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!