the bigger tree’s branches.  I felt a wave of warmth, a feeling of the love of a parent for a child.  I almost scoffed at myself:  trees can’t feel such emotions, so why am I reading love into a situation where it doesn’t exist?  But as I pondered further,  I asked a question about my role, my task, in the natural world.  Am I here to love on behalf of things that cannot love on their own?  Perhaps the love I feel belongs to the parenting pinon as much as it does to me.

Am I here on earth to feel for trees, since they don’t have their own nerve endings?  I stood and wondered.  I looked up at the tumble of stones on the mountainside above me.  Since rocks have no brains, am I here to ponder their origins and their futures on their behalf?  Perhaps I am not here just to think for myself.  Perhaps this mind isn’t just mine, but rather was put in my head for the sake of the other creatures and entities in the world around me.  Perhaps my mind belongs also to the pinon tree, enabling it to love its offspring.  Perhaps my brain also belongs to the boulders on the mountain, enabling them to consider their places in the cosmos.  Perhaps my feelings enervate the tumbling creek below me, enabling it to appreciate the music it makes as it splashes over the stones in its bed.

“I am not here for me,” my fellow seminary student friend Dan Rauker once said to me, years ago.  His words have served as a mantra ever since.  I found myself chanting this mantra as I hiked into the mountains.  I felt for, I loved on behalf of, the birds and butterflies and even the mosquitos I encountered along the trail. 

And at least for a little while, I was not there for me.