Congregational and Diocesan Development Issues

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.)

• KEY--Why are congregations weak?
  (Mostly due to defects in the culture of the judicatory: unclear mission/vision, ineffective structures, misaligned incentives, and lack of support, all of which lead to a low quality "product".)
• KEY--Correcting diocesan weaknesses
  (A summary explanation of what is involved in correcting those defects.)
• KEY--Correcting the weakness of congregations
  (How to move away from a "laisser faire" leadership style at the diocesan level in a way that has organisational legitimacy.)
• KEY--Setting Targets (Overview)
  (Dioceses now measure mostly finances and attendance, if they measure anything. Some suggestions on better measures which should have a cause and effect relationship towards wholistic growth, a Balanced Scorecard.)
• KEY--Sample Benefits from a Balanced Scorecard
  (Illustrating what wholistic growth would look like: much more than just more money or more people in church!)
• KEY--Cause and Effect for Laurentian Congregational Revitalisation
  (Shows the linkage between the different strategic activities in Laurentian churches, and growth in organisational, spiritual, financial and participatory health.)

It is very important to understand why mainline congregations in Europe and North America are currently so weak. (Please notice all of the limitations in that sentence. I don't think that we can suggest that, overall, Evangelical or Pentecostal congregations are weak in North America, and presumably not in Europe either. For a more complete discussion, see the Strategic Forecast: Christian Churches in Canada).

In general, most in the Church have either blamed the cultural shift away from Christianity (thus the decline of Christendom) or the lack of faith/error in beliefs of mainline Christians. These may not be wrong, but they are not sufficient explanations. In particular, they don't give us many clues about what we might do about the situation.

My archdeacon wife and I propose the following causes of weakness:

1. Unclear mission and vision in the diocese
2. Ineffective structures in the diocese for:
1. Responsibility and accountability
2. Supervision, improvement and learning
3. Few incentives in the diocese for creativity, initiative, risk, change, growth
4. Lack of support and lack of investment of resources for growth in the diocese
   
1. Planning, focus, discipline, measurement, targets, evaluation…
5. A (generally) low quality product (worship, fellowship and faith development) in the congregation
   
1. …that is being poorly promoted at either the congregational or diocesan level

Why have we laid the "blame" always at the feet of the diocese and its structures? Firstly, because we (Anglicans and other mainline Christians) are not fundamentally congregationalists. The buck does not simply stop at the senior pastor/rector. Authorization, encouragement, incentives, support, training and resources are all mediated through the judicatory and its senior management. The buck really stops at the Bishop's office, as the one responsible for the diocese and its workings. Secondly, we have witnessed examples in several denominations of vibrant, growing congregations which were suppressed rather than rewarded by their diocesan offices and fellow clergy.

It is worth noting that the only weakness from our list which is at the congregational level is actually the result of the weaknesses higher up the list. By "a (generally) low quality product (worship, fellowship and faith development)", we mean that we can't count on congregations to provide worship and fellowship (Sundays and during the week) which nourishes people. We can't count on congregations being (visibly) spiritually alive and faithful. This issue comes up whenever we need to refer a person to a congregation in another part of our diocese, in another city, in another province.... It comes up when we think about attending the local congregation while we are on vacation.... What are the odds that, if someone we care about shows up at a given congregation on a particular Sunday, that they will participate in meaningful worship, be met by vibrant, sensitive Christians, be welcomed and cared for? Not good, in our experience. And all of this, as later posts will show, can be powerfully influenced by the diocesan leadership through its mission, its structures of accountability, its internal incentives and reward systems, the support it gives and the investments it makes.

Thus, the real "system" for effecting change in congregations simply has to include the diocese. Anything less leads to an incomplete analysis. In this, I wholeheartedly support what I have seen of the work of the Church Development Institute.

All of this leads us to believe that the congregational development movement, while enormously fruitful so far, has a fundamental flaw in at its centre: it is congregationalist, in line with the mood in the American Church at the time it was founded. However, the properly-functioning, healthy and effective Church has almost always been, with good reason, "diocesan", in that it functions as a body of many congregations. More on this in another posting....