My Key Concepts
The purpose of this blog is to promote discussion of some ideas which I think will promote the development of first world churches, and through debate to improve those ideas. To follow the flow of my logic, read forward from the first entry; entries which form the cornerstones of my thought are flagged with "KEY--", and are listed below with a short summary of the key idea. Kindly share your suggestions and improvements with me, and I will adjust the contents accordingly. Thank you for your participation! (Direct email contact is also welcome.)

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

KEY--Correcting diocesan weaknesses

Here is an overview of how we believe dioceses can respond to counteract the problem of congregational weakness...in other words, to promote the growth of faithful and effective Christian congregations.

  1. Develop and adhere to a clear and simple mission (what we are supposed to be doing in the present) and vision (what we hope to be and be doing in X years). Make this central to the culture of the diocese; it should be the localized expression of "the Gospel of Jesus Christ for us in this diocese". The exercise of gathering to debate the contents of this statement, and then publicizing and building support for it in the diocese, will help to focus attention on the highest priority issues for you. It should define the desired results of faithful and effective ministry in the diocese. (Strategic planning processes in general may be of interest; I hope someday to create a list of some of the diocesan strategic plans I have found on the web. If you want something sooner, add a comment to that effect).
  2. Clarify your lines of responsibility and accountability. I suspect that it is actually unclear who is in charge (and in charge of what) in dioceses, and they are seldom held accountable for very much.
    1. Let me explain that rash statement! I am fairly certain that Bishops are held accountable for being "nice" or "fair" to clergy and congregations, and financial officers (and perhaps Bishops) are held accountable for balancing the diocesan budgets. But, theoretically at least, Bishops are accountable for the promotion of healthy congregations, for increasing the spread of the Gospel within the diocese (increased attendance being one measure), for high quality worship and preaching of the Word, and for respectable levels of giving and generosity by members. (If not them, who else? For members of denominations without bishops, who is the senior manager responsible for getting the "results" that your judicatory values?)
    2. But then, even if we admit that the Bishop (or equivalent) is responsible for these "results", to whom will s/he delegate that responsibility? The archdeacons (episcopal vicars, regional supervisors) should carry that responsibility and be held accountable for it, to my mind. Clergy should be accountable to them, with specific responsibility for producing the appropriate "results" in their congregation(s). More another time; I realize this is a radical concept in today's church, and I think that is a problem! Without clear responsibility and appropriate resources (see 4), there can be no accountability, and there will likely be few results.
  3. Incentives for the desired "results": this is really a question of ensuring that the diocesan "reward system" is aligned to produce what is really desired, and it operates on the theory that systems produce what is rewarded.
    1. It involves both the formal system of incentives and rewards (salary, perks, titles, time off in lieu of overtime, transfers and promotions) and the informal operation of the diocesan culture (including (positive) attention from senior leaders, write-ups in the diocesan newspaper, admiration of one's peers, new opportunities, being referred to as an expert in something, being assigned to the "plum" committees, ...).
    2. It also involves the proper use of disincentives and "punishments": being "called in to see" the Bishop or Archdeacon, not being recommended for a key position or committee.
    3. Lots of this obviously operates already. But is it all aligned so that the desirable results as defined by the diocesan vision are being reinforced and negative outcomes are being discouraged? Let me use an extreme example: the priest of a parish states openly in clericus that "at least there will be enough savings to pay my salary until I retire" and, beyond some sputtering by the archdeacon, the situation is tolerated (in a situation where the priest has, or had, a great deal of potential, and the parish has lots of room for growth). Another, more typical example: mediocrity is tolerated, even rewarded, because there is really no encouragement for growth or change. (More on how to promote and focus change in a later post, under Goal-setting and Balanced Scorecards)
  4. A closely-related issue is support and investment for growth. At one extreme, this can be seen in the observation that one of the reasons mainline churches have not grown since the 1960's is due to a lack of church planting (Compton, 2003; Rekindling the Mainline: New Life through New Churches; see Review). At a more basic level it is the simple allocation of time to promoting growth in congregations with potential rather than chasing after the "problem children" congregations and clergy who always need or want attention.
    1. Appropriate investment can involve judicious investing in consultants or trainers or interim clergy to help initiate change, and then having the time to follow up and ensure that the change continues. (Do the archdeacons or the regional supervisors have the time to do the job that needs to be done and for which they are (theoretically) responsible?). What I have seen looks more like investment to avoid collapse; the funds which are available are invested in subsidizing repairs for any congregation which cares to apply ($300 here, $1,000 there, trying to be "fair"), or paying for continuing education courses which are unrelated to the desired results in the congregation.
    2. Appropriate investment also involves learning to plan, to measure, to set targets and to evaluate whether those targets are being met in such a way that everyone learns and everyone can grow in effectiveness. Proper investment is a matter of on-going discipline, and while not easy, should be possible.
  5. The question of measurement and "desirable results" takes us finally to questions of quality. A high quality product can be defined as one which a) Respects the organisation’s mission and mandate and builds on it, and b) Meets or exceeds the customer’s expectations at a price that s/he finds attractive. When dioceses care enough about their ministries to measure whether or not they are achieving them, they will invent simple and effective rating systems. (See A Simple Suggestion for Rating Worship, Preaching and Welcoming). And when the diocese (in all of its forms, but mostly through the supervising archdeacon or regional minister) invests its best resources (mostly time and training, but also grants and subsidies and other rewards) on the congregations which have the greatest potential and are making progress towards realizing that potential, then congregations will start to improve. (After all, it is also in their interest to attract and retain new members and donors...).

# posted by Mark Gibson : 3:16 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Copyright 2005, Mark Gibson (email at markagibsoncan@gmail.com)